Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research project is the second part of a research program carried out by Itagawa (2005) who studied the seismic response of a half-scale model of an existing Montreal bridge built in the 1960's. This project studies the seismic behaviour of the retrofit carried out on the frame structure studied in the first part of the research program. The retrofit was made following the requirements of the current Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). The philosophy of the CHBDC is to provide flexural yielding in the ductile elements so that brittle failure modes such as shear are prevented. This capacity-design approach resulted in a ductile response and significant energy dissipation of the retrofitted structure. The retrofit was designed in accordance with the CHBDC provisions. The cap beam and the beam-column joint regions were strengthened with a reinforced concrete sleeve containing additional transverse and longitudinal bars so that plastic hinging would form in the columns. This retrofit represents minimum intervention to improve the response of the frame. The retrofit frame was then subjected to both gravity loads and reversed cyclic loading to simulate seismic loading on the structure. The predictions of the response of the retrofitted frame provided reasonable estimates of first yielding in the column and the general yielding of the frame. Although the columns would not meet the requirements for ductile columns, they had sufficient shear strength and did exhibit a displacement ductility of about 2.3.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".