以设计为导向的机器学习模型的效率和可解释性,以估计地震反应、脆弱性和钢结构库存的损失

IF 5 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1002/eqe.4273
Mohsen Zaker Esteghamati, Shivalinga Baddipalli
{"title":"以设计为导向的机器学习模型的效率和可解释性,以估计地震反应、脆弱性和钢结构库存的损失","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":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":5.0000,\"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}","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

摘要

机器学习(ML)最近被用作评估基于性能的地震工程(PBEE)的不同步骤的有效替代方法,从动态结构分析到脆弱性和损失评估。然而,由于现有文献中的数据、模型和特征各不相同,ML模型在不同PBEE步骤中的相对效率仍不清楚。此外,高级机器学习算法的黑箱特性限制了它们提供面向设计的见解的能力,阻碍了机器学习在基于pbee的设计中的更广泛应用。本研究使用621个具有不同设计和几何形状的钢弯矩框架的一致数据库,对PBEE不同步骤中面向设计的ML模型的准确性和可解释性进行了全面比较。在仔细的训练工作流程中使用了八种ML算法,包括特征选择,超参数调优,交叉验证和模型推理。模型准确性对代表性PBEE输出的敏感性——最大响应、中位数脆弱性和预期年损失——使用统计方法进行评估。此外,对每个步骤的最佳模型的可解释性进行了检验,以探索设计参数与相应PBEE输出之间的关系。结果表明,虽然ML模型可以合理地将设计参数映射到所有不同的PBEE输出,但模型在漂移响应、中位数脆弱性和基于组件的损失指标方面的准确性更高。此外,在不同的PBEE步骤中,最优算法保持不变,其中支持向量机和随机森林在测试集的不同输出上提供了最高的精度,平均R2为0.93和0.91。尽管所选择的特征集因输出和算法而异,但高度、楼层数、基本周期和梁的最小转动惯量对两种模型都有影响,并显著影响不同的PBEE输出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Efficiency and explainability of design-oriented machine learning models to estimate seismic response, fragility, and loss of a steel building inventory

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Issue information Behavior of Long-Slotted Perforated Steel Plate Fuses in Timber Brace End Connections Development of a New Analytical Approach for Earthquake-Induced Hydrodynamic Forces of Elevated Pile-Cap Foundations Submerged in Water
×
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