Seismic fragility and life‐cycle loss analyses of high‐speed railway bridges supported by segmentally assembled round‐end hollow piers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The shortcomings of segmentally assembled round‐end hollow‐section piers (SRHPs), such as weak segment joints and poor energy‐dissipation capacity, have limited their application in high‐intensity earthquake regions. Therefore, this article particularly focuses on the seismic performance of SRHPs. Three high‐speed railway bridges are designed, which are equipped with three different types of round‐end hollow‐section piers (RHPs): cast‐in situ RHP (CRHP), segmentally assembled RHP with energy‐dissipation bar (E‐SRHP), and segmentally assembled RHP with low‐yield point steel connection buckles (L‐SRHP). Subsequently, three nonlinear finite element models of the corresponding bridges were established and validated by quasi‐static test results. Furthermore, compared to CRHP, the seismic performance of E‐SRHP and L‐SRHP was evaluated from the perspectives of seismic fragility and life‐cycle seismic loss. Research results revealed that the seismic fragility performance of the bridge with L‐SRHP is the best among all three bridges, followed by the bridge with E‐SRHP. Notably, the life‐cycle cost considering seismic loss for E‐SRHP is 83% of that for CRHP, whereas L‐SRHP is only 65% of that for CRHP. In general, the high‐speed railway bridge supported by L‐SRHP possesses the best seismic performance and economic benefits among the three bridges, which shows promising application prospects in high‐intensity earthquake‐prone regions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".