Log in

A transferable remote sensing approach to classify building structural types for seismic risk analyses: the case of Val d'Agri area (Italy)

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study proposes a methodology based on machine learning (ML) algorithms for rapid and robust classification of building structural types (STs) in multispectral remote sensing imagery aiming to assess buildings’ seismic vulnerability. The seismic behavior of buildings is strongly affected by the ST, including material, age, height, and other main structural features. Previous works deployed in situ data integrated with remote sensing information to statistically infer STs through supervised ML methods. We propose a transferable methodology with specific focus on situations with imbalanced in situ data (i.e., the number of available labeled samples for model learning differs largely between different STs). We learn a transferable model by selecting features from an exhaustive set. The transferability relies on deploying geometric features characterizing individual buildings; thus, the model is less sensitive to domain adaption problems frequently induced by e.g., changes in acquisition parameters of remotely sensed imagery. Thereby, we show that few geometry features enable generalization capabilities similar to models learned with a large number of features describing spectral, geometrical or contextual building properties. We rely on an extensive geodatabase containing almost 18,000 building footprints. We follow a Random Forest (RF)-based feature selection strategy to objectively identify most valuable features for prediction. Furthermore, the problem of unbalanced classes is addressed by adopting two approaches: downsampling the majority class and modifying the classifier internally (weighted RF). The implemented model is transferred on the challenging urban morphology of the Val d’Agri area (Italy). Results confirm the statistical robustness of the model and the importance of the geometry features, allowing for reliable identification of STs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allouche O, Tsoar A, Kadmon R (2006) Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J Appl Ecol 43(6):1223–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aravena Pelizari P, Spröhnle K, Geiß C, Schoepfer E, Plank S, Taubenböck H (2018) Multi-sensor feature fusion for very high spatial resolution built-up area extraction in temporary settlements. Remote Sens Environ 209:793–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balkaya C, Casciati F, Casciati S, Faravelli L, Vece M (2015) Real-time identification of disaster areas by an open-access vision-based tool. Adv Eng Softw 88:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belgiu M, Tomljenovic I, Lampoltshammer T, Blaschke T, Höfle B (2014) Ontology-based classification of building types detected from airborne laser scanning data. Remote Sens 6(2):1347–1366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger C, Voltersen M, Eckardt R, Eberle J, Heyer T, Salepci N, Hese S, Schmullius C, Tao J, Auer S, Bamler R (2013) Multi-modal and multi-temporal data fusion: outcome of the 2012 GRSS data fusion contest. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 6(3):1324–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaschke T (2010) Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 65(1):2–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruzzone L, Carlin L (2006) A multilevel context-based system for classification of very high spatial resolution images. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 44(9):2587–2600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Vélez LF, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol 43(3):75–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Casciati S, Chen ZC, Faravelli L, Vece M (2016) Synergy of monitoring and security. Smart Struct Syst 17(5):743–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chawla NV, Japkowicz N, Kotcz A (2004) Special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 6(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Liaw A, Breiman L (2004) Using random forest to learn imbalanced data. Univ Calif Berkeley 110:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheriyadat AM (2014) Unsupervised feature learning for aerial scene classification. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 52(1):439–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiauzzi L, Masi A, Mucciarelli M, Vona M, Pacor F, Cultrera G, Gallovič F, Emolo A (2012) Building damage scenarios based on exploitation of Housner intensity derived from finite faults ground motion simulations. Bull Earthq Eng 10(2):517–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congalton RG, Green K (2008) Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M, Vona M (2003) Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull Earthq Eng 1(1):115–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fardis MN (2009) Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings: based on EN-Eurocode, vol 8. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feller W (1968) The strong law of large numbers. In: Feller W (ed) An introduction to probability theory and its applications, vol 1(3). Wiley, New York, pp 243–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganganwar V (2012) An overview of classification algorithms for imbalanced datasets. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 2(4):42–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiß C, Taubenböck H, Tyagunov S, Tisch A, Post J, Lakes T (2014) Assessment of seismic building vulnerability from space. Earthq Spectra 30(4):1553–1583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiß C, Aravena Pelizari P, Marconcini M, Sengara W, Edwards M, Lakes T, Taubenböck H (2015) Estimation of seismic building structural types using multi-sensor remote sensing and machine learning techniques. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 104:175–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiß C, Jilge M, Lakes T, Taubenböck H (2016) Estimation of seismic vulnerability levels of urban structures with multisensor remote sensing. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 9(5):1913–1936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiß C, Aravena Pelizari P, Schrade H, Brenning A, Taubenböck H (2017) On the effect of spatially non-disjoint training and test samples on estimated model generalization capabilities in supervised classification with spatial features. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 14(11):2008–2012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genuer R, Poggi JM, Tuleau C (2008) Random forests: some methodological insights. ar**v preprint ar**v:0811.3619

  • Géron A (2017) Hands-on machine learning with Scikit-Learn and TensorFlow: concepts, tools, and techniques to build intelligent systems. O’Reilly Media Inc, Newton

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil J, Beirão JN, Montenegro N, Duarte JP (2012) On the discovery of urban typologies: data mining the many dimensions of urban form. Urban Morphol 16(1):27

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyon I, Elisseeff A (2003) An introduction to variable and feature selection. J Mach Learn Res 3(March):1157–1182

    Google Scholar 

  • Haralick RM, Shanmugam K (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 6:610–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference and prediction. Springer, New York, 763 pp

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • He H, Garcia EA (2009) Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 9:1263–1284

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermosilla T, Palomar-Vázquez J, Balaguer-Beser Á, Balsa-Barreiro J, Ruiz LA (2014) Using street based metrics to characterize urban typologies. Comput Environ Urban Syst 44:68–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INGV – Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (2018) Database of individual seismogenic source. DISS version 3. http://diss.rm.ingv.it/diss/. Accessed 23 Feb 2017

  • Jeni LA, Cohn JF, De La Torre F (2013) Facing imbalanced data-recommendations for the use of performance metrics. In 2013 humaine association conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction. IEEE, pp 245–251

  • Khalilia M, Chakraborty S, Popescu M (2011) Predicting disease risks from highly imbalanced data using random forest. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 11(1):51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotz M, Kemper T, Geiß C, Esch T, Taubenböck H (2016) How good is the map? A multi-scale cross-comparison framework for global settlement layers: evidence from Central Europe. Remote Sens Environ 178:191–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KrishnaVeni CV, Sobha Rani T (2011) On the classification of imbalanced datasets. IJCST 2(SP1):145–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Leichtle T, Geiß C, Wurm M, Lakes T, Taubenböck H (2017) Unsupervised change detection in VHR remote sensing imagery: an object-based clustering approach in a dynamic urban environment. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 54:15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinenkugel P, Esch T, Kuenzer C (2011) Settlement detection and impervious surface estimation in the Mekong Delta using optical and SAR remote sensing data. Remote Sens Environ 115(12):3007–3019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masi A (2003) Seismic vulnerability assessment of gravity load designed R/C frames. Bull Earthq Eng 1(3):371–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masi A, Vona M (2012) Vulnerability assessment of gravity-load designed RC buildings: evaluation of seismic capacity through non-linear dynamic analyses. Eng Struct 45:257–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masi A, Santarsiero G, Nigro D (2013) Cyclic tests on external RC beam-column joints: role of seismic design level and axial load value on the ultimate capacity. J Earthq Eng 17(1):110–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masi A, Chiauzzi L, Samela C, Tosco L, Vona M (2014) Survey of dwelling buildings for seismic loss assessment at urban scale: the case study of 18 villages in Val D’agri, Italy. Environ Eng Manag J (EEMJ) 13(2):471–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masi A, Digrisolo A, Manfredi V (2015) Fragility curves of gravity-load designed RC buildings with regularity in plan. Earthq Struct 9(1):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med Biochem Med 22(3):276–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller M, Segl K, Heiden U, Kaufmann H (2006) Potential of high-resolution satellite data in the context of vulnerability of buildings. Nat Hazards 38(1–2):247–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen GH, Bouzerdoum A, Phung SL (2008) A supervised learning approach for imbalanced data sets. In 2008 19th international conference on pattern recognition. IEEE, pp 1–4

  • Pacifici F, Chini M, Emery WJ (2009) A neural network approach using multi-scale textural metrics from very high-resolution panchromatic imagery for urban land-use classification. Remote Sens Environ 113(6):1276–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 12(October):2825–2830

    Google Scholar 

  • Penazzi D, Valluzzi MR, Cardani G, Binda L, Baronio G, Modena C (2000) Behaviour of historic masonry buildings in seismic areas: lessons learned from the Umbria-Marche earthquake. In 12th international brick-block masonry conference, pp 217–235

  • Rottensteiner F, Briese C (2002) A new method for building extraction in urban areas from high-resolution LIDAR data. In International archives of photogrammetry remote sensing and spatial information sciences, vol 34, no 3/A, pp 295–301. Natural Resources Canada

