IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i18p13847-d1242027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine Learning Assessment of Damage Grade for Post-Earthquake Buildings: A Three-Stage Approach Directly Handling Categorical Features

Author

Listed:
  • Yutao Li

    (School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China)

  • Chuanguo Jia

    (School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
    Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area (Chongqing University), Ministry of Education, Chongqing 400045, China)

  • Hong Chen

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
    State Key Lab of Software Development Environment, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Hongchen Su

    (School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China)

  • Jiahao Chen

    (School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China)

  • Duoduo Wang

    (School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China)

Abstract

The rapid assessment of post-earthquake building damage for rescue and reconstruction is a crucial strategy to reduce the enormous number of human casualties and economic losses caused by earthquakes. Conventional machine learning (ML) approaches for this problem usually employ one-hot encoding to cope with categorical features, and their overall procedure is neither sufficient nor comprehensive. Therefore, this study proposed a three-stage approach, which can directly handle categorical features and enhance the entire methodology of ML applications. In stage I, an integrated data preprocessing framework involving subjective–objective feature selection was proposed and performed on a dataset of buildings after the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. In stage II, four machine learning models, KNN, XGBoost, CatBoost, and LightGBM, were trained and tested on the dataset. The best model was judged by comprehensive metrics, including the proposed risk coefficient. In stage III, the feature importance, the relationships between the features and the model’s output, and the feature interaction effects were investigated by Shapley additive explanations. The results indicate that the LightGBM model has the best overall performance with the highest accuracy of 0.897, the lowest risk coefficient of 0.042, and the shortest training time of 12.68 s due to its relevant algorithms for directly tackling categorical features. As for its interpretability, the most important features are determined, and information on these features’ impacts and interactions is obtained to improve the reliability of and promote practical engineering applications for the ML models. The proposed three-stage approach can provide a reference for the overall ML implementation process on raw datasets for similar problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Yutao Li & Chuanguo Jia & Hong Chen & Hongchen Su & Jiahao Chen & Duoduo Wang, 2023. "Machine Learning Assessment of Damage Grade for Post-Earthquake Buildings: A Three-Stage Approach Directly Handling Categorical Features," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:18:p:13847-:d:1242027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/18/13847/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/18/13847/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bubryur Kim & Dong-Eun Lee & Gang Hu & Yuvaraj Natarajan & Sri Preethaa & Arun Pandian Rathinakumar, 2022. "Ensemble Machine Learning-Based Approach for Predicting of FRP–Concrete Interfacial Bonding," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Ying Liu & Haoran Zhao & Jieguang Sun & Yahui Tang, 2022. "Digital Inclusive Finance and Family Wealth: Evidence from LightGBM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Rimsha Asad & Saud Altaf & Shafiq Ahmad & Adamali Shah Noor Mohamed & Shamsul Huda & Sofia Iqbal, 2023. "Achieving Personalized Precision Education Using the Catboost Model during the COVID-19 Lockdown Period in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-22, February.
    4. Wei, Pengfei & Lu, Zhenzhou & Song, Jingwen, 2015. "Variable importance analysis: A comprehensive review," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 399-432.
    5. Thi-Thu-Huong Le & Yustus Eko Oktian & Howon Kim, 2022. "XGBoost for Imbalanced Multiclass Classification-Based Industrial Internet of Things Intrusion Detection Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Lina Han & Qing Ma & Feng Zhang & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Yongbin Bao & Jing Zhao, 2019. "Risk Assessment of An Earthquake-Collapse-Landslide Disaster Chain by Bayesian Network and Newmark Models," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Weizhang Liang & Suizhi Luo & Guoyan Zhao & Hao Wu, 2020. "Predicting Hard Rock Pillar Stability Using GBDT, XGBoost, and LightGBM Algorithms," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-17, May.
