Neural network approach to model the limit state surface for reliability analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural reliability methods are often used to evaluate the failure performance of geotechnical structures. A common approach is to use the first-order reliability method. Its popularity results from the mathematical simplicity of the method, since only second moment information (mean and coefficient of variation) on the random variables is required. The probability of failure is then assessed by an index known commonly as the reliability index. One critical aspect in determining the reliability index is the explicit definition of the limit state surface of the system. In a problem involving multi-dimensional random variables, the limit state surface is the boundary separating the safe domain from the "failure" (or lack of serviceability) domain. In many complicated and nonlinear problems where the analyses involve the use of numerical procedures such as the finite element method, this surface may be difficult to determine explicitly in terms of the random variables, and therefore the limit state can only be expressed implicitly rather than in a closed-form solution. It is proposed in this paper to use an artificial intelligence technique known as the back-propagation neural network algorithm to model the limit state surface. First, the failure domain is found through repeated point-by-point numerical analyses with different input values. The neural network is then trained on this set of data. Using the optimal weights of the neural network connections, it is possible to develop a mathematical expression relating the input and output variables that approximates the limit state surface. Some examples are given to illustrate the application and accuracy of the proposed approach.Key words: first-order reliability method, geotechnical structures, limit state surface, neural networks, reliability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".