Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Machine learning predictions of code-based seismic vulnerability for

reinforced concrete and masonry buildings: Insights from a 300-building
database
Angelo Aloisio a ,∗, Yuri De Santis a , Francesco Irti b , Dag Pasquale Pasca c , Leonardo Scimia d ,
Massimo Fragiacomo a
a
Department of Civil, Construction-Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Università degli Studi dell’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy
b
Territorial Company for Residential Buildings of the L’Aquila Province, L’Aquila, Italy
c
Norsk Treteknisk Institutt (Norwegian Institute of Wood Technology), Oslo, Norway
d
Municipality of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper proposes a data-driven model for predicting the code-based seismic vulnerability index calibrated
Seismic vulnerability index on a dataset comprising almost 300 buildings. The vulnerability index, estimated following the Italian Seismic
Data-driven model Code, involved rigorous investigations, including geometric surveys, experimental tests, and numerical mod-
Italian Seismic Code
elling. Leveraging data from these investigations, encompassing approximately 15 categorical and numerical
Artificial neural networks
explanatory variables, the authors developed several regression and classification predictive models, such as
Binary classification
Logistic Regression and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN). The optimal models perform binary classification
to determine the categorization into two macro-classes, defined by an arbitrary vulnerability threshold. The
ANN model stands out as the best performer. When adjusting the vulnerability threshold to obtain a balanced
dataset, such a model achieves an accuracy higher than 85%. The paper also discusses the importance of
each feature by calculating the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values. The proposed model can aid
decision-makers in allocating resources effectively to mitigate seismic risks of built environments.

1. Introduction Mechanics-based seismic vulnerability analyses are commonly used

to prioritize seismic retrofitting interventions. These analyses encom-
In seismic analyses, the vulnerability index is a measure used to pass distinct stages, beginning with knowledge acquisition and ex-
assess the potential damage or performance of structures subjected tending to building modelling, followed by structural analysis. The
outcomes of these analyses result in vulnerability indices, expressing
to earthquakes. It quantifies the level of vulnerability of a building
the ratio between structural capacity and demand. Many mechanics-
or infrastructure and helps engineers and decision-makers prioritize
based approaches with reduced computational efforts [8] have been
retrofitting and risk reduction measures. Seismic vulnerability assess-
developed for seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings at
ment commonly employs three main approaches [1–3]: (i) damage
a regional scale [9,10]. In the case of masonry, for instance, macro-
probability matrices, (ii) vulnerability indices, and (iii) methods based
models are less demanding from a computational standpoint, resulting
on capacity curves. These methods often facilitate the generation of
in suitable practice-oriented analyses of large structures [11,12]. The
practical fragility curves [4,5]. For large-scale assessments, hazard-
outcomes of these analyses are crucial in prioritizing retrofitting inter-
based and physical vulnerability indexes are commonly used. The
ventions and identifying critical scenarios. Nevertheless, the vulnera-
hazard-based index correlates seismic hazard levels (e.g., peak ground
bility indexes represent a semi-physical measure due to hypotheses and
acceleration, spectral acceleration) with expected damage or loss. On
approximations adopted in the analysis [13].
the other hand, the physical vulnerability index considers building
If adequately accurate, data-driven models can simplify the process
characteristics like height, age, materials, structural type, and quality
of prioritizing seismic retrofitting interventions without the need for
to quantify susceptibility to damage [6,7].
elaborate vulnerability analyses, especially considering the similarity

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: angelo.aloisio1@univaq.it (A. Aloisio).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.117295
Received 28 August 2023; Received in revised form 11 November 2023; Accepted 4 December 2023
Available online 16 December 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Aloisio et al.
in existing building stocks. Having reliable and robust models that
predict vulnerability class or index based on building characteristics
and expected seismic hazard can be highly valuable when the goal is
to determine where to allocate resources [14–16].
Recently, many researchers in structural seismic vulnerability have
applied diverse techniques, including machine learning (ML) methods,
to develop empirical vulnerability prediction models [17–19]. The data
feeding the training sets are generally retrieved from in-field earth-
quake observations or numerical analyses. Observations of past damage
have primarily been used to develop functions that relate the intensity
of an event to the damage caused to a building in terms of damage
probability matrices or empirical fragility curves [20–26]. Numerous
illustrative instances exist within this research field. After the 2015
Nepal earthquake, Ghimire et al. (2022) [27] combined inspection
data with artificial intelligence techniques to construct a regional pre-
diction model [28]. Addressing inherent uncertainties in structural
damage assessment, Guo et al. (2022) [29] introduced a fuzzy global
seismic vulnerability analysis framework. For earthquake-prone areas,
Bernardo et al. (2022) [30] and Rezvani et al. (2022) [31] developed
three-dimensional finite element models for representative structures,
deriving vulnerability comparison curves through nonlinear and prob-
abilistic modal analyses. In the aftermath of the Azores earthquake in
1998, Ferreira et al. (2017) [32] used global geographic information
systems to investigate post-earthquake building conditions, leading
to an empirical vulnerability model based on 192 buildings. Further
contributions come from Demirel et al. (2022) [33], who conducted
an on-site seismic loss inspection following the Samos earthquake,
collecting seismic damage data for typical reinforced concrete struc-
tures in the Izmir region. Shafapourtehreny et al. (2022) [34] analysed
regional structural earthquake damage data in Istanbul, employing ML
techniques to generate vulnerability regression and prediction curves.
Sheshov et al. (2022) [35] conducted a field survey rating vulnerability
in Dulles, Albania, while Debnath et al. (2022) [36] observed unrein-
forced masonry structures damaged in the 2017 Anbar earthquake in
India. Misseri et al. (2020) [37] validated an element model for wood-
soil reinforced structures using field inspection data from the 2010
Maule earthquake in Chile. Ebrahimiyan et al. (2022) [38] presented
seismic loss data of RC structures under typical near- and far-field
earthquakes, creating damage models using soft computing techniques.
Pitilakis and Petridis (2022) [39] considered nonlinear dynamic fea-
tures of building types, establishing seismic vulnerability comparison
curves for existing RC structures. Gautam et al. (2022) [40] analysed
survey data from Bhutan’s earthquakes, generating vulnerability mode
comparison curves for group masonry structures. Italy saw significant
progress in empirical seismic vulnerability research. Del Gaudio et al.
(2017) [41] analysed RC buildings in the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake,
assessing vulnerability levels and developing statistical distributions.
Formisano and Chieffo (2022) [42] explored the vulnerability of an-
cient buildings in Morris, Italy, while Cardinali et al. (2022) [43]
assessed masonry structure damage in Florence, conducting empir-
ical vulnerability and nonlinear static analyses. In China, frequent
earthquakes prompted many empirical vulnerability studies. Qu et al.
(2015) [44] and Sun et al. (2019) [45] investigated structural damage
after the 2013 Lushan earthquake, obtaining empirical fragility matri-
ces. Gong et al. (2015) [46] studied China’s 2010 Yushu earthquake,
developing empirical fragility databases. Li et al. [7,47,48] investigated
structural damage from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, creating em-
pirical vulnerability curves and matrices. Xi (2022) [49] established a
relationship between the building structure and economic vulnerability
risk parameters post-Wenchuan earthquake.
Recently, Tocchi et al. [50] explored the application of ML tech-
niques for post-earthquake building usability assessments. Their paper
underscores the challenges of predicting risk classes after a seismic
event, particularly with imbalanced datasets. In such datasets, the
majority class (no damage) vastly overshadows the damage classes.
However, the authors overlooked the need for appropriate performance
2
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
metrics tailored to datasets with class imbalance. As a result, while
accuracy rates sometimes surpass 95%, the actual performance for
the minority class barely reaches 70%. Notably, their research focuses
on data derived from post-earthquake assessments. Similarly, Aloisio
et al. [51] developed ML models to predict the seismic risk class, given
the recorded damage information retrieved from the AeDES database
after the earthquake in L’Aquila.
Beyond the issue of damage, empirical data may also be used
for impact assessments of social [52–55] and economic loss [56,57].
Recently, statistical analyses of observed damage and usability data
have also enabled models to be calibrated to predict the usability of
a building [58,59]. Nevertheless, despite these advances, as remarked
by [50], models still generally lack a focus on trying to understand
the likely outcomes of subjective decisions on building usability. These
studies have collectively contributed to enhancing the empirical seismic
vulnerability assessment. However, their focus has revolved around ad-
dressing structural vulnerability through in-field observations without
referring to code-based vulnerability assessments.
In contrast, this paper deals with a relatively less-explored dimen-
sion: the reliability of data-driven models in predicting the code-based
seismic vulnerability assessment (not empirical damage data) of ex-
isting structures using readily available explanatory variables. Since
many existing buildings do not conform to building codes, public
administrations’ resource allocation often leans towards supporting en-
gineers conducting simplified vulnerability analyses over intervention
initiatives. This study evaluates the feasibility of data-driven models
in estimating the vulnerability index or classification, capitalizing on
easily accessible structural information. This research uses a compre-
hensive database of nearly 300 buildings. The aim is to calibrate
regression and classification models through various methods, from
traditional logistic or linear regression techniques to advanced ML
algorithms.
The database comprises reinforced concrete (RC) and masonry
buildings, which underwent evaluation with funds from ATER, the Re-
gional Agency for Residential Construction of the province of L’Aquila
(Italy). Following the Italian Seismic Code, engineers, supervised by
ATER, assigned seismic vulnerability indices to each building. The
assessment process followed a systematic approach involving acquiring
knowledge and subsequent structural analysis. This research has several
elements of originality. At its core, real-world data sets it apart, given
the prevalent reliance on numerical studies that often employ structural
archetypes for broader generalizations. While data-driven methodolo-
gies increasingly gain traction in various domains, their exploration
remains relatively embryonal in seismic vulnerability prediction. The
crucial point is focusing on non-conforming buildings since the dataset
has vulnerability indexes below one.
The paper is structured as follows: It briefly introduces the method-
ology for conducting seismic vulnerability analyses on individual build-
ings (Section 2). Section 3 presents an initial exploration of the
database. The results are shown in Section 4, divided into two sub-
sections: the first focusing on regression models and the second on
classification models. Finally, the last section deals with the ML model
interpretability.
2. Problem formulation
The paper aims to predict the vulnerability index for a dataset
comprising nearly 300 buildings. The vulnerability index has been
determined following the Italian Seismic Code. The input data from
these investigations, encompassing 15 features, is the foundation for
developing regression and classification models. This section outlines
the methodologies employed to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of
the examined building stock. Subsequently, the following subsection
presents the mathematical background of the predictive models.
A. Aloisio et al.
Fig. 1. Examples of destructive and non-destructive tests to achieve adequate structural knowledge: (a) extraction of a concrete core; (b) estimation of the rebar diameter; (c)
measurement of the spacing of the stirrups; and (d) evaluation of the floor behaviour (Pictures taken by the authors).
2.1. Vulnerability index
The following equation defines the seismic vulnerability index (𝛼):
𝐶(𝒙, 𝜣)
𝛼=
𝐷(𝒙, 𝜣)
Here, 𝐶 represents the structural capacity, 𝐷 is the structural demand,
𝒙 collects the deterministic model parameters, and 𝜣 is the unknown
model parameters. Numerous methods exist for evaluating 𝛼. In Italy,
professional engineers must adhere to a systematic procedure provided
by the seismic code. Acknowledging that the vulnerability index is
not an objective metric is essential. It is markedly influenced by the
engineers conducting the assessment. Subjectivity and conventionality
become integral to the process from various perspectives. Subjectiv-
ity manifests as personal judgment regarding appropriate modelling
choices, substantially influencing the final estimation. In this instance,
predefined approaches were established in collaboration with the fund-
ing agency ATER. Conventionality manifests in adopting confidence
factors based on the acquired level of knowledge. The investigation
comprised two main tasks: (i) collecting all input data and (ii) con-
ducting the structural analysis to compute the seismic vulnerability
index.
The seismic vulnerability index is obtained from linear dynamic
analyses with the site-specific elastic acceleration response spectra
provided by the Italian Seismic Code. The index is the smallest value
among the vulnerability indices associated with all 𝑛 structural ele-
ments for each building. This can be mathematically expressed as:
{ }
𝐶1 𝐶2 𝐶 • Identifying seismic-resistant components, paying close attention
𝛼(𝒙, 𝜣) = min , ,…, 𝑛
𝐷1 𝐷2 𝐷𝑛
Here, 𝐶𝑖 and 𝐷𝑖 indicate the capacity and demand of the 𝑖th structural
element, respectively. The capacity for each structural element is calcu-
lated from the analytical expressions specified in the Italian Code [60],
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
aligning closely with the Eurocodes. On the other hand, the demand is
computed through modal superposition, using the Complete Quadratic
Combination (CQC) method [61], as per Italian Standards. Specifically,
the seismic action’s effects are calculated for each vibration mode and
(1)
combined. All modes with a participating mass greater than 5% are
considered, reaching the total participating mass of at least 85%.
2.1.1. Input data
In this phase, all building and soil characteristics data are collected.
This phase, often called the knowledge phase, holds paramount signif-
icance. In this context, varying levels of knowledge can be achieved,
categorized as limited, sufficient, and precise based on the increasing
levels of information. These levels are closely tied to corresponding
confidence factors outlined by regulatory documents [62]. The path of
knowledge can be traced through the following steps:
• Identifying the construction, location concerning specific risk ar-
eas, and integration within the urban context. This involves sur-
veying the building and identifying valuable elements that could
impact the risk level. It also entails performing a geometric survey
of the current state of the construction, including any cracks
and deformation occurrences. Additionally, materials are sam-
pled to comprehensively identify the load-bearing structure while
considering their quality and preservation condition.
• Investigating the construction’s evolution involves studying the
sequence of transformation phases from its original configuration
to its present state.
(2)
to construction techniques, structural details, and connections
between elements.
• Analysing the materials, along with their level of deterioration
and mechanical properties.
3
A. Aloisio et al.
Fig. 2. Colour maps of municipalities in the L’Aquila province, Abruzzo (Italy),
considered in this investigation. (a) represents the number of analysed buildings for
each municipality, and (b) displays the transition from red to green, corresponding to
the average seismic vulnerability index. (For interpretation of the references to colour
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
• Gaining insight into the subsoil and foundation structures while
considering any changes or failures over time.
The current analyses are based on a knowledge level LC2 [60] for
all buildings, resulting in a confidence factor for the material properties
equal to 1.2. Fig. 1 shows examples of destructive and non-destructive
tests to achieve adequate structural knowledge: (a) extraction of a
concrete core; (b) estimation of the rebar diameter; (c) measurement
of the spacing of the stirrups and (d) evaluation of the floor behaviour.
Certified laboratory testing facilities and companies conducted both
destructive and non-destructive tests. The assessment primarily encom-
passed methods such as Pachometer and ultrasonic testing, radiogra-
