Structures 36 (2022) 927–934

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Machine learning applications for assessment of dynamic progressive

collapse of steel moment frames
Yan Fei Zhu a, *, Yao Yao a, b, *, Ying Huang a, Chang Hong Chen b, Hui Yun Zhang a,
Zhaohui Huang a
a
School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China
b
School of Mechanics and Civil Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710129, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A highly efficient implementation of machine learning (ML) framework is developed for assessing the dynamic
Progressive collapse increase factor (DIF) used in nonlinear static analysis (pushdown). Analysis datasets with a total of 3992 samples
Dynamic increase factor consisting of training (70%) and testing (30%) are generated by the Monte Carlo simulation that carried out by
Dynamic response
Sap2000 program application programming interface (API) link with Python in PyCharm software. The gener­
Steel
ated datasets are evaluated by the correlation matrix and relative feature importance of features that consist of
Machine learning
damping ratio (Zeta) range, period of vertical vibration (Tv), ratio of duration of a column removal to Tv (Tau),
ratio of factored moment to yielding moment (MMR) and ratio of factored rotation to yielding rotation (TTR).
The current study incorporates implementation of K-nearest neighbors algorithm (KNN), extreme gradient
boosting (XGBoost), back-propagation neural network (BPNN), and one-dimensional convolutional neural
network (1DCNN). The results confirm the ability of the developed framework to efficiently implement
regression analysis for the DIF.

1. Introduction
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of an initial local failure
to a chain failure reaction that leads to disproportionate partial or total
collapse of a structure [1,2]. The initial event could be terrorist attacks,
vehicular collisions, gas explosions, earthquakes, fires, or human errors
in design and construction [3,4]. Extreme progressive collapse events
indicate the importance of resistance against progressive collapse [4],
which consisting of the Ronan Point in London caused by gas explosion,
the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma (1995) caused by
terrorist truck bombing, the twin towers of the World Trade Center in
New York (2001) caused by terrorist attack and fire, the Rana Plaza in
Savar (2013) caused by overload, and the Plasco Building in Tehran
(2017) caused by fire.
Steel structures are commonly adopted for mitigation of progressive
collapse, which attract the attention of structural engineers and re­
searchers. Extensive research has been carried out to discuss and
investigate progressive collapse of steel structures, involving the per­
formance of beam-column joint [5–8], the failure mode of steel frames
[9–13] and the robustness of steel modular buildings [14–16]. The
alternate load paths (ALP) method has been widely applied to the
assessment of progressive collapse under column removal scenarios.
Other than static analysis, more attention has been paid to the study of
dynamic progressive collapse of steel structures. Dynamic experiments
and finite element (FE) analysis of dynamic progressive collapse in steel
frames are widely performed [17–20].
Although nonlinear dynamic analysis with good accuracy is one of
the best approaches for progressive collapse assessment, the analysis
processing is complex and time consuming. Nonlinear static analysis
(pushdown) incorporating dynamic increase factor (DIF) can be utilized
to assess structural responses. Thus, different DIF formulas are proposed
by researchers, and various of influence parameters are considered in
those proposed formulas [4], such as ductility demand of plastic rotation
divided by yield rotation [21–23], damping ratio [24], post-elastic
stiffness ratio [21,25], applied loads (energy demand) and energy ca­
pacity [26,27]. However, for multi-factor evaluation problem, machine
learning (ML) is an efficient and convenient implementation tool.
Due to the rapid development of machine learning (ML), structural

