Time-domain buffeting response prediction of a long-span bridge: A hybrid machine learning framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As bridge spans continue to increase, wind-induced vibrations become a major concern for structural integrity and serviceability. Buffeting, caused by the impinging turbulence, significantly impacts fatigue life and serviceability of long-span bridges. Consequently, accurate and rapid assessment of buffeting-induced responses is crucial for various applications, including real-time monitoring and risk assessment. This study introduces a novel hybrid machine learning framework designed to simulate the buffeting-induced response of long-span bridges over time, addressing key limitations in existing approaches. Unlike previous studies, which often focused on localized predictions, limited wind scenarios, frequency-domain analysis, and suffered from error accumulation over time, the proposed framework captures the complete time-history response across multiple degrees of freedom, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the bridge's dynamic behavior. The framework combines autoencoders and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of time-series prediction. Initially, autoencoder networks compress the high-dimensional wind speed and bridge displacement data into lower-dimensional latent spaces, capturing essential features while reducing computational cost. Subsequently, an LSTM network leverages these compressed representations to model temporal dependencies within the buffeting response, predicting the bridge's response based on encoded wind speed. The final predictive model integrates both autoencoders and the trained LSTM: the first autoencoder encodes raw wind speed, the LSTM predicts the latent bridge response from this encoding, and the second autoencoder reconstructs the final predicted bridge response vector. The model's effectiveness is evaluated through a simplified representation of the Lysefjord Bridge, rigorously assessing both interpolation and extrapolation performances. The proposed model achieves a good simulation accuracy on both training and testing sets, making it a compact and computationally efficient tool for real-time monitoring and assessment of bridges under various wind conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".