Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Glass-box model representation of seismic failure mode prediction for conventional reinforced concrete shear walls

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recent surge in earthquake engineering is the use of machine learning methods to develop predictive models for structural behavior. Complex black-box models are typically used for decision-making to achieve high accuracy; however, as important as high accuracy, it is essential for engineers to understand how the model makes the decision and verify that the model is physically meaningful. With this motivation, this study proposes a glass-box (interpretable) classification model to predict the seismic failure mode of conventional reinforced concrete shear (structural) walls. Reported experimental damage information of 176 conventional shear walls tested under reverse cyclic loading was designated as class types, whereas key design properties (e.g., compressive strength of concrete, axial load ratio, and web reinforcement ratio) of shear walls were used as the basic classification features. The trade-off between model complexity and model interpretability was discussed using eight Machine Learning (ML) methods. The results showed that the decision tree (DT) method was a more convenient classifier with higher interpretability with a higher classification accuracy than its counterparts. Also, to enhance the practicality of the model, a feature reduction was conducted to reduce the complexity of the proposed classifier with higher classification performance, and the most relevant features were identified, namely compressive strength of concrete, wall aspect ratio, transverse boundary, and web reinforcement ratio. The ability of the final DT model to predict the failure modes was validated with a classification rate of around 90%. The proposed model aims to provide engineers interpretable, robust, and rapid predictions in seismic performance assessment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All MATLAB codes for the proposed approach are available upon request.

References

  1. Wasti ST, Guney O (2006) (Eds.), Advances in earthquake engineering for urban risk reduction, vol. 66 (Springer)

  2. Verderame GM, Lunio L (2009) Gaetano M (2009) Elastic Period of Existing RC-MRF Buildings. Eurocode 8:79–94

    Google Scholar 

  3. Priestley BMJN, Verma R, Xiao Y (1994) Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng ASCE 120(8):2310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhu L, Elwood KJ, Haukaas T (2007) Classification and seismic safety evaluation of existing reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng ASCE 133:1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. ASCE, ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI, 41-17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. ASCE.: Standard (American Society of Civil Engineers) (2017)

  6. ACI, Standard Requirements for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings (ACI 369.1M-17) and Commentary (American Concrete Institute) (2017)

  7. Alcantara P, Imai H (2000) Failure mode classification of reinforced concrete columns by the analysis of the strain distribution in the main reinforcement. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, NZ

  8. Yoshikawa H, Miyagi T (2001) Ductility and Failure Modes of Singly Reinforced Concrete Columns, Modeling of Inelastic Behavior of RC Structures Under Seismic Loads pp 35–368

  9. Massone LM, Wallace JW (2004) Load-deformation responses of slender reinforced concrete walls. ACI Struct J 101(1):103

    Google Scholar 

  10. Orakcal K, Massone LM, Wallace JW (2009) Shear strength of lightly reinforced wall piers and spandrels. ACI Struct J 106(4):455

    Google Scholar 

  11. Salonikios TN, Kappos AJ (1999) Cyclic load behavior of low-slenderness reinforced concrete walls: design basis and test results. ACI Struct J 96(4):649–660

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sittipunt C, Wood SL, Lukkunaprasit P, Pattararattanakul P (2001) Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls with diagonal web reinforcement. Struct J 98(4):554

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wood S (1991) Observed Behavior of Slender RC Walls Subjected to Cyclic Loadings, Inelast Response Des Earthq-Res Concr Struct pp 334–344

  14. Fang E (1992) Failure Modes of RC Tall Shear Walls. Concr Shear Earthq pp 125–133

  15. Greifenhagen C, Papas D, Lestuzzi P (2005) Static-cyclic tests on reinforced concrete shear walls with low reinforcement ratios. Gen Inf pp 1–113

  16. Abbasnia R, Bagheri M (2011) A new rule-based strategy to determine the failure modes of structural walls. J Phys: Conf Ser (IOP Publishing) 305:012127