* Corresponding authors at: School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China.
E-mail addresses: zhuyanfei@xauat.edu.cn (Y.F. Zhu), yaoy@nwpu.edu.cn (Y. Yao), changhong.chen@nwpu.edu.cn (C.H. Chen), leslie_zhanghuiyun@xauat.edu.
cn (H.Y. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.067
Received 17 July 2021; Received in revised form 17 December 2021; Accepted 23 December 2021
Available online 30 December 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.F. Zhu et al.
Fig. 1. Dynamic progressive collapse analysis using machine learning.
performance and condition can be predicted and assessed by the ML
models [28]. The machine learning applications in building structural
design and performance assessment consist of estimating structural
response [29–32], calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of compo­
nents [33], recognizing patterns in structural health monitoring data
[34,35] and predicting the variability of material properties [36–38].
Although research on construction problems has been carried out in the
past decade by the machine learning models, the ML has rarely been
applied to design against progressive collapse. Fu [39] assessed the fire
induced progressive collapse of steel frames using machine learning
models, which consisting of Decision Tree, KNN and Neural Network.
Esfandiari and Urgessa [40] presented progressive collapse analysis
based on an efficient structural optimization technique, called DMPSO.
Therefore, it is essential to develop a machine learning framework for
the assessment of dynamic progressive collapse.
The current study focuses on developing a highly efficient machine
learning (ML) framework, and provides a new analytical idea and
analytical tool for the rapid implementation of DIF evaluation. The
framework enables the achievement of a regression analysis for dynamic
Fig. 2. Illustration of the steps to obtain the DIF.
928
Structures 36 (2022) 927–934
increase factor (DIF) used in nonlinear static analysis (pushdown),
which can be utilized to efficiently assess structural maximum responses
under a sudden column removal scenario. Different influence parame­
ters are incorporated in the obtained DIF based on the proposed machine
learning framework, which consist of damping ratio, period of vertical
vibration, duration of a column removal, applied loads and ductility
demand. The current study presents implementation of K-nearest
neighbors algorithm (KNN), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), Back-
propagation neural network (BPNN), and one-dimensional convolu­
tional neural network (1DCNN).
2. Data preparation for assessing the DIF
2.1. Data generation
The whole analysis process of dynamic progressive collapse based on
machine learning method is shown in Fig. 1. The process consists of data
preparation, building machine learning models along with hyper­
parameter optimization and performance evaluation, and applications
Y.F. Zhu et al. Structures 36 (2022) 927–934

Table 1
Statistics of the datasets.
Attribute Abbreviation Unit Mean Std Min Max

Damping ratio Zeta — 0.030 0.012 0.010 0.050

The period of Tv s 0.659 0.086 0.481 0.944
vertical vibration
Ratio of duration of Tau — 0.154 0.083 0.010 0.300
a column removal
to Tv
Ratio of factored MMR — 1.008 0.053 0.745 1.060
moment to
yielding moment
Ratio of factored TTR — 1.756 0.638 0.745 2.999
rotation to
yielding rotation
Dynamic increase DIF — 1.288 0.100 1.142 1.789
factor

Fig. 4. Correlation matrix of features in datasets presented in Table 1.

Fig. 3. The DIF histogram display.

of the machine learning model. Based on the basic principle of structural

dynamics and researches of dynamic progressive collapse as described in
Introduction section, inputs consists of damping ratio (Zeta), period of
vertical vibration (Tv), ratio of duration of a column removal to Tv (Tau,
τ = Δt/Tv ), ratio of factored moment to yielding moment (MMR,
MMR = Ml /My ), and ratio of factored rotation to yielding rotation (TTR,
TTR = θl /θy ). The damping ratio (Zeta) mainly affects the maximum
dynamic response of a steel structure. The vertical elastic stiffness of a
steel frame structure can be presented by the first-mode vertical natural
vibration period (Tv). Different failure modes of a column caused by
different initial events are presented by ratio of duration of a column
removal to Tv (Tau). The factored moment (Ml )and rotation (θl ) are
indexes of external load energy demand, and the yielding moment (My )
and rotation (θy ) are indexes of energy capacity. The output is dynamic
increase factor (DIF). Typically, labeled dataset are split into training
(70%) and testing (30%) datasets by the function of train_test_split im­
ported from model_selection in Sklearn module. The testing subset is to
develop the machine learning model. The testing subset is for evaluating
performance of the proposed model. In the current study, Monte Carlo
simulation is automatically carried out using the SAP2000 program
application programming interface (API) incorporated with the Python.
The trained machine learning model can be then used repeatedly and
quickly in other assessment of structural progressive collapse.
The major steps to investigate the output parameter DIF are illus­
trated in Fig. 2. To incorporate the material yielding on the structural
dynamic response, plastic hinges with default hinge properties obtained
from ASCE4-17 [41] are utilized in SAP2000, as shown on the left side of
Fig. 2. For a given column removal scenario, the DIF is calculated by
Fig. 5. Relative feature importance of features in datasets presented in Table 1.
support reaction method, and given by:
FSR,NLP
DIF = (1)
FSR,NL
where FSR,NLP is the support reaction obtained by Step3 when the
structural responses from the pushdown analysis best match those from
the nonlinear dynamic analysis in Step2as recommended by Zhu, et al.
[27], uNLP = uND,max ; FSR,NL is obtained by Step1 under the applied load
combination of 1.2DL + 0.5LL, where DL is dead load and LL is live load
as described in DoD [1] and GSA [2].
2.2. Data evaluation
The statistics of the datasets with a total of 3992 samples are listed in
Table 1, which calculated from the above analysis process. The DIF
histogram are described and shown in Fig. 3. It is worth reminding that
the range of values of DIF is 1.142 to 1.789. The maximum value of DIF
(DIFmax = 1.789) obtained by the steps as shown in Fig. 2. is close to, but
less than, the constant value (DIF = 2.0) used in the traditional analysis
and design. Also, the maximum and minimum values are close to the
value recommended in guidelines [1,2] and in references [22,24,25]. It
is noted that Zeta, Tau, MMR, TTR, DIF are dimensionless. The unit of Tv
is second (s). The value of each feature parameter is variable over a

