Application of a Deep Learning Method to the Seismic Vulnerability Analysis of Cross-Fault Hydraulic Tunnels Based on MLE-IDA
Source abstract
Abstract
Rapidly developed deep learning methods, widely used in various fields of civil engineering, have provided an efficient option to reduce the computational costs and improve the predictive capabilities. However, it should be acknowledged that the application of deep learning methods to develop prediction models that efficiently assess the nonlinear dynamic responses of cross-fault hydraulic tunnels (CFHTs) is lacking. Thus, the objective of this study is to construct a rational artificial neural network (ANN) prediction model to generate the mass data and fragility curves of CFHTs. Firstly, an analysis of 1080 complete nonlinear dynamic time histories via incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is conducted to obtain the mass data of the drift ratio of the CFHT. Then, the hyper-parameters of the ANN model are discussed to determine the optimal parameters based on four examined approaches to improve the prediction capacity and accuracy. Meanwhile, the traditional probabilistic seismic demand models of the predicted values obtained by the ANN model and the numerical results are compared with the statistical parameters. Eventually, the maximum likelihood estimation couping IDA method is applied to assess the seismic safety of CFHTs under different damage states. The results show that two hidden layers, ten neurons, and the ReLU activation function for the ANN model with Bayesian optimization can improve the reliability and decrease the uncertainty in evaluating the structural performance. Moreover, the amplitude of the seismology features can be used as the neurons to build the input layers of the ANN model. It is found through vulnerability analysis that the traditional seismic fragility analysis method may overestimate the earthquake resistance capacity of CFHTs compared with maximum likelihood estimation. In practical engineering, ANN methods can be regarded as an alternative approach for the seismic design and performance improvement of CFHTs.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures · Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Dam Engineering and Safety
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Intelligent Construction and Operation, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China
School of Water Conservancy and Transportation, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
Funding
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Intelligent Construction and Operation of Tianjin Unviersity
References (49)
Show source-provided references
1. Seismic design and analysis of underground structures10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00051-7 ↗
2. Damage to mountain tunnels related to the Wenchuan earthquake and some suggestions for aseismic tunnel construction10.1007/s10064-011-0367-6 ↗
3. Seismic damage mechanism and dynamic deformation characteristic analysis of mountain tunnel after Wenchuan earthquake10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.07.017 ↗
4. Seismic damage assessment and mechanism analysis of underground powerhouse of the Yingxiuwan Hydropower Station under the Wenchuan earthquake10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.027 ↗
5. Seismic damage classification and risk assessment of mountain tunnels with a validation for the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.11.002 ↗
6. Damage observation and assessment of the Longxi tunnel during the Wenchuan earthquake10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.008 ↗
7. Three proposals for characterizing MDOF nonlinear seismic response10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:11(1281) ↗
8. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526) ↗
9. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis10.1193/021113EQS025M ↗
10. Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis10.1785/0120060255 ↗
11. Probabilistic evaluation of seismic responses using deep learning method10.1016/j.strusafe.2019.101913 ↗
12. On the application of machine learning techniques to derive seismic fragility curves10.1016/j.compstruc.2019.03.004 ↗
13. Seismic fragility analysis with artificial neural networks: Application to nuclear power plant equipment10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.024 ↗
14. Fragility assessment of tunnels in soft soils using artificial neural networks10.1016/j.undsp.2021.07.007 ↗
15. Fragility-based framework for optimal damper placement in low-rise moment-frame buildings using machine learning and genetic algorithm10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104641 ↗
16. Machine learning-based models for estimating seismically-induced slope displacements in subduction earthquake zones10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107323 ↗
17. Efficient seismic risk analysis of gravity dams via screening of intensity measures and simulated non-parametric fragility curves10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107040 ↗
18. GA-BP artificial neural networks for predicting the seismic response of arch dams
19. Frequency-based Data-driven Surrogate Model for Efficient Prediction of Irregular Structure’s Seismic Responses10.1080/13632469.2021.1961940 ↗
20. Building clustering for regional seismic response and damage analysis10.1177/87552930221104838 ↗
21. Işık, E., Ademović, N., Harirchian, E., Avcil, F., Büyüksaraç, A., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Akif Bülbül, M., Işık, M.F., and Antep, B. (2023). Determination of Natural Fundamental Period of Minarets by Using Artificial Neural Network and Assess the Impact of Different Materials on Their Seismic Vulnerability. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13020809 ↗
22. Earthquake vulnerability assessment for the Indian subcontinent using the Long Short-Term Memory model (LSTM)10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102642 ↗
23. Machine learning-based seismic fragility and seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete structures10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107761 ↗
24. Artificial neural network application in predicting probabilistic seismic demands of bridge components10.1002/eqe.3582 ↗
25. Urlainis, A., and Shohet, I.M. (2022). Development of Exclusive Seismic Fragility Curves for Critical Infrastructure: An Oil Pumping Station Case Study. Buildings, 12.10.3390/buildings12060842 ↗
26. Urlainis, A., and Shohet, I.M. (2022). Seismic Risk Mitigation and Management for Critical Infrastructures Using an RMIR Indicator. Buildings, 12.10.3390/buildings12101748 ↗
27. Regional-scale nonlinear structural seismic response prediction by neural network10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107707 ↗
28. Morgenroth, J., Khan, U.T., and Perras, M.A. (2019). An overview of opportunities for machine learning methods in underground rock engineering design. Geosciences, 9.10.3390/geosciences9120504 ↗
29. A review of machine learning applications for underground mine planning and scheduling10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102693 ↗
30. Predicting rock displacement in underground mines using improved machine learning-based models10.1016/j.measurement.2021.110552 ↗
31. Forecasting sidewall displacement of underground caverns using machine learning techniques10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103530 ↗
32. Using machine learning approach for microseismic events recognition in underground excavations: Comparison of ten frequently-used models10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105519 ↗
33. Comprehensive functional resilience assessment methodology for bridge networks using data-driven fragility models10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107326 ↗
34. Validation studies of seismic PRAs10.1016/0029-5493(90)90237-R ↗
35. Vasavada, M., and Patel, V.R. (2016). Development of Fragility Curves for RC Buildings using HAZUS method. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., 3.
36. Goulet, J.-A. (2020). Probabilistic Machine Learning for Civil Engineers, MIT Press.
37. Metamodel-based seismic fragility analysis of concrete gravity dams10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002629 ↗
38. Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001885 ↗
39. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design10.1090/qam/48291 ↗
40. Compound intensity measures for improved seismic performance assessment in cross-fault hydraulic tunnels using partial least-squares methodology10.1016/j.tust.2022.104890 ↗
41. Soil–structure interaction effects on seismic inelastic analysis of 3-D tunnels10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.03.010 ↗
42. Optimal selection of scalar and vector-valued intensity measures for improved fragility analysis in cross-fault hydraulic tunnels10.1016/j.tust.2022.104857 ↗
43. Duration characteristics of horizontal components of strong-motion earthquake records
44. Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Pearson Education India.
45. Arias, A. (1970). Measure of Earthquake Intensity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge University of Chile.
46. Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams
47. 3D viscous-spring artificial boundary in time domain10.1007/s11803-006-0585-2 ↗
48. Use of fragility curves to assess the seismic vulnerability in the risk analysis of mountain tunnels10.1016/j.tust.2019.103008 ↗
49. Huang, P., and Chen, Z. (2021). Fragility analysis for subway station using artificial neural network. J. Earthq. Eng., 1–21.