Machine Learning–Based Backbone Curve Model of

Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to

Cyclic Loading Reversals
Huan Luo 1 and Stephanie German Paal, M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Backbone curves constructed from experimentally derived hysteresis envelopes are often used to evaluate the force-deformation
behavior and, thus, seismic residual collapse capacity of structural components under cyclic loading. This paper proposes a novel machine
learning–based backbone curve model (ML-BCV) for rapidly predicting these curves for flexure- and shear-critical columns. The model
integrates a multioutput least-squares support vector machine to discover the mapping between input and output variables and a grid search
optimization algorithm to facilitate the training process. A database including 262 test columns is utilized to train, test, and validate the
ML-BCV model by (1) direct comparison with experimental results, (2) a 10-fold cross-validation procedure, and (3) direct comparison
with traditional modeling approaches for three columns. The ML-BCV model reduced the root-mean-square error for the four values
governing the shape of the backbone curve by 80% (drift ratio at yield shear), 61% (yield shear force), 58% (drift ratio at maximum shear),
and 67% (maximum shear force), demonstrating that the ML-BCV is increasingly robust and accurate compared to traditional modeling
approaches. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000787. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Flexure-critical; Shear-critical; Cyclic loading reversals; Machine learning; Traditional modeling; Backbone curve;
Reinforced concrete column.

Motivation
Rapid collapse capacity evaluation of postearthquake reinforced
concrete (RC) frame structures is a major focus in structural engi-
neering. In the field, rescue teams and structural experts need to
know the existing residual collapse capacity of RC columns sub-
jected to earthquake loads to identify which damaged RC frames are
high global collapse risks so that they can take the necessary pre-
cautions such as dismantling the frames most likely to bring life loss
risk prior to global collapse, informing further rescue team members
whether or not damaged structures are capable of resisting after-
shocks, and identifying and directing retrofit and repair strategies.
Existing modeling approaches that aim to accurately estimate the
residual collapse capacity of existing buildings lack generalized
characteristics and are typically time consuming; thus, they are not
fit for real-time evaluation purposes. Therefore, a means of rapidly
and more accurately evaluating the existing structural performance
and load-carrying capacity for any RC column, irrespective of its
failure mode or behavior characteristics, needs to be developed.
Background
The most significantly damaged regions of RC frames subjected to
strong seismic activity are the columns located on the first floor
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Zachry Dept. of Civil Engineering, Texas
A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843. Email: hluo@tamu.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Zachry Dept. of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M
Univ., College Station, TX 77843 (corresponding author). ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0141-6679. Email: spaal@civil.tamu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 23, 2018; approved on
April 11, 2018; published online on July 5, 2018. Discussion period
open until December 5, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Computing
in Civil Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3801.
(Xie et al. 2015; Luo et al. 2017). During an earthquake, ground-
level RC columns experience reversed ground motion accelerations
at their bases, leading to cyclic inertial load reversals, which is very
similar to experimental pseudostatic cyclic tests of RC columns.
Collapse capacity information pertaining to first floor RC columns,
therefore, is very critical to effectively avoid the global collapse of
RC frames under strong seismic loads. In response to this, various
efforts have been made toward more accurately and/or rapidly
evaluating the seismic performance of RC columns. In the follow-
ing sections, existing analytical, experimental, and computational
approaches will be discussed.
Existing Approaches to Seismic Performance
Evaluation
One of the most straightforward and widely implemented methods
for estimating residual seismic collapse capacity of RC frames is
the formation of the columns’ backbone curve via the pushover
procedure (Maeda and Miura 2012). In this method, monotonically
increasing, displacement-controlled lateral forces (an idealized
representation of seismic loads) are imposed at a prescribed height
on the target structural model until the displacement at the control
node exceeds the maximum lateral displacement of the structure.
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the backbone curve demonstrates the stand-
ardized nonlinear relationship (ASCE 2014) between characteristic
deformations and forces of structural components (including both
flexure- and shear-critical RC columns) and their behavior, demand
parameters, and acceptance criteria. Thus, this curve provides in-
formation regarding the lateral shear force experienced by the
damaged structure and the boundary, defining whether or not the
damaged structure has entered into the yield phase or has reached
its maximum load-carrying capacity according to the current drift
ratio. As the experienced drift ratio can be measured directly in the
field for the structural component, the residual collapse capacity
or seismic performance of the structure can be evaluated directly

