Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Data-driven machine-learning-based seismic failure mode identification of T

reinforced concrete shear walls
Sujith Mangalathua, Hansol Jangb, Seong-Hoon Hwangc, Jong-Su Jeonc,
⁎

a
Equifax Inc., Atlanta, GA 30040, USA
b
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: A reinforced concrete shear wall is one of the most critical structural members in buildings, in terms of carrying
Failure mode classification lateral loads. Despite its importance, post-earthquake reconnaissance and recent experimental studies have
Machine learning highlighted the insufficient safety margins of shear walls. The lack of empirical and mechanics-based models
Reinforced concrete shear wall prevents rapid failure mode identification of existing shear walls. This study builds on recent advances in the
Critical input parameters
area of machine learning to determine the failure mode of shear walls as a function of geometric configurations,
material properties, and reinforcement details. This study assembles a comprehensive database consisting of 393
experimental results for shear walls with various geometric configurations. Eight machine learning models,
including Naïve Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Decision Tree, Random Forest, AdaBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, and
CatBoost were evaluated in this study, in order to establish the best prediction model. As a result of detailed
evaluation, a machine learning model based on the Random Forest method is proposed in this paper. The
proposed method has 86% accuracy in identifying the failure mode of shear walls. This study also demonstrates
that aspect ratio, boundary element reinforcement indices, and wall length-to-wall thickness ratio are the critical
parameters influencing the failure mode of shear walls. Finally, an open-source data-driven classification model
that can be used in design offices across the world is provided in this paper. The proposed model has the
flexibility to account for additional experimental results yielding new insights.

1. Introduction detailed continuum-based finite element models [3]. Although such a

Shear walls are a commonly used lateral load resisting system in
buildings, and recent earthquakes have highlighted the importance of
the performance of shear walls during seismic events. However, eva-
luations of existing buildings revealed the lack of ductile detailing of
shear walls [1].
It has been noted in experimental studies that a shear wall can fail in
flexure, shear, flexure-shear, sliding shear, or out-of-plane, depending on
the geometric configurations and material properties. Knowing the sus-
ceptibility of a shear wall to a specific failure mode can help engineers
complete a structural performance analysis and decide on proper retro-
fitting strategies. Past experiments substantiated the fact that the
common notion that squat shear walls are susceptible to shear failure
mode is not true [2]. The failure mode of walls can be determined by a
complex set of design parameters, not by only one or two parameters.
The strategy currently employed to identify the failure mode is based on
detailed evaluation is valuable for the seismic performance evaluation of
individual buildings, its application is limited in identifying the vulner-
ability of building portfolios in a short time, which is a typical scenario in
regional risk assessment. The advent of data-driven approaches provides
a viable alternative to the computationally intensive numerical models
for risk and vulnerability assessment.
Mangalathu and Jeon [4] suggested a machine learning model to
identify the failure mode of beam-column joints. The authors assembled
an experimental database to construct an easy-to-use machine model
for rapid assessment of the failure scenarios of beam-column joints.
Huang and Burton [5] used machine learning methods to classify the
failure mode of reinforced concrete frames with infills. As showed by
Mangalathu and Jeon [6], the machine learning model for classifying
the failure mode of reinforced concrete columns is about 10% more
accurate than the existing finite element-based approach. Based on a
limited dataset of 97 reinforced masonry shear walls, Siam et al. [7]

