BCI/
Articles/
2610005510
  • Open Access
  • Review

Scope, Challenges, and Future of Agentic AI in Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering: A Critical Review

  • Ishwor Thapa 1,   
  • Rojan Subedi 2,   
  • Garima Shrestha 2,   
  • Sundar Adhikari 3,   
  • Pratik Rana Magar 4 and 
  • Bishwash Poudel 2,*

Received: 03 September 2026 | Revised: 15 October 2026 | Accepted: 27 October 2026 | Published: 04 November 2026

Abstract

Agentic artificial intelligence (agentic AI) refers to systems that pursue goals by planning, invoking external tools, maintaining memory and acting on the results with a defined degree of autonomy. This review examines the scope, challenges and future directions of agentic AI in geotechnical and earthquake engineering, with an explicit distinction between capabilities that have been demonstrated and those that remain conceptual. We first propose a taxonomy that separates predictive machine learning, generative AI, retrieval-augmented language-model systems, tool-using agents, multi-agent systems and closed-loop autonomous agents, and we distinguish within-episode feedback and memory updating from online learning, reinforcement learning and model retraining. We then synthesize 22 studies (2023–2026) in which large language models (LLMs) or agents perform geotechnical, earthquake or adjacent structural engineering tasks, together with two closed-loop exemplars from chemistry, and classify each by architecture, tools, memory, validation, uncertainty treatment, human involvement and evidence level. All civil-engineering studies located are prototypes or proof-of-concept systems; no field-validated agentic deployment in geotechnical or earthquake practice was found, and no peer-reviewed study of an agent operating a commercial geotechnical finite-element package was identified. We discuss the enabling layers that engineering agents require—retrieval-augmented generation over codes and site records, knowledge graphs and data standards (AGS4, DIGGS, IFC), interoperability with OpenSees, PLAXIS and OpenQuake, and physics-informed modeling—and report indicative cost and latency figures. An illustrative proof-of-concept of the tool layer for CPT-based liquefaction assessment shows how deterministic triggering analysis, Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation and human approval gates can be combined. Finally, we assess eight challenges with an explicit ordinal rubric and present a conditional short-, medium- and long-term roadmap linked to eight research gaps. Agentic AI can add value as a supervised orchestration layer over validated engineering tools; claims of autonomous engineering practice are not yet supported by evidence.

References 

  • 1.

    Phoon, K.K.; Zhang, W. Future of machine learning in geotechnics. Georisk Assess. Manag. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards 2023, 17, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2022.2087884.

  • 2.

    Zhang, W.; Zhang, R.; Wu, C.; et al. State-of-the-art review of soft computing applications in underground excavations. Geosci. Front. 2020, 11, 1095–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2019.12.003.

  • 3.

    Zhang, W.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; et al. Application of deep learning algorithms in geotechnical engineering: A short critical review. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2021, 54, 5633–5673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-09967-1.

  • 4.

    Xie, Y.; Sichani, M.E.; Padgett, J.E.; et al. The promise of implementing machine learning in earthquake engineering: A state-of-the-art review. Earthq. Spectra 2020, 36, 1769–1801. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020919419.

  • 5.

    Khatti, J.; Kontoni, D.P.N. Assessment of Bearing Capacity of Concrete Piles in Alluvial Soils Using Bio and Swarm-Optimized Artificial Neural Network Models. Bull. Comput. Intell. 2025, 1, 53–75. https://doi.org/10.53941/bci.2025.100004.

  • 6.

    Thapa, I.; Ghani, S. AI-Enabled Sustainable Soil Stabilization for Resilient Urban Infrastructure: Advancing SDG 9 and SDG 12 through Hybrid Deep Learning and Environmental Assessment. Bull. Comput. Intell. 2025, 1, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.53941/bci.2025.100002.

  • 7.

    Thapa, I.; Ghani, S. Development of Interpretable Regression Models for Slope Stability of Nano-Silica Stabilised Soils in Mountainous Terrain. Bull. Comput. Intell. 2026, 2, 103–133. https://doi.org/10.53941/bci.2026.100006.

  • 8.

