Structural damage evaluation in RC buildings through ensemble learning: A comprehensive study of different techniques for efficient and reliable identification

IF 4.3 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Structures Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-09 DOI:10.1016/j.istruc.2025.108831
Pouya Mousavian , Shahriar Tavousi Tafreshi , Armin Majidian , Luigi Di-Sarno
{"title":"Structural damage evaluation in RC buildings through ensemble learning: A comprehensive study of different techniques for efficient and reliable identification","authors":"Pouya Mousavian ,&nbsp;Shahriar Tavousi Tafreshi ,&nbsp;Armin Majidian ,&nbsp;Luigi Di-Sarno","doi":"10.1016/j.istruc.2025.108831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the field of damage detection, the integration of machine learning (ML) techniques, particularly Ensemble Learning (EL), has proven to be a robust method for effectively processing large datasets from various sources. As the use of EL expands in this area, it becomes crucial to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different EL approaches. Comparing these methods provides key insights into the data and establishes benchmarks for evaluating techniques. This study investigated three EL classifiers: Random Forests (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Bagging. The focus was on first, discovering the potential of ML methods, especially EL algorithms in classifying damage based on experts’ survey in reinforced concrete buildings in Nepal, Ecuador, Haiti, and South Korea then predicting damage levels. Additionally, a novel index called the Probabilistic Uncertainty Measure (PUM) was introduced to improve the interpretability and reliability of the EL-based results. This index assesses the probability of misclassifying damage categories, offering a refined perspective on the dependability of EL findings. The research highlights that the Bagging and RF classifiers significantly outperform others, with accuracy improvements of 73 % and 67 %, respectively. Furthermore, the PUM index shows that Bagging and RF consistently deliver reliability values 84 % and 83 % higher than other methods, confirming the strong potential of EL techniques in accurately identifying damage in reinforced concrete buildings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48642,"journal":{"name":"Structures","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 108831"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Structures","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352012425006459","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the field of damage detection, the integration of machine learning (ML) techniques, particularly Ensemble Learning (EL), has proven to be a robust method for effectively processing large datasets from various sources. As the use of EL expands in this area, it becomes crucial to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different EL approaches. Comparing these methods provides key insights into the data and establishes benchmarks for evaluating techniques. This study investigated three EL classifiers: Random Forests (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Bagging. The focus was on first, discovering the potential of ML methods, especially EL algorithms in classifying damage based on experts’ survey in reinforced concrete buildings in Nepal, Ecuador, Haiti, and South Korea then predicting damage levels. Additionally, a novel index called the Probabilistic Uncertainty Measure (PUM) was introduced to improve the interpretability and reliability of the EL-based results. This index assesses the probability of misclassifying damage categories, offering a refined perspective on the dependability of EL findings. The research highlights that the Bagging and RF classifiers significantly outperform others, with accuracy improvements of 73 % and 67 %, respectively. Furthermore, the PUM index shows that Bagging and RF consistently deliver reliability values 84 % and 83 % higher than other methods, confirming the strong potential of EL techniques in accurately identifying damage in reinforced concrete buildings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于集成学习的钢筋混凝土建筑结构损伤评估:高效可靠识别的综合技术研究
在损伤检测领域,机器学习(ML)技术的集成,特别是集成学习(EL),已被证明是一种有效处理来自各种来源的大型数据集的强大方法。随着语言学习在这一领域的应用扩大,评估不同语言学习方法的相对有效性变得至关重要。比较这些方法可以提供对数据的关键见解,并为评估技术建立基准。本研究研究了三种EL分类器:随机森林(RF)、梯度增强(GB)和Bagging。首先,重点是发现机器学习方法的潜力,特别是基于专家对尼泊尔、厄瓜多尔、海地和韩国的钢筋混凝土建筑进行调查,然后预测损伤程度的EL算法。此外,引入了一种称为概率不确定性度量(PUM)的新指标,以提高基于el的结果的可解释性和可靠性。该指数评估了错误分类损伤类别的可能性,提供了EL结果可靠性的精细视角。研究强调Bagging和RF分类器显著优于其他分类器,准确率分别提高了73 %和67 %。此外,PUM指数表明,Bagging和RF的可靠性值始终比其他方法高84 %和83 %,证实了EL技术在准确识别钢筋混凝土建筑物损伤方面的强大潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Structures
Structures Engineering-Architecture
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
17.10%
发文量
1187
期刊介绍: Structures aims to publish internationally-leading research across the full breadth of structural engineering. Papers for Structures are particularly welcome in which high-quality research will benefit from wide readership of academics and practitioners such that not only high citation rates but also tangible industrial-related pathways to impact are achieved.
期刊最新文献
UHPC-mesh reinforcement strengthening of RC square columns with joint enhancement: Failure mechanisms and seismic performance Study on deformation and stress characteristics of multi-span simply supported beam bridges under normal fault dislocation Experimental and numerical analysis of clamp width effects on stone masonry wall performance Notch fracture toughness assessment of highly orthotropic materials under compression: A case study on wood as a structural material Experimental analysis of stiffened bolted angle connections under tension
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1