The use of Artificial Neural Networks to estimate seismic damage and derive vulnerability functions for traditional masonry

Abstract

This paper discusses the adoption of Artificial Intelligence-based techniques to estimate seismic damage, not with the goal of replacing existing approaches, but as a mean to improve the precision of empirical methods. For such, damage data collected in the aftermath of the 1998 Azores earthquake (Portugal) is used to develop a comparative analysis between damage grades obtained resorting to a classic damage formulation and an innovative approach based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). The analysis is carried out on the basis of a vulnerability index computed with a hybrid seismic vulnerability assessment methodology, which is subsequently used as input to both approaches. The results obtained are then compared with real post-earthquake damage observation and critically discussed taking into account the level of adjustment achieved by each approach. Finally, a computer routine that uses the ANN as an approximation function is developed and applied to derive a new vulnerability curve expression. In general terms, the ANN developed in this study allowed to obtain much better approximations than those achieved with the original vulnerability approach, which has revealed to be quite non-conservative. Similarly, the proposed vulnerability curve expression was found to provide a more accurate damage prediction than the traditional analytical expressions.

Keywords

Artificial Neural Networks / seismic vulnerability / masonry buildings / damage estimation / vulnerability curves

References

[1] Ferreira T M, Maio R, Costa A A, Vicente R. Seismic vulnerability assessment of stone masonry façade walls: Calibration using fragility-based results and observed damage. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 103: 21–37

[2] Kappos A J. An overview of the development of the hybrid method for seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2016, 12(12): 1573–1584

[3] Ferreira T M, Mendes N, Silva R. Multiscale seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofit of existing masonry buildings. Buildings, 2019, 9(4): 91

[4] Rezaei S, Choobbasti A J. Liquefaction assessment using microtremor measurement, conventional method and artificial neural network (Case study: Babol, Iran). Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2014, 8(3): 292–307

[5] Zakian P. An efficient stochastic dynamic analysis of soil media using radial basis function artificial neural network. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2017, 11(4): 470–479

[6] Abdollahzadeh G, Shabanian S M. Experimental and numerical analysis of beam to column joints in steel structures. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2018, 12(4): 642–661

[7] Reyes J, Morales-Esteban A, Martínez-Álvarez F. Neural networks to predict earthquakes in Chile. Applied Soft Computing, 2013, 13(2): 1314–1328

[8] Huang C S, Hung S L, Wen C M, Tu T T. A neural network approach for structural identification and diagnosis of a building from seismic response data. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2003, 32(2): 187–206

[9] Molas G L, Yamazaki F. Neural networks for quick earthquake damage estimation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1995, 24(4): 505–516

[10] Bani-Hani K, Ghaboussi J, Schneider S P. Experimental study of identification and control of structures using neural network. Part 2: Control. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1999, 28(9): 1019–1039

[11] Ferrario E, Pedroni N, Zio E, Lopez-Caballero F. Bootstrapped Artificial Neural Networks for the seismic analysis of structural systems. Structural Safety, 2017, 67: 70–84

[12] Morfidis K, Kostinakis K. Approaches to the rapid seismic damage prediction of R/C buildings using artificial neural networks. Engineering Structures, 2018, 165: 120–141

[13] Morfidis K, Kostinakis K. Seismic parameters’ combinations for the optimum prediction of the damage state of R/C buildings using neural networks. Advances in Engineering Software, 2017, 106: 1–16

[14] Vazirizade S M, Nozhati S, Zadeh M A. Seismic reliability assessment of structures using artificial neural network. Journal of Building Engineering, 2017, 11: 230–235

[15] Anitescu C, Atroshchenko E, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Artificial neural network methods for the solution of second order boundary value problems. Computers, Materials & Continua, 2019, 59(1): 345–359

[16] Guo H, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A deep collocation method for the bending analysis of Kirchhoff plate. Computers, Materials & Continua 2019; 59(2): 433–456

[17] Wang Z, Pedroni N, Zentner I, Zio E. Seismic fragility analysis with artificial neural networks: Application to nuclear power plant equipment. Engineering Structures, 2018, 162: 213–225

[18] Estêvão J M C. Feasibility of using neural networks to obtain simplified capacity curves for seismic assessment. Buildings, 2018, 8(11): 151–164

[19] Wood H O, Neumann F. Modified Mercalli intensity scale of 1931. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1931, 21(4): 277–283

[20] Ferreira T M, Maio R, Vicente R. Seismic vulnerability assessment of the old city centre of Horta, Azores: Calibration and application of a seismic vulnerability index method. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 15(7): 2879–2899

[21] Oliveira C S, Costa A, Nunes J C. The 1998 Açores Earthquake: A Decade Later. São Miguel: Azores Regional Government, 2008 (in Portuguese)

[22] Zonno G, Oliveira C S, Ferreira M A, Musacchio G, Meroni F, Mota-de-Sá F, Neves F. Assessing seismic damage through stochastic simulation of ground shaking: The case of the 1998 Faial Earthquake (Azores Islands). Surveys in Geophysics, 2010, 31(3): 361–381

[23] Bernardini A, Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S, Parodi S. Vulnerability and damage prediction at the territorial scale according to a macroseismic methodology consistent with the EMS-98 scale. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Italian National Association of Earthquake Engineering. Pisa: ANIDIS, 2007

[24] Grünthal G. European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Luxembourg: European Center for Geodynamics and Seismology, 1998

[25] Vicente R, Parodi S, Lagomarsino S, Varum H, Silva J A R M. Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment: Case study of the historic city centre of Coimbra, Portugal. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2011, 9(4): 1067–1096

[26] Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 4(4): 415–443

[27] Bramerini F, Di Pasquale G, Orsini A, Pugliese A, Romeo R, Sabetta F. Seismic Risk of the Italian Territory. Proposal for a Methodology and Preliminary Results. Technical Report N. SSN/RT/95/01. Roma, 1995 (in Italian)

[28] Drew P J, Monson J R T. Artificial neural networks. Surgery, 2000, 127(1): 3–11

[29] Werbos P J. Beyond Regression: New Tools for Prediction and Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1974

[30] Estêvão J M C. Computer Model for Buildings Seismic Risk Assessment. Lisbon: Instituto Superior Técnico, UTL, 1998 (in Portuguese)

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the postdoctoral Grant SFRH/BPD/122598/2016. The authors acknowledge to the Society of Promotion for Housing and Infrastructures Rehabilitation (SPRHI) and to the Regional Secretariat for Housing and Equipment (SRHE) of Faial for their support and contribution to the development of this work. They would also like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewer for their insightful and constructive comments.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2020 Higher Education Press