Comparisons of international seismic code provisions for bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents a comparison between the AASHTO-2004, BSI-EN1998-2:2005, NBCC-2005 and the 2007 proposed AASHTO LRFD seismic design provisions with that of the 2006 CSA S6 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). A regular 2 span-90m long bridge was used to apply the seismic design loads determined from the codes investigated. The superstructure consists of a 2-lane prestressed concrete box girder, supported by a single column and two abutments. The single column is a 2400 mm circular pier with two different amounts of longitudinal reinforcements. One column had 36-45M longitudinal bars, transversely tied with 15M bars spaced at 50 mm. The second column contained 36-55M bars. The design of the bridge was carried out for three different seismic regions, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. In addition, the soil conditions were assumed to match those of NEHRP Soil Profile Types B and E. The research compared the effects of the seismic design spectra and overstrength factors in developing the design moments, shears and displacement ductility demands of the bridge. This research provides recommendations for updating the current CHBDC seismic design provisions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".