Parametric Study on the Seismic Performance of Typical Highway Bridges in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthquakes are one of the main natural hazards that have caused devastations to bridges around the world. Given the observations from past earthquakes, substantial analytical and experimental research work related to bridges has been undertaken in Canada and other countries. The analytical research is focussed primarily on the prediction of the seismic performance of existing bridges. It includes bridge-specific investigations which are mainly conducted using deterministic approach, and investigations of bridge portfolios which are based on probabilistic approach. In both cases, nonlinear time-history analyses are extensively used. To conduct analysis on a given bridge, analytical (i.e., computational) model of the bridge is required. It is known that the seismic response predictions depend greatly on the accuracy of the input of the modeling parameters (or components) considered in the bridge model. \n \nThe objective of this study is to investigate the effects of the uncertainties of a number of modeling parameters on the seismic response of typical highway bridges. The parameters considered include the superstructure mass, concrete compressive strength, yield strength of the reinforcing steel, yield displacement of the bearing, post-yield stiffness of the bearing, plastic hinge length, and damping. For the purpose of examination, two typical reinforced concrete highway bridges located in Montreal were selected. Three-dimensional (3-D) nonlinear model the bridge was developed using SAP2000. The effects of the uncertainty of each parameter mentioned above were investigated by conducting time-history analyses on the bridge model. In total, 15 records from the earthquakes around the world were used in the time-history analysis. The response of the deck displacement, bearing displacement, column displacement, column curvature ductility, and moment at the base of the column was considered to assess the effect of the uncertainty of the modeling parameter on the seismic response of the bridge. Recommendations were made for the use of these modeling parameters on the evaluation of the seismic performance of bridges.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".