© ASCE 04018042-1 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042


Applied axial load
Applied displacement
Jack
Column
Actuator
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Shear Force
Vm
Vy
Safe Unsafe
δy δm Drift Ratio
(c)
Fig. 1. Backbone curve: lateral load versus drift ratio for an RC column subjected to reversed cyclic loading: (a) reversed cyclic loading test;
(b) hysteresis curve; (c) backbone curve; and (d) backbone curve for safe case.
by way of the backbone curve. However, the pushover procedure
neglects the duration and cyclic effects induced by ground motions
on the structure and, therefore, may not yield the most accurate
results.
As an alternative, incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) can pro-
duce a realistic indication of the overall behavior, including dura-
tion and cyclic effects. Before performing the IDA, the hysteretic
force-displacement relations of materials used to construct the
model, including backbone curves and hysteretic rules, should be
defined for all elements in the model. Appropriate backbone curves
and hysteretic rules can accurately reflect the nonlinear response of
components and the overall structure such as hysteretic energy dis-
sipation and strength and stiffness degradation due to cyclic effects.
Although IDA is very powerful, it is typically time consuming and,
therefore, not appropriate for the rapid collapse capacity or seismic
performance estimation.
Several additional analytical models have been proposed to
predict the lateral load-carrying capacity and nonlinear behavior of
RC columns. Sezen and Moehle (2004) proposed a shear strength
model in terms of some primary parameters that affect the shear
strength of RC columns such as the cross-section dimensions,
material properties, aspect ratio, axial load ratio, and displacement
ductility. This model was developed via a statistical regression
analysis of 51 test columns from previous experiments reported
in the literature. The results were validated by comparison of the
predicted results with experimentally observed data and values
© ASCE
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042
500
400
300
200
100
0
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
(b)
Shear Force
Vm
Vy
δy δm Drift Ratio
(d)
calculated according to ACI 318 (ACI 2002), FEMA 273 (FEMA
1997), and the model proposed by Priestley et al. (1994). Sasani
(2004) adopted experimental test results of 89 RC columns and
shear force transfer mechanisms to develop a new shear load capac-
ity model as well as a novel drift ratio capacity model for RC
columns. The shear force model also accounted for the effect of
primary parameters: material properties, longitudinal reinforcement
ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio, aspect ratio, axial load ratio,
and displacement ductility. Comparisons between results from the
model proposed by Sasani (2004) and both experimental test data
and predicted values from FEMA-273 (FEMA 1997), FEMA-356
(FEMA 2000), and ACI-318 (ACI 2002) were calculated, verifying
that the proposed model was able to predict the shear strength of
RC columns more accurately than equations from codes and stan-
dards. Meanwhile, the main parameters affecting the deformation
capacity of RC columns were also concluded by Sasani (2004) as
transverse and longitudinal reinforcement ratios, axial load ratio,
and geometric characteristics. Ghannoum and Moehle (2012) de-
veloped a rotation-based shear failure model for RC columns via
static analysis and statistical regression of 56 experimental column
tests. The significant terms affecting end rotation were considered
as stirrup spacing to effective depth ratio, axial load ratio, and the
maximum nominal shear stress. This model can be applied to
lumped-plasticity and fiber-section analytical implementations to
simulate the nonlinear response of RC columns. Elwood and
Moehle (2005) proposed an empirical-based drift capacity model
04018042-2 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 for shear-critical columns, which can provide a better estimation of
the interstory drift at shear failure. This model identified the most
critical parameters influencing the drift capacity, namely, transverse
reinforcement ratio, maximum nominal shear stress, and axial
load ratio.
The most widely employed representatives of traditional mod-
eling techniques are classic fiber beam-column elements (i.e.,
displacement-based and force-based fiber elements). These ele-
ments are based on the cross-sectional discretization in a series of
fibers and have been developed to simulate the nonlinear response
of RC columns subjected to both static and dynamic loads gov-
erned by flexural deformation (Spacone et al. 1996). By assigning
the corresponding uniaxial constitutive models at the section level,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
section behavior under axial and bending forces can be captured
through the integration of fiber stresses over the whole cross sec-
tion. However, classic fiber beam elements are not able to account
for shear stresses, and thus, shear behavior at the section level
cannot be directly acquired.
To address this limitation, many researchers have carried out
various studies by introducing Timoshenko beam theory into the
force-based fiber element (FBFE). Petrangeli et al. (1999) success-
fully created a fiber section model that allows for shear stresses,
deformations, and stiffnesses at the section level to be considered by
using a new concrete law based on microplane theory to simulate
shear-critical RC columns. However, this model demands additional
computational costs at the section level because an additional
equilibrium condition is imposed. A modified force-based two-
dimensional (2D) fiber beam element (MFBFE) allowing for uni-
axial bending and shear effects based on Timoshenko beam theory
was introduced by Marini and Spacone (2006) to model behavior
characteristics of RC columns that have failed in shear. The axial
and bending responses of the MFBFE follow the traditional fiber
section model, and shear effects are simulated by a nonlinear V −
γ constitutive law at the section level. Although these aforemen-
tioned models are effective at predicting the lateral load-carrying
capacity and nonlinear response of RC columns, they have some
significant limitations and disadvantages. For example, accurate
reflection of the nonlinear behavior of RC columns using these
models is most often time consuming and requires appropriate
material models and elements to be selected and defined. Further-
more, to accurately capture the behavior characteristics of the
different failure modes, modeling strategies vary according to the
column failure mode, which significantly increases modeling uncer-
tainty. To eliminate these restrictions, this paper proposes a machine
learning–based model that can accurately predict the backbone
curve for columns subjected to reversed cyclic loading without de-
fining complex material models and for any of the three common
failure modes: flexure, shear, and flexure-shear.
In addition to modeling, many researchers have conducted vari-
ous pseudostatic cyclic experiments of RC columns in order to
evaluate seismic behavior and resistance mechanisms, improve seis-
mic performance, and finally, evaluate collapse capacity (e.g., Lynn
et al. 1996; Legeron and Paultre 2000; Mo and Wang 2000; Paultre
et al. 2001; Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989; Thomsen and Wallace
1994; Xiao and Martirossyan 1998). Although these experiments
are not representative of a suitable method for rapid evaluation
of residual collapse capacity, they serve as an effective benchmark
for comparison of novel approaches, as presented in this work.
Recent Research Efforts in Seismic Performance
Evaluation
Recently, many researchers have focused on seeking a simple, rapid,
and accurate method to evaluate the residual collapse capacity or
© ASCE 04018042-3
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042
seismic performance of RC structures. Paal et al. (2015) and
Lattanzi et al. (2016) employed computer vision methods to auto-
matically recognize critical damage and correlate the damage with
maximum and residual drift ratios for RC frame structures (German
et al. 2012; German et al. 2013; Paal et al. 2015) and bridge columns
(Lattanzi et al. 2016). However, these approaches aim to provide a
rough evaluation of the existing column performance and, thus, do
not precisely calculate the remaining load-carrying capacity.
With the recent, rapid advancement of machine learning (ML),
many researchers in structural engineering have employed concepts
and algorithms from this field to address this problem (Alipour
et al. 2017; Cavadas et al. 2013; Jeng and Mo 2004; Jeon et al.
2014; Vu and Hoang 2015). Alipour et al. (2017) adopted decision
trees and random forests to evaluate the load-capacity rating of
bridge populations. Over 40,000 concrete slab bridge data sets were
used, and the analytical model results were compared with a num-
ber of existing judgment-based strategies, which showed that the
proposed method can aid in determining which posted bridges
should be further examined for both possible load restriction and
restriction removal. However, training decision trees can be prone
to overfitting, and completed decision tree models are typically
overly complex. Although these drawbacks can often be alleviated
by using larger random forest ensembles, it is typically quite slow
to create predictions once trained and requires large memory.
Cavadas et al. (2013) adopted data-driven methods, including mov-
ing principal component analysis (MPCA) and robust regression
analysis (RRA), to detect the occurrence and location of damage
on a simple frame subjected to moving loads. The simulated results
indicated that MPCA was powerful in data processing regarding the
early detection of changes in the structural response and the loca-
tion of damage, while RRA failed to predict the damage location.
Jeng and Mo (2004) carried out research regarding the quick seis-
mic response estimation of a prestressed concrete bridge under
earthquake excitation of various magnitudes along various direc-
tions using an artificial neural network (ANN). Although ANN
is capable of modeling nonlinear mapping between independent
and dependent variables and can obtain desirable results (Cheng
and Cao 2014; Guler 2013), their implementation is subject to
several drawbacks. One of the major disadvantages is that the ANN
training process is reached via a gradient descent algorithm on the
error space, which can be more complex and may contain many
local minima values. Moreover, trial and error processes are re-
quired to establish the network structure. Jeon et al. (2014) pro-
posed a novel set of probabilistic joint shear strength models
using a multiple linear regression method and advanced ML meth-
ods, including multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS)
and symbolic regression (SR). Experimental databases comprising
reinforced and unreinforced concrete beam-column joint tests were
established to obtain high-fidelity regression models with reduced
model error and bias. The comparison among simulated results
by these approaches indicated that the MARS method was the best
estimation method; meanwhile, the predicted accuracy using
MARS compared to existing joint shear strength relationships
showed more accurate agreement. Vu and Hoang (2015) estab-
lished a hybrid ML model to predict the ultimate punching shear
capacity of FRP-reinforced slabs. The least-squares support vector
machine (LS-SVM) and the firefly algorithm (FA) were adopted to
discover the mapping between the influencing factors and the slab
punching capacity. The predicted results from the proposed model
have better agreement when compared with experimental data than
those calculated by formula-based and ANN approaches.
LS-SVM is a supervised machine-learning approach originally
derived from statistical learning theory (Suykens et al. 2002) and
also an extension of standard support vector machines (SVM)
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 (Vapnik 1998) by the addition of a quadratic loss function. It has
been demonstrated as superior to both MARS and random forests
in the literature (Chugh et al. 2015; Herrera et al. 2010). By replac-
ing inequality with equality as the constraint condition, LS-SVM
avoids the solution of the complex convex quadratic programming
problem. It requires the solution of the convex linear system prob-
lem and can largely speed up the training procedure. The LS-SVM
methodology possesses excellent capabilities in learning nonlinear
functions (Suykens et al. 2002) and has been successfully applied
to predict future unknown events based on current and previously
recorded data sets in many subject fields, including structural en-
gineering (Cheng and Cao 2014; Pham et al. 2015; Vu and Hoang
2015). However, both LS-SVM and SVM are frequently adopted to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
establish the regression model for the single dependent variable or
output, and fail to cope with multioutput cases in a training pro-
cedure. The traditional LS-SVM requires different outputs to be
handled in isolation in multioutput cases, leading to repeated pro-
cedures that are time consuming. As there are four key parameters
(drift ratio at yield shear force, yield shear force, drift ratio at maxi-
mum shear force, and maximum shear force) required to define
the backbone curve of RC columns, the original LS-SVM model,
which yields a single output, is not appropriate here.
To address these challenges and present a superior method for
predicting the four parameters that define the backbone curve, this
paper presents a novel approach based on machine learning that
is capable of predicting the backbone curve for RC columns
(ML-BCV) exhibiting any failure mode (i.e., flexure, shear,
and flexure-shear) due to reversed cyclic loading. In this approach,
a multioutput least-squares support vector machine regression
procedure (MLS-SVMR) is developed to simultaneously predict
multiple dependent variables through a training procedure. The
MLS-SVMR is then integrated with an advanced optimization
algorithm to facilitate its training process in order to more accu-
rately predict the backbone curve. Fig. 1 shows the general shape
of the backbone curve, including yield shear force, drift ratio at
yield shear, maximum shear force, and drift ratio at maximum
shear. Typically, columns are regarded as failed if the drift ratio
exceeds the drift capacity. As shown in Fig. 1, the softening
(unsafe) stage of degradation is not considered in this study; there-
fore, the results presented herein are compatible with all columns
experiencing failure defined by drift ratios that exceed the drift at
maximum shear capacity.
Column Database
For the purpose of this study, a large database of RC column ex-
perimental tests is needed to adequately train and test the ML-BCV
model, and parameters detailing the material and geometric proper-
ties, the column performance, and capacity need to be identified for
each column in the database.
To accomplish this, a database of 262 RC rectangular column
tests with flexure, shear, and flexure-shear failures was developed
and used to build the ML-BCV model of RC columns subjected
to reversed cyclic loadings. Among the tests, 208 specimens were
recorded as flexure failures, 18 specimens were classified as shear
failures, and the remaining 36 specimens were classified as flexure-
shear failures. The first 194 of the 208 flexure-critical columns,
the 18 shear-critical columns, and the 36 flexure-shear-failure col-
umns were extracted from the database compiled by Berry et al.
(2004). Among the last 14 of the 208 flexure-critical columns,
four columns were from Eom et al. (2014), six columns were from
Verderame et al. (2008), and the last four columns were from
Xie et al. (2015). All of the tests included in the database were
© ASCE
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042
conducted under pseudostatic cyclic loading. The failure classifi-
cation of the database follows the method provided by Berry et al.
(2004). The force-displacement data for all of the columns in the
database recorded in the tests have been modified and treated as
cantilever cases to remain consistent with those tests extracted from
Berry et al. (2004). The original number of columns with rectan-
gular sections classified as flexure failures developed by Berry et al.
(2004) is 199. The five columns excluded in this paper (numbers
147, 148, 149, 181, and 182) did not contain all the necessary in-
formation required in this study. The specimen numbers are com-
patible with the naming conventions in the original references. The
distribution of the main properties of these columns included in the
database is shown in Fig. 2. Table 1 presents the ranges of these
properties.
Data Extraction from Test Specimens
The yield shear force ðV y Þ; drift ratio at V y [δ y ¼ 100Δy =ðlÞ,
where Δy is lateral drift at V y , and l is column clear length]; maxi-
mum shear force ðV m Þ; and drift ratio at V m [δ m ¼ 100Δm =ðlÞ,
where Δm is lateral drift at V m ] were extracted from available hys-
teretic curves of base shear versus lateral displacement when not
specifically reported in the experimental tests. For V m and δ m , these
two values can be directly extracted at the point of maximum shear.
To extract V y and δ y , the method proposed by Sezen and Moehle
(2004) was used. The first step of this approach is to define the
initial effective stiffness, which is a secant intersecting the point
of the hysteretic curve at 70% of the maximum shear force. Then,
the δ y is defined by the intersection of this secant with a horizontal
line passing through the maximum shear force. The yield shear
force V y is defined by the force at δ y in the hysteretic curve.
The maximum normalized shear stress [vm =ðf c Þ0.5 , where vm is
the maximum shear stress calculated from V m =bd] is also obtained.
Fig. 3 shows the distribution of these five variables in the column
database used in this work. Table 2 depicts the range of these five
values in the database and their statistical descriptions.
Input Factors
In total, 15 independent variables ðXÞ, encompassing data regard-
ing the material and geometric properties, applied axial loads, and
failure mode (labeled 1 for flexure failure, 2 for shear failure, and 3
for flexure-shear failure), and four dependent variables ðYÞ were
considered in this study, as shown in Table 3.
Independent variables X 1 through X 11 (Table 3) were used in
this work as input factors for predicting the dependent variables
Y 1 and Y 2 (the yield shear force Y 1 and the maximum shear force
Y 2 of RC columns subjected to reversed cyclic loading), while in
the prediction of the drift values (Y 3 and Y 4 ), only X 1, X 9 , and X 12 ,
through X 15 were deemed necessary for use as input factors based
on previous experimental tests and the literature presented in the
section “Background.”
Proposed ML-BCV Model
In this section, the novel machine learning–based approach to pre-
dicting the backbone curve developed by the authors is presented.
First, the construction of ML-SVMR, which was created to deal
with the multioutput case, is described. Following this, the unique
integration of the MLS-SVMR and GSA is discussed within the
application to backbone curve prediction (Fig. 4).
04018042-4 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 9 1.4