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: sujithmss@gatech.edu (S. Mangalathu), let908@utexas.edu (H. Jang), shwang46@hanyang.ac.kr (S.-H. Hwang),
jongsujeon@hanyang.ac.kr (J.-S. Jeon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110331
Received 24 October 2019; Received in revised form 2 January 2020; Accepted 31 January 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Mangalathu, et al.
suggested a clustering algorithm to classify the masonry walls. Kiani
et al. [8] explored the application of machine learning algorithms for
the derivation of fragility curves. Other data-driven approaches have
been directed to the generation of seismic vulnerability curves of in-
frastructural systems intended for regional risk assessment [9,10]. De-
spite the advancement in the application of machine learning techni-
ques for failure mode and damage assessment of infrastructure systems,
no studies have yet been carried out on the data-driven approaches for
the failure mode identification of shear walls. Such a study is critical, as
shear walls are the most common lateral load resisting system, and
there is no mechanics- or empirical-based model for the failure mode
identification of shear walls. In addition, most of the existing studies in
earthquake engineering are limited to traditional machine learning
models such as Naïve Bayes, Random Forest, Decision Tree, and Dis-
criminant analysis [4,6–8]. However, gradient boosting methods are
popular machine learning methods these days, due to their efficiency,
accuracy, and interpretability [11,12]. These methods are backed by
solid theoretical results that show how combining weaker models (base
predictors) iteratively in a greedy manner leads to strong predictors.
Despite their popularity in other fields, no studies in the field of
earthquake engineering have been carried out to explore these
methods. To fill this gap, and to utilize the application of recently ad-
vanced machine learning methods, this paper explores the application
of boosting models such as adaptive boosting (AdaBoost) [13], extreme
gradient boosting (XGBoost) [14], light gradient boosting machine
(LightGBM) [12], and categorical boosting (CatBoost) [15,16]. Note
that the current study is the first attempt to explore these boosting
methodologies for failure mode identifications. Since the performance
of the machine learning model depends on the data under considera-
tion, there is a critical need to utilize the current state-of-art machine
learning models for the failure mode prediction of shear walls. Speci-
fically, this study had the following objectives: (1) to assemble an ex-
perimental database of shear walls. The database includes geometric
properties, reinforcement pattern, and material properties. Such an
open-source database contributes to the data-driven approach for the
seismic performance evaluation of buildings. (2) To evaluate the per-
formance of various machine learning models in the classification of
failure modes of shear walls. Various machine learning models such as
Naïve Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Decision Tree, Random Forest,
AdaBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost are used in this study to
establish a classification model. (3) To identify the importance of the
input parameters on the failure mode of shear walls. Such an identifi-
cation helps researchers to plan proper experimental investigations in
order to understand the seismic behavior of shear walls. (4) To create
an open-source data-driven classification model that can be used in
design offices across the world for the rapid failure mode prediction of
shear walls. The open-source model has the flexibility to incorporate
more experimental data as it becomes available, thus allowing for
continuous improvements in the classification model.
A brief summary of the failure modes, and the existing approaches
for predicting the failure modes, are outlined below. Subsequently, the
experimental database is explored to ascertain key insights. The fol-
lowing sections summarize the machine learning models, and the ap-
plication of machine learning methods to obtain the best prediction
model. The salient insights obtained from the study are provided in the
conclusion section.
2. Failure mode of shear walls
Reinforced concrete shear walls, commonly used in building systems,
are subjected to axial loads, bending moments, and shear forces. Shear
walls are generally categorized as either slender (tall, high-rise) and squat
(low-rise), depending on their aspect ratio (shear span length divided by
wall length). Slender walls are more likely to have a ductile failure me-
chanism dominated by flexural yielding near the base. Due to their
geometry, squat walls tend to have shear-controlled failure mechanisms,
2
Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331
which are more likely to exhibit an unpredicted shear failure that can be
described as a sudden drop of stiffness and strength under seismic loads.
ASCE 41-06 [18] indicates that walls are considered slender (nor-
mally controlled by flexure) if their aspect ratio is greater than 3.0, and
are considered short or squat (normally controlled by shear) if their
aspect ratio is less than 1.5. If walls have an intermediate aspect ratio
between 1.5 and 3.0, they exhibit behavior affected by both shear and
flexure. FEMA 306 [19] suggests that ductile flexural failure typically
occurs in well-designed and relatively tall shear walls (with aspect ra-
tios greater than 3.0), given they have enough shear strength. As shown
in Fig. 1(a), flexural failure occurs due to the crushing of concrete or the
fracture of longitudinal reinforcement in the plastic hinge zone. Flex-
ural failure is not commonly observed in squat shear walls, especially
those with aspect ratios less than 1.0. Nevertheless, flexural failure can
happen in such walls, depending on their reinforcement details, and
they may be observed with shear failure.
Paulay and Priestley [17] classified the shear failure mode of squat
shear walls into three cases: diagonal tension failure, diagonal com-
pression failure, and sliding shear failure, as shown in Fig. 1(b) through
(d). Their description of these failure modes is summarized as follows.
Diagonal tension failure is likely to occur when the wall has insufficient
horizontal shear reinforcement, and is characterized by one or more
corner-to-corner diagonal cracks, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Diagonal com-
pression failure occurs when a wall has large and adequate horizontal
shear reinforcement; the concrete may crush under diagonal compression
with widespread crack patterns, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The shear walls
with boundary elements have a higher potential for diagonal compres-
sion failure, compared to their counterparts with rectangular cross sec-
tions, because their ability to withstand higher flexural strength, thus
increasing the shear demand on the web [20]. By limiting nominal shear
stress and providing sufficient horizontal shear reinforcement, diagonal
tension or compression failure can be inhibited. Sliding shear failure
occurs either due to (1) large cracks at the wall base and (2) the crushing
of concrete and buckling of rebars over a narrow band along the base of
the wall, as shown in Fig. 1(d), after significant yielding in the flexural
reinforcement. Note that the out-of-plane failure mode is not considered
in the current paper, and further studies are needed in that direction for
the application of data driven approaches to predict this failure mode.
3. Experimental database
As the success of the machine learning model depends on a well-
constructed database, the detailed description of the database, statis-
tical analysis of input parameters, and key insights are presented in this
section.
3.1. Description of experimental database for reinforced concrete shear
walls
This study establishes an experimental database consisting of 393
one-story, one-bay reinforced concrete shear walls with rectangular or
non-rectangular (barbell or flanged) cross sections. Most of the speci-
mens used in this database were extracted from two existing databases
[21,22] (see https://purr.purdue.edu/publications/2434/1 and
www.dap.series.upatras.gr for public data and references) and the re-
maining part of the database is newly collected by the authors, based on
existing experimental test results. The collected data is provided in
Supplementary Material. The intention of the study is to generate a
machine learning model to suggest the failure mode identification for a
wide variety of cases, and the specimens with no axial load were also
included in the database. Of all the specimens, 238 of them have a
rectangular cross section, 95 have a barbell type cross section, and 60
have a flanged cross section (Fig. 2). Shear walls with boundary ele-
ments (barbell and flanged sections) can usually achieve higher peak
shear strength than their counterparts with rectangular cross sections
[23]. This is associated with the fact that the boundary elements
S. Mangalathu, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331

