Evaluation of Seismic Risk Mitigation Techniques for RC Bridge Superstructure Vulnerable to Pounding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observations from previous earthquakes worldwide have shown that existing bridges designed using outdated seismic standards are vulnerable to various damage modes, such as pounding and bearing displacement, highlighting the necessity of retrofitting.This study evaluates the effectiveness of different retrofit measures to upgrade the reinforced concrete bridge superstructure, namely steel dampers and rubber bumpers, aiming to reduce seismic demands and control movement.The numerical modeling approach of the selected retrofit systems is verified by comparing the hysteretic behavior with previous experimental results.The validated retrofit strategies are subsequently implemented on the three-dimensional model of a multi-span adjacent reference bridge commonly found in a medium seismicity region.Preliminary assessments performed on the existing and un-retrofitted bridge models indicated that the bridge superstructure's fundamental natural period of vibration is shortened due to the adopted retrofit measures.Fragility relationships are derived under various seismic scenarios to evaluate the seismic performance of the retrofit techniques through incremental dynamic analyses.The probabilistic assessment results indicate that the steel dampers effectively reduce bearing displacement demands, and rubber bumpers adequately decrease pounding force between adjacent bridges.This study thus helps select effective retrofit systems for upgrading the seismic performance of bridges vulnerable to different damage modes and mitigating their seismic risk.
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".