8
1.2
7
1.0
6

5 0.8
a/d

s/d
4 0.6

3
0.4
2
0.2
1

0 0.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
(a) Test Number (b) Test Number
140 700

650
120
600
100
550

80 500

fyl
fc

60 450

400
40
350
20
300

0 250
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
(c) Test Number (d) Test Number
0.07 1600

0.06 1400

1200
0.05

1000
0.04
fyt
pl

800
0.03
600

0.02
400

0.01 200

0.00 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
(e) Test Number (f) Test Number
0.04 1.0

0.9

0.8
0.03
0.7

0.6
P/(Ag fc )
pt

0.02 0.5

0.4

0.3
0.01
0.2

0.1

0.00 0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
(g) (h)
Test Number Test Number

Fig. 2. Material and geometric properties of test specimens: (a) shear span to effective depth ratio; (b) stirrup spacing to effective depth ratio;
(c) concrete compressive strength; (d) longitudinal reinforcement yield stress; (e) longitudinal reinforcement ratio; (f) transverse reinforcement yield
stress; (g) transverse reinforcement ratio; and (h) axial load ratio.

© ASCE 04018042-5 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042

 Table 1. Statistical range of material and geometric properties
Property Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation
Shear span to effective depth ratio, a=d 1.08 8.40 3.84 1.57
Stirrup spacing to effective depth ratio, s=d 0.11 1.14 0.32 0.21
Concrete compressive strength, fc (MPa) 16 118 50.40 28.72
Longitudinal reinforcement yield stress, f yl (MPa) 318 635 437.58 65.88
Transverse reinforcement yield stress, fyt (MPa) 249 1,424 486.91 217.57
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio, pl ¼ Asl =bh 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.01
Transverse reinforcement ratio, pt ¼ Ast =bs 0.0006 0.03 0.008 0.005
Axial load ratio (P=Ag f c ) 0 0.9 0.26 0.19
Note: a = shear span; s = transverse reinforcement spacing; P = axial load recorded in the tests and applied to column; Ag = gross column section area;
Asl = longitudinal reinforcement cross-sectional area; Ast = transverse reinforcement cross-sectional area parallel to the applied shear within spacing s;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

b = column section width; and h = column section depth.

Multioutput Least-Squares Support Vector Machine for ∂L Xm

Regression ¼ 0 → wj ¼ αij φðxi0 Þ; j ¼ 1; : : : ; l

∂wj i¼1
For the remainder of this paper, the following notations are ∂L Xm
used. Let R be the real numbers set. The lowercase bold letter ¼0→ αij ¼ 0; j ¼ 1; : : : ; l
∂bj
x ∈ Rm indicates a column vector with m dimensions that can i¼1
be represented as x ¼ ðx1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xm ÞT ; x 0 ∈ Rn indicates a row ∂L αij
vector with n dimensions that can be represented as x 0 ¼ ¼ 0 → eij ¼ ; i ¼ 1; : : : ; m; j ¼ 1; : : : ; l
∂eij γj
ðx1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xn Þ; and the capital bold letter X ∈ Rm×n indicates
∂L
a matrix with m rows and n columns that can be represented ¼ 0 → yij ¼ φT ðxi0 Þwj þ bj þ eij ; i ¼ 1; : : : ; m; j ¼ 1; : : : ; l
as X ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xn , where x1 ¼ ðx11 ; x21 ; : : : ; xm1 ÞT , x2 ¼ ∂αij
ðx12 ; x22 ; : : : ; xm2 ÞT , and xn ¼ ðx1n ; x2n ; : : : ; xmn ÞT . Let the train- ð4Þ
ing set T ¼ fX; Yg, where X ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xn  ∈ Rm×n indicates
that the training set has n independent variables and each of the Rearranging Eq. (4) can get (m þ 1) linear equation groups, and
independent variables has m data points, and Y ¼ ½y1 ; y2 ; : : : ; yl  ∈ each of the equation groups consists of (m þ 1) elements, which are
Rm×l indicates that the training set has l dependent variables written in matrix format as follows:
2 3
and each of the dependent variables also has m data points. 0 1 1 ··· 1
2 3
The learning objective of the MLS-SVMR can be transformed 6 1 7 b
into the following optimization problem through finding W ¼ 6 1 Kðx10 ; x10 Þ þ Kðx 0
; x 0
Þ · · · Kðx 0
; x 0
Þ 7 j
6 γj 1 2 1 m 76 7
½w1 ; w2 ; : : : ; wl  ∈ Rd×l , and B ¼ diagðb1 ; b2 ; : : : ; bl Þ ∈ Rl×l : 6 76 α1j 7
6 76 7
6 1 76 7
61 Kðx20 ; x10 Þ Kðx20 ; x20 Þ þ ··· Kðx20 ; xm0 Þ 76 α2j 7
Minimize JðW; EÞ ¼ 12 traceðW T WÞ þ 12 traceðET EγÞ or 6 γ 76 7
6 j 76 7
6 76 .. 7
X  6 .. .
. .
. .. .
. 76 . 7
1X l
1X l m 6.
6 . . . . 74
7
5
Jðwj ; eij Þ ¼ wTj wj þ γj e2ij ð1Þ 4 1 5 α
2 j¼1 2 j¼1 i¼1 1 Kðxm0 ; x10 Þ Kðxm0 ; x20 Þ · · · Kðxm0 ; xm0 Þ þ
mj
γj
subjected to Y ¼ φT W þ 1m×l B þ E or 2 3
0
6 7
yij ¼ φT ðxi0 Þwj þ bj þ eij ; i ¼ 1; : : : ; m; j ¼ 1; : : : ; l ð2Þ 6 1j 7
y
6 7
6y 7
where γ ¼ diagðγ 1 ; γ 2 ; : : : ; γ l Þ ∈ Rl×l represents a diagonal matrix ¼6 6
2j 7; j ¼ 1; : : : ; l
7 ð5Þ
consisting of positive real regularized parameter γ j ; E ¼ 6 . 7
6 .. 7
4 5
½e1 ; e2 ; : : : ; el  ∈ Rm×l represents a matrix consisting of slack vec-
tors; 1m×l represents a matrix consisting of 1 elements with m ymj
rows and l columns; and φ ¼ ½φðx10 Þ; φðx20 Þ; : : : ; φðxm0 Þ ∈ Rd×m ,
where Kðxi0 ; xk0 Þ ¼ φT ðxi0 Þφðxk0 Þ is the kernel function that meets
φð·Þ∶Rn → Rd represents a mapping from n dimensions to some
higher-dimensional Hilbert space H with d dimensions. the Mercer rule. This means that the inner product φT ðxi0 Þφðxk0 Þ
The Lagrangian function for the problem in Eqs. (1) and (2) is in the feature space has an equivalent kernel in the original input
formulated as follows: space. A kernel function is preferable rather than direct formulation
of φðxi0 Þ as there are many kernel functions [i.e., linear, polynomial,
Lðwj ; bj ; eij ; αij Þ ¼ Jðwj ;eij Þ and radial basis function (RBF)] that can realize the same mapping
function of φðxi0 Þ in a more computationally efficient manner [be-
X
m X
l
− αij ðφT ðxi0 Þwj þ bj þ eij − yij Þ ð3Þ cause the inner product calculation of φT ðxi0 Þφðxk0 Þ is not neces-
i¼1 j¼1 sary]. As the RBF kernel works well in practice and only has
one parameter, the parameter-tuning procedure is more straightfor-
where αij represents a Lagrange multiplier. ward when compared to that of the polynomial kernel function,
The Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions for optimality are which has three parameters that are required to be tuned. Also,
adopted by differentiating the problem in Eq. (3) with the variables it is well established that the RBF kernel is more powerful than
to yield the following set of linear equations: the linear kernel (Keerthi and Lin 2003); therefore, it is frequently

© ASCE 04018042-6 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042

 1.2 1200

1080
1.0
960

840
0.8
720
vm/(fc)0.5

0.6 600

Vy
480
0.4
360

240
0.2
120
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
(a) Test Number (b) Test Number

1500 2.0

1350 1.8

1200 1.6

1050 1.4

900 1.2
Vm

750 1.0

y
600 0.8

450 0.6

300 0.4

150 0.2

0 0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
(c) Test Number (d) Test Number

5
m

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
(e) Test Number

Fig. 3. Distribution of vm =ðfc Þ0.5 , V y , V m , δy , δ m : (a) maximum normalized shear stress; (b) yield shear force; (c) maximum shear force; (d) drift ratio
at yield shear force; and (e) drift ratio at maximum shear force.