  • RNDT – Repertorio Nazionale dei Dati Territoriali (2018) Geoportal. http://geodati.gov.it/geoportale/eng/. Accessed 23 Feb 2017

  • Sarabandi P, Kiremidjian A, Eguchi RT, Adams BJ (2008) Building inventory compilation for disaster management: application of remote sensing and statistical modeling. Technical Report Series MCEER-08-0025, Buffalo, MCEER

  • Steiniger S, Lange T, Burghardt D, Weibel R (2008) An approach for the classification of urban building structures based on discriminant analysis techniques. Trans GIS 12(1):31–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taubenböck H, Post J, Roth A, Zosseder K, Strunz G, Dech S (2008) A conceptual vulnerability and risk framework as outline to identify capabilities of remote sensing. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8(3):409–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taubenböck H, Roth A, Dech S, Mehl H, Münich JC, Stempniewski L, Zschau J (2009) Assessing building vulnerability using synergistically remote sensing and civil engineering. In: Krek A, Rumor M, Zlatanova S, Fendel E (eds) Urban and regional data management. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 287–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuia D, Persello C, Bruzzone L (2016) Domain adaptation for the classification of remote sensing data: an overview of recent advances. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Mag 4(2):41–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voltersen M, Berger C, Hese S, Schmullius C (2014) Object-based land cover map** and comprehensive feature calculation for an automated derivation of urban structure types at block level. Remote Sens Environ 154:192–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winham SJ, Freimuth RR, Biernacka JM (2013) A weighted random forests approach to improve predictive performance. Stat Anal Data Min ASA Data Sci J 6(6):496–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wurm M, Taubenböck H, Schardt M, Esch T, Dech S (2011) Object-based image information fusion using multisensor earth observation data over urban areas. Int J Image Data Fusion 2(2):121–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wurm M, Schmitt A, Taubenböck H (2016) Building types’ classification using shape-based features and linear discriminant functions. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 9(5):1901–1912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • **e Y, Weng A, Weng Q (2015) Population estimation of urban residential communities using remotely sensed morphologic data. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 12(5):1111–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu B, Liu H, Wu J, Hu Y, Zhang L (2010) Automated derivation of urban building density information using airborne LiDAR data and object-based method. Landsc Urban Plan 98(3–4):210–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Huang X, Huang B, Li P (2006) A pixel shape index coupled with spectral information for classification of high spatial resolution remotely sensed imagery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 44(10):2950–2961

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariangela Liuzzi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Features

Description

References: studies on characterization of built environments

Geometry-extent 2D

Area (IB_AREA; AB_AREA)

IB and AB polygon area

Steiniger et al. (2008), Hermosilla et al. (2014), Voltersen et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Length (IB_LENGTH; AB_LENGTH)

Length of the longer side of the minimum bounding rectangle comprising IB and AB polygons

Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Width (IB_WIDTH; AB_WIDTH)

Length of the shorter side of the minimum bounding rectangle comprising IB and AB polygons

Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Length/width (IB_L_W; AB_L_W)

Ratio between length and width of each IB and AB polygon

Steiniger et al. (2008), Voltersen et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015 and Wurm et al. (2016)

Perimeter (IB_PERIMET; AB_PERIMET)

IB and AB polygon perimeter

Hermosilla et al. (2014), Voltersen et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Inverted floor area ratio (IB_IFAR)

\( {\text{IB}}\, = \,\frac{polygon \,\,area}{polygon \,\,area \;\times\;number \,\,of \,floors} \)

Berger et al. (2013)

BD Area (BD_AREA)

Area of each BD polygon

Steiniger et al. (2008)

Average built-up area (AV_IB_AREA)

Average area of the IB polygons within each BD polygon

Yu et al. (2010)

Sum built-up area (SUM_IB_AREA)

Sum of the IB polygon areas within each BD polygon

Steiniger et al. (2008)

Average L/W IB (AV_IB_L_W)

Average length/width based on IB polygons within each BD polygon

Voltersen et al. (2014)

Average L/W AB (AV_AB_L_W)

Average length/width based on AB polygons within each BD polygon

Voltersen et al. (2014)

Geometry-shape 2D

Number of building vertices (building corners) (IB_N_VERT, AB_N_VERT)

Count of polygon points of the exterior ring

Steiniger et al. (2008) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Shape index (IB_SI, AB_SI)

Describes the smoothness of the outer shape of the polygon object. Calculation is based on the proportion between the real perimeter P of the polygon and an approximated square with the same area as the polygon

\( SI = \frac{P}{4 \times \sqrt A } \)