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grammatikou S, Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2015) Strength, deformation capacity and failure modes of RC walls under cyclic loading. Bull Earthq Eng 13(11):3277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sudret B, Mai C, Konakli K (2014) Assessment of the lognormality assumption of seismic fragility curves using non-parametric representations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:2075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jiang Y, Luo J, Liao G, Zhao Y (2015) An efficient method for generation of uniform support vector and its application in structural failure function fitting. Struct Saf 54:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bourinet JM, Deheeger F, Lemaire M (2011) Assessing small failure probabilities by combined subset simulation and Support Vector Machines. Struct Saf 33(6):343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Salazar F, Toledo MA, Oñate E, Morán R (2015) An empirical comparison of machine learning techniques for dam behaviour modelling. Struct Saf 56:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang Y, Burton HV, Sun H, Shokrabadi M (2018) A machine learning framework for assessing post-earthquake structural safety. Struct Saf 72:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mangalathu S, Sun H, Nweke CC, Yi Z, Burton HV (2020) Classifying earthquake damage to buildings using machine learning. Earthq Spectra 36(1):183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Siam A, Ezzeldin M, El-Dakhakhni W (2019) Machine learning algorithms for structural performance classifications and predictions: application to reinforced masonry shear walls. Structures 22:252–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang H, Burton HV (2019) Classification of in-plane failure modes for reinforced concrete frames with infills using machine learning. J Build Eng 25:100767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mangalathu S, Js Jeon (2018) Classification of failure mode and prediction of shear strength for reinforced concrete beam-column joints using machine learning techniques. Eng Struct 160:85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mangalathu S, Jang H, Hwang SH, Jeon JS (2020) Data-driven machine-learning-based seismic failure mode identification of reinforced concrete shear walls. Eng Struct 208:110331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Molnar C (2019) Interpretable machine learning. Lulu. com, United States

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C (2016) Why should i trust you?: explaining the predictions of any classifier, CoRR abs/1602.04938. http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04938

  30. Barredo Arrieta A, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Del Ser J, Bennetot A, Tabik S, Barbado A, Garcia S, Gil-Lopez S, Molina D, Benjamins R, Chatila R, Herrera F (2020) Explainable explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf Fusion 58(2019):82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lipton ZC (2018) The mythos of model interpretability: in machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery. Queue 16(3):31–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236386.3241340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Robnik-Šikonja M, Kononenko I (2008) Explaining classifications for individual instances. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 20(5):589. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2007.190734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Quinlan J (1987) Simplifying decision trees. Int J Man-Mach Stud 27(3):221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(87)80053-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang R, Nie F, Li X, Wei X (2019) Feature selection with multi-view data: a survey. Inf Fusion 50:158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.11.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bastian CD, Rabitz H (2018) High dimensional model representation as a glass box in supervised machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.10320

  36. Pena FC, Guerra-Gomez J (2018) Opening the black-box: towards more interactive and interpretable machine learning, In Proceedings of the Machine Learning from User Interaction for Visualization and Analytics Workshop at IEEE VIS

  37. Gilpin LH, Bau D, Yuan BZ, Bajwa A, Specter M, Kagal L (2018) In 2018 IEEE 5th international conference on data science and advanced analytics (DSAA), pp 80–89

  38. Murdoch WJ, Singh C, Kumbier K, Abbasi-Asl R, Yu B (2019) Interpretable machine learning: definitions, methods, and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.04592

  39. Schmidt J, Marques MR, Botti S, Marques MA (2019) Recent advances and applications of machine learning in solid-state materials science. Npj Comput Mater. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-019-0221-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gulec CK, Whittaker AS (2011) Empirical equations for peak shear strength of low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls. ACI Struct J 108(1):80–89

    Google Scholar 

  41. NEES. Nees: Shear wall database (2017). https://datacenterhub.org/resources/260. Accessed: 2020-04-11

  42. Massone L, Wallace J (2006) Rc wall shear–flexure interaction: analytical and experimental responses. Ph.D. thesis, PhD Dissertation

  43. Salonikios TN (2007) Analytical prediction of the inelastic response of RC walls with low aspect ratio. J Struct Eng 133(6):844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Deger ZT, Basdogan C (2019) Empirical expressions for deformation capacity of reinforced concrete structural walls. ACI Struct J 116(6):53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Izenman AJ (2008) Modern multivariate statistical techniques regression, classification, and manifold learning (Springer Texts in Statistics)

  46. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Edu Psychol Meas 20(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Cover T, Hart P (2006) Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans Inf Theor 13(1):21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yoshikawa Y, Iwata T (2021) Gaussian process regression with interpretable sample-wise feature weights. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst

  50. Linardatos P, Papastefanopoulos V, Kotsiantis S (2021) Explainable ai: a review of machine learning interpretability methods. Entropy 23(1):18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Duda R, Hart P, Stork D (2001) Pattern classification, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Guyon I, Weston J, Barnhill S, Vapnik V (2002) Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach Learn 46(1–3):389

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The project has been supported by funds from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under Project No: 218M535. Opinions, findings, and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the funding agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Management Institute, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Zeynep Tuna Deger & Gulsen Taskin Kaya

Authors
  1. Zeynep Tuna Deger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gulsen Taskin Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeynep Tuna Deger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deger, Z.T., Taskin Kaya, G. Glass-box model representation of seismic failure mode prediction for conventional reinforced concrete shear walls. Neural Comput & Applic 34, 13029–13041 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07159-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07159-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation