MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411458711 · doi:10.1177/87552930251343634

Second-generation component and system-level seismic fragility models for reinforced concrete bridges in California

2025· article· en· W4411458711 on OpenAlexafffund
Shanshan Chen, Yazhou Xie, Chenhao Wu, Henry V. Burton, Jamie E. Padgett, Ádám Zsarnóczay

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California BerkeleyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFragilityBridge (graph theory)Component (thermodynamics)Vulnerability assessmentVulnerability (computing)Seismic riskResilience (materials science)PreparednessGround motionEarthquake scenarioComputer scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringCivil engineeringSeismic hazardPsychological resilienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

California is a seismically active region that contains approximately 26,000 bridges. Historical earthquakes have caused severe damage and collapse of bridges in California, resulting in casualties, economic losses, and disruptions to transportation networks. Seismic fragility models of bridges estimate the probability of exceeding damage states at varying ground motion intensity levels. These models can be utilized for bridge vulnerability assessment, risk and resilience quantification, and to support earthquake preparedness and response planning. Recent studies have developed a new generation of seismic fragility models for bridges, demonstrating several advancements when compared with the widely used first-generation HAZUS models. These models, termed second-generation fragility functions, are derived through detailed dynamic response analyses and are differentiated at the component level, with more rational, performance-based criteria for bridge grouping and archetype sampling. This study compiles and adapts a comprehensive set of second-generation fragility models from the literature. As part of this compilation, we filtered out fragility functions with outdated capacity models and unrealistic bridge configurations, establishing uniform bridge grouping criteria, and harmonized different cross-model ground motion intensity measures and bridge component definitions. The database comprises approximately 2300 component- and 500 system-level fragility models categorized into 26 bridge groups. It can serve as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners conducting various related analyses to enhance the seismic resilience of bridge infrastructure in California.

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 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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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