    Xi, Z.; Chen, W.; Guo, X.; et al. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 2025, 68, 121101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-024-4222-0.

  • 9.

    Wang, L.; Ma, C.; Feng, X.; et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Front. Comput. Sci. 2024, 18, 186345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1.

  • 10.

    Yao, S.; Zhao, J.; Yu, D.; et al. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023), Kigali, Rwanda, 1–5 May 2023.

  • 11.

    Shoemaker, T.A.; Beaino, C.; Centella, D.; et al. Generative AI: The New Geotechnical Assistant? J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2023, 149, 02823004. https://doi.org/10.1061/jggefk.gteng-11859.

  • 12.

    Kumar, K. Geotechnical Parrot Tales (GPT): Harnessing Large Language Models in Geotechnical Engineering. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2024, 150, 02523001. https://doi.org/10.1061/jggefk.gteng-11828.

  • 13.

    Chen, L.; Tophel, A.; Hettiyadura, U.; et al. An Investigation into the Utility of Large Language Models in Geotechnical Education and Problem Solving. Geotechnics 2024, 4, 470–498. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics4020026.

  • 14.

    Sapkota, R.; Roumeliotis, K.I.; Karkee, M. AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges. Inf. Fusion 2026, 126, 103599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599.

  • 15.

    Feng, K.J.K.; McDonald, D.W.; Zhang, A.X. Levels of autonomy for AI agents. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2506.12469.

  • 16.

    Morris, M.R.; Sohl-Dickstein, J.; Fiedel, N.; et al. Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Vienna, Austria, 21–27 July 2024; pp. 36308–36321.

  • 17.

    Russell, S.; Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th ed.; Pearson: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.

  • 18.

    Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; et al. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 28 November–9 December 2022; Volume 35, pp. 24824–24837. https://doi.org/10.52202/068431-1800.

  • 19.

    Tophel, A.; Chen, L.; Hettiyadura, U.; et al. Towards an AI tutor for undergraduate geotechnical engineering: A comparative study of evaluating the efficiency of large language model application programming interfaces. Discov. Comput. 2025, 28, 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-025-09580-8.

  • 20.

    Mudur, N.; Cui, H.; Venugopalan, S.; et al. FEABench: Evaluating language models on multiphysics reasoning ability. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2504.06260.

  • 21.

    Liang, H.; Zhou, Y.; Kalaleh, M.T.; et al. Automating Structural Engineering Workflows with Large Language Model Agents. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2510.11004.

  • 22.

    Youwai, S.; Phim, D.; Murcia, V.G.; et al. Large language model-based multi-agent systems for automated foundation design: Router-driven task classification and expert selection framework. AI Civ. Eng. 2026, 5, 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43503-026-00088-8.

  • 23.

    Boiko, D.A.; MacKnight, R.; Kline, B.; et al. Autonomous chemical research with large language models. Nature 2023, 624, 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06792-0.

  • 24.

    Zhu, M.; McKenna, F.; Scott, M.H. OpenSeesPy: Python library for the OpenSees finite element framework. SoftwareX 2018, 7, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2017.10.009.

  • 25.

    Park, J.S.; O’Brien, J.; Cai, C.J.; et al. Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. In Proceedings of the UIST’23: The 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, San Francisco, CA, USA, 29 October–1 November 2023; pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606763.

  • 26.

    McKenna, F. OpenSees: A Framework for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2011, 13, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2011.66.

  • 27.

    Bentley Systems. Using PLAXIS Remote Scripting with the Python Wrapper. 2024. Available online: https://communities.bentley.com/products/geotech-analysis/w/wiki/46005/using-plaxis-remote-scripting-with-the-python-wrapper (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 28.

    Pagani, M.; Monelli, D.; Weatherill, G.; et al. OpenQuake Engine: An Open Hazard (and Risk) Software for the Global Earthquake Model. Seismol. Res. Lett. 2014, 85, 692–702. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220130087.

  • 29.

    Schick, T.; Dwivedi-Yu, J.; Dessi, R.; et al. Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 10–16 December 2023; Volume 36, pp. 68539–68551. https://doi.org/10.52202/075280-2997.

  • 30.