used and adopted here. The mathematical formulation for the RBF Eq. (5), αij and bj can be determined. When solving Eq. (5) in
kernel is the following: terms of Eq. (6), there are two hyperparameters, σ2j and γ j , that
 
kx 0 − x 0 k2 can significantly affect the accuracy level of predicted results. An
Kðxi0 ; xk0 Þ ¼ exp − i 2 k ð6Þ
2σj appropriate selection of these two hyperparameters guarantees
high prediction accuracy and prevents overfitting. In this work,
where σ2j = parameter of the RBF kernel function.
the selection process of these two hyperparameters is regarded
as an optimization problem, and the grid search algorithm
ML-BCV Formulation (GSA) (Bergstra and Bengio 2012) is adopted to identify proper
The ML-BCV model is formulated by combining the MLS- hyperparameters. To perform hyperparameter optimization, the
SVMR with a hyperparameter optimization algorithm. By solving hyperparameter space needs to first be established so that the GSA

© ASCE 04018042-7 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042

 Table 2. Statistical range of parameters extracted from hysteretic curves Start
Standard
Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean deviation
Data Sets
Maximum normalized shear 0.09 1.01 0.35 0.18
stress, vm =ðfc ; MPaÞ0.5
Yield shear force, V y (kN) 24 1,071 172 148
Maximum shear force, 30 1,339 212 182 Testing Set Training Set
V m (kN) j=0 begin with j=1
Drift ratio at yield 0.20 1.73 0.73 0.30
shear, δ y (%) Initiating Hyper- Tuning Hyper-
Drift ratio at maximum 0.31 7.94 2.01 1.35 Parameters Parameters
shear, δ m (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

MLS-SVMR Grid Search

Training Process Algorithm
Table 3. List of dependent and independent variables considered as input
factors No j=j+1

Variable Description MSE Evaluation Minimum

MSE?
Independent variables
X1 Column failure mode Yes
X2 Column cross-sectional area
Optimized ML-
X3 Concrete compressive strength BCV
X4 Longitudinal reinforcement yield stress
X5 Longitudinal reinforcement area
X6 Column effective depth Output Testing Output Training
X7 Transverse reinforcement yield stress Result Result
X8 Transverse reinforcement area
X9 Stirrup spacing to effective depth ratio
X 10 Shear span to effective depth ratio
X 11 Applied axial load End
X 12 Longitudinal reinforcement ratio
X 13 Transverse reinforcement ratio Fig. 4. Implementation of ML-BCV model.
X 14 Axial load ratio
X 15 Maximum normalized shear stress
Dependent variables
Y1 Yield shear force and also prevents overfitting effectively. The ML-BCV model was
Y2 Maximum shear force established by hybridizing MLS-SVMR and GSA as illustrated in
Y3 Drift ratio at yield shear Fig. 4. The MLS-SVMR was adopted to learn the nonlinear map-
Y4 Drift ratio at maximum shear ping between the input independent and the dependent variables.
Furthermore, the MLS-SVMR training process requires eight hy-
perparameters: the four regularization parameters γ 1 ; γ 2 ; γ 3 ; γ 4
can exhaustively search for certain hyperparameters between two that govern the penalty imposed to input data points deviating
bounds. For all possible combinations ðγ j ; σ2j Þ, the mean-squared from the regression function and the four kernel parameters
error (MSE), considered as the evaluation indicator, is calculated σ21 ; σ22 ; σ23 ; σ24 that affect the smoothness of the approximately non-
using the leave-one-out (LOO) cross-validation procedure. Thus, linear function. For all of these eight hyperparameters, the lower
an optimized pair ðγ o ; σ2o Þ can be determined via minimization and upper bounds are set to be 2−15 and 215 respectively, with an
of MSE. The flowchart for the ML-BCV model is illustrated interval of 22 . This paper utilizes the GSA to exhaustively and
in Fig. 4. adaptively search for the most optimized set of MLS-SVMR hy-
perparameters to minimize the objective function. The complete
implementation associated with data set division, hyperparameter
ML-BCV Implementation and Results optimization, and prediction and validation for the ML-BCV
model was conducted in MATLAB on a Mac OS system with
a 2.7-GHz Intel Core I5 processor. The total time required to select
Implementation Procedure the hyperparameters on this system was approximately 5 min.
This section presents the reliability and accuracy validation of the
proposed ML-BCV model in predicting the backbone curve of
RC columns subjected to cyclic loading reversals for flexure, Validation and Analytical Results
shear, and flexure-shear failure modes. First, the training and test- When the training process is completed, the proposed ML-BCV
ing sets should be established. In this study, the ratio of training set model can be used to predict the yield shear force, drift ratio at
to testing set for all four dependent variables is 9:1 (188 of the 208 yield shear, maximum shear force, and drift ratio at the maximum
column specimens that failed in flexure, 16 of the 18 columns that shear for each column in the testing set. To evaluate and quantify
failed in shear, and 32 of the 36 specimens that failed in flexure- the model performance, the statistical indicators, root-mean-square
shear). In total, 236 of 262 columns were randomly selected for the error (RMSE) and coefficient of determination ðR2 Þ, are employed.
training set, and the remaining 26 column specimens were re- The training and testing results of the ML-BCV model are pre-
garded as the testing set. This arrangement strategy ensures that sented in Figs. 5(a, c, e, and g) and 5(b, d, f, and h), respectively.
the testing set has columns that failed in shear and flexure-shear By observation, the drift ratios at yield shear force training

© ASCE 04018042-8 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042

 2.0 2.0

1.8 1.8

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4
Predicted Result

Predicted Result
1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
(a) Observed Result (b) Observed Result
1200 700

1080 630

960 560

840 490
Predicted Result

Predicted Result
720 420

600 350

480 280

360 210

240 140

120 70

0 0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 0 70 140 210 280 350 420 490 560 630 700
(c) Observed Result (d) Observed Result
8 7

7 6

6
5
Predicted Result

Predicted Result

5
4
4
3
3

2
2

1 1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e) Observed Result (f) Observed Result
1500 1500

1350 1350

1200 1200

1050 1050
Predicted Result
Predicted Result

900 900

750 750

600 600

450 450

300 300

150 150

0 0
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500
(g) Observed Result (h) Observed Result

Fig. 5. Results of training and testing the ML-BCV model: drift ratio at yield shield force for (a) training result (R2 ¼ 0.96) and (b) testing result
(R2 ¼ 0.93); yield shear force for (c) training result (R2 ¼ 0.99) and (d) testing result (R2 ¼ 0.98); drift ratio at maximum shear force for (e) training
result (R2 ¼ 0.94) and (f) testing result (R2 ¼ 0.91); maximum shear force for (g) training result (R2 ¼ 1.00); and (h) testing result (R2 ¼ 0.99).