(a) Flexural failure (b) Diagonal tension failure

(c) Diagonal compression failure (d) Sliding shear failure

Fig. 1. Typical failure modes of shear walls.

provide additional reinforcement and web confinement. All the shear

walls have symmetric cross sections. Additionally, all the specimens
have continuous longitudinal reinforcement without lap splice, and
deformed and straight reinforcement. Design parameters of the 393
shear walls in the updated database have the following ranges:

• Aspect ratio: 0.25 ≤ M/Vl ≤ 4.10

w

• Wall length to wall thickness ratio: 4.35 ≤ l /t ≤ 57.0

w w

• Concrete compressive strength: 13.7 MPa ≤ f ' ≤ 130.8 MPac

• Vertical reinforcement of web: 0.000 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.037vw

• Horizontal reinforcement of web: 0.000 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.037 hw

• Vertical reinforcement of boundary element: 0.000 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.100 vc Rectangular (R) Barbell (B) Flanged (Fl)
• Horizontal reinforcement of boundary element: Fig. 2. Cross section shape of walls.
0.000 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.130
hc

• Yield strength of vertical reinforcement in web:

0 MPa ≤ f ≤ 1,001 MPa
y,vw

• Yield strength of horizontal reinforcement in web: the web to the side area of the web); ρvc is the vertical reinforcement ratio
0 MPa ≤ f ≤ 1,262 MPa
y,hw of the boundary element (the ratio of the total area of vertical reinforce-
• Yield strength of vertical reinforcement in boundary element: ment in the boundary element to the cross sectional area of the boundary
0 MPa ≤ f ≤ 776 MPa
y,vc element); ρhc is the horizontal reinforcement ratio of the boundary element
• Yield strength of horizontal reinforcement in boundary: (the ratio of the total area of horizontal reinforcement in the boundary
0 MPa ≤ f ≤ 1,253 MPa
y,hc element to the side area of the boundary element); fy,vw is the yield
• Gross cross sectional area of wall: 7,800 mm ≤ A ≤ 825,375 mm
2
g
2
strength of the vertical reinforcement in the web; fy,hw is the yield strength
• Area of boundary element to area of gross sectional area of wall; of the horizontal reinforcement in the web; fy,vc is the yield strength of the
0.0 ≤ A /A ≤ 0.443
b g vertical reinforcement in the boundary element; fy,hc is the yield strength
• Axial load ratio: 0.0 ≤ P/f 'A ≤ 0.499where M/Vl is the aspect
c g w of the horizontal reinforcement in the boundary element; Ab is the area of
ratio of the wall, which is defined as the shear span length (defined as the the boundary element; Ag is the gross sectional area of the wall; and P is
base moment demand (M) divided by the base shear demand (V)) divided the axial compressive load on the wall. Note that Ab/Ag is used to account
by the wall length (lw); tw is the wall (web) thickness; fc' is the compressive for the contribution of the size of the boundary elements to the gross
strength of the concrete cylinder; ρvw is the vertical reinforcement ratio of section of the shear walls with barbell and flanges. Also, the design
the web, (the ratio of the total area of vertical reinforcement in the web to parameters ρvc, ρhc, fy,vc, and fy,hc are considered to account for the effect of
the cross sectional area of the web); ρhw is the horizontal reinforcement the boundary element on the failure mode, whether the cross section of the
ratio of the web (the ratio of the total area of horizontal reinforcement in wall is rectangular or non-rectangular.