    OpenAI. Function Calling and Other API Updates. 2023. Available online: https://openai.com/index/function-calling-and-other-api-updates/ (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 31.

    Anthropic. Introducing the Model Context Protocol. 2024. Available online: https://www.anthropic.com/news/model-context-protocol (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 32.

    Liang, H.; Kalaleh, M.T.; Mei, Q. Integrating Large Language Models for Automated Structural Analysis. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2504.09754.

  • 33.

    Geng, Z.; Liu, J.; Cao, R.; et al. A lightweight large language model-based multi-agent system for 2D frame structural analysis. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2510.05414.

  • 34.

    Guo, T.; Chen, X.; Wang, Y.; et al. Large Language Model Based Multi-agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-24), Jeju, Republic of Korea, 3–9 August 2024; pp. 8048–8057. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2024/890.

  • 35.

    Chen, Z.; Asadi Shamsabadi, E.; Jiang, S.; et al. Integration of large vision language models for efficient post-disaster damage assessment and reporting. Nat. Commun. 2026, 17, 1481. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68216-z.

  • 36.

    Jiang, Y.; Wang, J.; Shen, X.; et al. Large language model for post-earthquake structural damage assessment of buildings. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2025, 40, 6324–6342. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.70010.

  • 37.

    Grattafiori, A.; Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; et al. The Llama 3 herd of models. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2407.21783.

  • 38.

    Yang, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; et al. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2412.15115.

  • 39.

    Shinn, N.; Cassano, F.; Gopinath, A.; et al. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 10–16 December 2023; Volume 36, pp. 8634–8652. https://doi.org/10.52202/075280-0377.

  • 40.

    Wang, L.; Zhang, X.; Su, H.; et al. A Comprehensive Survey of Continual Learning: Theory, Method and Application. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2024, 46, 5362–5383. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpami.2024.3367329.

  • 41.

    Gama, J.; Žliobaitė, I.; Bifet, A.; et al. A survey on concept drift adaptation. ACM Comput. Surv. 2014, 46, 44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2523813.

  • 42.

    Lu, J.; Liu, A.; Dong, F.; et al. Learning under Concept Drift: A Review. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2019, 31, 2346–2363. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2018.2876857.

  • 43.

    Sutton, R.S.; Barto, A.G. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, 2nd ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018.

  • 44.

    Sharma, A.; Bhowmik, B. Autonomous agentic AI with policy adaptation for physics-informed spectral learning in Structural Health Monitoring. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2026, 70, 104224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2025.104224.

  • 45.

    Ji, Z.; Lee, N.; Frieske, R.; et al. Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation. ACM Comput. Surv. 2023, 55, 248. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730.

  • 46.

    Huang, L.; Yu, W.; Ma, W.; et al. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 2025, 43, 42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3703155.

  • 47.

    Lewis, P.; Perez, E.; Piktus, A.; et al. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Virtual, 6–12 December 2020; Volume 33, pp. 9459–9474.

  • 48.

    Gao, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Gao, X.; et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2312.10997.

  • 49.

    EN 1998-5:2004; Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 5: Foundations, Retaining Structures and Geotechnical Aspects. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.

  • 50.

    ASCE. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784415788.

  • 51.

    Government of Nepal. Nepal National Building Code NBC 105:2020, Seismic Design of Buildings in Nepal; Department of Urban Development and Building Construction: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2020.

  • 52.

    Choi, K.; Jeong, M.; Kim, T.; et al. RAMASC: A retrieval-augmented multi-agent framework for automated structural calculation. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2026, 74, 104698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2026.104698.

  • 53.

    Aqib, M.; Hamza, M.; Mei, Q.; et al. Fine-Tuning Large Language Models and Evaluating Retrieval Methods for Improved Question Answering on Building Codes. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2505.04666.

  • 54.

    Fagan, A.; Ahmed, A. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Educational AI Chatbot in Geotechnical Engineering. In Proceedings of the 2026 ASEE-NE Section Conference, Hooksett, NH, USA, 27–28 March 2026. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--58597.

  • 55.

    Fan, L.; Liu, F.; Chen, C. Domain adaptation of large language models for geotechnical applications. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2507.05613.

  • 56.

    Estêvão, J.M.C. Effectiveness of Generative AI for Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment. Buildings 2024, 14, 3255. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103255.

  • 57.

    Hogan, A.; Blomqvist, E.; Cochez, M.; et al. Knowledge Graphs. ACM Comput. Surv. 2022, 54, 71. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447772.

  • 58.

    Pan, S.; Luo, L.; Wang, Y.; et al. Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2024, 36, 3580–3599. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2024.3352100.

  • 59.

    Edge, D.; Trinh, H.; Cheng, N.; et al. From Local to Global: A Graph RAG Approach to Query-Focused Summarization. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2404.16130.

  • 60.

    Ma, X. Knowledge graph construction and application in geosciences: A review. Comput. Geosci. 2022, 161, 105082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2022.105082.

  • 61.

    Open Geospatial Consortium. OGC Geoscience Markup Language 4.1 (GeoSciML); Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc.: Arlington, VA, USA, 2017. https://doi.org/10.62973/16-008.

  • 62.

    Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS). AGS4 Data Format. Edition 4.2. 2025. Available online: https://www.ags.org.uk/data-format/ (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 63.

    ASCE Geo-Institute. DIGGS—Data Interchange for Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, Version 3. 2024. Available online: https://www.geoinstitute.org/special-projects/diggs (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 64.

    ISO 16739-1:2024; Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) for Data Sharing in the Construction and Facility Management Industries—Part 1: Data Schema. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2024.

  • 65.

    Goto, Y.; Okuhara, C.; Horita, T.; et al. Geo-Intelligence: An integrated decision support system for geotechnical investigation using knowledge graphs and LLMs. Artif. Intell. Data Sci. 2026, 7, 323–330. https://doi.org/10.11532/jsceiii.7.1_323.

  • 66.

    Global Mining Guidelines Group (GMG). omf-python: Python Library for Working with OMF Files. 2024. Available online: https://github.com/gmggroup/omf-python (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 67.

    Blochwitz, T.; Otter, M.; Arnold, M.; et al. The Functional Mockup Interface for Tool independent Exchange of Simulation Models. In Proceedings of the 8th International Modelica Conference, Dresden, Germany, 20–22 March 2011; Volume 63, pp. 105–114. https://doi.org/10.3384/ecp11063105.

  • 68.

    Ren, Y.; Yu, S.; Chen, K.; et al. Seismology modeling agent: A smart assistant for geophysical researchers. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2512.14429.

  • 69.

    Bekele, Y.W. GeoSim.AI: AI assistants for numerical simulations in geomechanics. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2501.14186.

  • 70.

    Chen, J.; Bao, Y. Multi-agent large language model framework for code-compliant automated design of reinforced concrete structures. Autom. Constr. 2025, 177, 106331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106331.

  • 71.

    Ni, B.; Buehler, M.J. MechAgents: Large language model multi-agent collaborations can solve mechanics problems, generate new data, and integrate knowledge. Extrem. Mech. Lett. 2024, 67, 102131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2024.102131.

  • 72.

    Chase, H. LangChain. 2022. Available online: https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 73.

    LangChain AI. LangGraph: Low-Level Orchestration Framework for Building Stateful Agents. 2024. Available online: https://github.com/langchain-ai/langgraph (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 74.

    Wu, Q.; Bansal, G.; Zhang, J.; et al. AutoGen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Language Modeling (COLM 2024), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 7–9 October 2024.

  • 75.

    Kapoor, S.; Stroebl, B.; Siegel, Z.S.; et al. AI agents that matter. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025. Available online: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Zy4uFzMviZ (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 76.

    Yang, J.; Jimenez, C.; Wettig, A.; et al. SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 10–15 December 2024; Volume 37, pp. 50528–50652. https://doi.org/10.52202/079017-1601.

  • 77.

    Hong, S.; Zhuge, M.; Chen, J.; et al. MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, Vienna, Austria, 7–11 May 2024; pp. 23247–23275.

  • 78.

    Qian, C.; Liu, W.; Liu, H.; et al. ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Bangkok, Thailand, 11–16 August 2024; Volume 1, pp. 15174–15186. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.810.

  • 79.

    OpenAI. API Pricing. 2026. Available online: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 80.

    Anthropic. Claude API Pricing. 2026. Available online: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 81.

    Google. Gemini Developer API Pricing. 2026. Available online: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing (accessed on 10 October 2026).

  • 82.

    Liu, J.; Geng, Z.; Cao, R.; et al. A large language model-empowered agent for reliable and robust structural analysis. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2026, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2026.2630123.

  • 83.

    Kamran, M.; Faizan, M.; Wang, S.; et al. Generative AI with prompt engineering in construction: Enhancing predictive slope stability modelling for safe, sustainable, climate-smart mining practices. Geosci. Front. 2025, 16, 102163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2025.102163.

  • 84.

    Wu, S.; Otake, Y.; Mizutani, D.; et al. Future-proofing geotechnics workflows: Accelerating problem-solving with large language models. Georisk Assess. Manag. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards 2025, 19, 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2024.2381026.

  • 85.

    Bran, A.M.; Cox, S.; Schilter, O.; et al. Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2024, 6, 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00832-8.

  • 86.

    Nguyen, T.T.; Dang, V.H.; Pham, T.T. Development of an automatic and knowledge-infused framework for structural health monitoring based on prompt engineering. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2024, 18, 1752–1774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-024-1118-7.

  • 87.

    Phoon, K.K.; Ching, J.; Shuku, T. Challenges in data-driven site characterization. Georisk Assess. Manag. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards 2022, 16, 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2021.1896005.

  • 88.

    Phoon, K.K.; Ching, J.; Cao, Z. Unpacking data-centric geotechnics. Undergr. Space 2022, 7, 967–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2022.04.001.

  • 89.

    Wang, Y.; Zhao, T. Interpretation of soil property profile from limited measurement data: A compressive sampling perspective. Can. Geotech. J. 2016, 53, 1547–1559. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0545.

  • 90.

    Zhao, T.; Wang, Y.; Xu, L. Efficient CPT locations for characterizing spatial variability of soil properties within a multilayer vertical cross-section using information entropy and Bayesian compressive sensing. Comput. Geotech. 2021, 137, 104260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104260.

  • 91.

    Wang, Y.; Li, P. Data-driven determination of sample number and efficient sampling locations for geotechnical site investigation of a cross-section using Voronoi diagram and Bayesian compressive sampling. Comput. Geotech. 2021, 130, 103898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103898.

  • 92.

    Ching, J.; Phoon, K.K. Constructing Site-Specific Multivariate Probability Distribution Model Using Bayesian Machine Learning. J. Eng. Mech. 2019, 145, 04018126. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0001537.

  • 93.

    Seed, H.B.; Idriss, I.M. Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1971, 97, 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1061/jsfeaq.0001662.

  • 94.

    Robertson, P.K.; Wride, C.E. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can. Geotech. J. 1998, 35, 442–459. https://doi.org/10.1139/t98-017.

  • 95.

    Moss, R.E.; Seed, R.B.; Kayen, R.E.; et al. CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006, 132, 1032–1051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2006)132:8(1032).

  • 96.

    Boulanger, R.W.; Idriss, I.M. CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures; Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01; Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 2014.

  • 97.

    Hanna, A.M.; Ural, D.; Saygili, G. Neural network model for liquefaction potential in soil deposits using Turkey and Taiwan earthquake data. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2007, 27, 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.11.001.

  • 98.

    Durante, M.G.; Rathje, E.M. An exploration of the use of machine learning to predict lateral spreading. Earthq. Spectra 2021, 37, 2288–2314. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211004613.

  • 99.

    Intrieri, E.; Gigli, G.; Mugnai, F.; et al. Design and implementation of a landslide early warning system. Eng. Geol. 2012, 147–148, 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.07.017.

  • 100.

    Intrieri, E.; Carlà, T.; Gigli, G. Forecasting the time of failure of landslides at slope-scale: A literature review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2019, 193, 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.03.019.

  • 101.

