Impact of component damage correlations on seismic fragility and risk assessment of multi-component bridge systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic fragility modeling of bridges has evolved from simplified system-level assessments to high-fidelity, component-based methodologies. However, a key challenge remains in accurately incorporating damage dependency among bridge components, which might influence high-resolution seismic risk estimates that rely upon damage simulations of each bridge component. While previous studies have explored demand and capacity correlations in various structures, a comprehensive framework integrating these dependencies within the component-based bridge fragility modeling approach remains absent. This study addresses this gap by introducing a refined methodology for modeling seismic damage correlations across bridge components and damage states. A correlation-based fragility modeling framework is proposed, leveraging joint probabilistic seismic demand models and a hierarchical capacity correlation structure. The framework is systematically compared against other correlation models, including fully independent, fully correlated, and partially correlated approaches. Using a four-span, multi-column reinforced concrete bridge as a benchmark, the influence of correlation modeling on key seismic risk metrics, such as bridge collapse fragility, repair costs, and recovery durations, is assessed. Results demonstrate that neglecting damage correlation, or treating it perfectly correlated, sometimes would lead to significant biases in risk estimations. The proposed framework provides a practical extension of the existing component-level seismic fragility modeling approach for seamlessly integrating correlation effects, improving its effectiveness and applicability for downstream risk and resilience assessment of bridge systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".