929
Y.F. Zhu et al.
Fig. 6. Visualization of the XGBoost model architecture.
certain range so as to generate large volumes of analysis data. The value
of Zeta ranges from 0.010 to 0.050, Tv ranges from 0.481 to 0.944, and
Tau ranges from 0.01 to 0.3. The variable factored moment and rotation
are obtained by adjusting the sections of members and the applied load.
The correlation matrix and relative feature importance of features in
datasets presented in Table 1 are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 respectively.
The output variable DIF is highly correlated with the MMR (-0.799) and
TTR (-0.714). The Zeta and Tau show little effect on the DIF, and the
corresponding correlation coefficients are − 0.168 and − 0.135, respec­
tively. Moreover, the influence of structural vertical stiffness on the DIF
should not be neglected.
3. Machine learning algorithms
3.1. K-nearest Neighbors algorithm (KNN)
Supervised neighbors-based learning consists of classification for
data with discrete labels, and regression for data with continuous labels.
The nearest neighbor method is to find a predefined number of training
data closest in distance to the new point and predict the label. Kneigh­
borsRegressor class of Sklearn Neighbors library is imported in the KNN
model to predict DIF. The DIF output of the KNN is based on the mean or
median of the k-nearest neighbors in the feature space. The critical pa­
rameters of this class are n_neighbors, weights and p. Default values are
used for other parameters, such as algorithm, leaf_size and metric.
Fig. 7. Visualization of the BPNN model architecture.
930
Structures 36 (2022) 927–934
Hyperparameter optimization of the KNN is performed by the grid
search method in the current study. The grid search provided by Grid­
SearchCV exhaustively generates candidates from a grid of parameter
values specified with the param_grid parameter.
3.2. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)
Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) library supported with
“xgboost” package in python provides an efficient and effective imple­
mentation of the gradient boosting framework. Just like any other ma­
chine learning models, the XGBoost model can be built-up and
implemented by the following steps: 1) Prepare data; 2) Develop a
XGBoost model imported from “bayesian-optimization” package; 3)
Predict the input values; 4) Evaluate with the prediction performance
metrics; 5) Apply the XGBoost model to structural design against pro­
gressive collapse. The critical parameters of the model algorithm are
max_depth, learning_rate, n_estimators, gamma, min_child_weight, max_del­
ta_step, subsample, colsample_bytree, reg_alpha, reg_lambda. Default set­
tings are recommended for other parameters, such as booster, base_score,
random_state and so on. Hyperparameter optimization of the XGBoost is
performed by the bayesian optimization framework and grid search
method. The bayesian optimization is based on bayesian inference and
gaussian process, and the maximum value of an unknown function can
be found. The XGBoost model architecture for the first tree is visualized
using a convenient function plot_tree imported from XGBoost in the
Y.F. Zhu et al.
Fig. 8. Visualization of the 1DCNN model architecture.
current study, as shown in Fig. 6. The features of MMR and Tv are
contained in the first tree diagram. Other features of Zeta, Tau and TTR
are represented in other tree diagrams.
3.3. Back-propagation neural network (BPNN)
A neural network consists of multiple interconnected and combined
neurons. The neurons interact with each other via weighted connections
and are logically arranged into two or more layers. The neural network
model adopted in the current study utilizes the back-propagation
learning algorithm, namely back-propagation neural network (BPNN)
[42]. The adopted BPNN model architecture after hyperparameter
optimization is visualized and shown in Fig. 7 consisting of 1 input layer,
