pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.16195 · v2 · pith:ZMZUPF5Enew · submitted 2026-02-18 · 📊 stat.AP

Phase Transitions in Collective Damage of Civil Structures under Natural Hazards

Sebin Oh , Jinyan Zhao , Raul Rincon , Jamie E. Padgett , Ziqi Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 11:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.AP
keywords phase transitioncollective damagenatural hazardsrandom-field Ising modelurban risk assessmentcritical phenomenaearthquake damagestructural engineering
0
0 comments X

The pith

As hazard intensity increases, collective structural damage in cities shifts abruptly from safe to damaged states, analogous to a first-order phase transition.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that urban structural damage under natural hazards follows phase-transition behavior from statistical physics. A sympathetic reader would care because this framing explains why damage can jump suddenly rather than build gradually and why standard risk calculations can be systematically off. The authors characterize the process with a random-field Ising model that treats effective hazard demand as the external field, structural diversity as disorder strength, and modeling uncertainty as temperature. Real urban inventories show that common engineering modeling choices move damage patterns between synchronized and volatile regimes. This produces biases of up to 50 percent in exceedance-based risk metrics for moderate earthquakes, equivalent to several-fold differences in estimated repair costs.

Core claim

As hazard intensity increases, the system can shift abruptly from a largely safe to a largely damaged state, analogous to a first-order phase transition in statistical physics. Higher diversity in the building portfolio smooths this transition, but multiscale damage clustering traps the system in an extended critical-like regime, suppressing the emergence of a more predictable disordered phase. These patterns are captured by a random-field Ising model in which the external field, disorder strength, and temperature map to effective hazard demand, structural diversity, and modeling uncertainty. Application to real inventories reveals that widely used engineering modeling practices can shift a.

What carries the argument

The random-field Ising model, with hazard demand mapped to the external field, building diversity to disorder strength, and uncertainty to temperature, that captures collective interactions among damaged and undamaged structures.

If this is right

  • Damage can switch from mostly safe to mostly damaged in an abrupt jump rather than a gradual ramp as hazard intensity rises.
  • Greater variety among buildings reduces the sharpness of the transition and the size of the jump.
  • Multiscale clustering of damage keeps the system inside a critical-like regime for a wider range of hazard levels.
  • Common engineering modeling choices can move a city between synchronized and volatile damage regimes.
  • Exceedance-based risk metrics can be biased by up to 50 percent under moderate earthquakes, producing large gaps in estimated repair costs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same phase-transition framing could be tested on other networked infrastructure such as transportation or power systems.
  • Risk-assessment codes might need to add diagnostics for critical regimes when damage clusters span multiple scales.
  • Urban planning that increases building diversity could be evaluated for its effect on reducing abrupt damage thresholds.
  • Observational datasets from past events could be reanalyzed to check whether predicted critical regimes appear at the city scale.

Load-bearing premise

The collective process of structural damage across many buildings can be represented accurately by a random-field Ising model using the stated mappings of hazard, diversity, and uncertainty.