phy, and infrared thermography. Additionally, concrete core extraction
4
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
was performed to evaluate the compressive strength of concrete in
reinforced concrete buildings. The soil properties were mainly re-
trieved from nearby buildings. This allowed evaluation of the soil class
according to the Italian Seismic Code.
2.1.2. Structural analyses
The second phase takes all input data to develop a representa-
tive structural model. Linear dynamic analyses with seismic response
spectra have been carried out on the entire dataset. Specifically, the
structural analysis comprised the following sub-phases:
• Determine the response spectrum: Compute the design response
spectrum based on the site-specific hazard parameters specified
by the Italian Seismic code.
• Model the building: Develop a structural model of the building.
In this study, commercial software was employed for building
modelling using the finite element method.
• Conduct linear dynamic analysis and assess seismic demand: Ap-
ply the response spectrum and estimate the seismic demand for
all structural elements.
• Evaluate building’s capacity: Calculate the seismic capacity of all
structural elements.
• Compute the seismic vulnerability index.
In essence, the unified approach prescribed by ATER consists of
performing linear dynamic analyses and adopting the FE method to
perform the structural analysis, given a knowledge level LC2. Regard-
ing the modelling choices for the RC structures, a 3D frame mod-
elling approach was employed. The contribution of the infill was ne-
glected, following a classical simplified approach. The well-known
Frame-by-Macro-Element (FME) approach was adopted for masonry
structures [63]. Piers and spandrels are modelled as deformable macro-
elements. In contrast, the nodes between vertical elements and hori-
zontal ones are considered rigid parts, considering that they exhibited
very little damage under earthquakes. After the whole macro-elements
structural model is set up, it is transformed into the classic Equivalent
Frame Model (EFM).
2.2. Data-driven models
The authors aim to understand if the vulnerability index, despite
being influenced by subjective choices and conventional approaches,
can be predicted using readily available numerical and categorical ex-
planatory variables. Therefore, the authors have developed regression
and classification models. The regression models can be formulated as
follows:
𝛼 = 𝑓 (𝒙, 𝜣) + 𝜖 (3)
where 𝑓 is the regression function, and 𝜖 represents the error term,
accounting for the difference between the predicted value from the
regression function and the actual calculated value of 𝛼. The authors
will use the following state-of-the-art models: (i) Linear regression [64],
(ii) Decision Tree Regression [65], (iii) Support Vector Regression
(SVR) [66], (iv) Artificial Neural Network (ANN) [67]. Specifically,
linear regression is a fundamental statistical method that assumes a lin-
ear relationship between the predictor variables and the response [68].
Regression trees are a type of decision tree algorithm used for regres-
sion tasks. Such models work by recursively partitioning the data into
subsets based on the predictor variables. Each partition forms a tree
leaf, and each leaf’s mean vulnerability index is used as the predicted
value [69]. Regression trees can capture non-linear relationships and
interactions among variables. SVR is a regression technique that uses
support vector machines to find a hyperplane that best fits the data
while minimizing the prediction error [70]. SVR is particularly ef-
fective when dealing with high-dimensional data, which is the case,
and can handle both linear and non-linear relationships. ANNs are
models inspired by the human brain’s structure and can learn complex
A. Aloisio et al.
Fig. 3. Four samples RC buildings in (a) Celano, (b) Cerchio, (c) San Benedetto dei Marsi and (d) Rocca di Mezzo (Abruzzo, Italy).
relationships in data. They consist of interconnected nodes (neurons)
arranged in layers. ANNs can capture non-linear relationships and
interactions between variables effectively [71].
For Linear Regression, the authors used ordinary least squares to
estimate the linear model coefficients. The CART algorithm (Classi-
fication and Regression Trees) [65] was adopted for the regression
trees. The algorithm recursively partitions the data based on predictor
variables, optimizing for reduction in mean squared error. For SVR,
the authors calibrated the model using the Sequential Minimal Opti-
mization (SMO) algorithm [72]. For the ANN, the authors implemented
a multi-layer neuron perception network with Adam optimizer [73],
which adapts the learning rate dynamically based on the training
progress. The chosen activation function exhibiting the best perfor-
mance was the Rectified Linear Units (ReLU). The default learning rate
was 0.001, and the epochs were set to 100 [74–76]. The training and
validation process employed the hold-out method, where the dataset
was split into a training set and a validation set, with an 80% to
20% ratio, respectively. The authors then calculated the models’ perfor-
mance metrics on the validation set. To assess convergence, the authors
monitored the performance metrics in the training and validation sets
during each training iteration, setting a threshold equal to 1% [71]. The
authors employed the integer encoding method to manage categorical
variables. This technique converts categorical variables into progressive
integers, each representing a specific category within the categorical
variable [77].
Given the challenges in accurately assessing the exact vulnerability
index, the authors adopted a classification approach in the second step.
In this approach, vulnerability indices are grouped into distinct classes,
and the model’s objective is to predict the corresponding class for each
building. The goal is to predict the class label for each building based
on its features. The vulnerability index, denoted as 𝛼, is divided into
multiple classes denoted as 1 , 2 , … , 𝑘 . The classification model aims
to find the class label ̂ that best describes the building’s vulnerability
index. Given an input vector 𝒙 representing the features of a building,
the classification models aim to predict the building’s class label 𝑖 :
̂ = arg max 𝑓 (𝒙)
𝑖
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
where 𝑓 (𝒙) is the output or score generated by the classification model
for the given input features 𝒙, and ̂ is the predicted class label that
corresponds to the highest output value among all possible classes. The
classification model is trained using a labelled dataset, associating each
building with its corresponding class label. The model learns to link
input features with their respective class labels through training. Once
trained, it can predict class labels for new, unseen buildings based on
their features.
The authors employed three models: (i) multinomial logistic re-
gression [78], (ii) classification trees [65], (iii) ANN and (iv) XGBoost
(Extreme Gradient Boosting) [79]. Multinomial logistic regression ex-
tends binary logistic regression to handle multiple categories. This
method employs input features to predict the likelihood of a building
belonging to different vulnerability classes [78]. The predicted class
label is the one with the highest likelihood. This model captures re-
lationships between input features and categorical classes. The other
two models were introduced in the preceding paragraphs. XGBoost [79]
is a ML algorithm that uses a gradient boosting framework. It is
designed for speed and performance and is widely used for structured
and tabular data. The default hyperparameters provided by Scikit-
Learn [80] were adopted. The authors applied the same approaches for
model calibration using the hold-out method. In the case of multinomial
logistic regression, calibration involves maximizing the log-likelihood,
following a procedure outlined in [81]. This method is highly efficient
for concave log-likelihood functions and utilizes the Newton–Raphson
technique.
3. Analysis of the dataset
The considered buildings, comprising nearly 300 reinforced con-
crete (RC) and masonry buildings, are located in the province of
L’Aquila in Abruzzo (Italy). Fig. 2 plots the geographic distribution of
the building stock. Specifically, (a) represents the number of buildings
for each municipality, and (b) illustrates the transition from red to
green, indicating the average vulnerability index, always lower than
1.
Table 1 provides an overview of the explanatory variables used
(4)
in the study, indicating their data types (categorical or numerical)
5
A. Aloisio et al.
Fig. 4. Colour maps of municipalities in the L’Aquila Province, Abruzzo (Italy),
considered in this investigation. (a) represents the average construction year for each
municipality, and (b) the average height in meters. (For interpretation of the references
to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
and the corresponding categories or data statistics. The data types
are highlighted using different cell colours, with a light pink shade
indicating categorical data and a light green shade denoting numerical
data. The category for concrete resistance reports the minimum value
for the concrete resistance obtained from concrete samples extracted
from the building. This category is only valid for RC buildings.
Fig. 3 displays four representative RC buildings of the considered
building stock.
Fig. 4 illustrates the municipalities in the L’Aquila Province, colour-
coded according to (a) the average year of construction and (b) the
average building height in meters.
6
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
Fig. 5 shows selected histogram plots, the (a) structural typology,
(b) the concrete compression strength, (c) the height of the building,
(d) the construction year, (e) the soil type and (b) the structural
configuration.
The majority of the buildings (88%) in the dataset are constructed
using reinforced concrete. The construction period ranges from the
1930s to the early 2000s, with a prevalent concentration of buildings
built between the 1970s and 1980s. The quality of the concrete used
in these buildings is relatively poor, as indicated by an average com-
pressive strength of about 20 MPa, a relatively low value for structural
concrete. All the buildings are mid-rise, with an average of 2 to 3 floors.
Additionally, a significant number of buildings have pilotis floors.
Fig. 4 illustrates the municipalities in the L’Aquila province, colour-
coded according to (a) the average concrete compressive strength and
(b) the average standard deviation. Most of the buildings have a low
concrete compressive strength, relatively uniform across municipalities
with a standard deviation for each municipality generally less than 6
MPa (see Fig. 6).
Structural interventions after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake were
meant to repair the buildings, even though they did not suffer severe
damage. In some cases, localized structural interventions, mainly joint
wrapping, were carried out. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) data
do not show significant variability, with an average of 0.24 g, as
depicted in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 presents the histogram plot of the vulnerability index. The
plot reveals a substantial number of buildings with a vulnerability level
lower than 0.2. This observation underscores the high vulnerability of
the building stock. However, it is essential to note that this measure is
conventional and lacks a direct physical significance. In other words,
the buildings are not considered to fail if the intensity measures exceed
those considered in the simulations. As mentioned in the introduction,
the authors will undertake two main predictive approaches. The first
attempt involves predicting the actual value of the intensity measures.
Subsequently, the vulnerability index will be categorized into classes
with increasing ranges to assess the improvement in accuracy as the
models become less informative in the prediction. This step aims to ex-
plore how the predictive models perform when dealing with a broader
classification of vulnerability levels, offering insights into the models’
effectiveness across different levels of vulnerability.
3.1. PCA and k-mean clustering
Data visualization is essential in this study due to the
high-dimensional nature of the data. To better understand the differ-
ences within the considered dataset, the authors conducted a prelim-
inary Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [82] followed by 𝑘-means
clustering [83]. PCA was employed to reduce the dataset’s dimen-
sionality before applying the clustering technique. K-means, a widely
used unsupervised clustering algorithm, categorized the buildings into
𝑘 clusters based on their similarity. The process begins with the random
selection of 𝑘 centroids and iteratively assigns each data point to the
nearest centroid. These centroids are updated based on the mean of
the assigned points. The ultimate goal is to categorize buildings with
shared attributes, facilitating an understanding of the underlying data
structure and potentially revealing patterns or trends that might not
have been apparent in the original high-dimensional space.
Fig. 8 shows a bar plot of the principal components and the first
three clusters.
All the first principal components have high values, suggesting that
there might be significant variability in the data along multiple dimen-
sions, and no single principal component is dominant in explaining the
variance. This might depend on many factors. The original features of
the dataset might exhibit high variability, and PCA is capturing this
variability across multiple dimensions. Additionally, the features are
highly correlated, leading to multiple principal components capturing
similar patterns of variance. Therefore, the data might inherently have
A. Aloisio et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295

