Optimizing Seismic Performance Assessment: A Web-Based Enhanced Visual Screening Method Integrated with Machine Learning for Reinforced Concrete Structures
Source abstract
Abstract
Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete (RC) structures is crucial in earthquake-prone regions to mitigate risks to life and property. This study proposes a systematic three-phase framework for enhanced seismic risk assessment: (1) Automation, (2) Evaluation, and (3) Predictive Modeling. For the Automation Phase, a web-based tool was developed to digitize and streamline the Turkish Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) procedure, eliminating manual calculation errors while improving efficiency. During the Evaluation Phase, we applied this tool to assess 600 buildings, classifying them into four distinct risk categories (no, low, moderate, and high risk) through standardized scoring. Finally, in the Predictive Modeling Phase we conducted correlation analysis to identify key seismic risk factors (e.g., building height showing a strong negative correlation, while soft-story mechanisms and short columns emerged as critical vulnerabilities) and implemented three machine learning models (XGBoost, Random Forest, and AdaBoost) for risk prediction, with XGBoost achieving superior accuracy. The framework’s validation confirmed the web tool’s reliability relative to conventional methods while revealing most buildings as low-risk, demonstrating how this integrated approach—combining automated screening, large-scale assessment, and data-driven prediction—provides a scalable solution for seismic risk mitigation in vulnerable regions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Seismology and Earthquake Studies · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Near East University, Via Mersin 10, Nicosia 99138, Turkey
References (74)
Show source-provided references
1. The August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake lifelines and preparedness
2. Emergency medicine association of Turkey disaster committee summary of field observations of February 6th Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes10.1017/S1049023X23000523 ↗
3. (2025, January 10). TMMOB February 6 Earthquakes 8th Month Evaluation Report. (In Turkish).
4. Post Fire Assessment of RCC Buildings through Rapid Visual Screening10.47392/IRJAEH.2024.0183 ↗
5. A Proposed Rapid Visual Screening Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of RC-Frame Buildings in India10.1193/1.3456711 ↗
6. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2015). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook.
7. NRRC (National Research Council of Canada) (1993). Manual for Screening of Buildings for Seismic Investigation, Canadian Standard.
8. Kudak, E. (2005). Comparison of Structural Analysis Results with Japanese Seismic Index Method. [Master Thesis, Yıldız Technical University].
9. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) (2006). An Initial Evaluation Process for Identifying Buildings Not Safe in Earthquake, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE).
10. Development of seismic vulnerability index methodology for reinforced concrete buildings based on nonlinear parametric analyses10.1016/j.mex.2019.01.006 ↗
11. Rai, D.C. (2005). Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing Buildings, IIT Kanpur and Gujarat State Disaster Mitigation Authority.
12. Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (OASP) (2000). Provisions for PreEarthquake Vulnerability Assessment of Public Buildings (Part A), Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (OASP).
13. Grünthal, G. (1998). The European Macroseismic Scale EMS-98, Conseil de l’ Europe. Conseil de l’ Europe Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, 15.
14. Milutinovic, Z.V., and Trendafiloski, G.S. (2003). RISK-UE Project: An Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios with Applications to Different European Towns: WP4: Vulnerability of Current Buildings, European Commission.
15. Ansal, A., Özaydın, K., Edinçliler, A., Saglamer, A., Sucuoglu, H., and Özdemir, P. (2003). Earthquake Master Plan for Istanbul, Metropolital Municipality of Istanbul, Planning and Construction Directorate, Geotechnical and Earthquake Investigation Department.
16. A Screening Procedure for Seismic Risk Assessment in Urban Building Stocks10.1193/1.2720931 ↗
17. Preliminary seismic performance assessment procedure for existing RC buildings10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.05.011 ↗
18. Performance based rapid seismic assessment method (PERA) for reinforced concrete frame buildings10.1260/1369-4332.17.3.439 ↗
19. Temur, R. (2006). Hızlı Durum Tespit (DURTES) Yöntemi ve Bilgisayar Programının Geliştirilmesi. [Master’s Thesis, Istanbul Üniversitesi]. (In Turkish).
20. A rapid seismic safety assessment method for mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings10.1007/s10518-017-0229-0 ↗
21. First-level pre-earthquake assessment of buildings using fuzzy logic10.1193/1.2358176 ↗
22. 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 ↗
23. Post-earthquake assessment of buildings damage using fuzzy logic10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.055 ↗
24. Risk-Based Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings10.1193/1.2952767 ↗
25. Rapid visual earthquake hazard evaluation of existing buildings by fuzzy logic modeling10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.046 ↗
26. First Level Seismic Risk Assessment of Old Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Using Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103162 ↗
27. Bektaş, N., Lilik, F., and Kegyes-Brassai, O. (2022). Development of a fuzzy inference system based rapid visual screening method for seismic assessment of buildings presented on a case study of URM buildings. Sustainability, 14.10.3390/su142316318 ↗
28. Sadrykia, M., Delavar, M., and Zare, M. (2017). A GIS-Based Fuzzy Decision Making Model for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment in Areas with Incomplete Data. Int. J. Geo-Inf., 6.10.3390/ijgi6040119 ↗
29. Enhancing seismic assessment and risk management of buildings: A neural network-based rapid visual screening method development10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.117606 ↗
30. Improved rapid assessment of earthquake hazard safety of structures via artificial neural networks10.1088/1757-899X/897/1/012014 ↗
31. Artificial neural network for technical feasibility prediction of seismic retrofitting in existing RC structures10.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.008 ↗
32. Post-disaster damage assessment of structures by neural networks
33. A new ANN based rapid assessment method for RC residential buildings10.1080/10168664.2021.1961654 ↗
34. Sri Preethaa, K.R., Munisamy, S.D., Rajendran, A., Muthuramalingam, A., Natarajan, Y., and Yusuf Ali, A.A. (2023). Novel ANOVA-statistic-reduced deep fully connected neural network for the damage grade prediction of post-earthquake buildings. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23146439 ↗
35. 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.
36. Classifying earthquake damage to buildings using machine learning10.1177/8755293019878137 ↗
37. Chaurasia, K., Kanse, S., Yewale, A., Singh, V.K., Sharma, B., and Dattu, B.R. (2019, January 13–14). Predicting damage to buildings caused by earthquakes using machine learning techniques. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 9th International Conference on Advanced Computing (IACC), Tiruchirapalli, India.10.1109/IACC48062.2019.8971453 ↗
38. Testing machine learning models for seismic damage prediction at a regional scale using building-damage dataset compiled after the 2015 Gorkha Nepal earthquake10.1177/87552930221106495 ↗
39. Machine-learning based vulnerability analysis of existing buildings10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103936 ↗
40. EZRVS: An AI-based web application to significantly enhance seismic rapid visual screening of buildings10.1080/13632469.2023.2217944 ↗
41. Kumari, V., Harirchian, E., Lahmer, T., and Rasulzade, S. (2022). Evaluation of machine learning and web-based process for damage score estimation of existing buildings. Buildings, 12.10.3390/buildings12050578 ↗
42. ML-EHSAPP: A prototype for machine learning-based earthquake hazard safety assessment of structures by using a smartphone app10.1080/19648189.2021.1892829 ↗
43. Android application of rapid visual screening for buildings in Indian context10.1016/j.istruc.2022.10.140 ↗
44. Effect of soft story conditions on the seismic performance of tall concrete structures10.1007/s42107-023-00968-9 ↗
45. The captive-and short-column effects10.1193/1.1856533 ↗
46. The Effect of Different Heavy Overhang on Structural Performance in Reinforced Concrete Structures10.17798/bitlisfen.1232889 ↗
47. Seismic pounding effects on adjacent buildings in series with different alignment configurations
48. Influence of Topographic Effect on Dynamic Behavior of Hill Slope Building
49. Kim, S., Moon, T., and Kim, S.J. (2020). Effect of uncertainties in material and structural detailing on the seismic vulnerability of RC frames considering construction quality defects. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10248832 ↗
50. Islam, M.S., Alwashali, H., Sen, D., Maeda, M., Sikder, M.A.M., and Islam, M.R. (2019, January 4–6). Proposal of visual rating method for seismic capacity evaluation and screening of RC buildings with masonry infill. Proceedings of the 2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
51. A rapid seismic risk assessment method for existing building stock in urban areas10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.476 ↗
52. Google Earth (2025, January 02). Satellite Imagery of Lefkoşa, Girne, and Mağusa. Available online: https://earth.google.com/.
53. Predicting energy use in construction using Extreme Gradient Boosting10.7717/peerj-cs.1500 ↗
54. Electrical resistivity prediction model for basalt fibre reinforced concrete: Hybrid machine learning model and experimental validation10.1617/s11527-025-02607-y ↗
55. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
56. Advancing Financial Forecasts: Stock Price Prediction Based on Time Series and Machine Learning Techniques10.1080/08839514.2024.2429188 ↗
57. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
58. Classification and regression by randomForest
59. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 ↗
60. Seismic Risk Assessment of Existing Building in Northern Cyprus (Case Study of Famagusta)
61. Sucuoglu, H., and Yazgan, U. (2003). Simple survey procedures for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks. Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Springer Netherlands.10.1007/978-94-010-0021-5_7 ↗
62. Fardis, M.N. (2005). Seismic Design, Assessment and Retrofitting of Concrete Buildings, Springer.
63. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings10.1002/eqe.144 ↗
64. Bruneau, M., and Gilbert, A.M. (2011). Ductile Design of Steel Structures, McGraw-Hill Education.
65. Why Short Columns Are More Damaged During Earthquakes?
66. Kappos, A.J., Saiidi, M.S., Aydınoğlu, M.N., and Isaković, T. (2013). Seismic Design and Assessment of Bridges, Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-3943-7 ↗
67. Coburn, A., and Spence, R. (2002). Earthquake Protection, Wiley.10.1002/0470855185 ↗
68. An Investigation of Earthquake Induced Pounding between Adjacent Buildings10.1002/eqe.4290210402 ↗
69. Amplification of Earthquake Ground Motion by Steep Topographic Irregularities10.1002/eqe.192 ↗
70. Field, A. (2024). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, Sage Publications Limited.
71. XGBoost and Random Forest Algorithms: An in Depth Analysis
72. Wu, T. (2024). Predicting Titanic Survival Rates: A Comparison of AdaBoost, XGBoost, and Random Forest. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of California].
73. Searches for the BSM scenarios at the LHC using decision tree-based machine learning algorithms: A comparative study and review of random forest, AdaBoost, XGBoost and LightGBM frameworks10.1140/epjs/s11734-024-01308-x ↗
74. Assessing the predictive capability of ensemble tree methods for landslide susceptibility mapping using XGBoost, gradient boosting machine, and random forest10.1007/s42452-020-3060-1 ↗