MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410774073 · doi:10.3390/eng6060113

A Review of Ship Collision and Seismic Impacts on Scour-Affected Bridge Pile Foundations

2025· review· en· W4410774073 on OpenAlexaff
Jiujiang Wu, Lei Yu, Ting Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueEng—Advances in Engineering · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileBridge (graph theory)CollisionGeotechnical engineeringGeologyBridge scourPile capEngineeringForensic engineeringMarine engineeringStructural engineeringPierComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the frequent collapse of bridges has underscored the severe threats posed by ship collisions and seismic forces to bridge pile foundations, particularly under scour conditions. Scour significantly increases bending moments, weakens foundation stability, and exacerbates damage under ship impacts and seismic loading. This review systematically examines the dynamic responses of bridge pile foundations subjected to multi-hazard scenarios, focusing on how scour-induced degradation exacerbates the impacts of ship collisions and seismic events. The synthesis covers experimental studies, numerical simulations, and theoretical approaches, providing a comprehensive evaluation of methodologies and findings. Advanced bibliometric tools, such as CiteSpace and VOSviewer, are employed to identify research trends, hotspots, and collaborations in this domain. Additionally, the review highlights the integration of intelligent technologies for mitigating ship collision risks and improving bridge safety management in scour-prone environments. By consolidating existing knowledge, this paper can serve as a critical reference for understanding the compounded effects of scour and other hazards on bridge pile foundations, offering guidance for future research and engineering practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEng—Advances in EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207