3
S. Mangalathu, et al.
Fig. 3. Distribution of design and response parameters.
In the database, the number of specimens with flexural failure,
flexure-shear failure, shear failure, and sliding shear failure is 152, 96,
122, and 23, respectively. Fig. 3 illustrates the distribution of the above
design parameters, as well as the distribution of the cross section shape
of walls: rectangular (R), barbell (B), and flanged (Fl).
3.2. Selection of input parameters for identification of failure mode
Since studies on the classification of failure mode for reinforced
concrete shear walls in a probabilistic manner are very scarce, this
study employs existing studies on the failure mode identification of
other members (reinforced concrete beam-column connections and
4
Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331
'
'
columns) recently performed by the authors [4,6] to set up input
parameters based on design parameters described in the previous sec-
tion. Use of dimensionless input parameters results in dimensionless
coefficients in a fitted prediction model, which are independent on the
change of the system of units. Thus, all input parameters used in this
study are dimensionless based on the design parameters described
above for the convenience of potential users. Some of design para-
meters, such as M/Vlw, lw/tw, Ab/Ag, and P/fc'Ag, are regarded as input
parameters. The first three parameters are used to account for the
configuration of shear walls. Design parameters regarding the re-
inforcement, such as reinforcement ratio and yield strength, are con-
sidered by introducing the reinforcement index, which was used in the
S. Mangalathu, et al.
' '
'
Fig. 4. Distribution of input parameters.
previous studies to classify the failure mode of reinforced concrete
members [4,6]. The reinforcement index is the reinforcement ratio
times the associated yield strength normalized to the concrete com-
pression strength (fc'). The reinforcement index can be interpreted as
the strength ratio, which is defined to incorporate both the quantity and
strength of materials in the section. In this study, four reinforcement
indices are used: the web vertical reinforcement index (ρvwfy,vw/fc'), the
web horizontal reinforcement index (ρhwfy,hw/fc'), the boundary element
vertical reinforcement index (ρvcfy,vc/fc'), and the boundary element
horizontal reinforcement index (ρhcfy,hc/fc'). In addition, the cross sec-
tion shape of the shear walls is added as an input parameter. Here, three
shapes of cross section are considered: rectangular (R), barbell (B), and
flanged (Fl). Fig. 4 shows the distribution of input parameters computed
using the design parameters. Note that because the input parameters
X1 = M/Vlw, X2 = lw/tw, X7 = P/fc'Ag, and X9 = Ab/Ag were already
shown in Fig. 3, they are not shown in Fig. 4. It is clear that there is no
regular pattern regarding the distribution of input parameters. Ad-
ditionally, Fig. 5 shows the correlation between the input parameters
used for the identification of failure mode for shear walls. The corre-
lation coefficient indicates the strength of the relationship between the
relative movements of two parameters. It is seen from Fig. 5 that some
parameters are strongly correlated while others are weakly correlated.
For example, the correlation coefficient between the cross section shape
and Ab/Ag was –0.871, which indicates a strong negative relationship
with each other. The correlation coefficient between M/Vlw and P/fc'Ag
was 0.513; the correlation coefficient between lw/tw and section shape
(or Ab/Ag) was –0.624 (or 0.571). Weak correlations exist between M/
Vlw and section shape (or Ab/Ag). The correlation is an indication of the
need for nonlinear classification algorithms. Note that the current study
is limited to a specific set of input parameters, and further studies are
needed that account for all the input parameters that might have an
influence on the failure mode of walls.
3.3. Selection of failure mode types for response parameter
Following the descriptions in Section 2, Grammatikou et al. [22]
defined the failure mode of reinforced concrete walls with the following
five classes to develop their strength and deformation capacity pre-
diction models: flexure, diagonal tension, diagonal compression, sliding
shear, and special case of squat walls failing in shear. In their database,
most of the specimens exhibiting shear failure in diagonal tension and
compression failed in shear after flexural yielding. However, some of
existing references did not explicitly express a specific type of flexure-
5
Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331
'
shear failure mode (either diagonal tension or compression). For this
reason, this research regards the failure mode of reinforced concrete
walls as being categorized into the following four cases: flexural failure
(F), flexure-shear failure (FS), shear failure (S), and sliding shear failure
(SL), which are denoted as 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, in the model
code (Section 7). In the database, the number of specimens exhibiting
flexural failure, flexure-shear failure, shear failure, and sliding shear
failure were 152, 96, 122, and 23, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3.
4. Overview of machine learning techniques
Eight machine learning models were used in this study to establish
the best failure mode classification algorithm: (1) Naïve Bayes, (2) K-
Nearest Neighbors, (3) Decision Tree, (4) Random Forest, (5) AdaBoost,
(6) XGBoost, (7) LightGBM, and (8) CatBoost. Although algorithms such
as Naïve Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Decision Tree, and Random Forest
has been explored in the field of structural engineering [4,5,8,10],
advanced algorithms such as AdaBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, and Cat-
Boost have not been explored. In the following section, f represents the
failure mode [flexure (F), flexure-shear (FS), shear (S), or sliding shear
(SL)], X represents the input vector with the nine parameters (M/Vlw,
lw/tw, ρvwfy,vw/fc', ρhwfy,hw/fc', ρvcfy,vc/fc', ρhcfy,hc/fc', P/fc'Ag, section shape,
and Ab/Ag), Y represents the predicted output mode, and x represents a
specific observation. Only a brief description of the various machine
learning methods is given in this section; interested readers can refer to
Friedman et al. [24] for a more detailed description.
4.1. Naïve Bayes
A Naïve Bayes classifier simplifies learning by assuming that the
effect of an attribute value on a given class is independent of the values
of other attributes. The classifier is based on Bayes theorem:
f ff (x )
Pr (x ) = Pr (Y = f |X = x ) =
K
i=1 i fi (x ) (1)
where f is the prior probability that a randomly chosen observation
comes from the fth class, and f f (x ) represents the density function that
an observation comes from the fth class. f is computed in the current
study by computing the fraction of the training observations belonging
to the fth class, and a Gaussian distribution is assumed for f f (x ) .
S. Mangalathu, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331

M /Vl w l w /t w ρ vw f y,vw /f c ρ hw f y,vw /f c ρ vc f y,vc /f c ρ hc f y,hc /f c P /f c A g Section A b /A g

M /Vlw
1.000 -0.433 0.071 -0.069 -0.159 0.122 0.513 0.274 -0.229
lw /tw

-0.433 1.000 0.100 0.290 -0.048 -0.217 -0.317 -0.624 0.571

ρvwfy,vw /fc

0.071 0.100 1.000 0.461 0.133 0.077 0.143 -0.015 0.011

ρhwfy,vw /fc

-0.069 0.290 0.461 1.000 0.168 0.314 0.112 -0.235 0.188

ρvcfy,vc/fc

-0.159 -0.048 0.133 0.168 1.000 0.181 -0.123 0.087 -0.127

ρhcfy,hc /fc

0.122 -0.217 0.077 0.314 0.181 1.000 0.123 0.189 -0.181

P /fcAg

0.513 -0.317 0.143 0.112 -0.123 0.123 1.000 0.233 -0.193

Section

0.274 -0.624 -0.015 -0.235 0.087 0.189 0.233 1.000 -0.871

Ab /Ag

-0.229 0.571 0.011 0.188 -0.127 -0.181 -0.193 -0.871 1.000

Fig. 5. Correlation matrix for input parameters.

4.2. K-Nearest Neighbors 4.4. Random Forest

K-Nearest Neighbors is a non-parametric machine learning algo-
rithm that does not place any assumption on the decision boundaries
between the failure modes. In this method, if K most similar samples in
the feature space belong to some failure mode, then the sample would
be determined to belong to this failure mode. The conditional prob-
ability for x in failure mode f is then estimated as:
1
Pr (x ) = Pr(Y = f |X = x ) = I (yi = f )
K i NK
where NK represents the K points in the training data that are closest to
observation, f.
4.3. Decision Tree
Decision Tree is a non-parametric classification method where the
classification problem is split into a hierarchy of simple decisions, with
each decision based on only one or several of the input features. The
modeling of Decision Tree consists of two steps: (1) tree building and
(2) tree pruning. Tree building consists of splitting the training set space
into non-overlapping regions, based on the Gini Index [25]. The tree
obtained in the building step may have many branches, and to avoid
overfitting, tree pruning is carried out next. A cost complexity pruning
is adopted in this study, and the pruning parameter is estimated based
on the 10-fold validation technique.
A Random Forest classifier consists of a combination of tree classi-
fiers, in which each classifier is generated using a random vector
sampled independently from the input vector [25,26]. Random Forest
includes two important methods: random feature subspace and out-of-
bag estimates. The former enables a much faster construction of trees,
and the latter, the possibility of evaluating the relative importance of
each input feature. A more detailed description of Random Forest can
be found in the references [10,26,27].
(2)
4.5. Boosting Methods: AdaBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost
AdaBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost are boosting methods
to improve the performance of a model by combining a set of weak
classifiers to form a strong classifier. The concept involves choosing the
weak classifiers in such a way that, when combined, their performance
is improved significantly. In the initial step in AdaBoost, all the ob-
servations are weighted equally. In the subsequent steps, observations
that were incorrectly classified carry more weight than the observations
that were correctly classified, and the model is retrained. Thus, the
learners are trained based on the weighted classification accuracy of the
previous learners. Freidman et al. [24] proposed an alternative boosting
approach called gradient boosting, which involves performing regres-
sion on a function of the gradient vector of the loss function evaluated
at the previous iteration. Methods such as XGBoost, LightGBM, and
CatBoost fall into the gradient boosting category. They all use decision

6
S. Mangalathu, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331

(a) Predicted class (b) Predicted class (c) Predicted class

F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall
82 17 5 2 96 5 3 2 106 0 0 0
77% 91% 100%

F
(30%) (6%) (2%) (1%) (35%) (2%) (1%) (1%) (39%) (0%) (0%) (0%)
Observed class

Observed class

Observed class
15 39 12 0 15 46 5 0 0 66 0 0
FS 59% 70% 100%

FS

FS
(5%) (14%) (4%) (0%) (5%) (17%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (24%) (0%) (0%)
2 20 61 1 4 8 72 0 0 0 84 0
73% 86% 100%
S

S
(1%) (7%) (22%) (0%) (1%) (3%) (26%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (31%) (0%)
4 3 5 7 4 3 6 6 0 0 0 19
Precison SL

Precison SL

Precison SL
37% 32% 100%
(1%) (1%) (2%) (3%) (1%) (1%) (2%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%)

80% 49% 73% 70% 69% 81% 74% 84% 75% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Accurary Accurary Accurary

(d) Predicted class (e) Predicted class (f) Predicted class

F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall
106 0 0 0 85 17 4 0 106 0 0 0
100% 80% 100%
F

F
(39%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (31%) (6%) (1%) (0%) (39%) (0%) (0%) (0%)
Observed class

Observed class

Observed class
0 65 1 0 13 46 6 1 0 66 0 0
98% 70% 100%
FS

FS

FS
(0%) (24%) (0%) (0%) (5%) (17%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (24%) (0%) (0%)
0 0 84 0 7 13 62 2 0 0 84 0
100% 74% 100%
S

S
(0%) (0%) (31%) (0%) (3%) (5%) (23%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (31%) (0%)
0 1 1 17 0 2 2 15 0 0 0 19
Precison SL

Precison SL

Precison SL
89% 79% 100%
(0%) (0%) (0%) (6%) (0%) (1%) (1%) (5%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%)

100% 98% 98% 100% 99% 81% 59% 84% 83% 76% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Accurary Accurary Accurary

(g) Predicted class (h) Predicted class

F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall
106 0 0 0 106 0 0 0
100% 100%
F
F

(39%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (39%) (0%) (0%) (0%)

Observed class

Observed class

0 66 0 0 0 66 0 0
100% 100%
FS

FS

(0%) (24%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (24%) (0%) (0%)

0 0 84 0 0 0 84 0
100% 100%
S

(0%) (0%) (31%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (31%) (0%)

0 0 0 19 0 0 0 19
Precison SL

Precison SL

100% 100%
(0%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%)

