Skip to main content

Modeling Earthquake Damage Grade Level Prediction Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Techniques

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Data Management, Analytics and Innovation

Abstract

Predicting earthquake damage grade level has been a much needed and important research area, where the later instances of the destructive damage can be speculated. This paper deals with the research work on Modeling Earthquake Damage grade level, using the dataset available in the DrivenData platform, which consists of 39 features having values assigned to each one of the rows. Training the models to predict the damage caused by an earthquake in Nepal is done using machine learning and deep learning approaches such as Random Forest Classifier (RFC), Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbor, Decision Tree and Artificial Neural Networks and their performance is evaluated based upon their evaluation metrics. Highest F1 score and minimum loss are obtained in Random Forest Classifier method. RFC helps in general level classification for predicting earthquake damage grade level effectively with a F1-score of 84.46%. However, it is observed that 29 important features obtained during RFC training are enough to yield a F1-score of 74.36%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. N.N. Ambraseys, J. Douglas, Magnitude calibration of north Indian earthquakes. Geophys. J. Int. 159, 165–206 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2004.02323.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. R. Bilham, Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history. Ann. Geophys. 47, 839–858 (2004). https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology (CEDIM). Nepal Earthquakes—Report #3 (2015), https://www.cedim.de/english/index.php

  4. A. Morales-Esteban, F. Martiota ‘nez-A’lvarez, A. Troncoso, J. Justo, C. Rubio-Escudero, Pattern recognition to forecast seismic time series. Expert systems with applications. 37(12), 8333–8342 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tsuneji Rikitake, Earth Sci. Rev. 4, 245–282 (1968)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. A. Karbassia, B. Mohebib, S. Rezaeec, P. Lestuzzia, Damage prediction for regular reinforced concrete buildings using the decision tree algorithm. Comput. Struct. 130, 46–56 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. C. Nguyen, Y. Wang, H.N. Nguyen, A comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data. BMC Bioinform. 10, Article number: 213 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nguyen C, Wang Y, Nguyen HN Random Forest Classifier combined with feature selection for breast cancer diagnosis and prognostic. J. Biomed. Sci. Eng. 6, 551–560 JBiSE (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jbise.2013.65070

  9. M.B. Kursa, W.R. Rudnicki, Feature selection with the Boruta package. J. Statist. Softw. 36(11) (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Díaz-Uriarte, S.A. De Andres, Gene selection and classification of microarray data using random forest. BMC Bioinform. 7, Article number: 3 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. C. Strobl, A.L. Boulesteix, A. Zeileis, T. Hothorn, Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinform. 8, Article number 25 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mariana Belgiu, Lucian Drăguţ, Random forest in remote sensing: a review of applications and future directions. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 114, 24–31 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. J.P. Avouac, Mountain building, erosion and the seismic cycle in the Nepal Himalaya. Adv. Geophys. 46, 1–80 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2687(03)46001-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. T. Ader, J.P. Avouac, J. Liu-Zeng, H. Lyon-Caen, L. Bollinger, J. Galetzka et al., Convergence rate across the Nepal Himalaya and interseismic coupling on the Main Himalayan fault: implications for seismic hazard. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B04403 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jb009071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2015), http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002926

  16. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA) (2015). http://www.unocha.org/nepal

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vipul Kumar Mishra .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Nukala, S.D., Mishra, V.K., Nookala, G.K.M. (2021). Modeling Earthquake Damage Grade Level Prediction Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Techniques. In: Sharma, N., Chakrabarti, A., Balas, V.E., Martinovic, J. (eds) Data Management, Analytics and Innovation. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1175. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5619-7_30

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics