Structural behaviour and failure modes of reinforced modular double truss bridge from full scale tests and 3D nonlinear numerical models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an investigation into the structural behavior and failure modes of a reinforced full-scale double truss modular bridge subjected to full load moving truck and concentrated loads to failure. The field-testing program comprised operational loads of a specified truck positioned at ten different locations along the bridge span, followed concentrated loading to failure employing hydraulic jack to assess the bridge ultimate capacity and failure modes. Midspan deflections and axial strains of critical members were recorded and analyzed to deduce the bridge response characteristics under both service and ultimate load conditions. The measured responses were also used to validate the accuracy of three-dimensional finite element models and establish proper modeling techniques for the modular bridge. The finite element model is then used to conduct eigenvalue analyses of the bridge to evaluate its buckling behavior, and to perform both linear and nonlinear analyses to assess the bridge's response under service loads and its ultimate capacity under extreme loading. The numerical results closely aligned with the experimental results, validating the accuracy of the validated finite element model is employed to further explored the impact of reinforcing different parts of the bridge on its overall response and ultimate capacity. It is revealed that reinforcing 3/5 of the bridge's span significantly enhances both its stiffness and load capacity. Additionally, the calculated axial capacity of the top chord members is compared with the nominal axial compression capacity stipulated by the AASHTO standards. • Full-scale testing of a reinforced modular double truss bridge under operational and ultimate loads. • Linear buckling analysis and nonlinear evaluation of the bridge’s response under extreme loads. • Validation of the finite element model through comparison with experimental field data. • Parametric study to assess the effect of reinforcing six portions of the bridge on load capacity, deflection, and stiffness. • Comparison of axial capacities of reinforced top chord bridge members with AASHTO and CSA S6:19 nominal axial compression capacities.
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.
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 it