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Accurary Accurary

Fig. 6. Confusion matrix of classification models of various machine learning techniques using the training set: (a) Naïve Bayes, (b) K-Nearest Neighbors, (c) Decision
Tree, (d) Random Forest, (e) AdaBoost, (f) XGBoost, (g) LightGBM, and (h) CatBoost.

trees as the base weak learner, and iteratively fit a sequence of such
trees using gradient boosting. XGBoost fits the new model by reducing
the misclassification error of the previous model. However, XGBoost is
slow in implementation, due to its use of sequential model training.
LightGBM is a model based on decision tree algorithms, in which the
model is generated leaf-wise rather than depth-wise (as in other deci-
sion tree-based methods). Such a leaf-wise generation leads to accurate
more-complex trees. CatBoost is a methodology that successfully han-
dles categorical features in the input parameters, and takes advantage
of dealing with them during training, as opposed to during preproces-
sing time.
5. Identification of failure modes using machine learning
techniques
The machine learning techniques described in the previous section
were used to identify the failure mode of reinforced concrete shear
walls from the assembled database. To use the machine learning
models, the authors converted the material, structural, and geometric
properties of the shear wall to the nine input parameters described in
Section 3.2. The machine learning codes for the models mentioned in
Section 4 are developed using the open-source python package scikit-
learn [28] and the link for the code is given in Section 7. 70% of the
assembled data given in the supplementary material section is used to
establish the prediction model (training set), and the remaining 30% of
the data is used to evaluate the performance of the prediction model
(test set). The division of the entire dataset into the training set and test
set was randomly carried out, and the performance of the model on the
test set was an indication of the performance of the model on the un-
known data. In other words, machine learning models are developed
using the methods mentioned in Section 4 with the 70% of the as-
sembled data.
The performance of each machine learning model was evaluated in
more detail using a confusion matrix (Figs. 6 and 7). The confusion
matrix is a table of the observed failure mode versus the predicted
failure mode. Each element in the confusion matrix Cij (i = 1:4, j = 1:4)
is equal to the number of observations known to be in failure mode i,
but predicted to failure mode j. Therefore, the diagonal elements in the
confusion matrix represent the failure modes that were correctly clas-
sified by the machine learning algorithm, and the off-diagonal elements
represent the failure modes that were not predicted correctly. Three
performance measures were used in this study to evaluate the perfor-
mance of the model: accuracy, precision, and recall. The accuracy is the
fraction of predictions the model got right, i.e., the accuracy is the ratio

7
S. Mangalathu, et al. Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331

(a) Predicted class (b) Predicted class (c) Predicted class

F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall
38 4 3 1 43 1 0 2 37 6 3 0
83% 93% 80%

F
(32%) (3%) (3%) (1%) (36%) (1%) (0%) (2%) (31%) (5%) (3%) (0%)
Observed class

Observed class

Observed class
6 21 3 0 7 20 3 0 4 22 1 3
FS 70% 67% 73%

FS

FS
(5%) (18%) (3%) (0%) (6%) (17%) (3%) (0%) (3%) (19%) (1%) (3%)
2 5 30 1 1 3 34 0 2 1 31 4
79% 89% 82%
S

S
(2%) (4%) (25%) (1%) (1%) (3%) (29%) (0%) (2%) (1%) (26%) (3%)
1 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 4
Precison SL

Precison SL

Precison SL
25% 75% 100%
(1%) (1%) (1%) (1%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%)

81% 68% 81% 33% 76% 84% 83% 89% 60% 85% 86% 76% 89% 36% 80%
Accurary Accurary Accurary

(d) Predicted class (e) Predicted class (f) Predicted class

F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall
43 2 0 1 36 6 1 3 41 4 0 1
93% 78% 89%

F
F

(36%) (2%) (0%) (1%) (31%) (5%) (1%) (3%) (35%) (3%) (0%) (1%)
Observed class

Observed class

Observed class
5 21 3 1 9 15 5 1 7 19 3 1
70% 50% 63%
FS

FS

FS
(4%) (18%) (3%) (1%) (8%) (13%) (4%) (1%) (6%) (16%) (3%) (1%)
2 2 34 0 4 8 26 0 2 2 34 0
89% 68% 89%
S

S
S

(2%) (2%) (29%) (0%) (3%) (7%) (22%) (0%) (2%) (2%) (29%) (0%)
0 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 4
Precison SL

Precison SL
Precison SL

100% 50% 100%

(0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%)

86% 84% 92% 67% 86% 73% 48% 81% 33% 67% 82% 76% 92% 67% 83%
Accurary Accurary Accurary

(g) Predicted class (h) Predicted class

F FS S SL Recall F FS S SL Recall
39 7 0 0 40 5 0 1
85% 87%
F

(33%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (34%) (4%) (0%) (1%)

Observed class

Observed class

7 19 3 1 5 21 3 1
63% 70%
FS

FS

(6%) (16%) (3%) (1%) (4%) (18%) (3%) (1%)

3 3 32 0 2 2 34 0
84% 89%
S

(3%) (3%) (27%) (0%) (2%) (2%) (29%) (0%)

0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4
Precison SL

Precison SL

100% 100%
(0%) (0%) (0%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (3%)

80% 66% 91% 80% 80% 85% 75% 92% 67% 84%
Accurary Accurary

Fig. 7. Performance evaluation of various machine learning techniques using the test set: (a) Naïve Bayes, (b) K-Nearest Neighbors, (c) Decision Tree, (d) Random
Forest, (e) AdaBoost, (f) XGBoost, (g) LightGBM, and (h) CatBoost.

