MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408848564 · doi:10.3390/app15073618

Neural Network-Based Prediction of Amplification Factors for Nonlinear Soil Behaviour: Insights into Site Proxies

2025· article· en· W4408848564 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Boudghene Stambouli, Lotfi Guizani

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkNonlinear systemEnvironmental scienceGeologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of the most pertinent site parameters to classify soils in terms of their amplification of seismic ground motions is still of prime interest to earthquake engineering and codes. This study investigates many options for improving soil classifications in order to reduce the deviation between “exact” predictions using wave propagation and the method used in seismic codes based on amplification (site) factors. To this end, an exhaustive parametric study is carried out to obtain nonlinear responses of sets of 324 clay and sand columns and to constitute the database for neuronal network methods used to predict the regression equations of the amplification factors in terms of seismic and site parameters. A wide variety of parameters and their combinations are considered in the study, namely, soil depth, shear wave velocity, the stiffness of the underlaying bedrock, and the intensity and frequency content of the seismic excitation. A database of AFs for 324 nonlinear soil profiles of sand and clay under multiple records with different intensities and frequency contents is obtained by wave propagation, where soil nonlinearity is accounted for through the equivalent linear model and an iterative procedure. Then, a Generalized Regression Neural Network (GRNN) is used on the obtained database to determine the most significant parameters affecting the AFs. A second neural network, the Radial Basis Function (RBF) network, is used to develop simple and practical prediction equations. Both the whole period range and specific short-, mid-, and long-period ranges associated with the AFs, Fa, Fv, and Fl, respectively, are considered. The results indicate that the amplification factor of an arbitrary soil profile can be satisfactorily approximated with a limited number of sites and the seismic record parameters (two to six). The best parameter pair is (PGA; resonance frequency, f0), which leads to a standard deviation reduction of at least 65%. For improved performance, we propose the practical triplet PGA;Vs30;f0 with Vs30 being the average shear wave velocity within the upper 30 m of soil below the foundation. Most other relevant results include the fact that the AFs for long periods (Fl) can be significantly higher than those for short or mid periods for soft soils. Finally, it is recommended to further refine this study by including additional soil parameters such as spatial configuration and by adopting more refined soil models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207