journal article·2021-08-17Open access

A Synthesized Study Based on Machine Learning Approaches for Rapid Classifying Earthquake Damage Grades to RC Buildings

Ehsan Harirchian, Vandana Kumari, Kirti Jadhav, Shahla Rasulzade, Tom Lahmer, Rohan Raj Das

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 16

Abstract

A vast number of existing buildings were constructed before the development and enforcement of seismic design codes, which run into the risk of being severely damaged under the action of seismic excitations. This poses not only a threat to the life of people but also affects the socio-economic stability in the affected area. Therefore, it is necessary to assess such buildings’ present vulnerability to make an educated decision regarding risk mitigation by seismic strengthening techniques such as retrofitting. However, it is economically and timely manner not feasible to inspect, repair, and augment every old building on an urban scale. As a result, a reliable rapid screening methods, namely Rapid Visual Screening (RVS), have garnered increasing interest among researchers and decision-makers alike. In this study, the effectiveness of five different Machine Learning (ML) techniques in vulnerability prediction applications have been investigated. The damage data of four different earthquakes from Ecuador, Haiti, Nepal, and South Korea, have been utilized to train and test the developed models. Eight performance modifiers have been implemented as variables with a supervised ML. The investigations on this paper illustrate that the assessed vulnerability classes by ML techniques were very close to the actual damage levels observed in the buildings.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Institute of Structural Mechanics (ISM), Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, 99423 Weimar, Germany

Research Group Theoretical Computer Science/Formal Methods, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Universität Kassel, Wilhelmshöher Allee 73, 34131 Kassel, Germany

References (83)

