MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408751631 · doi:10.1002/eqe.4345

Deep Learning‐Based Response Spectrum Analysis Method for Bridges Subjected to Bi‐Directional Ground Motions

2025· article· en· W4408751631 on OpenAlexaff
Taeyong Kim, Oh‐Sung Kwon, Junho Song

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsResponse spectrumStructural engineeringGround motionSpectrum (functional analysis)GeologyComputer scienceEngineeringAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The response spectrum analysis method is one of the most widely used approaches developed to estimate the seismic demands of structural systems with minimal computational expense while maintaining high accuracy. The authors recently proposed a deep learning‐based combination (DC) rule to enhance the prediction accuracy of the response spectrum analysis method without compromising computational efficiency. The DC rule employs a deep neural network (DNN) model to estimate the contributions of individual modal responses. The DC rule, primarily developed for building structural systems, has limitations in its applications to bridge structures, particularly those subjected to bi‐directional ground motions. Moreover, the inherent “black box” nature of deep learning models restricts the interpretability and practicality of the method. To address these challenges, this research further develops the DC rule in three aspects. First, we construct a seismic demand database for bridge structures subjected to bi‐directional ground motions. Second, the DC rule is extended to accommodate structural systems under bi‐directional ground motion excitations. Third, we develop a simplified regression‐based model to replace the DNN model, thereby enhancing the practicality and interpretability of the DC rule approach. Extensive numerical investigations are conducted to validate the performance of the proposed framework, demonstrating its efficiency and accuracy in predicting the seismic demands of bridge structures. The source codes, data, and trained DNN models are available for download at https://github.com/TyongKim/ERD2 .

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake Engineering & Structural DynamicsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207