Fig. 5. Histogram plot of selected explanatory variables, the (a) structural typology, (b) the compression strength of concrete, (c) the height of the building, (d) the construction
year, (e) the soil type and (b) the structural configuration.

Table 1
List of the explanatory variable, indicating the data type (categorical or continuous) and the list of categories and data statistics
for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.
Variable Data type Categories/Statistics (mean, std. dev., max, min)
Structural typology Categorical {Concrete, Masonry}
Concrete compressive strength [MPa] Numerical {21.06,6.93,42.5,6.630}
Total surface of the building [m2 ] Numerical {298.63,210.14,2104.60,30}
Height of the building [m] Numerical {9.40,3.00,21.50,2.47}
Volume of the building [m3 ] Numerical {2541.88,1425.10,10420,500}
No. of residential units Numerical {6.18,3.01,24,1}
Construction year Numerical {1977,12.09,2006,1938}
Structural configuration Categorical {Clustered, Isolated}
No. of elevated floors Numerical {2.76,0.83,7,1}
Basement floors Numerical {0.21,0.41,1,0}
Pilotis floor Categorical {Yes, No}
Structural interventions Categorical {Yes, No}
Damage Categorical {No, Low, Moderate, High}
Peak ground acceleration [g] Numerical {0.24,0.02,0.34,0.16}
Soil type Categorical {A,B,C,D}

Table 2
Average and standard deviation for the data (predictors and response variable) for the first three clusters. For
categorical variables, the authors reported as average the prevalent category.
Explanatory variables Cluster No.1 Cluster No.2 Cluster No.3
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Structural typology Concrete Concrete Concrete
Concrete compressive strength [MPa] 20.87 6.77 25.97 4.95 19.39 6.36
Total surface of the building [m2 ] 283.42 141.06 666.33 544.26 243.81 131.25
Height of the building [m] 9.24 2.77 12.14 5.35 9.04 2.22
Volume of the building [m3 ] 2355.37 896.84 5798.68 1938.25 2106.26 1027.81
No. of residential units 5.88 2.15 12.13 4.13 5.69 2.90
Construction year 1978 10.87 1981 9.81 1979 8.79
Structural configuration Clustered Clustered Isolated
No. of elevated floors 3 0.66 4 1.03 2 0.64
Basement floors 0 0.42 0.00 0.00 0 0.50
Pilotis floor No No No
Structural interventions No No No
Damage No No Light
Peak ground acceleration [g] 0.25 0.02 0.23 0.02 0.24 0.02
Soil type A B C
Vulnerability index 0.23 0.13 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.13

7
A. Aloisio et al.
Fig. 6. Colour maps of municipalities in the L’Aquila Province, Abruzzo (Italy),
considered in this investigation. (a) represents each municipality’s average concrete
compressive strength, and (b) the related standard deviation (Std. Dev.). (For interpre-
tation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)
complex patterns that a single dominant principal component cannot
capture. This is also related to the high dimensionality, resulting in
several principal components with high variance.
Table 2 presents an overview of the average and standard deviation
of various data variables for the first three clusters.
• Concrete strength and structural typology: The three clusters pre-
dominantly comprise concrete buildings. However, Cluster No. 2
shows a higher concrete resistance (25.97 MPa) compared to Clus-
ter No. 1 (20.87 MPa) and Cluster No. 3 (19.39 MPa). This sug-
gests that buildings in Cluster No. 2 are built with better-quality
materials.
8
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
• Building size and volume: Cluster No. 2 stands out as it consists
of larger buildings in terms of surface area and volume.
• Residential units: The number of residential units in Cluster No. 2
is approximately double compared to the other two clusters, reaf-
firming that these might be larger multi-residential complexes.
• Construction year: The buildings in all three clusters were built
close in time, between 1978 and 1981. This indicates that the
construction year alone is not a significant distinguishing factor
among these clusters.
• Structural configuration: An interesting distinction is that build-
ings in Cluster No. 3 are primarily isolated, in contrast to the
clustered configuration in Clusters No. 1 and No. 2.
• Damage: Cluster No. 3 has buildings with light damage, while
the other two clusters predominantly consist of buildings with no
damage
Still, the similarity of the above three clusters in terms of vulnerability
indexes confirms the dataset’s significant correlation, complexity and
high dimensionality.
4. Results
The results section is organized into two main parts, dedicated to
regression and classification models, respectively.
4.1. Regression models
This section discusses the feasibility of regression models in predict-
ing the vulnerability index based on the explanatory variables listed in
Table 1. The regression analysis is based on four distinct techniques: (i)
Linear regression [64], (ii) Decision Tree Regression [65], (iii) Support
Vector Regression (SVR) [66] and (iv) Artificial Neural Network [67].
As also highlighted in Section 2, the hold-out method was employed,
partitioning the data into 80% for training and 20% for validation
sets. This choice was strategic given the relatively small database,
comprising nearly 300 buildings. Resorting to cross-validation with
𝑘-folds would have introduced challenges due to the low number of
samples in each fold. For Linear Regression, the model was imple-
mented without any regularization. For Decision Tree Regression, the
model was calibrated with a minimum of 3 leaves with the maximum
split set to 100. The Gaussian kernel was employed for the SVR, with
the box constraint set to 1.0 and the kernel scale to 0.5. The optimal
neural network architecture consisted of three layers of fully connected
ten neurons. The optimization of the neural network architecture aimed
to mitigate the challenges of underfitting and overfitting. The ReLU
(Rectified Linear Unit) was adopted as an activation function after a
preliminary evaluation, while the learning rate was set to 0.001. The
batch size was 32, and the number of epochs 100.
The chosen evaluation metrics for the regression models included
the Mean Squared Error (MSE), the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE),
the Mean Absolute Error (MAE), the Maximum Absolute Error (MAXAE)
and the R-squared (R2 ).
Fig. 9 displays predicted vs. true values of the seismic vulnerability
index for the considered regression methods: (a) linear regression, (b)
decision tree, (c) support vector machine, (d) artificial neural network.
Each plot shows both the training and the validation set.
Table 3 reports the error metrics corresponding to the test and
calibration sets. The performance of these models is relatively poor.
Transitioning from the simplest linear model to the complexity of the
neural network yields no discernible enhancement in model perfor-
mance. This observation highlights that the primary challenge lies not
in capturing intricate relationships among explanatory variables but in
their insufficiency to provide robust information.
As the neural network architecture grows in complexity, there is a
notable boost in performance on the calibration set, even achieving an
R2 as high as 0.8. However, this gain in calibration accuracy is offset
A. Aloisio et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295

Fig. 7. Histogram plots of (a) the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and (b) the vulnerability index.

Fig. 8. Bar plot of the principal components and the first three clusters.

Table 3
Error metrics of the considered models for both the training and validation sets. The acronyms are Mean
Squared Error (MSE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Maximum Absolute
Error (MAXAE) and R-squared (R2 ).
Model Test set Calibration set
MSE RMSE MAE MAXAE R2 MSE RMSE MAE MAXAE R2
Linear regression 0.02 0.13 0.10 0.34 0.31 0.01 0.12 0.09 0.37 0.43
Regression tree 0.02 0.16 0.12 0.38 −0.25 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.43 0.48
Support vector machine 0.02 0.14 0.10 0.38 0.26 0.01 0.12 0.09 0.39 0.40
Neural network 0.02 0.14 0.10 0.38 0.23 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.29 0.79

by a deterioration in performance on the validation set, particularly
evident when compared to simpler architectures. The Regression Tree
demonstrates relatively comparable MSE and RMSE metrics among the
intermediate models. Yet, a conspicuous drop in the R2 value on the
test set indicates overfitting. The SVR exhibits more consistent MSE,
RMSE, and MAE values and a moderate R2 score, revealing its relatively
lower susceptibility to overfitting. As already remarked, the neural
network demonstrates competitive error metrics, achieving a high R2
on the calibration set. However, the discrepancy between the training
set’s R2 and the validation set’s R2 reveals overfitting. Therefore, the
considered explanatory variables, though readily extractable, do not
deliver reasonable accuracy in predicting the vulnerability index, even
in preliminary investigations.
The authors further emphasized this aspect by reporting the 𝑝-values
corresponding to the coefficients of the linear regression model, see
Fig. 10. All the calculated 𝑝-values are significantly higher than 0.1,
whereas a recommended threshold is 0.05 [84]. The most statistically
significant features are identified by the lowest 𝑝-values, particularly
those related to building typology (masonry or concrete) and structural
configuration (clustered or isolated).
Various factors can contribute to high 𝑝-values. In this context, two
plausible explanations are (i) sample variation and (ii) low statistical
significance. (i) The data collected might exhibit significant variability,
making it challenging to discern a notable effect, even if one is present.
(ii) Additionally, insufficient sample sizes exacerbate this issue. Conse-
quently, the analysis may lack the statistical significance necessary to
identify a substantial effect, resulting in elevated 𝑝-values.
An alternative is a classification approach. The vulnerability indexes
care are categorized into classes. By doing so, the authors have explored
the potential enhancement in the performance metrics.
4.2. Classification models
This subsection discusses the reliability of a classification strategy
for predicting vulnerability index classes. Initially, the authors grouped
the seismic vulnerability indexes into four classes, which later evolved
into three, each defined by variable thresholds. However, despite using
complex neural network architectures, the attained accuracy metrics
remained relatively modest, plateauing between 0.6 and 0.65. Such
levels of accuracy cannot be considered satisfactory for a predictive

9
A. Aloisio et al.
Fig. 9. Predicted vs. true values of the vulnerability index for the considered regression methods: (a) linear regression, (b) decision tree, (c) support vector machine, (d) artificial
neural network. Each plot shows both the training and the validation set.
Fig. 10. Bar plot illustrating the p-values corresponding to the coefficients of the linear
regression model. The ascending numbering denotes the explanatory variable to which
the 𝑝-value pertains based on Table 1.
model, given the considerable uncertainty and error intrinsic to the
assessment process.
In contrast, the final classification approach demonstrated more
promising outcomes. By dividing the data into two groups, separated
by a specified vulnerability threshold (𝛼𝑡 ), buildings with seismic vul-
nerability indexes below 𝛼𝑡 were classified as ‘Severe’. In contrast, those
with higher indexes were labelled as ‘Moderate’. Binary classifications
offer several advantages. They simplify the complexity of the problem
and often yield clearer distinctions between classes, making the models
more interpretable and potentially more robust. Following this simpli-
fied methodology, the authors observed a substantial enhancement in
accuracy, often surpassing 0.85 in several instances. Such an accuracy
level can be deemed acceptable and reasonable for predictive models.
Consequently, this subsection presents the results of the classification
models based on a binary framework, distinguishing between ‘Severe’
and ‘Moderate’ vulnerability classes.
10
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
Following the binary classification, the threshold was initially set at
0.1, representing a very low threshold, deemed critical according to the
funding agency ATER. Four methods have been compared: logistic re-
gression [78], classification tree [65], ANN and XGBoost. As explained
in Section 2, the authors implemented a feed-forward fully-connected
multi-layer perceptron architecture [74–76], where each layer had 15
neurons optimized following [85]. The same hyperparameters adopted
in the regression models for classification trees and ANN are used
here. The comparison was limited to these four models since other
options, such as SVM, random forest or naive Bayesian classifiers,
performed similarly to the first two. As a result, the four were selected
for comparison.
Fig. 11 illustrates the average confusion matrix for calibration and
validation sets. These matrices present the model’s predictions against
each category’s actual true class labels. The diagonal elements, from
the top left to the bottom right, represent accurate predictions for each
class. Conversely, the off-diagonal elements report the misclassifica-
tions, where predictions did not align with the true class labels. In these
confusion matrices, additional metrics are reported: recall, precision,
and accuracy. The right column, shaded in grey, reports the recall
or true positive rate, indicating the model’s performance in correctly
identifying positive instances within each class. The bottom row, also
shaded in grey, presents precision, representing the proportion of true
positive predictions among all predicted positive instances for each
class. Moreover, the bottom-right cell in the matrix shows the model’s
overall accuracy, the ratio of accurately classified instances to the
total predictions. Accuracy provides a holistic view of the model’s
comprehensive performance.
Nonetheless, relying solely on accuracy as a performance metric can
be misleading in datasets with class imbalance, such as the one under
consideration with threshold 0.1. The ‘Severe’ class, being the minority,
A. Aloisio et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295

Fig. 11. Average confusion matrix for (a), (c), (e) calibration and (b), (d), (f) validation sets using the (a)–(b) logistic regression, (c)–(d) classification tree and (e)–(f) artificial
neural network model assuming a threshold 0.1 for separating the ‘Severe’ and ‘Moderate’ vulnerability classes.

has only 67 instances, while the ‘Moderate’ class, the majority, has 209
elements. High-accuracy models would be of limited practical use if
they fail to classify the minority class correctly. Therefore, Table 4
reports relevant performance metrics like precision, recall, and the
F1-score.
The ‘‘Severe’’ (minority) class has considerably lower precision
values across all models when compared to the moderate (majority).
In such imbalanced datasets, the models tend to be biased towards
the majority class. As a result, the models do not learn the distin-
guishing features of the minority class as effectively. This imbalance
results in many false negatives for the minority class, leading to lower
recall for the severe class. Consequently, the models achieve a satis-
factory accuracy, higher than 70%, by merely predicting the majority
class. The only models presenting more balanced performance between
the majority and minority classes are the ANN and XGBoost models.
Nonetheless, the most reliable remains the ANN, which has equal recall
for both. Therefore, the ANN is the best model for such an imbalanced
dataset among the four in this context. This model also has the highest
accuracy, nearly equal to 90%.
In a second step, the authors assessed the dependence of the per-
formance metrics (accuracy and recall) on the vulnerability threshold
used to distinguish between the ‘Moderate’ and ‘Severe’ classes. As ex-
pected, the performance metrics of all employed models, ranging from

11
A. Aloisio et al. Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295

Fig. 12. Performance metrics of the four models given random selections of the validation set, as a function of the vulnerability threshold used to separate the two vulnerability
classes, ‘Moderate’ vs. ‘Severe’.

Table 4
Performance metrics comparison for logistic regression, tree model, and artificial neural network on the ‘Severe’ and ‘Moderate’ classes.
Metric Logistic regression Tree model Artificial neural network XGBoost
Severe (%) Moderate (%) Severe (%) Moderate (%) Severe (%) Moderate (%) Severe (%) Moderate (%)
Precision 29.41 90.38 20.00 87.10 60.00 96.80 73.44 86.24
Recall 50.00 79.66 33.33 77.10 85.71 88.20 51.60 93.53
F1-Score 37.33 84.62 25.00 81.86 70.59 92.31 59.10 89.64
Accuracy 75.36 70.73 87.80 83.54

binary logistic regression to ANN, displayed a significant dependence
on the selected vulnerability threshold. Fig. 12 displays the dependence
of the performance metrics estimations (accuracy and recall) for the
validation sets on the vulnerability threshold. The validation sets have
been randomly selected as 20% of the database following a Montecarlo
approach until convergence of the recall, corresponding to a relative
variation of the coefficient of variation (CoV) less than 1%.
Fig. 12 shows how the threshold influences the average performance
metrics. For logistic, classification tree and XGBoost models, the re-
duction in recall for minority classes is concerning, dropping below
0.2. Even with minor class imbalances, recall hovers around 0.2 in the
logistic regression for the minority class. While the recall reduction for
the classification tree is more gradual, it remains significant. However,
for the ANN, the drop in recall is relatively modest, always staying
above 0.6. The accuracy remains satisfactory, with a minimum of 86%
for balanced datasets, which is achieved with a threshold of 0.2.
This study demonstrates that the ANN is the most reliable model
among those tested. This model retains flexibility in choosing the
vulnerability threshold and maintains good performance even in im-
balanced datasets. For a more cautious approach, it is preferable to
classify a building as ‘Severe’ rather than ‘Moderate’. Hence, even if
the funding agency might suggest a lower vulnerability threshold to
identify significantly non-conforming buildings, it is recommended to
set the minority class as ‘Moderate’. Nonetheless, ANN models can be
customized to meet the specific needs of public administrations, who
must prioritize interventions based on vulnerability thresholds.
5. Model interpretation
The authors estimated the feature importance using the optimized
ANN model with a threshold of 0.2 to have a balanced dataset. The
SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values were calculated to inter-
pret the model’s predictions [69].