Show source-provided references
1. FEMA P-154 (2015). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, Homeland Security Department, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [3rd ed.].
2. A review on application of soft computing techniques for the rapid visual safety evaluation and damage classification of existing buildings10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102536 ↗
3. Seismic Vulnerability Functional Method for Rapid Visual Screening of Existing Buildings10.2478/v.10169-012-0020-1 ↗
4. Yang, Y., and Goettel, K.A. (2007). Enhanced Rapid Visual Screening (E-RVS) Method for Prioritization of Seismic Retrofits in Oregon, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.
5. Harirchian, E., Jadhav, K., Mohammad, K., Aghakouchaki Hosseini, S.E., and Lahmer, T. (2020). A comparative study of MCDM methods integrated with rapid visual seismic vulnerability assessment of existing RC structures. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10186411 ↗
6. A proposed rapid visual screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC-frame buildings in India10.1193/1.3456711 ↗
7. A Proposed Rapid Visual Screening Procedure for Developing Countries10.4018/IJGEE.2018070103 ↗
8. Sinha, R., and Goyal, A. (2004). A National Policy for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings and Procedure for Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Vulnerability, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Report to Disaster Management Division.
9. Rai, D.C. (2005). Review of Documents on Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, IIT Kanpur and Gujarat State Disaster Mitigation Authority.
10. Mishra, S. (2014). Guide Book for Integrated Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Seismic Hazard, TARU Leading Edge Private Ltd.
11. Luca, F., and Verderame, G. (2014). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment: Reinforced Concrete Structures, Springer.
12. Rapid Visual Screening Procedure of Existing Building Based on Statistical Analysis10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.033 ↗
13. Rapid Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Low- to Mid-Rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using Bingöl’s Regional Data10.1193/1.4000065 ↗
14. Improved Rapid Assessment of Earthquake Hazard Safety of Structures via Artificial Neural Networks
15. Harirchian, E., Lahmer, T., and Rasulzade, S. (2020). Earthquake Hazard Safety Assessment of Existing Buildings Using Optimized Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Network. Energies, 13.10.3390/en13082060 ↗
16. An ANN approaches on estimating earthquake performances of existing RC buildings10.14311/NNW.2012.22.027 ↗
17. A machine learning damage prediction model for the 2017 Puebla-Morelos, Mexico, earthquake10.1177/8755293020936714 ↗
18. Classifying earthquake damage to buildings using machine learning10.1177/8755293019878137 ↗
19. Earthquake induced damage classification for reinforced concrete buildings10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.10.002 ↗
20. Harirchian, E., Kumari, V., Jadhav, K., Raj Das, R., Rasulzade, S., and Lahmer, T. (2020). A machine learning framework for assessing seismic hazard safety of reinforced concrete buildings. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10207153 ↗
21. Harirchian, E., and Harirchian, A. (2018). Earthquake Hazard Safety Assessment of Buildings via Smartphone App: An Introduction to the Prototype Features-30. 30. Forum Bauinformatik: Von jungen Forschenden für junge Forschende: September 2018, Informatik im Bauwesen, Professur Informatik im Bauwesen, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar.
22. Rapid visual screening of soft-story buildings from street view images using deep learning classification10.1007/s11803-020-0598-2 ↗
23. Uncertainty and fuzzy decisions in earthquake risk evaluation of buildings10.4186/ej.2019.23.5.89 ↗
24. Vulnerability assessment of RC structures using fuzzy logic
25. Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using hierarchical fuzzy rule base modeling10.1193/1.3280115 ↗
26. Rapid visual earthquake hazard evaluation of existing buildings by fuzzy logic modeling10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.046 ↗
27. Developing a hierarchical type-2 fuzzy logic model to improve rapid evaluation of earthquake hazard safety of existing buildings10.1016/j.istruc.2020.09.048 ↗
28. Harirchian, E., and Lahmer, T. (2020). Improved Rapid Visual Earthquake Hazard Safety Evaluation of Existing Buildings Using a Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Model. Appl. Sci., 10.10.20944/preprints202003.0236.v1 ↗
29. A Screening Procedure for Seismic Risk Assessment in Urban Building Stocks10.1193/1.2720931 ↗
30. Seismic parameters’ combinations for the optimum prediction of the damage state of R/C buildings using neural networks10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.001 ↗
31. Jain, S., Mitra, K., Kumar, M., and Shah, M. (2010, January 29). A Rapid Visual Seismic Assessment Procedure for RC Frame Buildings in India. Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada.
32. Rapid screening method for the determination of seismic vulnerability assessment of RC building stocks
33. Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential seismic damage: Application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.001 ↗
34. Morfidis, K., and Kostinakis, K. (2019, January 24–26). Use of Artificial Neural Networks in the r/c Buildings’ Seismic Vulnerabilty Assessment: The Practical Point of View. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Crete, Greece.10.7712/120119.7316.19299 ↗
35. Dritsos, S., and Moseley, V. (2013). A Fuzzy Logic Rapid Visual Screening Procedure to Identify Buildings at Seismic Risk, Beton-Und Stahlbetonbau: Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und Technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295594396_A_fuzzy_logic_rapid_visual_screening_procedure_to_identify_buildings_at_seismic_risk.
36. Machine learning applications for building structural design and performance assessment: State-of-the-art review10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101816 ↗
37. Harirchian, E., Lahmer, T., Kumari, V., and Jadhav, K. (2020). Application of Support Vector Machine Modeling for the Rapid Seismic Hazard Safety Evaluation of Existing Buildings. Energies, 13.10.3390/en13133340 ↗
