Nonlinear <scp>FE</scp> model updating and reconstruction of the response of an instrumented seismic isolated bridge to the 2010 <scp>M</scp>aule <scp>C</scp>hile earthquake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Nonlinear finite element (FE) modeling has been widely used to investigate the effects of seismic isolation on the response of bridges to earthquakes. However, most FE models of seismic isolated bridges (SIB) have used seismic isolator models calibrated from component test data, while the prediction accuracy of nonlinear FE models of SIB is rarely addressed by using data recorded from instrumented bridges. In this paper, the accuracy of a state‐of‐the‐art FE model is studied through nonlinear FE model updating (FEMU) of an existing instrumented SIB, the Marga‐Marga Bridge located in Viña del Mar, Chile. The seismic isolator models are updated in 2 phases: component‐wise and system‐wise FEMU. The isolator model parameters obtained from 23 isolator component tests show large scatter, and poor goodness of fit of the FE‐predicted bridge response to the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile Earthquake is obtained when most of those parameter sets are used for the isolator elements of the bridge model. In contrast, good agreement is obtained between the FE‐predicted and measured bridge response when the isolator model parameters are calibrated using the bridge response data recorded during the mega‐earthquake. Nonlinear FEMU is conducted by solving single‐ and multiobjective optimization problems using high‐throughput cloud computing. The updated FE model is then used to reconstruct response quantities not recorded during the earthquake, gaining more insight into the effects of seismic isolation on the response of the bridge during the strong earthquake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".