12
A. Aloisio et al.
Fig. 13. Global interpretations of the ANN model by SHAP values: (a) SHAP feature
importance and (b) SHAP summary plot. (For interpretation of the references to colour
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
5.1. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)
SHAP, or SHapley Additive exPlanations, is a method used to un-
derstand the decision-making of ML algorithms by assigning SHAP
values derived from cooperative game theory principles [86]. The key
point of SHAP is deconstructing a model’s prediction by quantifying
13
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
the influence of each feature. It likens each feature of an instance to a
‘player’ in a coalition game, where the prediction is analogous to the
game’s payoff, and SHAP values provide a fair distribution of the payoff
among the players [87]. Assuming a model prediction 𝑓 (𝑥) based on a
single input variable 𝑥, applying an additive feature attribution method,
the prediction 𝑓 (𝑥) can be expressed as [86,88,89]:
∑
𝑀
𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝑔(𝑥′ ) = 𝜙0 + 𝜙𝑖 𝑥′𝑖 (5)
𝑖=1
where 𝑥′ is the simplified input that maps to the original inputs through
a mapping function 𝑥 = ℎ(𝑥′ ); 𝜙0 = 𝑓 (ℎ(𝑥0 )) is a constant when all
inputs are null; 𝜙𝑖 are the attribution values for feature 𝑖; and 𝑀 is
the total number of the features. The SHAP values can be computed
by solving Eq. (5) with satisfying three desirable properties (i.e., local
accuracy, missingness, and consistency). This is particularly useful for
models like neural networks, where it is unclear how each feature in-
fluences the output because of complex interactions and non-linearities
within the model.
5.2. Model interpretation
SHAP values highlight which features are most influential in the
decision-making process of the ML model. Features with a higher abso-
lute value (positive or negative) are more relevant in the predictions.
These values are calculated by considering all possible combinations of
features and observing the change in prediction with and without the
feature in question.
Fig. 13(a) provides the feature importance index of each input
feature. Indirectly, the feature importance underscores the role of a
variable when missing in the predictive model. If the feature impor-
tance is relatively minor, the omission of that particular variable may
not significantly impact the overall prediction. The features are listed
along the 𝑌 -axis, with their corresponding SHAP values on the 𝑋-axis.
A longer bar indicates a higher absolute impact on the output, whether
positive or negative. The key determinants affecting the outcome are
the concrete compressive strength, the geometry of the building (vol-
ume, height, surface and number of floors) and the construction year.
Then follows the structural typology, RC or masonry, and the presence
of the pilots’ floors. Other variables like the preexistence of damage,
the structural interventions, and the number of units or the basement
floors are less influential. The fact that the compressive strength of
concrete stands out as the key indicator gives value to the building’s
knowledge, revealing that not only the geometry of the buildings but
also the material properties are fundamental in the assessment. The
geometric properties are also relevant because they relate to the build-
ing dynamics and, consequently, the structural demand. The volume,
surface and height consider multiple aspects not directly expressed,
such as eccentricity in plan and how masses are distributed. The PGA
is important as it should be in vulnerability analysis, but it is still not
at the top, possibly due to its reduced variability. The third position
is the construction year. The construction year has one of the highest
feature importance scores. This is related to the evolution of building
codes, materials, and architectural designs. These findings indicate that
the primary discriminator is the quality of the material rather than the
type of construction material used, which is eighth in this ranking.
Fig. 13(b) gives the summary plot of SHAP values for each fea-
ture, with Table 5 displaying the integer encoding of the categorical
variables. Each dot represents the SHAP value of a feature for a
single prediction. The spread of the dots indicates variability in the
importance of the feature across different predictions. For example, if
the dots for a feature are widely spread along the 𝑋-axis, this feature
has a varying impact on the model’s predictions. The colour coding,
from pink to blue, indicates the feature value. In the case of categorical
variables, the integer encoding in Table 5 has been adopted. Namely,
positive SHAP values indicate that the feature value tends to influence
the vulnerability (i.e., reduction) positively.
A. Aloisio et al.
Table 5
Integer encoding of the categorical variables.
Integer encoder Structural typology Configuration
0 Masonry Isolated
1 Reinforced concrete Clustered
2 Moderate
3 Severe
Fig. 14. Global interpretations of the ANN model by SHAP values in terms of feature dependence scatter plots.
The detailed dependence of the nine features on the SHAP values is
shown in Fig. 14.
Each subplot represents Fig. 13(b) in the plane feature vs. SHAP
values. A colour coding from blue to pink is used to consider the
dependence of an additional feature in the plot. The concrete resistance
and the construction year positively correlate with the SHAP values.
It means that a higher compressive strength and construction year
leads to better seismic performance, i.e. an increase in the vulnerability
index since the buildings are more likely to belong to the ‘Moderate’
vulnerability class. A similar trend is observed for the volume. Larger-
sized buildings are less vulnerable than smaller ones. Regarding the
building height, surface, PGA and the number of floors, the trend is
more complex, with no manifest correlation with the SHAP values.
The structural typology and the presence of the pilotis floors, the only
categorical variables in Fig. 14 exhibit an evident trend. In the label
encoding, masonry structures corresponding to 0 have a higher vulner-
ability than the RC ones. Then, as expected, the absence of the pilotis
floors (0) has marked beneficial effects on the seismic vulnerability
performance.
In conclusion, it should be remarked that the analysed building
stock represents the typical residential construction in Southern Europe.
Consequently, while not easily generalizable, these findings can serve
as a reference for interpreting the ML models obtained from other
datasets.
14
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
Pilotis Structural intervention Damage Soil type
No No No A
Yes Yes Light B
C
6. Conclusions
This study examines the possible use of Machine Learning (ML)
predictive models for code-based seismic vulnerability assessments.
The authors used a database of nearly 300 buildings, encompassing
both reinforced concrete and masonry structures, from the regional
agency of residential construction (ATER) in the province of L’Aquila,
Abruzzo, Italy. These buildings underwent a comprehensive seismic
vulnerability assessment following all required stages, ranging from
knowledge acquisition to structural analysis. The chosen metric for
prediction was the vulnerability index, the ratio between capacity and
demand.
The findings indicated that regression and multiclass classification
models yielded unsatisfactory results and cannot be deemed suffi-
ciently accurate for reliable predictions. On the other hand, binary
classification tasks emerged as promising. Despite their simplicity,
binary classification models, predicting whether a building falls below
or above a certain vulnerability threshold, greatly benefit public ad-
ministrations. Such models allow administrators to define acceptable
vulnerability levels for their managed building stock.
The most effective classification model was the ANN. The authors
highlighted the essential role of the vulnerability threshold in demar-
cating the ‘Severe’ and ‘Moderate’ vulnerability classes and their influ-
ence on performance metrics. Should the chosen vulnerability threshold
introduce considerable class imbalance, the logistic regression and
A. Aloisio et al.
classification tree models do not accurately predict the minority class.
Notably, recall for these models can drop to 20%, even with marginal
imbalances. In contrast, the ANN effectively predicts the minority class,
maintaining a recall of no less than 60% even with significant class
imbalances. The ANN achieves an accuracy of approximately 85% for
a balanced dataset, corresponding to a vulnerability threshold of 0.2 to
separate the ‘Moderate’ and ‘Severe’ classes.
The feature importance based on the SHapley Additive exPlana-
tions (SHAP) values reveals that the concrete compressive strength,
the building geometry (volume, height and average floor surface) and
construction year emerge as the features with the highest significance.
In essence, the material quality is more important in this context
than the building typology, whether RC or masonry. The building
geometry indirectly reflects the building dynamics’ role in estimating
structural performance. Additionally, the construction year highlights
the shifts in building standards, materials, and architectural evolution
over time. Parallelly, other variables, such as structural configuration,
PGA, and soil type, hold less importance. Given the relevance of soil
type and seismic-related features in structural assessments, this may
seem counterintuitive. However, in the analysed dataset, these factors
do not showcase significant variability, thus not substantially impacting
model predictions.
Developing data-driven models for code-based seismic vulnerability
assessment carries notable economic advantages. When agile mod-
els for predicting interventions are in place, redirecting funds from
comprehensive vulnerability analyses to seismic retrofitting becomes
feasible. Additionally, these models address a crucial concern for public
administrations, focusing on code-based seismic vulnerability, which
holds legal significance in certain countries like Italy despite lacking
direct physical interpretation.
Future research endeavours will focus on enhancing classification
accuracy by exploring larger datasets and more explanatory variables.
This will involve comparing the predictability of in-field observations
with code-based vulnerability assessments.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Angelo Aloisio: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analy-
sis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project admin-
istration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Yuri De San-
tis: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Francesco Irti: Data curation, Fund-
ing acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources. Dag
Pasquale Pasca: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software,
Validation. Leonardo Scimia: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project
administration. Massimo Fragiacomo: Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
All authors have participated in (a) conception and design, or anal-
ysis and interpretation of the data; (b) drafting the article or revising
it critically for important intellectual content; and (c) approval of the
final version.
This manuscript has not been submitted to, nor is under review at,
another journal or other publishing venue.
The authors have no affiliation with any organization with a direct
or indirect financial interest in the subject matter discussed in the
manuscript
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
15
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the regional residential construction
agency in the province of L’Aquila (ATER), Abruzzo, Italy, for providing
the data used in this investigation.
References
[1] Barbat AH, Carreño ML, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Cardona OD, Marulanda MC.
Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation methods for urban areas. A review with
application to a pilot area. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2010;6(1–2):17–38.
[2] Formisano A. Theoretical and numerical seismic analysis of masonry building
aggregates: case studies in San Pio Delle Camere (L’Aquila, Italy). J Earthq Eng
2017;21(2):227–45.
[3] Brando G, De Matteis G, Spacone E. Predictive model for the seismic vulnerability
assessment of small historic centres: application to the inner Abruzzi Region in
Italy. Eng Struct 2017;153:81–96.
[4] Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS. Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic
structural damage. J Struct Eng 1996;122(12):1459–67.
[5] Benedetti D, Petrini V. On seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings: proposal
of an evaluation procedure. Ind Costr 1984;18(2):66–74.
[6] Kourehpaz P, Molina Hutt C. Machine learning for enhanced regional seismic
risk assessments. J Struct Eng 2022;148(9):04022126.
[7] Li S-Q, Gardoni P. Empirical seismic vulnerability models for building clusters
considering hybrid intensity measures. J Build Eng 2023;68:106130.
[8] Brando G, Rapone D, Spacone E, Masciotta MG. MUDis: A low computational
effort multi-unit discretization procedure for modelling masonry walls with
periodic arrangement. In: Structures, Vol. 43. Elsevier; 2022, p. 1380–406.
[9] Formisano A, Florio G, Landolfo R, Mazzolani FM. Numerical calibration of an
easy method for seismic behaviour assessment on large scale of masonry building
aggregates. Adv Eng Softw 2015;80:116–38.
[10] Vettore M, Donà M, Carpanese P, Follador V, da Porto F, Valluzzi MR. A
multilevel procedure at urban scale to assess the vulnerability and the exposure
of residential masonry buildings: The case study of Pordenone, Northeast Italy.
Heritage 2020;3(4):1433–68.
[11] Kita A, Cavalagli N, Masciotta MG, Lourenço PB, Ubertini F. Rapid post-
earthquake damage localization and quantification in masonry structures through
multidimensional non-linear seismic IDA. Eng Struct 2020;219:110841.
[12] Pellegrini D, Girardi M, Lourenço PB, Masciotta MG, Mendes N, Padovani C,
Ramos LF. Modal analysis of historical masonry structures: Linear perturbation
and software benchmarking. Constr Build Mater 2018;189:1232–50.
[13] XuanRui Y. Developing an artificial neural network model to predict the
durability of the RC beam by machine learning approaches. Case Stud Constr
Mater 2022;17:e01382.
[14] Wen W, Zhang C, Zhai C. Rapid seismic response prediction of RC frames
based on deep learning and limited building information. Eng Struct 2022;267.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114638, cited By 4.
[15] Stojadinović Z, Kovačević M, Marinković D, Stojadinović B. Rapid earthquake
loss assessment based on machine learning and representative sampling. Earthq
Spectra 2022;38(1):152–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/87552930211042393.
[16] Xu J-G, Feng D-C, Mangalathu S, Jeon J-S. Data-driven rapid damage evaluation
for life-cycle seismic assessment of regional reinforced concrete bridges. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 2022;51(11):2730–51.
[17] Iervolino I. Asymptotic behavior of seismic hazard curves. Struct Saf 2022;99.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2022.102264.
[18] Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the
vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng
2006;4(4):415–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z.
[19] Lagomarsino S, Cattari S, Angiolilli M, Bracchi S, Rota M, Penna A. Modelling
and seismic response analysis of existing URM structures. Part 2: Archetypes of
Italian historical buildings. J Earthq Eng 2023;27(7):1849–74. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/13632469.2022.2087800.
[20] Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D. A statistical study on damaged buildings and
an ensuing review of the MSK-76 scale. In: Proceedings of the seventh European
conference on earthquake engineering. 1982, p. 431–50, cited By 165.
[21] Spence R, Coburn A, Pomonis A, Sakai S. Correlation of ground motion with
building damage: The definition of a new damage-based seismic intensity scale.
In: Proceedings of the 10th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vol. 1.
1992, p. 551–6, cited By 82.
[22] Yamaguchi N, Yamazaki F. Fragility curves for buildings in Japan based on
damage surveys after the 1995 Kobe earthquake. In: Proc. 12th world conference
on earthquake engineering. 2000, cited By 26.
[23] Rossetto T. Vulnerability curves for the seismic assessment of reinforced concrete
building populations. In: Vulnerability curves for the seismic assessment of
reinforced concrete buildings populations. 2004, cited By 20.
[24] Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia C. Processing Italian damage data to derive ty-
pological fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2008;28(10–11):933–47. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.010, cited By 224.
A. Aloisio et al.
[25] Del Gaudio C, De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Manfredi G, Prota A, Ricci P,
Verderame GM. Empirical fragility curves for masonry buildings after the 2009
L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 2019;17:6301–30.
[26] Rosti A, Rota M, Penna A. Empirical fragility curves for Italian URM buildings.
Bull Earthq Eng 2021;19(8):3057–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-
00845-9, cited By 80.
[27] Ghimire S, Guéguen P, Giffard-Roisin S, Schorlemmer D. Testing machine
learning models for seismic damage prediction at a regional scale using building-
damage dataset compiled after the 2015 Gorkha Nepal earthquake. Earthq
Spectra 2022;38(4):2970–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/87552930221106495.
[28] Chen W, Zhang L. An automated machine learning approach for earthquake
casualty rate and economic loss prediction. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2022;225.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108645.
[29] Guo M, Huang H, Xue C, Huang M. Assessment of fuzzy global seismic
vulnerability for RC structures. J Build Eng 2022;57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jobe.2022.104952.
[30] Bernardo V, Campos Costa A, Candeias P, Costa A. Seismic vulnerability assess-
ment and fragility analysis of pre-code masonry buildings in Portugal. Bull Earthq
Eng 2022;20(11):6229–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01434-8.
[31] Rezvani R, Soroushian S, Zaghi A, Maragakis M. Numerical seismic fragility
analysis for suspended ceilings with various geometries. J Build Eng 2022;54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104627.
[32] Ferreira T, Maio R, Vicente R. Seismic vulnerability assessment of the old city
centre of Horta, Azores: calibration and application of a seismic vulnerability
index method. Bull Earthq Eng 2017;15(7):2879–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-016-0071-9.
[33] Demirel I, Yakut A, Binici B. Seismic performance of mid-rise reinforced concrete
buildings in Izmir Bayrakli after the 2020 Samos earthquake. Eng Fail Anal
2022;137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106277.
[34] Shafapourtehrany M, Yariyan P, Özener H, Pradhan B, Shabani F. Evaluating
the application of K-mean clustering in Earthquake vulnerability mapping of
Istanbul, Turkey. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2022;79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijdrr.2022.103154.
[35] Sheshov V, Apostolska R, Bozinovski Z, Vitanova M, Stojanoski B, Edip K,
Bogdanovic A, Salic R, Jekic G, Zafirov T, Zlateski A, Chapragoski G, Tomic D,
Zurovski A, Trajchevski J, Markovski I. Reconnaissance analysis on buildings
damaged during Durres earthquake Mw6.4, 26 November 2019, Albania: effects
to non-structural elements. Bull Earthq Eng 2022;20(2):795–817. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10518-021-01271-1.
[36] Debnath P, Halder L, Chandra Dutta S. Damage survey and seismic vulnera-
bility assessment of unreinforced masonry structures in low-intensity Ambasa
earthquake of northeast India. Structures 2022;44:372–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.istruc.2022.08.005.