5 hidden layers and 1 output layer. The “keras” package in python
provides an efficient and effective implementation of the BPNN frame­
work. A convenient tool of NNSVG is utilized to design and visualize
architecture of neural network. Hyperparameter optimization of the
BPNN model is performed by the grid search method. The critical pa­
rameters of the BPNN model are number of layers, number of neurons in
each layer of the network, optimizer, epochs and batch_size. Default set­
tings are recommended for other parameters, such as activation, init_­
mode, learn_rate and so on.
3.4. One-dimensional convolutional neural network (1DCNN)
Deep learning has developed as an efficient and high-performance
machine learning method to solve a variety of complex problems,
especially for image processing. Convolutional neural network (CNN) is
a deep neural network approach, which has been widely applied in
various scenarios [43], such as face recognition, activity recognition etc.
In a classical convolutional neural network (CNN), one or more con­
volutional layers are followed by a pooling layer and a fully connected
layer [43]. Basically, these layers can be repeated as often as desired
[44]. In the present study, the 1DCNN model architecture is converted to
dot format and visualized using a convenient function plot_model from
Keras, as shown in Fig. 8. The 1DCNN model is convolved with the Input
931
Structures 36 (2022) 927–934
layer, Conv1D, MaxPooling1D, Flatten and Dense [45]. In the con­
volutional layer, the multiplication is performed between input data and
weights (filter or kernel). The max pooling layer is used to select the
maximum element from the region of feature map and reduce the size of
input data. Once the pooled featured map is obtained, flatten layer
transforms entire pooled feature map matrix (two-dimensional array)
into a one-dimensional array. After flattening, two fully connected
layers (Dense) are added to the 1DCNN model. The dense layer involves
input layer and output layer. Hyperparameter optimization of the
1DCNN model is similarly performed by the grid search method. Opti­
mization results are shown in Fig. 9. The red results shown at the top
position in the radar plot are the optimized analysis results. The possible
values for val_filter are set to be 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and output_dim are set to
be 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. Thus, there are 5 × 5 = 25 combinations of the two
hyperparameters (val_filter and output_dim) as shown in Fig. 9 (a). The
possible values for batch_size are set to be 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, and epochs
are set to be 300, 600, 1200, 1800. Thus, there are 4 × 5 = 20 combi­
nations of the two hyperparameters (batch_size and epochs) as shown in
Fig. 9 (b). The keras package in python provides seven options for
optimizer, namely: SGD, RMSprop, Adagrad, Adadelta, Adam, Adamax,
Nadam, as shown in Fig. 9 (c). Activation. In the current study, the ef­
fects of nine different activation functions on the analysis results were
analyzed, namely softmax, softplus, softsign, relu, tanh, sigmoid, hard_sig­
moid, linear, as shown in Fig. 9 (d). The critical parameters of the CNN
model are filters = 16, output_dim = 32, batch_size = 8, epochs = 1200,
optimizer = adamax, activation = relu, kernel_size = 2. It is worth
reminding that the output_dim = 32 is for the first fully connected layer
as shown in Fig. 8. Default settings are recommended for other param­
eters, such as padding = ’same’, loss = mean squared error (MSE), met­
rics = mean absolute error (MAE), etc.
4. Results and discussions
Scatter plots of the correlation between the target DIF and the pre­
dicted values obtained by KNN, XGBoost, BPNN and 1DCNN are illus­
trated in Figs. 10-13, respectively. The performance of the proposed
Y.F. Zhu et al. Structures 36 (2022) 927–934