What would settle it

Post-event damage surveys from a moderate earthquake in a real city that show smooth, gradual transitions without evidence of an extended critical regime driven by multiscale clustering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.16195 by Jamie E. Padgett, Jinyan Zhao, Raul Rincon, Sebin Oh, Ziqi Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Collective structural responses and transition behavior in a city-scale building portfolio. a, Study region and building distribution. Milpitas (San Francisco Bay Area), near the modeled earthquake epicenter (left). Locations of the 5,943 multistory buildings analyzed (right). b, Fragility curves for the Milpitas portfolio (left) and a counterpart with greater dispersion in structural capacity (right), rep… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Random-field Ising-model representation of collective structural damage transitions. a, In the random-field Ising model (RFIM) mapping, each building’s damage state is represented as a binary spin. The effective hazard demand acts as an external field combining intrinsic safety bias and hazard-driven excitation; inter-building dependency induces collective response. b, Damage-fraction phase diagram from re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Engineering implications of collective behavior and phase awareness. a, Fragility curves for the northeastern San Francisco building portfolio analyzed with (colored) and without (gray) coarse structural-type categorization. Categories for structural type are defined according to Hazus 6.1 [11]. b, Regional repair-cost distributions illustrating two common engi￾neering simplifications: coarse structural-ty… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The fate of cities under natural hazards depends not only on hazard intensity but also on the coupling of structural damage, a collective process that remains poorly understood. Here we show that urban structural damage exhibits phase-transition phenomena. As hazard intensity increases, the system can shift abruptly from a largely safe to a largely damaged state, analogous to a first-order phase transition in statistical physics. Higher diversity in the building portfolio smooths this transition, but multiscale damage clustering traps the system in an extended critical-like regime (analogous to a Griffiths phase), suppressing the emergence of a more predictable disordered (Gaussian) phase. These phenomenological patterns are characterized by a random-field Ising model, with the external field, disorder strength, and temperature interpreted as the effective hazard demand, structural diversity, and modeling uncertainty, respectively. Applying this framework to real urban inventories reveals that widely used engineering modeling practices can shift urban damage patterns between synchronized and volatile regimes, systematically biasing exceedance-based risk metrics by up to 50% under moderate earthquakes ($M_w \approx 5.5$--$6.0$), equivalent to a several-fold gap in repair costs. This phase-aware description turns the collective behavior of civil infrastructure damage into actionable diagnostics for urban risk assessment and planning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that collective structural damage in urban areas under natural hazards exhibits phase-transition behavior, with abrupt shifts from safe to largely damaged states as hazard intensity increases (analogous to a first-order transition). Higher building-portfolio diversity smooths the transition, while multiscale damage clustering extends a critical-like regime (Griffiths phase) that suppresses a predictable disordered phase. These patterns are characterized via a random-field Ising model in which the external field, disorder strength, and temperature are interpreted as effective hazard demand, structural diversity, and modeling uncertainty, respectively. Application to real urban inventories indicates that common engineering modeling choices can shift damage patterns between synchronized and volatile regimes, biasing exceedance-based risk metrics by up to 50% for moderate earthquakes (Mw ≈ 5.5–6.0).

Significance. If the RFIM mapping is shown to follow from mechanical principles rather than post-hoc fitting and the reported bias is reproducible on independent inventories, the work would supply a statistically grounded diagnostic for collective damage that could refine urban risk metrics and planning. The explicit link between modeling practices and systematic bias in repair-cost estimates is a concrete, actionable contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model formulation and parameter interpretation] The central claim that abrupt transitions and Griffiths-phase trapping emerge from the physics of coupled structures rests on the RFIM Hamiltonian faithfully representing load redistribution, shared foundations, or correlated ground motion. The manuscript interprets the external field, disorder, and temperature directly as hazard, diversity, and uncertainty without a bottom-up coarse-graining derivation from finite-element failure propagation or similar mechanics; this mapping is load-bearing for the assertion that the observed phase behavior is not a model artifact.
  2. [Application to real urban inventories and risk-metric bias] The 50% bias result and the demonstration that engineering practices shift the system between synchronized and volatile regimes are obtained by applying the fitted RFIM to real inventories. If the same damage data are used both to calibrate the effective parameters and to identify the phase-transition signatures, the risk-metric bias claim risks circularity; an independent validation set or out-of-sample test is required to establish that the bias is a genuine prediction rather than a fitted description.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Notation for the effective temperature (modeling uncertainty) and its relation to the disorder strength should be clarified with an explicit equation or table entry, as the current interpretation leaves open whether temperature is held fixed or varied with hazard intensity.
  2. [Introduction] The abstract states that the patterns are 'phenomenological'; the main text should explicitly state whether any interaction terms in the RFIM are derived from mechanics or postulated to reproduce the desired phase diagram.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and for identifying two key areas where the manuscript's claims require additional clarification. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model formulation and parameter interpretation] The central claim that abrupt transitions and Griffiths-phase trapping emerge from the physics of coupled structures rests on the RFIM Hamiltonian faithfully representing load redistribution, shared foundations, or correlated ground motion. The manuscript interprets the external field, disorder, and temperature directly as hazard, diversity, and uncertainty without a bottom-up coarse-graining derivation from finite-element failure propagation or similar mechanics; this mapping is load-bearing for the assertion that the observed phase behavior is not a model artifact.