[37] Misseri G, Palazzi C, Rovero L. Seismic vulnerability of timber-reinforced
earthen structures through standard and non–standard limit analysis. Eng Struct
2020;215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110663.
[38] Ebrahimiyan F, Hadianfard M, Naderpour H, Jankowski R. Fragility analysis
of structural pounding between adjacent structures arranged in series with
various alignment configurations under near-field earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng
2022;20(13):7215–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01471-3.
[39] Pitilakis D, Petridis C. Fragility curves for existing reinforced concrete buildings,
including soil–structure interaction and site amplification effects. Eng Struct
2022;269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114733.
[40] Gautam D, Chettri N, Tempa K, Rodrigues H, Rupakhety R. Seismic vulnerability
of bhutanese vernacular stone masonry buildings: From damage observation to
fragility analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2022;160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2022.107351.
[41] Del Gaudio C, De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Manfredi G, Prota A, Ricci P,
Verderame G. Empirical fragility curves from damage data on RC buildings
after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 2017;15(4):1425–50. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0026-1.
[42] Chieffo N, Formisano A, Landolfo R, Milani G. A vulnerability index based-
approach for the historical centre of the city of Latronico (Potenza, Southern
Italy). Eng Fail Anal 2022;136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.
106207.
[43] Cardinali V, Tanganelli M, Bento R. Seismic assessment of the XX century
masonry buildings in Florence: Vulnerability insights based on urban data
acquisition and nonlinear static analysis. J Build Eng 2022;57. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104801.
[44] Qu Z, Dutu A, Zhong J, Sun J. Seismic damage to masonry-infilled tim-
ber houses in the 2013 M7.0 Lushan, China, earthquake. Earthq Spectra
2015;31(3):1859–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/012914EQS023T.
[45] Sun X, He M, Li Z, Lam F. Seismic performance of energy-dissipating
post-tensioned CLT shear wall structures II: Dynamic analysis and dissipater
comparison. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2020;130:105980.
[46] Gong M, Lin S, Sun J, Li S, Dai J, Xie L. Seismic intensity map and typical
structural damage of 2010 Ms 7.1 Yushu earthquake in China. Nat Hazards
2015;77(2):847–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1631-z.
[47] Li S-Q, Chen Y-S. Analysis of the probability matrix model for the seismic
damage vulnerability of empirical structures. Nat Hazards 2020;104(1):705–30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04187-2.
16
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
[48] Li S-Q. Analysis of an empirical seismic fragility prediction model of wooden
roof truss buildings. Case Stud Constr Mater 2022;17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cscm.2022.e01420.
[49] Xi J. Relationship between the organizational structure in implementing Post-
Disaster Housing reconstruction and outcome characteristics: A study on urban
dujiangyan after the Wenchuan Earthquake. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2022;80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103221, cited By 1.
[50] Tocchi G, Misra S, Padgett JE, Polese M, Di Ludovico M. The use of
machine-learning methods for post-earthquake building usability assessment: A
predictive model for seismic-risk impact analyses. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct
2023;97:104033.
[51] Aloisio A, Rosso MM, De Leo AM, Fragiacomo M, Basi M. Damage classification
after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake using multinomial logistic regression and
neural networks. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2023;96:103959.
[52] Coburn A, Spence R, Pomonis A. Factors determining human casualty levels in
earthquakes: Mortality prediction in building collapse. In: Proceedings of the
10th world conference on earthquake engineering. 1992, p. 5989–94, cited By
152.
[53] Chang S, Pasion C, Tatebe K, Ahmad R. Linking lifeline infrastructure per-
formance and community disaster resilience: Models and multi-stakeholder
processes. In: Linking lifeline infrastructure performance and community disaster
resilience: Models and multi-stakeholder processes. 2008, cited By 22.
[54] Zuccaro G, Cacace F. Revisione dell’inventario a scala nazionale delle classi
tipologiche di vulnerabilità ed aggiornamento delle mappe nazionali di rischio
sismico. In: Revisione dell’inventario a scala nazionale delle classi tipologiche di
vulnerabilità ed aggiornamento delle mappe nazionali di rischio sismico. Atti del
XIII convegno ANIDIS. 2009, cited By 9.
[55] Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C. A global earthquake building damage and
casualty database. In: Human casualties in earthquakes: Progress in modelling
and mitigation. 2011, cited By 43.
[56] De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Moroni C, Manfredi G, Dolce M.
Estimation of repair costs for RC and masonry residential buildings based on
damage data collected by post-earthquake visual inspection. Bull Earthq Eng
2017;15(4):1681–706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0039-9, cited By
54.
[57] Di Ludovico M, De Martino G, Prota A, Manfredi G, Dolce M. Relationships
between empirical damage and direct/indirect costs for the assessment of seismic
loss scenarios. Bull Earthq Eng 2022;20(1):229–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-021-01235-5, cited By 11.
[58] Bertelli S, Rossetto T, Ioannou I. Derivation of empirical fragility functions
from the 2009 Aquila earthquake. In: 16th European conference on earthquake
engineering, Thessaloniki. 2018, p. 1–12, cited By 6.
[59] Zucconi M, Romano F, Ferracuti B. Typological fragility curves for RC buildings:
influence of damage index and building sample selection. Eng Struct 2022;266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114627, cited By 7.
[60] delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti M. Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Decreto
Minist 2008.
[61] Humar J. Dynamics of structures. CRC Press; 2012.
[62] e dei Trasporti MdI. NTC2008–Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Tech. rep., DM
14/01/2008; 2008, [In Italian].
[63] Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S. TREMURI program: an equivalent
frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct
2013;56:1787–99.
[64] Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH. Applied linear regression models. Richard
D. Irwin; 1983.
[65] Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C. Classification and regression trees.
Boca Raton, Florida: crc press; 1984.
[66] Vapnik V, Vapnik V. Statistical learning theory, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley; 1998,
p. 2, (624).
[67] Haykin S. Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation. Prentice Hall PTR;
1998.
[68] James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R, et al. An introduction to statistical
learning, Vol. 112. Springer; 2013.
[69] Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH, Friedman JH. The elements of statistical
learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, Vol. 2. Springer; 2009.
[70] Bishop CM, Nasrabadi NM. Pattern recognition and machine learning, Vol. 4.
Springer; 2006.
[71] Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep learning. MIT Press; 2016.
[72] Platt JC. 12 Fast training of support vector machines using sequential minimal
optimization. In: Advances in kernel methods. Cambridge: MIT press; 1999, p.
185–208.
[73] Kingma DP, Ba J. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. 2014, arXiv
preprint arXiv:1412.6980.
[74] Géron A. Hands-on machine learning with scikit-learn, keras, and tensorflow. "
O’Reilly Media, Inc."; 2022.
[75] Raschka S. Python machine learning. Packt publishing ltd; 2015.
[76] Aggarwal CC, et al. Neural networks and deep learning, Vol. 10. Springer; 2018,
p. 3, (978).
[77] Muller AC, Guido S. Introduction to machine learning with Python. O’Reilly;
2017.
A. Aloisio et al.
[78] Hosmer Jr DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression, Vol.
398. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
[79] Chen T, Guestrin C. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of
the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data
mining. 2016, p. 785–94.
[80] Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M,
Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in
Python. J Mach Learn Res 2011;12:2825–30.
[81] Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag;
2006.
[82] Jolliffe IT. Principal component analysis for special types of data. Springer; 2002.
[83] MacQueen J, et al. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate
observations. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical
statistics and probability, Vol. 1. Oakland, CA, USA; 1967, p. 281–97.
17
Engineering Structures 301 (2024) 117295
[84] Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical inference. Cengage Learning; 2021.
[85] Aloisio A, Contento A, Alaggio R, Quaranta G. Physics-based models, surrogate
models and experimental assessment of the vehicle–bridge interaction in braking
conditions. Mech Syst Signal Process 2023;194:110276.
[86] Lundberg SM, Lee S-I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Adv
Neural Inf Process Syst 2017;30.
[87] Molnar C. Interpretable machine learning. Lulu. com; 2020.
[88] Feng D-C, Wang W-J, Mangalathu S, Taciroglu E. Interpretable XGBoost-SHAP
machine-learning model for shear strength prediction of squat RC walls. J Struct
Eng 2021;147(11):04021173.
[89] Mangalathu S, Karthikeyan K, Feng D-C, Jeon J-S. Machine-learning interpretabil-
ity techniques for seismic performance assessment of infrastructure systems. Eng
Struct 2022;250:112883.