    8. Bing Xu & Youcheng Tan & Weibang Sun & Tianxing Ma & Hengyu Liu & Daguo Wang, 2023. "Study on the Prediction of the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock Based on the SSA-XGBoost Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Asma Shaheen & Javed Iqbal, 2018. "Spatial Distribution and Mobility Assessment of Carcinogenic Heavy Metals in Soil Profiles Using Geostatistics and Random Forest, Boruta Algorithm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Shang, Xiaobing & Su, Li & Fang, Hai & Zeng, Bowen & Zhang, Zhi, 2023. "An efficient multi-fidelity Kriging surrogate model-based method for global sensitivity analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    3. Matteo Rucco & Giovanna Viticchi & Lorenzo Falsetti, 2020. "Towards Personalized Diagnosis of Glioblastoma in Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR) by Topological Interpretable Machine Learning," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-27, May.
    4. Yun, Wanying & Lu, Zhenzhou & Feng, Kaixuan & Li, Luyi, 2019. "An elaborate algorithm for analyzing the Borgonovo moment-independent sensitivity by replacing the probability density function estimation with the probability estimation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 99-108.
    5. Mohamed Zine & Fouzi Harrou & Mohammed Terbeche & Mohammed Bellahcene & Abdelkader Dairi & Ying Sun, 2023. "E-Learning Readiness Assessment Using Machine Learning Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, June.
    6. Masayoshi Mase & Art B. Owen & Benjamin B. Seiler, 2021. "Cohort Shapley value for algorithmic fairness," Papers 2105.07168, arXiv.org.
    7. Cheng, Kai & Lu, Zhenzhou, 2018. "Sparse polynomial chaos expansion based on D-MORPH regression," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 323(C), pages 17-30.
    8. Wenxuan Wang & Hangshan Gao & Pengfei Wei & Changcong Zhou, 2017. "Extending first-passage method to reliability sensitivity analysis of motion mechanisms," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(5), pages 573-586, October.
    9. Masayoshi Mase & Art B. Owen & Benjamin B. Seiler, 2022. "Variable importance without impossible data," Papers 2205.15750, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    10. Lambert, Romain S.C. & Lemke, Frank & Kucherenko, Sergei S. & Song, Shufang & Shah, Nilay, 2016. "Global sensitivity analysis using sparse high dimensional model representations generated by the group method of data handling," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 42-54.
    11. Hou, Tianfeng & Nuyens, Dirk & Roels, Staf & Janssen, Hans, 2019. "Quasi-Monte Carlo based uncertainty analysis: Sampling efficiency and error estimation in engineering applications," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Yun, Wanying & Lu, Zhenzhou & Jiang, Xian, 2019. "An efficient method for moment-independent global sensitivity analysis by dimensional reduction technique and principle of maximum entropy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 174-182.
    13. Kleijnen, Jack P.C., 2017. "Regression and Kriging metamodels with their experimental designs in simulation: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(1), pages 1-16.
    14. McFarland, John & DeCarlo, Erin, 2020. "A Monte Carlo framework for probabilistic analysis and variance decomposition with distribution parameter uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    15. Mi, Jinhua & Beer, Michael & Li, Yan-Feng & Broggi, Matteo & Cheng, Yuhua, 2020. "Reliability and importance analysis of uncertain system with common cause failures based on survival signature," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    16. Ehre, Max & Papaioannou, Iason & Straub, Daniel, 2020. "Global sensitivity analysis in high dimensions with PLS-PCE," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    17. Matthias Bogaert & Michel Ballings & Martijn Hosten & Dirk Van den Poel, 2017. "Identifying Soccer Players on Facebook Through Predictive Analytics," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 274-297, December.
    18. Philippe Goulet Coulombe, 2020. "The Macroeconomy as a Random Forest," Papers 2006.12724, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    19. Zhou, Xiaoyi & Lu, Pan & Zheng, Zijian & Tolliver, Denver & Keramati, Amin, 2020. "Accident Prediction Accuracy Assessment for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Using Random Forest Algorithm Compared with Decision Tree," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    20. Leilei Liu & Guoyan Zhao & Weizhang Liang, 2023. "Slope Stability Prediction Using k -NN-Based Optimum-Path Forest Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-31, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:18:p:13847-:d:1242027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.