    Jiang, S.H.; Papaioannou, I.; Straub, D. Bayesian updating of slope reliability in spatially variable soils with in-situ measurements. Eng. Geol. 2018, 239, 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.03.021.

  • 102.

    Straub, D.; Papaioannou, I. Bayesian Updating with Structural Reliability Methods. J. Eng. Mech. 2015, 141, 04014134. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0000839.

  • 103.

    Kang, F.; Han, S.; Salgado, R.; et al. System probabilistic stability analysis of soil slopes using Gaussian process regression with Latin hypercube sampling. Comput. Geotech. 2015, 63, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.08.010.

  • 104.

    Dahal, A.; Lombardo, L. Towards physics-informed neural networks for landslide prediction. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2407.06785.

  • 105.

    Mousavi, S.M.; Ellsworth, W.L.; Zhu, W.; et al. Earthquake transformer—An attentive deep-learning model for simultaneous earthquake detection and phase picking. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3952. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17591-w.

  • 106.

    Mousavi, S.M.; Beroza, G.C. Deep-learning seismology. Science 2022, 377, eabm4470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm4470.

  • 107.

    Zhang, R.; Liu, Y.; Sun, H. Physics-informed multi-LSTM networks for metamodeling of nonlinear structures. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2020, 369, 113226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2020.113226.

  • 108.

    Zhang, R.; Liu, Y.; Sun, H. Physics-guided convolutional neural network (PhyCNN) for data-driven seismic response modeling. Eng. Struct. 2020, 215, 110704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110704.

  • 109.

    Chatzikonstantinou, N.; Makarios, T. Dynamic Response of SDoF System with Negative Stiffness—A Relevant Key-Point for Machine Learning. Bull. Comput. Intell. 2026, 2, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.53941/bci.2026.100003.

  • 110.

    Avci, O.; Abdeljaber, O.; Kiranyaz, S.; et al. A review of vibration-based damage detection in civil structures: From traditional methods to Machine Learning and Deep Learning applications. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2021, 147, 107077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107077.

  • 111.

    Spencer, B.F.; Hoskere, V.; Narazaki, Y. Advances in Computer Vision-Based Civil Infrastructure Inspection and Monitoring. Engineering 2019, 5, 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.030.

  • 112.

    Boore, D.M.; Bommer, J.J. Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: Needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2005, 25, 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.10.007.

  • 113.

    Wang, R.; Schurr, B.; Milkereit, C.; et al. An Improved Automatic Scheme for Empirical Baseline Correction of Digital Strong-Motion Records. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2011, 101, 2029–2044. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110039.

  • 114.

    Zhu, W.; Mousavi, S.M.; Beroza, G.C. Seismic Signal Denoising and Decomposition Using Deep Neural Networks. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2019, 57, 9476–9488. https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2019.2926772.

  • 115.

    Liu, B.; Zhou, B.; Kong, J.; et al. The Cut-Off Frequency of High-Pass Filtering of Strong-Motion Records Based on Transfer Learning. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031500.

  • 116.

    Kouris, L.A.S.; Penna, A.; Magenes, G. Optimized Noise Suppression of Acceleration Records from Shaking-Table Tests Using Signal Processing and Deep Learning Techniques. Bull. Comput. Intell. 2026, 2, 164–180. https://doi.org/10.53941/bci.2026.100009.

  • 117.

    Gupta, R.; Goodman, B.; Patel, N.; et al. Creating xBD: A Dataset for Assessing Building Damage from Satellite Imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, Long Beach, CA, USA, 16–20 June 2019; pp. 10–17.

  • 118.

    Robertson, P.K. Interpretation of cone penetration tests—A unified approach. Can. Geotech. J. 2009, 46, 1337–1355. https://doi.org/10.1139/t09-065.

  • 119.

    Iwasaki, T.; Tokida, K.; Tatsuoka, F. Soil liquefaction potential evaluation with use of the simplified procedure. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, MO, USA, 26 April–3 May 1981.

  • 120.

    Hosseini, S.; Jasimi, N.; Mehdizadeh, B.; et al. An Integrated Multi-Criteria Risk-Assessment Framework for Rockburst in Underground Construction. Bull. Comput. Intell. 2026, 2, 181–195. https://doi.org/10.53941/bci.2026.100010.

