Assessing the response of earth-retaining walls to seismic loading is key for safety. Nonlinear dynamic analyses using the finite element method (FEM) calculate the permanent displacements (PDs) the soil–wall system accumulates during an earthquake, but are computationally intensive. Simplified dynamic displacement-based methods that obtain PDs based on a failure mechanism (FM) and critical acceleration are faster. Still, they require geotechnical expertise, e.g., in strength, failure criteria, and stability under pseudo-static conditions. This paper presents a new method using eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) to predict the FM and k c (critical acceleration as a fraction of gravity) of flexible retaining walls in dry, coarse-grained soil, based on geometry and soil/wall properties. We created a large dataset ( ∼ 1000 samples) via FEM simulations based on plasticity limit theorems, with 7 types of FMs affecting 3 types of walls: propped, cantilever, and anchored. Each sample contained geometrical parameters, soil/wall properties, and FEM-derived FM and k c . Trained on these data, our system has a weighted F1-score of 97.28% and an R 2 above 0.987 for FM and k c predictions, respectively. Shapley explanations (SHAP) and a new coherence model help experts interpret the results and check explanation consistency. Its high accuracy and millisecond-level inference make our method ideal when assessing the seismic response of numerous structures within short timeframes. Also, its interpretability promotes AI-expert collaboration, enhancing decision-making. • Artificial Intelligence : predicts seismic wall failure type and critical acceleration ( k c ). • Extensive Dataset : ∼ 1000 FEM samples covering 7 failure mechanisms for 3 types of wall. • High Precision : 97.28% F1-score and R 2 ¿0.987 for failure and k c predictions. • Fast : Predictions in milliseconds for time-critical seismic risk assessment. • Explainable : predictions promoting trust, expert collaboration, and informed decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pistolesi et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: