Efficiency and explainability of design-oriented machine learning models to estimate seismic response, fragility, and loss of a steel building inventory

IF 4.3 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Mohsen Zaker Esteghamati, Shivalinga Baddipalli
{"title":"Efficiency and explainability of design-oriented machine learning models to estimate seismic response, fragility, and loss of a steel building inventory","authors":"Mohsen Zaker Esteghamati,&nbsp;Shivalinga Baddipalli","doi":"10.1002/eqe.4273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Machine learning (ML) has recently been used as an efficient surrogate to estimate different steps of performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE), from dynamic structural analysis to fragility and loss assessments. However, due to the varied data, models, and features in existing literature, the relative efficiency of ML models across different PBEE steps remains unclear. Additionally, the black-box nature of advanced ML algorithms limits their ability to provide design-oriented insights, hindering the broader application of ML in PBEE-based design. This study provides a comprehensive comparison of the accuracy and explainability of design-oriented ML models across different steps of PBEE using a consistent database of 621 steel moment frames with varying designs and geometry. Eight ML algorithms were used in a careful training workflow comprising feature selection, hyperparameter tuning, cross-validation, and model inference. The sensitivity of model accuracy to representative PBEE outputs—maximum responses, median fragility, and expected annual loss—was assessed using statistical measures. In addition, the explainability of the best models for each step was examined to explore the relationship between design parameters and the corresponding PBEE output. The results show that while ML models can reasonably map design parameters to all different PBEE outputs, models accuracy was higher for drift responses, median fragilities, and component-based loss metrics. In addition, the optimal algorithm remained the same across different PBEE steps, where support vector machines and random forests provided the highest accuracy with an average <i>R<sup>2</sup></i> of 0.93 and 0.91 over different outputs on the test set. Although the selected feature sets varied across outputs and algorithms, height, number of stories, fundamental period, and the minimum of the beams’ moment of inertia were influential for both models and notably affected different PBEE outputs.</p>","PeriodicalId":11390,"journal":{"name":"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics","volume":"54 2","pages":"618-647"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.4273","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) has recently been used as an efficient surrogate to estimate different steps of performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE), from dynamic structural analysis to fragility and loss assessments. However, due to the varied data, models, and features in existing literature, the relative efficiency of ML models across different PBEE steps remains unclear. Additionally, the black-box nature of advanced ML algorithms limits their ability to provide design-oriented insights, hindering the broader application of ML in PBEE-based design. This study provides a comprehensive comparison of the accuracy and explainability of design-oriented ML models across different steps of PBEE using a consistent database of 621 steel moment frames with varying designs and geometry. Eight ML algorithms were used in a careful training workflow comprising feature selection, hyperparameter tuning, cross-validation, and model inference. The sensitivity of model accuracy to representative PBEE outputs—maximum responses, median fragility, and expected annual loss—was assessed using statistical measures. In addition, the explainability of the best models for each step was examined to explore the relationship between design parameters and the corresponding PBEE output. The results show that while ML models can reasonably map design parameters to all different PBEE outputs, models accuracy was higher for drift responses, median fragilities, and component-based loss metrics. In addition, the optimal algorithm remained the same across different PBEE steps, where support vector machines and random forests provided the highest accuracy with an average R2 of 0.93 and 0.91 over different outputs on the test set. Although the selected feature sets varied across outputs and algorithms, height, number of stories, fundamental period, and the minimum of the beams’ moment of inertia were influential for both models and notably affected different PBEE outputs.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 工程技术-工程:地质
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics provides a forum for the publication of papers on several aspects of engineering related to earthquakes. The problems in this field, and their solutions, are international in character and require knowledge of several traditional disciplines; the Journal will reflect this. Papers that may be relevant but do not emphasize earthquake engineering and related structural dynamics are not suitable for the Journal. Relevant topics include the following: ground motions for analysis and design geotechnical earthquake engineering probabilistic and deterministic methods of dynamic analysis experimental behaviour of structures seismic protective systems system identification risk assessment seismic code requirements methods for earthquake-resistant design and retrofit of structures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信