MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322013048 · doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2023.02.087

Predicting seismic interaction effect between soil and structure group using convolutional neural network

2023· article· en· W4322013048 on OpenAlexaff
Jishuai Wang, Yazhou Xie, Tong Guo, Zhen‐Yu Du

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersScientific Research Foundation of the Graduate School of Southeast UniversityMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkHyperparameterFrame (networking)Artificial neural networkStructural engineeringComputer scienceSensitivity (control systems)AccelerationSoil structure interactionFinite element methodEngineeringArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Electronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying the influence of seismic interaction between soil and structure group (SSGI) is of great significance to seismic design , retrofit , and damage assessment of structures in densely built urban areas. To this end, this study proposes a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D-CNN) model to rapidly predict the influence of adjacent structures on the maximum inter-story drifts and base shears of RC frame structures. Based on an experimentally validated three-dimensional finite element method , 890 pairs of soil-single structure versus soil-structure group systems under different earthquake loadings are simulated. The dataset comprising 890 groups of input (i.e., soil and structure group parameters, ground motion acceleration) and output data (i.e., changes in maximum inter-story drift and base shear) is constructed to train the machine learning model. Subsequently, sensitivity analysis is performed to identify optimal hyperparameters for training the 1D-CNN model, whereas a back propagation artificial neural network (BP-ANN) model is established to compare the model performance. Results indicate that compared with the BP-ANN model, the 1D-CNN model has a more stable and robust architecture and features superior prediction accuracy. In particular, the developed 1D-CNN model has a mean absolute error of less than 2.3% and an absolute error of less than 5.4% for 90% of cases in the testing set. The superior performance of the 1D-CNN model makes it an effective and efficient tool to be applied to predict the seismic responses of RC frame buildings under the SSGI effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructuresSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207