Fig. 9. Hyperparameter optimization for the 1DCNN model by the grid search method.

Fig. 10. DIF from KNN predictive model and target. Fig. 11. DIF from XGBoost predictive model and target.

machine learning model is evaluated based on the 10-fold cross vali­ error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE) and mean absolute percentage
dation method. Machine learning model performance, such as underfit error (MAPE). The detailed calculation formulas are given by
or overfit, is also diagnosed by learning curves in the current study. In
∑
n
addition, a set of 4 key indicators are used to quantify the prediction (y − ̂y )2
2
R = 1− ∑ (2)
performance of the model as recommended by Nguyen, et al. [38], n
(y − y)2
which consisting of coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square

932
Y.F. Zhu et al. Structures 36 (2022) 927–934

obtained by the function of mean_squared_error, mean_absolute_error and

Fig. 12. DIF from BPNN predictive model and target.
r2_score imported from the Sklearn library. Here R2 ranges from − 1 to +
1. If the always-positive RMS E, MAE and MAPE are close to zero, it
represents better prediction of the machine learning algorithm. Appar­
ently, R and MAPE are dimensionless, while the unit of RMSE and MAE
is same as the output datasets.
Comparison of the different machine learning methods performance
and computation cost for prediction of the DIF are listed in Table 2. The
KNN model parameters are calibrated as: n_neighbors = 4; Weights=’­
distance’; p = 1. The XGBoost model parameters are calibrated as:
n_estimators = 800; max_depth = 6; learning_rate = 0.1; objective=’reg:
squarederror’. The BPNN model parameters are calibrated as: neurons
= 10; layers_num = 6; activation=’relu’; optimizer=’Adamax’; epochs =
300; batch_size = 8. Finally, the 1DCNN model parameters are calibrated
as val_filter = 16; output_dim = 32; kernel_size = 2; pool_size = 2; pad­
ding=’same’; activation=’relu’; optimizer=’Adamax’; epochs = 1200,
batch_size = 8. Then these parameters are used in training and testing the
proposed machine learning model. According to the results as shown in
Figs. 10-13 and listed in Table 2, the prediction accuracy of the 1DCNN
model with R2 = 0.959, RMSE = 0.020, MAE = 0.012 is the highest, the
BPNN model in the second place, the XGBoost model in the third place,
and the KNN model in the end for assessment of dynamic progressive
collapse. It is noted that the 1DCNN model can make an excellent rating
estimation because the R2 score is high, and the MSE and RMSE values
are close to zero in despite of the higher MAPE value and computation
cost.
The present study provides accurate assessment on the dynamic
progressive collapse response of steel frames based on machine learning
method. The machine learning model that is trained by the proposed
analysis framework provides a new design idea of the engineering
practice to enhance the robustness of steel building against progress
collapse. However, it has the following limitations: a) it does not account
the 3-dimensional effects; b) it does not incorporate the effect of
connection flexibility on the dynamic behavior of structure.

5. Conclusions

Four machine learning models consisting of KNN, XGBoost, BPNN

and 1DCNN are adopted to predict the DIF in the current study. Based on
Fig. 13. DIF from 1DCNN predictive model and target. the analysis results, the following conclusions can be drawn:

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ 1) Machine learning application can provide an efficient and effective

1∑ tool for the assessment of dynamic progressive collapse of steel
n
RMSE = (y − ̂y )2 (3)
n moment frames instead of performing complex numerical simulation
and theoretical analysis.
1∑ 2) The determination coefficient R2 of 1DCNN, BPNN and XGBoost
n
MAE = |y − ̂y| (4)
n model are over 0.9, range from 0.937 to 0.959. The prediction ac­
⃒ ⃒ curacy of the 1DCNN model is the highest, the BPNN model in the
1 ∑⃒⃒y − y ⃒⃒
̂ second place, the XGBoost model in the third place, and the KNN
MAPE = ⃒ y ⃒ × 100 (5)
n model in the end for assessment of dynamic progressive collapse.
where y and ̂y are target and predicted values for the testing datasets, 3) Hyperparameter optimization or tuning of the machine learning
respectively; y represents the mean of the target value; n is the number models can be performed by the grid search method and bayesian
of testing datasets. The key indicators adopted in this work can be easily optimization framework.

Table 2
Comparison of the performance of different machine learning methods for prediction of DIF.
Method Module / Function Hyperparameter Performance indicator Time
R2 RMSE MAE MAPE / (s)
%

KNN Sklearn / KNeighborsRegressor n_neighbors = 4; Weights=’distance’; p = 1 0.859 0.037 0.018 1.378 1

XGBoost XGBoost /XGBRegressor n_estimators = 800; max_depth = 6; learning_rate = 0.1; objective=’reg: 0.937 0.025 0.014 1.065 2
squarederror’
BPNN Keras /Sequential neurons = 10; layers_num = 6; activation=’relu’; optimizer=’Adamax’; epochs = 0.944 0.023 0.014 8.166 76
300; batch_size = 8
1DCNN Keras /Sequential, Conv1D, val_filter = 16; output_dim = 32; kernel_size = 2; pool_size = 2; padding=’same’; 0.959 0.020 0.012 8.245 88
MaxPooling1D activation=’relu’; optimizer=’Adamax’; epochs = 1200, batch_size = 8;

