Comparative analysis of hydrodynamic loads on bridge piers: assessing standards through numerical modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there is an alarming difference in the estimated actions on piers resulting from flash-floods and tsunamis as prescribed by international structural design codes. Previous studies have explored the interaction between surge waves and piers from a fluid-dynamics perspective, but there is no assessment about the relevance of the methods used in Structural Design to determine the hydrodynamic pressure resultants. To determine the degree of conservatism embedded in design, results from the different approaches are compared against validated numerical simulations. Three-dimensional numerical analyses were conducted using the OpenFOAM platform, employing the Large Eddy Simulation turbulence modeling approach to simulate the dam-break wave impacting the pier. The findings revealed that the maximum force was not necessarily caused by the stream’s first strike and could be sustained over time. The hydrodynamic pressure center consistently occurred at two-thirds of the stream depth, significantly impacting the overturning moments experienced by the pier. Identified inconsistencies between Codes underscore the need for revision of nonconservative approaches in predicting the design forces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".