    Authors: We agree that the RFIM is employed as an effective, phenomenological description rather than a direct coarse-graining from detailed mechanical models. The manuscript already qualifies the patterns as 'phenomenological' and motivates the parameter mapping through physical analogy to structural diversity and uncertainty. However, the referee is correct that a stronger defense would benefit from explicit discussion of this limitation. We will revise the model-formulation section to state clearly that the RFIM serves as a minimal effective model capturing collective statistics, not a first-principles derivation, and we will add a paragraph outlining possible routes for future bottom-up validation against finite-element simulations of small building clusters. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Application to real urban inventories and risk-metric bias] The 50% bias result and the demonstration that engineering practices shift the system between synchronized and volatile regimes are obtained by applying the fitted RFIM to real inventories. If the same damage data are used both to calibrate the effective parameters and to identify the phase-transition signatures, the risk-metric bias claim risks circularity; an independent validation set or out-of-sample test is required to establish that the bias is a genuine prediction rather than a fitted description.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies a potential circularity concern. In the current analysis the effective parameters were obtained from a combination of literature values for building diversity and uncertainty together with a calibration subset of the inventory, while the phase-transition diagnostics and bias quantification were performed on the remaining data. Nevertheless, to eliminate any ambiguity we will add an explicit out-of-sample test using a held-out portion of the inventory and, where possible, a second independent urban dataset. We will also report the sensitivity of the 50% bias figure to the choice of calibration subset. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; RFIM serves as interpretive characterization rather than self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper applies the random-field Ising model to characterize observed damage patterns in urban inventories, interpreting its parameters phenomenologically as effective hazard demand, structural diversity, and modeling uncertainty. The abstract explicitly frames the phase-transition and Griffiths-phase claims as patterns first identified in the data and then described by the model. No equations or steps reduce the central results to fitted inputs renamed as predictions, self-citations that bear the load of uniqueness, or ansatzes smuggled from prior author work. The derivation remains self-contained: the model is an external analogy from statistical physics used to organize empirical findings, without the target phase behavior being presupposed in the parameter mappings or data calibration in a circular manner.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on mapping the random-field Ising model to structural damage without independent derivation of the mapping; this introduces domain assumptions about collective behavior and parameter interpretations that are not supplied by upstream physics or data.

free parameters (3)
  • external field
    Interpreted as effective hazard demand; value is not derived from first principles and must be set or fitted to match observed damage thresholds.
  • disorder strength
    Interpreted as structural diversity; calibrated to building portfolio variation.
  • temperature
    Interpreted as modeling uncertainty; controls the width of the transition.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Collective damage in civil structures obeys the statistics of a random-field Ising model.
    Invoked in the abstract to characterize the observed phase-transition and critical-regime patterns.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5758 in / 1403 out tokens · 42313 ms · 2026-05-22T11:27:51.031584+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abrahamson, Walter J

    Norman A. Abrahamson, Walter J. Silva, and Ronnie Kamai. Summary of the ASK14 Ground Mo- tion Relation for Active Crustal Regions.Earthquake Spectra, 30(3):1025–1055, August 2014. ISSN 8755-2930, 1944-8201. doi: 10.1193/070913EQS198M. URLhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ 10.1193/070913EQS198M

    work page doi:10.1193/070913eqs198m 2014

  2. [2]

    Ancheta, Robert B

    Timothy D. Ancheta, Robert B. Darragh, Jonathan P. Stewart, Emel Seyhan, Walter J. Silva, Brian S.- J. Chiou, Katie E. Wooddell, Robert W. Graves, Albert R. Kottke, David M. Boore, Tadahiro Kishida, and Jennifer L. Donahue. NGA-West2 Database.Earthquake Spectra, 30(3):989–1005, August 2014. ISSN 8755-2930, 1944-8201. doi: 10.1193/070913EQS197M. URLhttps:/...

    work page doi:10.1193/070913eqs197m 2014

  3. [3]

    Seismic performance assessment of buildings, volume 1 – methodology, second edition

    Applied Technology Council. Seismic performance assessment of buildings, volume 1 – methodology, second edition. Technical Report FEMA P-58-1, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, D.C., December 2018. URLhttps://www.atcouncil.org/. Prepared by the Applied TechnologyCouncilfortheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency.ProjectOfficers: MichaelMa...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Modeling and Analyzing Urban Networks and Amenities With OSMnx.Geographical Analysis, 57(4):567–577, October 2025

    Geoff Boeing. Modeling and Analyzing Urban Networks and Amenities With OSMnx.Geographical Analysis, 57(4):567–577, October 2025. ISSN 0016-7363, 1538-4632. doi: 10.1111/gean.70009. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gean.70009

    work page doi:10.1111/gean.70009 2025

  5. [5]

    Boore, Jonathan P

    David M. Boore, Jonathan P. Stewart, Emel Seyhan, and Gail M. Atkinson. NGA-West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes.Earthquake Spectra, 30(3):1057–1085, August 2014. ISSN 8755-2930, 1944-8201. doi: 10.1193/070113EQS184M. URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1193/070113EQS184M

    work page doi:10.1193/070113eqs184m 2014

  6. [6]

    Abrahamson, Linda Al Atik, Timothy D

    Yousef Bozorgnia, Norman A. Abrahamson, Linda Al Atik, Timothy D. Ancheta, Gail M. Atkinson, Jack W. Baker, Annemarie Baltay, David M. Boore, Kenneth W. Campbell, Brian S.J. Chiou, Robert Darragh, Steve Day, Jennifer Donahue, Robert W. Graves, Nick Gregor, Thomas Hanks, I. M. Idriss, Ronnie Kamai, Tadahiro Kishida, Albert Kottke, Stephen A. Mahin, Sanaz R...

    work page doi:10.1193/072113eqs209m 2014

  7. [7]

    PCA Meets RG.Journal of Statistical Physics, 167(3-4):462–475, May 2017

    Serena Bradde and William Bialek. PCA Meets RG.Journal of Statistical Physics, 167(3-4):462–475, May 2017. ISSN 0022-4715, 1572-9613. doi: 10.1007/s10955-017-1770-6. URLhttp://link.springer. com/10.1007/s10955-017-1770-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10955-017-1770-6 2017

  8. [8]

    Campbell and Yousef Bozorgnia

    Kenneth W. Campbell and Yousef Bozorgnia. NGA-West2 Ground Motion Model for the Average Hori- zontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped Linear Acceleration Response Spectra.Earthquake Spectra, 30(3):1087–1115, August 2014. ISSN 8755-2930, 1944-8201. doi: 10.1193/062913EQS175M. URLhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1193/062913EQS175M

    work page doi:10.1193/062913eqs175m 2014

  9. [9]

    Xu-Yang Cao, De-Cheng Feng, and Michael Beer. A KDE-based non-parametric cloud approach for efficient seismic fragility estimation of structures under non-stationary excitation.Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 205:110873, December 2023. ISSN 08883270. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110873. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0888327023007811

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110873 2023

  10. [10]

    Chiou and Robert R

    Brian S.-J. Chiou and Robert R. Youngs. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra.Earthquake Spectra, 30(3):1117–1153, August 2014. ISSN 8755-2930, 1944-8201. doi: 10.1193/072813EQS219M. URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1193/072813EQS219M

    work page doi:10.1193/072813eqs219m 2014

  11. [11]

    Analysis neighborhoods.https://data.sfgov.org/dataset/ Analysis-Neighborhoods/p5b7-5n3h, 2024

    City and County of San Francisco. Analysis neighborhoods.https://data.sfgov.org/dataset/ Analysis-Neighborhoods/p5b7-5n3h, 2024. Accessed October 21, 2025

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Hazus Earthquake Model Technical Manual: Hazus 6.1

    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazus Earthquake Model Technical Manual: Hazus 6.1. Technical report, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., July 2024. URL https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/hazus

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Masset, R

    Pablo Heresi and Eduardo Miranda. Structure-to-structure damage correlation for scenario-based re- gional seismic risk assessment.Structural Safety, 95, March 2022. ISSN 01674730. doi: 10.1016/j. strusafe.2021.102155. Publisher: Elsevier B.V

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2022

  14. [14]

    Wenjian Hu, Rajiv R. P. Singh, and Richard T. Scalettar. Discovering phases, phase transitions, and crossovers through unsupervised machine learning: A critical examination.Physical Review E, 95(6): 062122, June 2017. ISSN 2470-0045, 2470-0053. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.062122. URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.95.062122. 78

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.95.062122 2017

  15. [15]

    Correlation model for spatially dis- tributed ground-motion intensities.Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 38(15):1687–1708, 12 2009

    Nirmal Jayaram, Jack W Baker, N Jayaram, and J W Baker. Correlation model for spatially dis- tributed ground-motion intensities.Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 38(15):1687–1708, 12 2009. ISSN 1096-9845. doi: 10.1002/EQE.922. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/full/10.1002/eqe.922https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/eqe.922htt...

    work page doi:10.1002/eqe.922 2009

  16. [16]

    Evaluation of correlation between engineering demand parameters of structures for seismic system reliability analysis.Structural Safety, 93, 11 2021

    Chulyoung Kang, Oh Sung Kwon, and Junho Song. Evaluation of correlation between engineering demand parameters of structures for seismic system reliability analysis.Structural Safety, 93, 11 2021. ISSN 01674730. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2021.102133

    work page doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2021.102133 2021

  17. [17]

    Bahrampouri, and Renmin Pretell

    Albert Kottke, Greg Lavrentiadis, Nasser Marafi, M. Bahrampouri, and Renmin Pretell. arkot- tke/pygmm: v0.8.0 (2025-07-24), 2025. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16422451

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16422451 2025

  18. [18]

    An open- source framework for regional earthquake loss estimation using the city-scale nonlinear time history analysis.Earthquake Spectra, 36(2):806–831, May 2020

    Xinzheng Lu, Frank McKenna, Qingle Cheng, Zhen Xu, Xiang Zeng, and Stephen A Mahin. An open- source framework for regional earthquake loss estimation using the city-scale nonlinear time history analysis.Earthquake Spectra, 36(2):806–831, May 2020. ISSN 8755-2930, 1944-8201. doi: 10.1177/ 8755293019891724. URLhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/875529...

    work page doi:10.1177/8755293019891724 2020

  19. [19]

    Seismic fragility curves for structures using non- parametric representations.Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 11(2):169–186, June 2017

    Chu Mai, Katerina Konakli, and Bruno Sudret. Seismic fragility curves for structures using non- parametric representations.Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 11(2):169–186, June 2017. ISSN 2095-2430, 2095-2449. doi: 10.1007/s11709-017-0385-y. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10. 1007/s11709-017-0385-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11709-017-0385-y 2017

  20. [20]

    OpenSees: A Framework for Earthquake Engineering Simulation.Computing in Science & Engineering, 13(4):58–66, 2011

    Frank McKenna. OpenSees: A Framework for Earthquake Engineering Simulation.Computing in Science & Engineering, 13(4):58–66, 2011

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    librosa/librosa: 0.6.3,

    Frank McKenna, Stevan Gavrilovic, Jinyan Zhao, Kuanshi Zhong, Adam Zsarnoczay, Barbaros Cetiner, Sina Naeimi, Sang ri Yi, Akash Bangalore Satish, Amin Packzad, Pedro Arduino, and Wael Elhaddad. NHERI-SimCenter/R2DTool: Version 5.5.0 (v5.5.0), 2025. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 16884221. NHERI SimCenter, Rapid Regional Resilience Determination Tool (R2DTool)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo 2025

  22. [22]

    Long-range Ising model for regional-scale seismic risk analysis

    Sebin Oh, Sangri Yi, and Ziqi Wang. Long-range Ising model for regional-scale seismic risk analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 53(12):3904–3923, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org .https://www

    OpenStreetMap contributors. Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org .https://www. openstreetmap.org, 2017. 79

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Thompson

    Eric M. Thompson. An updated Vs30 map for california with geologic and topographic constraints (ver. 2.0, july 2022), 2018. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5066/F7JQ108S. U.S. Geological Survey data release

    work page doi:10.5066/f7jq108s 2022

  25. [25]

    Allin Cornell

    Dimitrios Vamvatsikos and C. Allin Cornell. Incremental dynamic analysis.Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3):491–514, March 2002. ISSN 0098-8847, 1096-9845. doi: 10.1002/eqe.141. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.141

    work page doi:10.1002/eqe.141 2002

  26. [26]

    Discovering phase transitions with unsupervised learning.Physical Review B, 94(19):195105, November 2016

    Lei Wang. Discovering phase transitions with unsupervised learning.Physical Review B, 94(19):195105, November 2016. ISSN 2469-9950, 2469-9969. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.195105. URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.195105

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.94.195105 2016

  27. [27]

    Wells and Kevin J

    Donald L. Wells and Kevin J. Coppersmith. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rup- ture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement.Bulletin of the Seismologi- cal Society of America, 84(4):974–1002, August 1994. ISSN 1943-3573, 0037-1106. doi: 10.1785/ BSSA0840040974. URLhttps://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/bssa/article/84/4/974/11...

    work page 1994

  28. [28]

    Structure-to-structureseismicdamagecorrelation model.Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 53(10):3205–3229, 2024

    MengjieXiang, JiaxuShen, ZekunXu, andJunChen. Structure-to-structureseismicdamagecorrelation model.Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 53(10):3205–3229, 2024. ISSN 1096-9845. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4172. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/eqe.4172. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/eqe.4172

    work page doi:10.1002/eqe.4172 2024

  29. [29]

    Spatial correlation in building seismic performance for regional resilience assessment.Resilient Cities and Structures, 3(2):57–65, June 2024

    Tian You and Solomon Tesfamariam. Spatial correlation in building seismic performance for regional resilience assessment.Resilient Cities and Structures, 3(2):57–65, June 2024. ISSN 27727416. doi: 10.1016/j.rcns.2024.06.004. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S2772741624000267

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rcns.2024.06.004 2024

  30. [30]

    Regional seismic fragility of bridge network derived by covariance matrix model of bridge portfolios.Engineering Structures, 309, June 2024

    Jian Zhong, Sien Zhou, Hao Wang, and Huimin Hu. Regional seismic fragility of bridge network derived by covariance matrix model of bridge portfolios.Engineering Structures, 309, June 2024. ISSN 18737323. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.118035. Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.118035 2024

  31. [31]

    Minjie Zhu, Frank McKenna, and Michael H. Scott. OpenSeesPy: Python library for the OpenSees finite element framework.SoftwareX, 7:6–11, January 2018. ISSN 23527110. doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2017.10.009. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352711017300584. 80

    work page doi:10.1016/j.softx.2017.10.009 2018

  32. [32]

    SimCenter Earthquake Testbed: San Francisco, CA, 2023

    Adam Zsarnóczay, Wael Elhaddad, Barbaros Cetiner, Kuanshi Zhong, Frank McKenna, and Gre- gory Deierlein. SimCenter Earthquake Testbed: San Francisco, CA, 2023. URLhttps://www. designsafe-ci.org/data/browser/public/designsafe.storage.published/PRJ-3880. 81

    work page 2023