© ASCE 04018042-9 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042

 [Fig. 5(a)] and testing [Fig. 5(b)] results and the drift ratios at maxi-
mum shear force training [Fig. 5(e)] and testing [Fig. 5(f)] results
show that the scatterplots for drift ratios at yield and maximum
shear forces in both training and testing processes closely flock to-
gether at the line of y ¼ x. Further, this illustrates that the proposed
approach is able to yield predicted results that agree with the actual
observation values and, thus, simulate both drift ratios accurately.
In a similar manner, for yield and maximum shear force, the
training [Figs. 5(c and g)] and testing [Figs. 5(d and h)] results il-
lustrate that the proposed ML-BCV model has an excellent ability
to predict the yield and maximum shear forces. Both training and
testing results have validated that the proposed method can repro-
duce experimental test data of yield and maximum shear forces of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
10-fold cross validation for drift ratio at yield shear, yield shear
force, drift ratio at maximum shear, and maximum shear force,
respectively. The average RMSE and R2 of testing results for all
four dependent variables are very close to those displayed in Table 4
for the case where the full database is employed for training and
testing, illustrating that the proposed ML-BCV model is very re-
liable and powerful in predicting the backbone curve of RC
columns subjected to cyclic loading reversals for flexure, shear,
and flexure-shear failure modes.
Comparison with Traditional Modeling Approaches

RC columns subjected to cyclic loading reversals and covering Finally, this section presents a comparison between the proposed
flexure, shear, and flexure-shear failure modes. The R2 values ML-BCV model and the widely used traditional modeling ap-
(R2 ¼ 0.98 for yield shear of testing result and R2 ¼ 0.99 for maxi- proaches mentioned in the Background section to demonstrate the
mum shear of testing result) indicate that strong correlations exist real-world application and full potential for this approach in prac-
between observed and predicted yield and maximum shear forces. tice. To validate the superiority of the proposed ML-BCV model,
The statistical indicators, RMSE and R2 , for these four dependent traditional modeling techniques were employed to simulate the
variables in both training and testing results are summarized in hysteretic response (shear force versus lateral displacement) of
Table 4. RC columns with flexure, shear, and flexure-shear failure modes.
The classic fiber beam-column element was adopted to simulate the
nonlinear cyclic response of RC columns failed in flexure. Since
10-Fold Cross Validation
the classic fiber beam-column element fails to accurately reflect
Additionally, to alleviate the randomness in selecting testing sam- the nonlinear behavior of shear-critical RC columns, as illustrated
ples and, therefore, enhance the robustness of the results, a 10-fold in Marini and Spacone (2006), the modeling scheme proposed by
cross-validation process is also executed. The whole database is Marini and Spacone (2006) was utilized to model the hysteretic
randomly divided into 10 data subsets or folds, where each fold force-displacement response for shear and flexure-shear failure
in turn serves as a testing set. The performance of the proposed RC columns.
ML-BCV model can be evaluated via averaging the results of Three column specimens [BG-3 from Saatcioglu and Grira
the 10 data folds. Since each of the 10 data folds is mutually (1999), 3CMD12 from Lynn (1999), and 2CLD12 from Sezen and
exclusive to the others, this validation can assess the ML-BCV Moehle (2002)] were randomly selected from the presented column
model more accurately. Tables 5–8 summarize the results of the database. A single force-based fiber beam-column element with 5
Gauss-Lobatto integration points (i.e., monitoring sections) was
employed to simulate specimen BG-3 failing in flexure. In each
Table 4. Training and testing results monitoring section, cover concrete fiber was simulated using the
Training result Testing result modified Kent and Park model (Scott et al. 1982), and the confined
concrete model proposed by Mander et al. (1988) was utilized to
Variable RMSE R2 RMSE R2
represent the confinement effect of the stirrups. The reinforcement
δy 0.06 0.96 0.08 0.93 fiber was modeled by the Menegotto-Pinto model (Menegotto and
Vy 13.25 0.99 21.74 0.98 Pinto 1973). For the specimens, 3CMD12 failing in shear and
δm 0.31 0.94 0.48 0.91 2CLD12 failing in flexure-shear, the modeling strategy proposed
Vm 8.88 1 27.56 0.99
by Marini and Spacone (2006) was used. This strategy requires

Table 5. Results of the 10-fold cross validation for drift ratio at yield shear
Data folds
Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
TrainRMSE 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06
TrainR2 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96
TestRMSE 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.10
TestR2 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.93 0.87 0.91

Table 6. Results of the 10-fold cross validation for yield shear force
Data folds
Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
TrainRMSE 13.58 12.03 5.82 13.93 11.94 8.33 12.31 13.63 12.03 13.01 11.66
TrainR2 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
TestRMSE 20.40 23.48 82.47 17.07 21.80 33.47 20.87 11.54 16.05 27.69 27.48
TestR2 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.96

© ASCE 04018042-10 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042

 Table 7. Results of the 10-fold cross validation for drift ratio at maximum shear
Data folds
Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
TrainRMSE 0.42 0.36 0.46 0.28 0.22 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.43 0.46 0.38
TrainR2 0.90 0.93 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.89 0.88 0.92
TestRMSE 0.56 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.52 0.41 0.57 0.66 0.50
TestR2 0.88 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.86 0.91 0.89 0.90 0.85 0.84 0.88

Table 8. Results of the 10-fold cross validation for maximum shear force
Data folds
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
TrainRMSE 15.07 9.25 13.41 16.37 15.74 9.66 14.09 13.93 12.65 13.56 13.37
TrainR2 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99
TestRMSE 21.28 39.61 32.68 27.28 21.61 37.10 27.84 19.16 26.59 15.21 26.84
TestR2 0.97 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.90 0.98 0.97

an extra nonlinear V − γ constitutive law at the section level. The according to the method suggested by Sezen (2008). All modeling
element, concrete, and reinforcement fibers for the two shear- for these three randomly selected columns has been implemented in
critical specimens are defined in the same way as for specimen OpenSees (Mazzoni et al. 2007).
BG-3. The hysteretic model proposed by Ibarra et al. (2005) A comparison between the experimental data and the simulation
was selected to represent the nonlinear shear behavior of the results is presented in Figs. 6(a–c). Fig. 6(a) demonstrates that the
two shear-critical columns, and their backbone curves were defined simulated results, including backbone curve and hysteretic loops,

200 500
Experiment Experiment
160 400
Simulation Simulation
120 300

80 200
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kN)

40 100

0 0

-40 -100

-80 -200

-120 -300

-160 -400

-200 -500
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -3.0 -2.4 -1.8 -1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0
(a) Drift Ratio (%) (b) Drift Ratio (%)

400

Experiment
300
Simulation

200
Base Shear (kN)

100

-100

-200

-300

-400
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
(c) Drift Ratio (%)

Fig. 6. Comparison between simulated results and experimental data: (a) failure in flexure for column BG-3; (b) failure in shear for column 3CMD12;
and (c) failure in flexure-shear for column 2CLD12.

© ASCE 04018042-11 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042

 closely agree with the measured test data, illustrating that tradi-
tional modeling can accurately simulate the nonlinear response
of flexure-critical columns. In contrast, Figs. 6(b and c) both over-
estimate the column load-carrying capacity, and Fig. 6(b) has an
apparent discrepancy of initial stiffness with experimental results,
while the initial stiffness in Fig. 6(c) has good agreement with the
observed data. However, both Figs. 6(b and c) capture the behavior
characteristics of these two shear-critical columns, such as pinching
of hysteretic loops, stiffness, and strength degradation.
The drift ratio at yield shear, yield shear force, drift ratio at
maximum shear, and maximum shear force are extracted from the
simulated hysteretic base shear versus drift ratio in order to com-
pare the performance between the proposed ML-BCV model and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
maximum shear, but overall it agrees with the experimental data
better than the traditional modeling approach. Fig. 7(b) illustrates
that the proposed ML-BCV model is far superior to the traditional
modeling approach in predicting the backbone curve for shear fail-
ure RC columns. Fig. 7(c) demonstrates that the traditional model-
ing approach overestimates the yield and maximum shear forces of
RC columns failed in flexure-shear, while the ML-BCV model
yields accurate results.
Furthermore, to further validate the usefulness of the proposed
ML-BCV model in comparison with traditional modeling ap-
proaches, the statistical indicators, mean absolute percentage error
(MAPE), RMSE, and R2 , were also adopted. The calculated met-
rics are provided in Table 9. The calculated results show that the

