MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410264234 · doi:10.1177/87552930251335209

Time‐dependent seismic risk assessment of highway bridges in western Canada under mainshock‐aftershock subduction earthquakes

2025· article· en· W4410264234 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yihan Shao, Yazhou Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAftershockFragilitySeismologySeismic hazardSeismic riskBridge (graph theory)GeologyBenchmark (surveying)SubductionHazardEarthquake scenarioIncremental Dynamic AnalysisStrong ground motionGround motionGeodesyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study conducts the time‐dependent seismic risk assessment of highway bridges in western Canada when subjected to Cascadia subduction earthquakes (CSE) and aftershocks (AS). The performance‐based earthquake engineering framework is extended to assess the expected annual repair cost ratio and annual restoration time of a benchmark bridge class under CSE mainshock (MS) and AS events within a 5‐day period. The epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model is utilized to simulate the temporal evolution of AS events after the MS of CSE. Seismic hazard models for MS and AS are used to select CSE‐consistent MS ground motions and build an AS ground motion database for selecting and pairing ETAS‐matching MS‐AS sequences. High‐fidelity numerical bridge models are then developed and paired with these MS‐AS motion series for non‐linear dynamic response analyses. The Park and Ang damage index is modified into a demand‐capacity ratio model to account for the long‐duration‐induced cumulative damage to bridge columns. Day‐to‐day time‐dependent fragility models are then developed for the bridge class at both component and system levels under MS and time‐changing AS events. Furthermore, these fragility models are integrated with the CSE hazard model and loss functions to estimate the risk metrics for the bridge class. The study highlights the significantly higher bridge risk when the AS hazard is considered, with the elevated risk being stabilized by the third day after the MS. However, this study also indicates that the commonly adopted one‐MS‐one‐AS approach underestimates the bridge AS risk when facing CSE.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207