of the number of correct failure mode predictions to the total failure
mode predictions, and is given in the index (5, 5) of the confusion
matrix. The percentage of failure modes that are correctly assigned by
the machine learning algorithm is called the precision, which is given in
the fifth row of the confusion matrix. On the other hand, the percentage
of actual failure modes that are correctly assigned by the machine
learning algorithm is known as the recall and is given in the fifth
column in the confusion matrix. Note that accuracy is a global measure
of the performance of the machine learning method, while precision
and accuracy are particular to each failure mode. High values of ac-
curacy, precision, and recall in a model indicates that it can identify the
failure modes correctly. The following inferences can be drawn from
Figs. 6 and 7:
• Random Forest had the highest accuracy, with 86% for the test set,
followed by KNN (85%) and CatBoost (84%). The fact that tree-
based models had better performance is an indication of the com-
plex non-linear decision boundaries that separate the failure modes.
• Often the identification of flexure-shear failure mode is difficult [6],
and the Random Forest model had 70% recall and 84% precision in
identifying the flexure-shear failure mode in the test set. Only DT
has high recall than RF for flexure-shear mode of failure, but it
comes at a cost of low precision for flexure-shear mode of failure.
• Gradient boosting methods such as AdaBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM,
and CatBoost did not improve the performance of the model, com-
pared to the bagging based Random Forest model. This underscores
the need for a detailed evaluation of both simple and advanced
models, before establishing a machine-learning-based failure mode
identification model.
• In general, non-parametric tree-based methods had better perfor-
mance compared to parametric non-tree based methods such as
Naïve Bayes. This is because of the non-linear decision boundaries
between the failure methods. Amongst the boosting methods,
AdaBoost had the lowest performance, compared to the other
methods.
• Figs. 6 and 7 underscore the importance of splitting the data into
training and test sets. Training a model solely based on the entire
data set may not yield satisfactory performance for unknown data
(e.g., XGBoost model had 100% accuracy for the training set, but
only 83% accuracy for the test set).
It is seen from Figs. 6 and 7 that the performance of the model
varies, depending on the failure mode under consideration. Based on its
total accuracy and its fair performance in identifying the brittle shear