traditional modeling approaches. The extraction method is the same traditional modeling approaches are outperformed by the ML-BCV
as that described in the section “Column Database.” In total, 259 model presented in this work on all accounts, where the associated
of the 262 test columns in the database, excluding these three RMSE, MAPE, and R2 values are 12.19, 5.77%, and 1.00 for yield
specimens, were selected as the training set, and the testing set con-
shear force, and 8.58, 2.69%, and 1.00 for maximum shear force,
sisted of these three columns. The comparison between traditional
respectively. Thus, the ML-BCV model reduces the RMSE by
modeling and the proposed ML-BCV model is illustrated in Fig. 7.
roughly 61% ðV y Þ and 67% ðV m Þ, reduces the MAPE by approx-
The results for a flexure-critical column, represented in Fig. 7(a),
show that the backbone curves obtained from both the proposed imately 59% ðV y Þ and 65% ðV m Þ, and enhances the R2 value by
ML-BCV model and traditional modeling technique agree well approximately 3% ðV y Þ and 1% ðV m Þ. Furthermore, for the predic-
with the experimental tests. However, the traditional modeling ap- tions of drift ratio at yield and maximum shear forces, the perfor-
proach overestimates the drift ratios at yield and maximum shears, mance of traditional modeling is significantly worse than that of
whereas the ML-BCV model underestimates the drift ratio at the ML-BCV. Notably, the proposed ML-BCV model, when

200 450
Simulation Experiment
400
Experiment Simulation
160 ML-BCV 350 ML-BCV

300
Base Shear (kN)

Base Shear (kN)

120
250

200
80
150

100
40

50

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
(a) Drift Ratio (%) (b) Drift Ratio (%)

400

350 Experiment
Simulation
300 ML-BCV
Base Shear (kN)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
(c) Drift Ratio (%)

Fig. 7. Comparison of backbone curves obtained between experiments, traditional modeling, and the proposed ML-BCV model: (a) failure in flexure
for column BG-3; (b) failure in shear for column 3CMD12; and (c) failure in flexure-shear for column 2CLD12.

© ASCE 04018042-12 J. Comput. Civ. Eng.

