JACIII Vol.21 No.7 pp. 1298-1311
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2017.p1298


Three-Stage Fuzzy Rule-Based Model for Earthquake Non-Engineered Building House Damage Hazard Determination

Edy Irwansyah*,**,†, Sri Hartati*, and Hartono***

*Department of Computer Science and Electronics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada
Sekip Utara, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

Corresponding author

**Computer Science Department, School of Computer Science, Bina Nusantara University
Jalan KH. Syahdan No. 9 Palmerah, Jakarta 11480 Indonesia

***Department Cartography and Remote Sensing, Faculty of Geography, Universitas Gadjah Mada
Sekip Utara, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

May 30, 2017
September 6, 2017
November 20, 2017
earthquake, non-engineered building, damage hazard, three stage fuzzy rule-based

Indonesia is a country with a high earthquake intensity which brings significant impact on a lot of infrastructure damage, including building houses in every incident of a natural earthquake. The assessment model on earthquake damage with a fuzzy system has previously developed. It was aimed to assess the building damage rate after earthquake events, and it has a particular weakness on both the criteria used and the rate of model accuracy. The study was conducted to develop fuzzy inference model to determine the building damage hazard, especially for non-engineered building houses on a particular earthquake event (mitigation). The model was is a three-stage fuzzy rule-based model using a thousand data of building houses damaged as result of the impact of earthquake in Bener Meriah district, Aceh Province, Indonesia in the 2013 event, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) data, slope data extracted from 30 meters digital elevation model (DEM) and distance from major fault that was extracted from geological structure map. The main contribution of the research that has been done is to develop the function and fuzzy membership for each determinant variable of building house damage hazard and three stage fuzzy inference process to determine the building house damage hazard as an impact of an earthquake event. Using four hundred data of building houses damage as an impact of the earthquake at the same location, a three-stage fuzzy rule-based model that has been implemented in the study was proven to be able to determine the level of damaged building houses especially for non-engineered building houses better than the previous models with model performance by 93%.

Cite this article as:
E. Irwansyah, S. Hartati, and Hartono, “Three-Stage Fuzzy Rule-Based Model for Earthquake Non-Engineered Building House Damage Hazard Determination,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.21 No.7, pp. 1298-1311, 2017.
Data files:
  1. [1] United States Geological Survey/USGS, 2009, Historic World Earthquakes, [accessed Jan. 10, 2012]
  2. [2] United States Geological Survey/USGS, 2012, Magnitude 8.6 – Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra, [accessed May 13, 2012]
  3. [3] M. Sanchez-Silva and L. Garcia, “Earthquake damage assessment based on fuzzy logic and neural networks,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol.17, No.1, pp. 89-112, 2001.
  4. [4] E. Irwansyah, “Building Damage Assessment Using Remote Sensing, Aerial Photograph and GIS Data; Case Study in Banda Aceh after Sumatera Earthquake 2004,” Proc. of the on Intelligent Technology and Its Application 2010, Surabaya, Vol.33, No.1, 2010.
  5. [5] H. Miura, S. Midorikawa, and N. Kerle, “Detection of building damage areas of the 2006 Central Java, Indonesia, earthquake through digital analysis of optical satellite images,” Earthquake spectra, Vol.29, No.1, pp. 453-473, 2013.
  6. [6] Australian Agency for International Development-AusAID, 2012, “West Sumatra Earthquake – One Year On,” [accessed Apr. 7, 2012]
  7. [7] ESDM-Kementrian Energi dan Sumberdaya Mineral, 2013, “Kerusakan Bangunan Akibat Gempa Dipengaruhi Kondisi Fisik Bangunan dan Lokasi Geologis,” [accessed Apr. 15, 2012]
  8. [8] Z. Şen, “Supervised fuzzy logic modeling for building earthquake hazard assessment,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.38, No.12, pp. 14564-14573, 2011.
  9. [9] H. Crowley, R. Pinho, J. J. Bommer, and J. F. Bird, “Development of a Displacement-Based Method for Earthquake Loss Assessment,” Report 2006/01, 2006.
  10. [10] A. Bernardini, R. Gori, and C. Modena, “An application of coupled analytical models and experiential knowledge for seismic vulnerability analyses of masonry buildings,” Omega Scientific, 1990.
  11. [11] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2003, “HAZUS MH MR4: Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Maintenance Release 4 (MR4),” [accessed Jan. 20, 2012]
  12. [12] G. Di Pasquale, G. Orsini, and R. W. Romeo, “New developments in seismic risk assessment in Italy,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, pp. 101-128, 2005.
  13. [13] M. Dolce, A. Masi, M. Marino, and M. Vona, “Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 115-140, 2003.
  14. [14] S. Giovinazzi and S. Lagomarsino, “A macroseismic method for the vulnerability assessment of buildings,” 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 1-6, 2004.
  15. [15] Y. M. Kim, C. K. Kim, and S. G. Hong, “Fuzzy based state assessment for reinforced concrete building structures,” Engineering structures, Vol.28, No.9, pp. 1286-1297, 2006.
  16. [16] I. Tsiftzis, I. Andreadis, and A. Elenas, “Fuzzy system for seismic signal classification,” In Vision, Image and Signal Proc., IEEE Proc., Vol.153, No.1, pp. 109-114, 2006.
  17. [17] S. Tesfamariam and M. Saatcioglu, “Risk-based seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol.24, No.3, pp. 795-821, 2008.
  18. [18] Z. Şen, “Rapid visual earthquake hazard evaluation of existing buildings by fuzzy logic modeling,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.37, No.8, pp. 5653-5660, 2010.
  19. [19] S. Tesfamariam and M. Saatcioglu, “Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using hierarchical fuzzy rule base modeling,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 235-256, 2010.
  20. [20] M. L. Carreño, O. D. Cardona, and A. H. Barbat, “Neuro-Fuzzy Assessment of Building Damage and Safety After an Earthquake,” In N. Lagaros and Y. Tsompanakis (Eds.), “Intelligent Computational Paradigms in Earthquake Engineering,” IGI Publishing, pp. 123-157, 2007.
  21. [21] M. L. Carreño, O. D. Cardona, and A. H. Barbat, “Computational Tool for Post-Earthquake Evaluation of Damage in Buildings,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 63-86, 2010.
  22. [22] P. F. Alvanitopoulos, I. Andreadis, and A. Elenas, “Neuro-fuzzy techniques for the classification of earthquake damages in buildings,” Measurement, Vol.43, No.6, pp. 797-809, 2010.
  23. [23] S. Fallahian and S. M. Seyedpoor, “A Two Stage Method For Structural Damage Identification Using An Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System And Particle Swarm Optimization,” Asian J. of Civil Engineering (Building And Housing), Vol.11, No.6, pp. 795-808, 2010.
  24. [24] S. F. Jiang, C. M. Zhang, and S. Zhang, “Two-stage structural damage detection using fuzzy neural networks and data fusion techniques,” Expert systems with applications, Vol.38, No.1, pp. 511-519, 2011.
  25. [25] A. Elenas, E. Vrochidou, P. Alvanitopoulos, and I. Andreadis, “Classification of Seismic Damages in Buildings Using Fuzzy Logic Procedures,” In Computational Methods in Stochastic Dynamics, pp. 335-344, 2013.
  26. [26] S. Lagomarsino and S. Giovinazzi, “Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.4, No.4, pp. 415-443, 2006.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Jun. 03, 2024