8
S. Mangalathu, et al.
20
' 14
' 14
13
' 9
8
' 8
' 7
Section R 4 the flexibility to accommodate new experimental results to yield ad-
Section Fl 2 ditional insights. The user can update the open-source database and re-
Section B 1 run the model to update the new experimental results, as available. In
Fig. 8. Relative importance of input parameters affecting failure mode in
Random Forest model.
mode of failure, Random Forest is suggested as the machine learning
model for shear wall failure mode identification. To evaluate how the
performance of the Random Forest model is affected by the input
parameters, further analysis was carried out to identify the importance
of the input parameters, as shown in Fig. 8. Note that the summation of
all the values above the vertical bars in Fig. 8 is 100%. The optimal
parameters of Random Forest were established first through a gird
search algorithm (provided in detail in the attached code), and the
relative importance of each parameter was established by noting the
variation in the out of bag (OOB) error. As seen in Fig. 8, the aspect
ratio, boundary element reinforcement indices, and wall length-to-wall
thickness ratio are the critical factors that govern the failure mode of
shear walls. It is noted that the cross-section shape has less influence on
the failure mode than other parameters.
6. Conclusions
Shear walls are used in a lateral force resisting system to resist
winds and earthquakes. Depending on the loading, geometric, and
material configurations, shear walls can fail in shear, flexure, flexure-
shear, or sliding. Although the behavior of walls under different con-
figurations has been extensively studied by experiments and earthquake
reconnaissance, there is no empirical or mechanics-based methodology
to predict the failure mode of shear walls. An easy-to-use failure mode
prediction is critical for rapid damage assessment, seismic risk assess-
ment, and retrofitting decision strategies. This paper explores the cap-
ability of machine learning and artificial intelligence in failure mode
identification of concrete shear walls.
In the initial part of this study, an extensive database is created by
the authors, based on the available experiments. The database consists
of 393 one-story, one-bay reinforced concrete shear walls with rectan-
gular or non-rectangular (barbell (I-) or flanged) sections. In the data-
base, the number of specimens with flexural failure, flexure-shear
failure, shear failure, and sliding shear failure is 152, 96, 122, and 23,
respectively. Based on insights from the past studies, 10 input para-
meters were generated by the authors that can capture the geometry,
material properties, and reinforcement details of shear walls. The entire
dataset is divided into training set and test set. The training set is used
to establish the prediction model, and the performance of the model is
evaluated through the test set (unknown data). Eight machine learning
models: Naïve Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Decision Tree, Random
Forest, AdaBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost were evaluated in
this study. The performance of the model was evaluated using three
metrics: global accuracy, precision, and recall. The results of the study
showed that Random Forest had the highest accuracy for the training
set, followed by CatBoost and XGBoost. In reality, the prediction of
flexure-shear mode is difficult. The proposed Random Forest model had
70% recall and 84% precision in identifying the flexure-shear failure
9
Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331
mode for the test set. From further exploration of Random Forest, it was
determined that the following input parameters are the critical factors
governing the failure mode of a shear wall: the aspect ratio, the
boundary element reinforcement indices, and the wall length-to-wall
thickness ratio.
This study demonstrates the capability of machine learning models
in the prediction of the failure mode of shear walls. The open-source
data-driven classification model can be used in design offices across the
world for rapid failure mode prediction of shear walls. The model has
addition, the proposed classification model can help other researchers
in planning their experimental studies. The study demonstrates the
capability of machine learning based failure mode identification models
that can be utilized for other structural components. Note that detailed
descriptions of damage state of reinforced concrete walls with different
failure modes help engineers for the informed retrofit decision strate-
gies. For example, the flexural failure mode could be of reinforcement
buckling and fracture and concrete crushing. The current approach only
predicts the flexural mode without identifying the reason for the failure
mode. Further studies and data are needed for the identification of
damage progress patterns with different failure modes.
7. Open source data driven model
The Supplementary Material of this paper provides the database
used in the current study, and the Jupyter Notebook python code for
the machine learning model is provided in GitHub (https://github.com/
sujithmangalathu/Shear-Wall-Failure-Mode.git).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT)
(NRF‐2019R1C1C1007780).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110331.
References
[1] Paulay T. Design aspects of shear walls for seismic areas. Can J Civ Eng
1975;2(3):321–44.
[2] Lefas ID, Kotsovos MD, Ambraseys NN. Behavior of reinforced concrete structural
walls: strength, deformation characteristics, and failure mechanism. ACI Struct J
1990;87(1):23–31.
[3] Dashti F, Dhakal RP, Pampanin S. 2014. Numerical simulation of shear wall failure
mechanisms. In: The 2014 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering
Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
[4] Mangalathu S, Jeon J-S. Classification of failure mode and prediction of shear
strength for reinforced concrete beam-column joints using machine learning tech-
niques. Eng Struct 2018;160:85–94.
[5] Huang H, Burton HV. Classification of in-plane failure modes for reinforced concrete
frames with infills using machine learning. J Build Eng 2019;25:100767.
[6] Mangalathu S, Jeon J-S. Machine learning-based failure mode recognition of cir-
cular reinforced concrete bridge columns: comparative study. J Struct Eng
2019;145(10):04019104.
[7] Siam A, Ezzeldin M, El-Dakhakhni W. Machine learning algorithms for structural
performance classifications and predictions: application to reinforced masonry
shear walls. Struct 2019;22:252–65.
[8] Kiani J, Camp C, Pezeshk S. On the application of machine learning techniques to
derive seismic fragility curves. Comput Struct 2019;218:108–22.
[9] Seo J, Linzell DG. Use of response surface metamodels to generate system level
fragilities for existing curved steel bridges. Eng Struct 2013;52:642–53.
[10] Mangalathu S, Heo G, Jeon J-S. Artificial neural network based multi-dimensional
fragility development of skewed concrete bridge classes. Eng Struct
2018;162:166–76.
[11] Friedman JH. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann
Stat 2001;29(5):1189–232.
S. Mangalathu, et al.
[12] Ke G, Meng Q, Finley T, Wang T, Chen W, Ma W, Ye Q, Liu T-Y. 2017. LightGBM: a
highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In: Proceedings of the 31st International
Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017); 3146-3154, 2017.
[13] Freund Y, Schapire RE. Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. Proceedings of
the Thirteenth International Conference on International Conference on Machine
Learning. 1996.
[14] Chen T, Guestrin C. 2016. XGBOOST: a scalable tree boosting system. In:
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining; 785-794, 2016.
[15] Dorogush AV, Ershov V, Gulin A. 2018. CatBoost: gradient boosting with catego-
rical features support. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11363.
[16] Prokhorenkova L, Gusev G, Vorobev A, Dorogush AV, Gulin A. 2018. CatBoost:
unbiased boosting with categorical features. In: Proceedings of the 32nd
International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2018);
6638-6648, 2018.
[17] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1992.
[18] American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings
(41–06). Reston, VA: ASCE; 2006.
[19] Applied Technical Council. 1998. Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and
Masonry Buildings - Basic procedures manual (FEMA 306). Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC.
10
Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 110331
[20] Gulec CK, Whittaker AS. 2009. Performance-Based Assessment and Design of Squat
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls. Report No. MCEER-09-0010. Buffalo, NY:
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at
Buffalo.
[21] Usta M, Pujol S. ACI Subcommittee 445B, Puranam A, Song C, Wang Y. ACI 445B
Shear Wall Database. Purdue University Research Repository 2017. https://doi.org/
10.4231/R7HH6H39.
[22] Grammatikou S, Biskinis D, Fardis MN. Strength, deformation capacity and failure
modes of RC walls under cyclic loading. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13(11):3277–300.
[23] American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic Design Criteria for Structures,
Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities (ASCE/SEI 43–05). Reston, VA:
ASCE; 2005.
[24] Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer
Series in Statistics. Berlin: Springer; 2001.
[25] Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ. Classification and Regression Trees.
Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1984.
[26] Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn 2001;45(1):5–32.
[27] Mangalathu S, Jeon J-S. Stripe-based fragility analysis of multispan concrete bridge
classes using machine learning techniques. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2019;48(11):1238–55.
[28] Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al. Scikit-
learn: Machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 2011;12:2825–30.