38. Zhang, Z., Hsu, T.Y., Wei, H.H., and Chen, J.H. (2019). Development of a Data-Mining Technique for Regional-Scale Evaluation of Building Seismic Vulnerability. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9071502 ↗
39. A cyberplatform for sharing scientific research data at DataCenterHub10.1109/MCSE.2017.3301213 ↗
40. Sim, C., Laughery, L., Chiou, T.C., and Weng, P.W. (2018). 2017 Pohang Earthquake—Reinforced Concrete Building Damage Survey DEEDS, Purdue University Research Repository. Available online: https://datacenterhub.org/resources/14728.
41. Sim, C., Villalobos, E., Smith, J.P., Rojas, P., Pujol, S., Puranam, A.Y., and Laughery, L.A. (2020, June 10). Performance of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings in the 2016 Ecuador Earthquake, Purdue University Research Repository, United States. Available online: https://purr.purdue.edu/publications/2727/1.
42. (2017). NEES: The Haiti Earthquake Database, DEEDS, Purdue University Research Repository. Available online: https://datacenterhub.org/resources/263.
43. Shah, P., Pujol, S., Puranam, A., and Laughery, L. (2015). Database on Performance of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings in the 2015 Nepal Earthquake, DEEDS, Purdue University Research Repository. Available online: https://datacenterhub.org/resources/238.
44. THE 7.8 M w EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI OF 16 th April 2016 IN ECUADOR: Seismic Evaluation, Geological Field Survey and Economic Implications
45. Vera-Grunauer, X. (2017, January 9–13). Geer-Atc Mw7.8 Ecuador 4/16/16 Earthquake Reconnaissance Part II: Selected Geotechnical Observations. Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE), Santiago, Chile.
46. Measures of the Seismic Vulnerability of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Haiti10.1193/1.3637034 ↗
47. Flexible soils amplified the damage in the 2010 Haiti earthquake
48. (2010). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2010, U.S. Geological Survey.
49. Collins, B.D., and Jibson, R.W. (2015). Assessment of Existing and Potential Landslide Hazards Resulting from the April 25, 2015 Gorkha, Nepal Earthquake Sequence, U.S. Geological Survey. Ver. 1.1, August 2015; U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1142.10.3133/ofr20151142 ↗
50. Site amplification in the Kathmandu Valley during the 2015 M7. 6 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake10.1007/s10518-016-0003-8 ↗
51. Işık, E., Büyüksaraç, A., Ekinci, Y.L., Aydın, M.C., and Harirchian, E. (2020). The Effect of Site-Specific Design Spectrum on Earthquake-Building Parameters: A Case Study from the Marmara Region (NW Turkey). Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10207247 ↗
52. The November 2017 Mw 5.5 Pohang earthquake: A possible case of induced seismicity in South Korea10.1126/science.aat2010 ↗
53. Kim, H.S., Sun, C.G., and Cho, H.I. (2018). Geospatial assessment of the post-earthquake hazard of the 2017 Pohang earthquake considering seismic site effects. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 7.10.3390/ijgi7090375 ↗
54. Rapid assessment of earthquake risk for Bosnia and Herzegovina10.1007/s10518-019-00775-1 ↗
55. USGS (2021, May 02). Earthquake Hazards Program, ShakeMap, Available online: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/shakemap.
56. USGS (2021, May 10). Earthquake Hazards Program, ShakeMap of Ecuador Earthquake 2016, Available online: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20005j32/shakemap/intensity.
57. USGS (2021, May 16). Earthquake Hazards Program, ShakeMap of Haiti Earthquake 2010, Available online: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usp000h60h/shakemap/intensity.
58. USGS (2021, June 12). Earthquake Hazards Program, ShakeMap of Nepal Earthquake 2015, Available online: ttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002ejl/shakemap/intensity.
59. USGS (2021, June 13). Earthquake Hazards Program, ShakeMap of Pohang Earthquake 2017, Available online: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000bnrs/shakemap/intensity.
60. Stone, H. (2018). Exposure and Vulnerability for Seismic Risk Evaluations. [Ph.D. Thesis, UCL (University College London)].
61. Earthquake Hazard Safety Assessment of Buildings via Smartphone App: A Comparative Study10.1088/1757-899X/652/1/012069 ↗
62. ML-EHSAPP: A prototype for machine learning-based earthquake hazard safety assessment of structures by using a smartphone app
63. Yakut, A., Aydogan, V., Ozcebe, G., and Yucemen, M. (2003). Preliminary Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Turkey. Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Springer.10.1007/978-94-010-0021-5_4 ↗
64. Seismic vulnerability assessment of low-rise buildings in regions with infrequent earthquakes
65. Caruana, R., and Niculescu-Mizil, A. (2006, January 25–29). An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.10.1145/1143844.1143865 ↗
66. Géron, A. (2017). Hands-on Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn and TensorFlow: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques to Build Intelligent Systems O’Reilly Media, O’Reilly.
67. Vapnik, V.N., and Golowich, S.E. (2001). Support Vector Method for Function Estimation. (6,269,323), U.S. Patent.
68. Discriminatory Analysis. Nonparametric Discrimination: Consistency Properties10.2307/1403797 ↗
69. Nearest neighbor pattern classification10.1109/TIT.1967.1053964 ↗
70. Bagging predictors10.1007/BF00058655 ↗
71. Extremely randomized trees10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1 ↗
72. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
73. Ho, T. (1995, January 14–16). Random decision forests. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, ICDAR 1995, Montreal, QC, Canada.
74. The random subspace method for constructing decision forests10.1109/34.709601 ↗
75. Shape quantization and recognition with randomized trees10.1162/neco.1997.9.7.1545 ↗
76. Random forests: From early developments to recent advancements10.1080/21642583.2014.956265 ↗
77. Multiboosting: A technique for combining boosting and wagging10.1023/A:1007659514849 ↗
78. Randomizing outputs to increase prediction accuracy10.1023/A:1007682208299 ↗
79. Classification and regression by randomForest
80. SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique10.1613/jair.953 ↗
81. Data splitting for artificial neural networks using SOM-based stratified sampling10.1016/j.neunet.2009.11.009 ↗
82. A generalized confusion matrix for assessing area estimates from remotely sensed data10.1080/01431160152558332 ↗
83. Hyperparameter Importance Analysis based on N-RReliefF Algorithm10.15837/ijccc.2019.4.3593 ↗