Seismic Performance of Circular Concrete Bridge Columns Reinforced with ASTM A955 Stainless Steel Rebars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research assesses and compares the seismic performance of four reinforced concrete columns subjected to lateral cyclic loading. Two columns were reinforced with ASTM A955 Grade 75 reinforcement, whereas the other two were reinforced with CSA G30.18 400W reinforcement, each with aspect ratios of 3 and 6. This study aims to lay the foundation for future performance-based seismic design guidelines for reinforced concrete (RC) bridge piers reinforced with stainless steel rebars. This is achieved by delving into various aspects of seismic behavior, including hysteretic response, column ductility, energy dissipation, plastic hinge length, and performance damage states. The ASTM A955 Grade 75 columns showed similar hysteretic behavior to the CSA G30.18 400W columns up to 7.5% drift and ductility level of 4. At failure (20% strength degradation), the stainless steel columns demonstrated comparable drift ratios, albeit a lower overall ductility capacity due to their higher displacement at yield. In terms of energy dissipation, the CSA G30.18 columns showed higher energy dissipation at similar drift levels and at failure compared to the ASTM A955 Grade 75 columns. Evaluation of plastic hinge length prediction models revealed higher discrepancies for columns reinforced with stainless steel reinforcement, and further investigation is warranted. Also, performance damage states, including concrete cracking, cover spalling, stirrup yielding, bar buckling, and bar fracture, showcased material-specific responses and unveiled critical insights about the applicability of code strain limitations and prediction models for ASTM A955 Grade 75 reinforcement. The research emphasizes the need for tailored approaches based on the distinct behavior of stainless steel.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".