933
Y.F. Zhu et al.
4) The performance of the machine learning model requires to be
evaluated by using multiple indicators, such as R2, RMSE, MAE and
MAPE.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financially supported by
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51408489,
51248007, 51308448, 51301136 and 51508464), the Natural Science
Foundation of Shaanxi Province (2017JM5007, 2020JM-152).
References
[1] DoD, Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse, Vol. UFC 4-023-03,
Department of Defence, Washington, DC., 2016.
[2] GSA, Alternate Path Analysis and Design Guidelines for Progressive Collapse
Resistance, General Services Administration, Washington, DC., 2016.
[3] Alshaikh IM, Bakar BA, Alwesabi EA, Akil HM. Experimental investigation of the
progressive collapse of reinforced concrete structures: An overview. Structures
2020;25:881–900.
[4] Kiakojouri F, De Biagi V, Chiaia B, Sheidaii MR. Progressive collapse of framed
building structures: Current knowledge and future prospects. Eng Struct 2020;206:
110061.
[5] Han Q, Li X, Liu M, Spencer BF. Performance analysis and macromodel simulation
of steel frame structures with beam-column joints using cast steel stiffeners for
progressive collapse prevention. Thin-Walled Structures 2019;140:404–15.
[6] Qian K, Lan X, Li Z, Li Y, Fu F. Progressive collapse resistance of two-storey seismic
configured steel sub-frames using welded connections. J Constr Steel Res 2020;
170:106117.
[7] Tang H, Deng X, Jia Y, Xiong J, Peng C. Study on the progressive collapse behavior
of fully bolted RCS beam-to-column connections. Eng Struct 2019;199:109618.
[8] Wang F, Yang J, Pan Z. Progressive collapse behaviour of steel framed
substructures with various beam-column connections. Eng Fail Anal 2020;109:
104399.
[9] Chen K, Zhang Y, Tan KH. Behaviour of steel beam-column joints subjected to
quasi-static and impact loads. J Constr Steel Res 2021;183:106721.
[10] Ding Y, Song X, Zhu H-T. Probabilistic progressive collapse analysis of steel frame
structures against blast loads. Eng Struct 2017;147:679–91.
[11] Ferraioli M. Evaluation of dynamic increase factor in progressive collapse analysis
of steel frame structures considering catenary action. Steel and Composite
Structures 2019;30(3):253–69.
[12] Kong D-Y, Yang Y, Yang Bo, Zhou X-H. Experimental study on progressive collapse
of 3D steel frames under concentrated and uniformly distributed loading
conditions. J Struct Eng 2020;146(4):04020017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0002537.
[13] Wang H, Yang B, Chen K, Elchalakani M. Parametric analysis and simplified
approach for steel-framed subassemblies with reverse channel connection under
falling-debris impact. Eng Struct 2020;225:111263.
[14] Alembagheri M, Sharafi P, Hajirezaei R, Samali B. Collapse capacity of modular
steel buildings subject to module loss scenarios: The role of inter-module
connections. Eng Struct 2020;210:110373.
[15] Alembagheri M, Sharafi P, Hajirezaei R, Tao Z. Anti-collapse resistance
mechanisms in corner-supported modular steel buildings. J Constr Steel Res 2020;
170:106083.
[16] Luo FJ, Bai Yu, Hou J, Huang Y. Progressive collapse analysis and structural
robustness of steel-framed modular buildings. Eng Fail Anal 2019;104:643–56.
[17] Bregoli G, Vasdravellis G, Karavasilis TL, Cotsovos DM. Static and dynamic tests on
steel joints equipped with novel structural details for progressive collapse
mitigation. Eng Struct 2021;232:111829.
[18] Li G-Q, Li L-L, Jiang B, Lu Y. Experimental study on progressive collapse resistance
of steel frames under a sudden column removal scenario. J Constr Steel Res 2018;
147:1–15.
934
Structures 36 (2022) 927–934
[19] Li H, Cai X, Zhang L, Zhang B, Wang W. Progressive collapse of steel moment-
resisting frame subjected to loss of interior column: Experimental tests. Eng Struct
2017;150:203–20.
[20] Xie F, Gu B, Qian H. Experimental study on the dynamic behavior of steel frames
during progressive collapse. J Constr Steel Res 2021;177:106459.
[21] Tsai M-H, Lin B-H. Dynamic amplification factor for progressive collapse resistance
analysis of an RC building. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings
2009;18(5):539–57.
[22] McKay A, Marchand K, Diaz M. Alternate path method in progressive collapse
analysis: Variation of dynamic and nonlinear load increase factors. Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 2012;17(4):152–60.
[23] Qian K, Li B. Research advances in design of structures to resist progressive
collapse. J Perform Constr Facil 2015;29(5):B4014007.
[24] Mashhadi J, Saffari H. Effects of damping ratio on dynamic increase factor in
progressive collapse. Steel and Composite Structures 2016;22(3):677–90.
[25] Mashhadi J, Saffari H. Modification of dynamic increase factor to assess
progressive collapse potential of structures. J Constr Steel Res 2017;138:72–8.
[26] Liu M. A new dynamic increase factor for nonlinear static alternate path analysis of
building frames against progressive collapse. Eng Struct 2013;48:666–73.
[27] Zhu YF, Chen CH, Yao Y, Keer LM, Huang Y. Dynamic increase factor for
progressive collapse analysis of semi-rigid steel frames. Steel and Composite
Structures 2018;28(2):209–21.
[28] Sun H, Burton HV, Huang H. Machine learning applications for building structural
design and performance assessment: state-of-the-art review. Journal of Building
Engineering 2021;33:101816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101816.
[29] Zhang Yu, Burton HV, Sun H, Shokrabadi M. A machine learning framework for
assessing post-earthquake structural safety. Struct Saf 2018;72:1–16.
[30] Kiani J, Camp C, Pezeshk S. On the application of machine learning techniques to
derive seismic fragility curves. Comput Struct 2019;218:108–22.
[31] Sun H, Burton H, Wallace J. Reconstructing seismic response demands across
multiple tall buildings using kernel-based machine learning methods. Structural
Control and Health Monitoring 2019;26(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.
v26.710.1002/stc.2359.
[32] Kaveh A, Eslamlou AD, Sheikhi R. Seismic performance of steel structures
retrofitted with optimal slack cable collapse prevention system. Journal of Building
Engineering 2020;31:101392.
[33] Kaveh A, Dadras Eslamlou A, Javadi SM, Geran Malek N. Machine learning
regression approaches for predicting the ultimate buckling load of variable-
stiffness composite cylinders. Acta Mech 2021;232(3):921–31.
[34] Mangalathu S, Sun H, Nweke CC, Yi Z, Burton HV. Classifying earthquake damage
to buildings using machine learning. Earthquake Spectra 2020;36(1):183–208.
[35] Rafiei MH, Adeli H. A novel machine learning-based algorithm to detect damage in
high-rise building structures. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings
2017;26(18):e1400. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.v26.1810.1002/tal.1400.
[36] Timur Cihan M. Prediction of Concrete Compressive Strength and Slump by
Machine Learning Methods. Advances in Civil Engineering 2019;2019:1–11.
[37] Liu JC, Zhang ZG. A machine learning approach to predict explosive spalling of
heated concrete. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 2020;20(4):1–25.
[38] Nguyen H, Vu T, Vo TP, Thai HT. Efficient machine learning models for prediction
of concrete strengths. Constr Build Mater 2021;266:120950.
[39] Fu F. Fire induced progressive collapse potential assessment of steel framed
buildings using machine learning. J Constr Steel Res 2020;166:105918.
[40] Esfandiari MJ, Urgessa GS. Progressive collapse design of reinforced concrete
frames using structural optimization and machine learning. Structures 2020;28:
1252–64.
[41] American Society of Civil Engineers, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings, Vol. ASCE/SEI 41-17, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
Virginia, 2017.
[42] Goh ATC. Back-propagation neural networks for modeling complex systems. Artif
Intell Eng 1995;9(3):143–51.
[43] Dhillon A, Verma GK. Convolutional neural network: a review of models,
methodologies and applications to object detection. Progress in Artificial
Intelligence 2020;9(2):85–112.
[44] Ragab MG, Abdulkadir SJ, Aziz N, Al-Tashi Q, Alyousifi Y, Alhussian H, et al.
A Novel One-Dimensional CNN with Exponential Adaptive Gradients for Air
Pollution Index Prediction. Sustainability 2020;12(23):10090. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su122310090.
[45] Kiranyaz S, Avci O, Abdeljaber O, Ince T, Gabbouj M, Inman DJ. 1D convolutional
neural networks and applications: A survey. Mech Syst Sig Process 2021;151:
107398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107398.