The challenge in applying machine learning for rapid structural seismic response prediction lies in establishing a reliable mapping between seismic intensity measures (IMs) and damage indicators. Current IMs are often inadequate due to the complex, non-linear interaction of multiple seismic factors, including intensity, source mechanism, and pulse effects, making single-indicator quantification difficult. This study addresses this gap by considering three distinct seismic wave types (near-field, far-field, and pulse waves) and establishing six multiple degrees of freedom (MDOF) structural models with varying periods in OpenSees. We selected maximum inter-story drift and maximum floor acceleration as critical damage indicators. An Extremely randomized trees (ET) algorithm was then utilized to develop the structural response prediction model. Through feature importance ranking, shapley additive explanations (SHAP) value analysis, and sensitivity analysis, the key IMs governing the structure’s maximum response were systematically identified. The efficacy of the proposed IMs was subsequently validated using three steel frame structures with different periods. The results demonstrate a significant improvement in the accuracy of the machine learning prediction model. The proposed IMs can achieve the same or higher prediction accuracy with fewer parameters. The prediction accuracy of the interstory drift ratio is improved by 34.87%, while the prediction accuracy of floor acceleration is enhanced by 26.58%, compared to previous studies using the same number of IMs. These findings provide crucial guidance for the selection of optimal IMs in machine learning applications for structural seismic response prediction.
AhmadFPhillipsA (2022) Buckling restrained braced frame seismic response for far-field, near-field, and long-duration earthquakes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research199: 107625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2022.107625
2.
BhattaSKangXDDangJ (2024) Machine learning prediction models for ground motion parameters and seismic damage assessment of buildings at a regional scale. Resilient Cities and Structures3: 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcns.2024.03.001
FangXD (2021) Revision basis and related issues explanation of DBJ/T 15-2021 “Technical specification for concrete structures of tall buildings”. Journal of Building Structures42: 172–188. https://doi.org/10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2020.0271
5.
GharagozMMNoureldinMKimJ (2023) Machine learning-based design of a seismic retrofit frame with spring-rotational friction dampers. Engineering Structures292: 116053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116053
6.
HanXLHuangDFJiJ, et al. (2019) Basic ideas and engineering application of Specification for performance-based seismic design of reinforced concrete building structure (DBJ/T 15-151—2019). Building Structure49: 70–76. https://doi.org/10.19701/j.jzjg.2019.17.014
7.
KarbassiAMohebiBRezaeeS, et al. (2014) Damage prediction for regular reinforced concrete buildings using the decision tree algorithm. Computers & Structures130: 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2013.10.006
8.
KayaYEBiniciB (2025) Data-driven estimation of maximum inter-story drift of reinforced concrete frame buildings with deep learning models. Journal of Building Engineering112: 113670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.113670
9.
KostinakisKAthanatopoulouAMorfidisK (2015) Correlation between ground motion intensity measures and seismic damage of 3D R/C buildings. Engineering Structures82: 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.035
10.
KumarTSiddiqueMAAAhsanR (2024) Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete educational buildings using machine learning algorithms. Advances in Civil Engineering2024: 2315316. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2315316
11.
LundbergSLeeSI (2017) A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In: Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 30. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.07874
12.
MorfidisKKostinakisK (2017) Seismic parameters combinations for the optimum prediction of the damage state of R/C buildings using neural networks. Advances in Engineering Software106: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.001
13.
NguyenHDLafaveJMLeeYJ, et al. (2022) Rapid seismic damage-state assessment of steel moment frames using machine learning. Engineering Structures252: 113737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113737
14.
ParkHSKangKSOhBK (2025) Seismic damage assessment method for reinforced concrete frame structures through nonlinear model updating using an optimization strategy. Advances in Structural Engineering117: 588–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/13694332251340719
15.
PinzónLAVargas-AlzateYFPujadesLG, et al. (2020) A drift-correlated ground motion intensity measure: application to steel frame buildings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering132: 106096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106096
16.
PoreddyLRPathapaduMKNavyathaC, et al. (2022) Correlation analysis between ground motion parameters and seismic damage of buildings for near-field ground motions. Natural Hazards Research2: 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2022.08.002
17.
ShenYXMaGHwangHJ, et al. (2025) Prediction of seismic response of building structures using a CNN-LSTM-ATT network with transfer learning. Advances in Structural Engineering28: 2710–2725. https://doi.org/10.1177/13694332251340730
18.
ŠtrumbeljEKononenkoI (2014) Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions. Knowledge and Information Systems41(3): 647–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-013-0679-x
19.
TaoDFangSLiuH, et al. (2024) Support vector regression model for the prediction of buildings' maximum seismic response based on real monitoring data. Scientific Reports14: 29874. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81705-3
20.
VazirizadeSMNozhatiSZadehMA (2017) Seismic reliability assessment of structures using artificial neural network. Journal of Building Engineering11: 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.04.001
21.
WangWLuoH (2025) Machine learning-based correlation analysis of seismic intensity measures and structural response for reinforced concrete frame structures. Earthquake Engineering and Resilience4: 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/eer2.70014
22.
XuYLuXTianY, et al. (2022a) Real-time seismic damage prediction and comparison of various ground motion intensity measures based on machine learning. Journal of Earthquake Engineering26: 4259–4279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1826371
23.
XuYQianWLLiN, et al. (2022b) Typical advances of artificial intelligence in civil engineering. Advances in Structural Engineering25: 3405–3424. https://doi.org/10.1177/13694332221127340
24.
YakutAYılmazH (2008) Correlation of deformation demands with ground motion intensity. Journal of Structural Engineering134: 1818–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106096
25.
YanXShuGRahgozarN, et al. (2024) Seismic design and performance evaluation of hybrid braced frames having buckling-restrained braces and self-centering viscous energy-dissipative braces. Journal of Constructional Steel Research213: 108359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2023.108359
26.
YangCXieLLiA, et al. (2019) Ground motion intensity measures for seismically isolated RC tall buildings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering125: 105727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105727
27.
YeLMaQMiuZ (2009) Study on earthquake intensities for seismic analysis of structures. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering29(4): 14, (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.13197/j.eeev.2009.04.019
28.
ZhaiCChangZLiS, et al. (2013) Selection of the most unfavorable real ground motions for low-and mid-rise RC frame structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering17: 1233–1251. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.837415
29.
ZhangHChengXLiY, et al. (2023a) Rapid seismic damage state assessment of RC frames using machine learning methods. Journal of Building Engineering65: 105797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105797
30.
ZhangDChenYZhangC, et al. (2023b) Prediction of seismic acceleration response of precast segmental self-centering concrete filled steel tube single-span bridges based on machine learning method. Engineering Structures279: 115574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115574
31.
ZhangTXuWWangS, et al. (2024) Seismic response prediction of a damped structure based on data-driven machine learning methods. Engineering Structures301: 117–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.117264
32.
ZhaoZYZhangWYLiuYZ (2023) Research on the collapse resistance performance of center supported steel frame structures considering reserve capacity. Journal of Building Structures44(S2): 161–172, (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2023.S2.0016
33.
ZhuYPTaffeseWZChenGD (2024) Enhancing FRP-concrete interface bearing capacity prediction with explainable machine learning: a feature engineering approach and SHAP analysis. Engineering Structures319: 118831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.118831
