Investigation of Structural Seismic Vulnerability Using Machine Learning on Rapid Visual Screening
Source abstract
Abstract
Seismic vulnerability assessment is one of the most impactful engineering challenges faced by modern societies. Thus, authorities require a reliable tool that has the potential to rank given structures according to their seismic vulnerability. Various countries and organizations over the past decades have developed Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) tools aiming to efficiently estimate vulnerability indices. In general, RVS tools employ a set of structural features and their associated weights to obtain a vulnerability index, which can be used for ranking. In this paper, Machine Learning (ML) models are implemented within this framework. The proposed formulation is used to train binary classifiers in conjunction with ad hoc rules, employing the features of various Codes (e.g., the Federal Emergency Management Agency, New Zealand, and Canada). The efficiency of this modeling effort is evaluated for each Code separately and it is clearly demonstrated that ML-based models are capable of outperforming currently established engineering practices. Furthermore, in the spirit of the aforementioned Codes, a linearization of the fully trained ML model is proposed. ML feature attribution techniques, namely SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) are employed to introduce weights similar to engineering practices. The promising results motivate the potential applicability of this methodology towards the recalibration of the RVS procedures for various types of cases.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismology and Earthquake Studies · Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Lab of Mathematics and Informatics (ISCE), Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, 67100 Xanthi, Greece
Lab of Reinforced Concrete and Seismic Design, Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, 67100 Xanthi, Greece
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment: Case study of the historic city centre of Coimbra, Portugal10.1007/s10518-010-9233-3 ↗
2. On the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: A case study of the city of Basel10.1193/1.1648335 ↗
3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1988). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, Applied Technology Council. [1st ed.]. Technical Report.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2002). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, Applied Technology Council. [3rd ed.]. Technical Report.
5. Brundson, D., Holmes, S., Hopkins, D., Merz, S., Jury, R., and Shephard, B. (1996). The Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Earthquake Risk Buildings, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. Technical Report.
6. Sinha, R., and Goyal, A. (2002). A National Policy for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings and Procedure for Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Vulnerability, Indian Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering. Technical Report.
7. Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (OASP) (2000). Provisions for Pre-Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment of Public Buildings (Part A), Greek Society of Civil Engineers. Technical Report.
8. Foo, S., Naumoski, N., and Saatcioglu, M. (2001). Seismic Hazard, Building Codes and Mitigation Options for Canadian Buildings, Canadian Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (CCIPEP). Technical Report.
9. Near-field spectra of large earthquakes10.1007/s00024-018-1983-x ↗
10. Performance limits of seismically isolated buildings under near-field earthquakes10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.043 ↗
11. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00060-9 ↗
12. Eleftheriadou, A., and Karabinis, A. (2008, January 12–17). Damage probability matrices derived from earthquake statistical data. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
13. Rapid visual screening of soft-story buildings from street view images using deep learning classification10.1007/s11803-020-0598-2 ↗
14. Machine-learning based vulnerability analysis of existing buildings10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103936 ↗
15. Bektaş, N., and Kegyes-Brassai, O. (September, January 30). Development in machine learning based rapid visual screening method for masonry buildings. Proceedings of the International Conference on Experimental Vibration Analysis for Civil Engineering Structures, Milan, Italy.
16. Harirchian, E., Kumari, V., Jadhav, K., Rasulzade, S., Lahmer, T., and Raj Das, R. (2021). A synthesized study based on machine learning approaches for rapid classifying earthquake damage grades to RC buildings. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11167540 ↗
17. Karabinis, A. (2024, May 13). Rating of the First Level of Pre-Earthquake Assessment. Available online: https://oasp.gr/sites/default/files/program_documents/261%20-%20Teliki%20ekthesi.pdf.
18. Karampinis, I., Iliadis, L., and Karabinis, A. (2024). Rapid Visual Screening Feature Importance for Seismic Vulnerability Ranking via Machine Learning and SHAP Values. Appl. Sci., 14.10.20944/preprints202402.0704.v1 ↗
19. (2024, May 13). Greek Code for Seismic Resistant Structures–EAK, Available online: https://iisee.kenken.go.jp/worldlist/23_Greece/23_Greece_Code.pdf.
20. Karampinis, I., and Iliadis, L. (2023, January 14–17). A Machine Learning Approach for Seismic Vulnerability Ranking. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Applications of Neural Networks, León, Spain.10.1007/978-3-031-34204-2_1 ↗
21. A review of class imbalance problem
22. Longadge, R., and Dongre, S. (2013). Class imbalance problem in data mining review. arXiv.
23. Dealing with class imbalance in classifier chains via random undersampling10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105292 ↗
24. Hasanin, T., and Khoshgoftaar, T. (2018, January 6–9). The effects of random undersampling with simulated class imbalance for big data. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI), Salt Lake City, UT, USA.10.1109/IRI.2018.00018 ↗
25. Machine learning: A review on binary classification
26. Singhal, Y., Jain, A., Batra, S., Varshney, Y., and Rathi, M. (2018, January 14–15). Review of bagging and boosting classification performance on unbalanced binary classification. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 8th International Advance Computing Conference (IACC), Greater Noida, India.10.1109/IADCC.2018.8692138 ↗
27. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
28. Ensemble deep learning: A review10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105151 ↗
29. What are decision trees?10.1038/nbt0908-1011 ↗
30. The boosting approach to machine learning: An overview10.1007/978-0-387-21579-2_9 ↗
31. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python
32. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions
33. Shapley, L.S. (1951). Notes on the n-Person Game: The Value of an n-Person Game, RAND Corporation.
34. Lundberg, S.M., Erion, G.G., and Lee, S.I. (2018). Consistent individualized feature attribution for tree ensembles. arXiv.
35. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 ↗
36. Seismic assessment of buildings by rapid visual screening procedures