J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042

 Table 9. Result comparison between traditional modeling and ML-BCV
Traditional modeling Proposed ML-BCV
Statistical
indicators Vy δy Vm δm Vy δy Vm δm
RMSE 31.17 0.40 25.68 0.69 12.19 0.08 8.58 0.29
MAPE (%) 14.16 46.23 7.71 39.51 5.77 9.02 2.69 18.06
R2 0.97 0.67 0.99 0.74 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95
compared to traditional modeling approaches, reduces the RMSE
by approximately 80% (δ y ) and 58% (δ m ), reduces the MAPE by
approximately 80% (δ y ) and 55% (δm ), and enhances the R2 value
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by approximately 32% (δ y ) and 22% (δm ). Based on these compar-
isons, the ML-BCV model presented in this paper performs signifi-
cantly better than that of traditional modeling approaches for both
yield and maximum shear forces and drift ratios and agrees well
with experimental tests; therefore, it is deemed the most appropriate
means for predicting the backbone curves of RC columns subjected
to reversed cyclic loading across all failure modes.
Conclusions
This study has proposed and validated a novel machine learning–
based model, the ML-BCV, which consists of a modified LS-SVM
to address the multioutput case (MLS-SVMR) and a GSA to more
effectively facilitate the training process and more accurately predict
backbone curves of RC columns subjected to reversed cyclic load-
ing for flexure, shear, and flexure-shear failure modes. Using the
MLS-SVMR, the nonlinear function that maps a multidependent
variable output space from a multi-independent variable input space
was ascertained. Then, a GSA optimization algorithm–assisted
training process was adopted to exhaustively and adaptively search
for the most proper hyperparameters for the MLS-SVMR. This in-
tegrated combination, the ML-BCV model, can accurately predict
the backbone curve and, thus, the existing capacity and structural
performance of RC columns solely based on the basic material and
geometric properties, applied loads, and failure modes without hu-
man intervention, intelligence, or any assumptions, making it a more
robust approach than traditional modeling techniques.
Additionally, a 10-fold cross validation was embedded in the
objective GSA optimization function to establish a desirable pre-
diction model that prevents overfitting and is robust with highly
generalized performance. The predicted performance results prove
that this strategy is capable of overcoming the problem of overfit-
ting and reaches a high accuracy in both training and testing results.
The machine-learning approach, ML-BCV, was also compared
with traditional modeling approaches, and it was found that the per-
formance of the newly proposed ML-BCV model yields more ac-
curate results than traditional modeling approaches. The ML-BCV
model has been validated as the best-suited method for predicting
the backbone curves of both flexure- and shear-critical (including
flexure-shear-critical) columns subjected to cyclic loadings. There-
fore, the ML-BCV model is an effective tool for assisting rescue
teams and structural experts to assess the seismic performance
and collapse capacity of RC columns after an earthquake.
The training and testing data sets for the proposed ML-BCV
model are comprised of experimental tests including 208 flexure
failure RC columns, 18 shear failure columns, and 36 flexure-shear
failure columns. All of these columns are rectangular and tested
under reversed cyclic loadings. Hence the applicability of this
model is limited to RC columns with rectangular sections and sub-
jected to reversed cyclic loading and the range of properties listed in
this paper.
© ASCE 04018042-13
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2002. Building code requirements for
structure concrete. ACI Committee 318. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Alipour, M., D. Harris, L. Barnes, O. Ozbulut, and J. Carroll. 2017.
“Load-capacity rating of bridge populations through machine learning:
Application of decision trees and random forests.” J. Bridge Eng.
22 (10): 04017076. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0001103.
ASCE. 2014. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE/
SEI 41-13. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Bergstra, J., and Y. Bengio. 2012. “Random search for hyper-parameter
optimization.” J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13 (1): 281–305.
Berry, M., M. Parrish, and M. Eberhard. 2004. “PEER structural perfor-
mance database user’s manual.” Accessed October 1, 2017. http://nisee
.berkeley.edu.
Cavadas, F., I. Smith, and J. Figueiras. 2013. “Damage detection using
data-driven methods applied to moving-load responses.” Mech. Syst.
Signal Process. 39 (1–2): 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp
.2013.02.019.
Cheng, M., and M. Cao. 2014. “Hybrid intelligent inference model for
enhancing prediction accuracy of scour depth around bridge piers.”
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 11 (9): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479
.2014.939089.
Chugh, M., S. Thumsi, and V. Keshri. 2015. “A comparative study between
least square support vector machine (LS-SVM) and multivariate
adaptive regression spline (MARS) methods for the measurement of
load storing capacity of driven piles in cohesive less soil.” Int. J. Struct.
Civil Eng. Res. 4 (2): 189–194.
Elwood, K., and J. Moehle. 2005. “Drift capacity of reinforced concrete
columns with light transverse reinforcement.” Earthquake Spectra
21 (1): 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1849774.
Eom, T., S. Kang, H. Park, T. Choi, and J. Jin. 2014. “Cyclic loading test
for reinforced concrete columns with continuous rectangular and
polygonal hoops.” Eng. Struct. 67 (May): 39–49. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.023.
FEMA. 1997. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. FEMA 273. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation
of buildings. FEMA 356. Washington, DC: FEMA.
German, S., I. Brilakis, and R. DesRoches. 2012. “Rapid entropy-based
detection and properties measurement of concrete spalling with
machine vision detection for post-earthquake safety assessments.”
Adv. Eng. Inf. 26 (4): 846–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2012.06
.005.
German, S., J. Jeon, Z. Zhu, C. Bearman, I. Brilakis, R. DesRoches, and L.
Lowes. 2013. “Machine vision-enhanced postearthquake inspection.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 27 (6): 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000333.
Ghannoum, M., and P. Moehle. 2012. “Rotation-based shear failure model
for lightly confined RC columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 138 (10): 1267–1278.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000555.
Guler, H. 2013. “Prediction of railway track geometry deterioration using
artificial neural networks: A case study for Turkish state railways.”
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 10 (5): 614–626. https://doi.org/10.1080
/15732479.2012.757791.
Herrera, M., L. Torgo, J. Izquierdo, and R. Perez-Garcia. 2010. “Predictive
models for forecasting hourly urban water demand.” J. Hydrol.
387 (1–2): 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.04.005.
Ibarra, L., R. Medina, and H. Krawinkler. 2005. “Hysteretic models that
incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 34 (12): 1489–1511. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096
-9845.
Jeng, C., and Y. Mo. 2004. “Quick seismic response estimation of pre-
stressed concrete bridges using artificial neural networks.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 18 (4): 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801
(2004)18:4(360).
Jeon, J., A. Shafieezadeh, and R. DesRoches. 2014. “Statistical models for
shear strength of RC beam-column joints using machine-learning
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
 techniques.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43 (14): 2075–2095. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.v43.14.
Keerthi, S., and C. Lin. 2003. “Asymptotic behaviors of support vector
machines with Gaussian kernel.” Neural Comput. 15 (7): 1667–1689.
https://doi.org/10.1162/089976603321891855.
Lattanzi, D., G. Miller, M. Eberhard, and O. Haraldsson. 2016. “Bridge
column maximum drift estimation via computer vision.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 30 (4): 04015051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943
-5487.0000527.
Legeron, F., and P. Paultre. 2000. “Behavior of high-strength concrete
columns under cyclic flexure and constant axial load.” ACI Struct. J.
97 (4): 591–601.
Luo, H., K. Du, J. Sun, W. Xu, and B. Ding. 2017. “Shaking table test on
complete collapse process of RC frame structure subjected to earth-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by HANYANG UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
quake.” [In Chinese.] J. Build. Struct. 38 (12): 49–56.
Lynn, A. 1999. “Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building
columns.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California at Berkeley.
Lynn, A., J. Moehle, S. Mahin, and W. Holmes. 1996. “Seismic evaluation
of existing reinforced concrete building columns.” Earthquake Spectra
12 (4): 715–739. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585907.
Maeda, M., and K. Miura. 2012 “Post-earthquake damage evaluation for re-
inforced concrete buildings with various collapse mechanism.” In Proc.,
15th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo: International
Association for Earthquake Engineering.
Mander, J., M. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988. “Theoretical stress-strain
model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8): 1804–1826.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
Marini, A., and E. Spacone. 2006. “Analysis of reinforced concrete
elements including shear effects.” ACI Struct. J. 103 (5): 645–655.
Mazzoni, S., F. McKenna, M. Scott, and G. Fenves. 2007. “Open system for
earthquake engineering simulation user command language manual.”
Accessed October 10, 2017. http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Menegotto, M., and P. Pinto. 1973. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded
R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic
behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending.
Lisbon, Portugal: International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering.
Mo, Y., and S. Wang. 2000. “Seismic behavior of RC columns with various
tie configurations.” J. Struct. Eng. 126 (10): 1122–1130. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:10(1122).
Paal, S., J. Jeon, L. Brilakis, and R. DesRoches. 2015. “Automated damage
index estimation of reinforced concrete columns for post-earthquake
evaluations.” J. Struct. Eng. 141 (9): 04014228. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001200.
Paultre, P., F. Legeron, and D. Mongeau. 2001. “Influence of concrete
strength and transverse reinforcement yield strength on behavior of
high-strength concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J. 98 (4): 490–501.
Petrangeli, M., P. Pinto, and V. Ciampi. 1999. “Fiber element for cyclic
bending and shear of RC structures. I: Theory.” J. Eng. Mech.
125 (9): 994–1001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1999)
125:9(994).
Pham, A., N. Hoang, and Q. Nguyen. 2015. “Predicting compressive
strength of high-performance concrete using metaheuristic-optimized
© ASCE 04018042-14
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 2018, 32(5): 04018042
least squares support vector regression.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (3):
06015002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000506.
Priestley, M., R. Verma, and Y. Xiao. 1994. “Seismic shear strength of re-
inforced concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 120 (8): 2310–2329. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:8(2310).
Saatcioglu, M., and M. Grira. 1999. “Confinement of reinforced con-
crete columns with welded reinforcement grids.” ACI Struct. J.
96 (1): 29–39.
Saatcioglu, M., and G. Ozcebe. 1989. “Response of reinforced concrete
columns to simulated seismic loading.” ACI Struct. J. 86 (1): 3–12.
Sasani, M. 2004. “Shear strength and deformation capacity models for
RC columns.” In Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering.
Tokyo: International Association of Earthquake Engineering.
Scott, B., R. Park, and M. Priestley. 1982. “Stress-strain behavior of
concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates.”
ACI J. Proc. 79 (1): 13–27.
Sezen, H. 2008. “Shear deformation model for reinforced concrete
columns.” Struct. Eng. Mech. 28 (1): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.12989
/sem.2008.28.1.039.
Sezen, H., and J. Moehle. 2002. “Seismic behavior of shear-critical rein-
forced concrete building columns.” In Proc., 7th US National Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Institute.
Sezen, H., and J. Moehle. 2004. “Shear strength model for lightly rein-
forced concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 130 (11): 1692–1703.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:11(1692).
Spacone, E., F. Filippou, and F. Taucer. 1996. “Fiber beam-column model
for non-linear analysis of RC frames. I: Formulation.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 25 (7): 711–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9845.
Suykens, J., J. Gestel, J. Brabanter, B. Moor, and J. Vandewalle. 2002.
Least square support vector machines. Singapore: World Scientific.
Thomsen, J., and J. Wallace. 1994. “Lateral load behavior of reinforced
concrete columns constructed using high-strength materials.” ACI
Struct. J. 91 (5): 605–615.
Vapnik, V. 1998. Statistical learning theory. New York: Wiley.
Verderame, G., G. Fabbrocino, and G. Manfredi. 2008. “Seismic response
of R.C. columns with smooth reinforcement. Part II: Cyclic tests.”
Eng. Struct. 30 (9): 2289–2300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.
2008.01.024.
Vu, D., and N. Hoang. 2015. “Punching shear capacity estimation of FRP-
reinforced concrete slabs using a hybrid machine learning approach.”
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 12 (9): 1153–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080
/15732479.2015.1086386.
Xiao, Y., and A. Martirossyan. 1998. “Seismic performance of high-
strength concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 124 (3): 241–251. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:3(241).
Xie, L., X. Lu, H. Guan, and X. Lu. 2015. “Experimental study and numeri-
cal model calibration for earthquake-induced collapse of RC frames
with emphasis on key columns, joints and the overall structure.”
J. Earthquake Eng. 19 (8): 1320–1344. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13632469.2015.1040897.
J. Comput. Civ. Eng.