4.7 Article

A machine learning framework for assessing post-earthquake structural safety

期刊

STRUCTURAL SAFETY
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 1-16

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2017.12.001

关键词

Machine learning; Random forests; Damage pattern; Post-earthquake structural safety; Performance-based assessment; Seismic resilience

资金

  1. National Science Foundation CMMI Research Grant [1538866]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1538866] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A machine learning framework is presented to assess post-earthquake structural safety. The concepts of response and damage patterns are introduced and incorporated into a systematic methodology for generating a robust dataset for any damaged building. incremental dynamic analysis using sequential ground motions is used to evaluate the residual collapse capacity of the damaged structure. Machine learning algorithms are used to map response and damage patterns to the structural safety state (safe or unsafe to occupy) of the building based on an acceptable threshold of residual collapse capacity. Predictive models including classification and regression tree and Random Forests are used to probabilistically identify the structural safety state of an earthquake-damaged building. The proposed framework is applied to a 4-story reinforced concrete special moment frame building. Distinct yet partially overlapping response and damage patterns are found for the damaged building classified as safe and unsafe. High prediction accuracies of 91% and 88% are achieved when the safety state is assessed using response and damage patterns respectively. The proposed framework could be used to rapidly evaluate whether a damaged building remains structurally safe to occupy after a seismic event and can be implemented as a subroutine in community resilience evaluation or building lifecycle performance assessment and optimization. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据