Machine Learning-Based Seismic Damage Assessment of a Bridge Portfolio in Cohesive Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the application of machine learning (ML) algorithms for seismic damage classification of bridges supported by helical pile foundations in cohesive soils. While ML techniques have shown strong potential in seismic risk modeling, most prior research has focused on regression tasks or damage classification of overall bridge systems. The unique seismic behavior of foundation elements, particularly helical piles, remains unexplored. In this study, numerical data derived from finite element simulations are used to classify damage states for three key metrics: piers’ drift, piles’ ductility factor, and piles’ settlement ratio. Several ML algorithms, including CatBoost, LightGBM, Random Forest, and traditional classifiers, are evaluated under original, oversampled, and undersampled datasets. Results show that CatBoost and LightGBM outperform other methods in accuracy and robustness, particularly under imbalanced data conditions. Oversampling improves classification for specific targets but introduces overfitting risks in others, while undersampling generally degrades model performance. This work addresses a significant gap in bridge risk assessment by combining advanced ML methods with a specialized foundation type, contributing to improved post-earthquake damage evaluation and infrastructure resilience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".