  • 121.

    Karniadakis, G.E.; Kevrekidis, I.G.; Lu, L.; et al. Physics-informed machine learning. Nat. Rev. Phys. 2021, 3, 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5.

  • 122.

    Yuan, B.; Choo, C.S.; Yeo, L.Y.; et al. Physics-informed machine learning in geotechnical engineering: A direction paper. Geomech. Geoengin. 2025, 20, 1128–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2025.2502029.

  • 123.

    Raissi, M.; Perdikaris, P.; Karniadakis, G.E. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 2019, 378, 686–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045.

  • 124.

    Bekele, Y.W. Physics-informed deep learning for one-dimensional consolidation. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2021, 13, 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.09.005.

  • 125.

    Rao, C.; Sun, H.; Liu, Y. Physics-Informed Deep Learning for Computational Elastodynamics without Labeled Data. J. Eng. Mech. 2021, 147, 04021043. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0001947.

  • 126.

    Rasht-Behesht, M.; Huber, C.; Shukla, K.; et al. Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) for Wave Propagation and Full Waveform Inversions. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2022, 127, e2021JB023120. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jb023120.

  • 127.

    Karpatne, A.; Atluri, G.; Faghmous, J.H.; et al. Theory-Guided Data Science: A New Paradigm for Scientific Discovery from Data. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2017, 29, 2318–2331. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2017.2720168.

  • 128.

    Willard, J.; Jia, X.; Xu, S.; et al. Integrating Scientific Knowledge with Machine Learning for Engineering and Environmental Systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 2023, 55, 66. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514228.

  • 129.

    Drosopoulos, G.A.; Stavroulakis, G.E. DeepONet for the Prediction of Failure Response of a Two-Dimensional Fibre-Reinforced Composite Plate. Bull. Comput. Intell. 2025, 1, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.53941/bci.2025.100005.

  • 130.

    Xue, T.; Liao, S.; Gan, Z.; et al. JAX-FEM: A differentiable GPU-accelerated 3D finite element solver for automatic inverse design and mechanistic data science. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2023, 291, 108802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108802.

  • 131.

    Garcez, A.D.A.; Lamb, L.C. Neurosymbolic AI: The 3rd wave. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2023, 56, 12387–12406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10448-w.

  • 132.

    Oberkampf, W.L.; Roy, C.J. Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511760396.

  • 133.

    NIST. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0); NIST AI 100-1; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2023.

  • 134.

    European Union. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act); European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2024.

  • 135.

    ISO 16290:2013; Space Systems—Definition of the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and Their Criteria of Assessment. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.

  • 136.

    Mankins, J.C. Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective. Acta Astronaut. 2009, 65, 1216–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.03.058.

  • 137.

    Amer, M.; Daim, T.U.; Jetter, A. A review of scenario planning. Futures 2013, 46, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.10.003.

  • 138.

    Callcut, M.; Cerceau Agliozzo, J.P.; Varga, L.; et al. Digital Twins in Civil Infrastructure Systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011549.

  • 139.

    Jiang, F.; Ma, L.; Broyd, T.; et al. Digital twin and its implementations in the civil engineering sector. Autom. Constr. 2021, 130, 103838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103838.

  • 140.

    Wang, Y.; Rezaei, A.; Hicks, S. Digital twin applications in geotechnical engineering: A systematic review. Mach. Learn. Data Sci. Geotech. 2025, 1, 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/mlag-02-2025-0005.

Share this article:
Download PDF
DOI
10.53941/bci.2026.100016
Issue
Volume 2, Issue 4
How to Cite
Thapa, I.; Subedi, R.; Shrestha, G.; Adhikari, S.; Magar, P. R.; Poudel, B. Scope, Challenges, and Future of Agentic AI in Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering: A Critical Review. Bulletin of Computational Intelligence 2026, 2 (4), 291–317. https://doi.org/10.53941/bci.2026.100016.
RIS
BibTex
Copyright & License
article copyright Image
Copyright (c) 2026 by the authors.
Article Metrics
76
Article Views
0
Citations