Belgiu et al. (2014), Hermosilla et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Fractal dimension (IB_FRAC_DI, AB_FRAC_DI)

Provides a numerical description of the complexity and segmentation of a polygon by computing the proportion of area and perimeter

\( FD = \frac{{{ \ln }\left( {\frac{U}{4}} \right)^{2} }}{lnA} \)

Hermosilla et al. (2014) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Density (IB_DENS, AB_DENS)

The distribution in space of the pixels of an image object, calculated by the number of pixels forming the image object divided by its approximated radius, based on the covariance matrix. (Trimble 2014)

Belgiu et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Border index (IB_BI, AB_BI)

\( BI = \frac{perimeter}{{2 \,\times\, \left( {length\, +\, width} \right)}} \)

Belgiu et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Compactness (IB_COMP, AB_COMP)

\( COMP = \frac{length \;\times\; width}{number \,\,of \,pixels} \)

Hermosilla et al. (2014) and Belgiu et al. (2014)

Rectangular fit (IB_RECT_FIT, AB_RECT_FIT)

The calculation is based on a rectangle with the same area as the image object. The proportions of the rectangle are equal to the proportions of the length to width of the image object. The area of the image object outside the rectangle is compared with the area inside the rectangle. (Trimble 2014)

Belgiu et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Radius of largest enclosing ellipse (IB_RLEE, AB_RLEE)

The Radius of Largest Enclosed Ellipse feature describes how similar an image object is to an ellipse. The calculation uses an ellipse with the same area as the object and based on the covariance matrix. This ellipse is scaled down until it is totally enclosed by the image object. The ratio of the radius of this largest enclosed ellipse to the radius of the original ellipse is returned as feature value. (Trimble 2014)

Belgiu et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Radius of smallest enclosing ellipse (IB_RSEE, AB_RSEE)

The Radius of Smallest Enclosing Ellipse feature describes how much the shape of an image object is similar to an ellipse. The calculation is based on an ellipse with the same area as the image object and based on the covariance matrix. This ellipse is enlarged until it encloses the image object in total. The ratio of the radius of this smallest enclosing ellipse to the radius of the original ellipse is returned as feature value. (Trimble 2014)

Belgiu et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Elliptic fit (IB_EL_FIT, AB_EL_FIT)

The Elliptic Fit feature describes how well an image object fits into an ellipse of similar size and proportions. While 0 indicates no fit, 1 indicates a perfect fit. The calculation is based on an ellipse with the same area as the selected image object. The proportions of the ellipse are equal to the length to the width of the image object. The area of the image object outside the ellipse is compared with the area inside the ellipse that is not filled by the image object

Belgiu et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015)

Roundness (IB_ROUND, AB_ROUND)

The Roundness feature describes how similar an image object is to an ellipse. It is calculated by the difference of the enclosing ellipse and the enclosed ellipse. The radius of the largest enclosed ellipse is subtracted from the radius of the smallest enclosing ellipse. (Trimble 2014)

Belgiu et al. (2014), Geiß et al. (2015) and Wurm et al. (2016)

Normalized perimeter index (IB_NPI, AB_NPI)

The NPI is the proportion of the perimeter of a circle with the same area as the building polygon (\( PA_{circle} ) \) with the same perimeter of the building object

\( nPI = \frac{{PA_{circle} }}{P} \)

Wurm et al. (2016)

Normalized proximity index (IB_NPRI, AB_NPRI)

The proximity index is based on the calculation of Euclidian distances between single pixels of an object and the object center

\( nPrI = \frac{{PA_{circle} }}{{PA_{object} }} \)

where the proximity of the circle is

\( PA_{circle} = \frac{2}{3} \times r_{{A_{circle} }} \)

and \( r_{{A_{circle} }} \) is the radius of the circle and for \( P_{object} \)

\( P_{object} = \mathop \sum \limits_{j = 1}^{n} d_{j} \times \frac{1}{n} \)

where \( d \) is the Euclidian distance of the pixel to the object center

Wurm et al. (2016)

Normalized spin index (IB_NSI, AB_NSI)

The nSI (or moment of inertia) is similar to the proximity index, but the moment of inertia weights the extremities of the polygon higher:

\( nSI = \frac{{J_{{A_{circle} }} }}{{J_{{A_{object} }} }} \)

the moment of inertia for the circle is:

\( J_{{A_{circle} }} = \frac{1}{2}r_{{A_{circle} }}^{2} \)

and for the object:

\( J_{object} = \frac{1}{n} \times \mathop \sum \limits_{j = 1}^{n} d_{j}^{2} \)

where \( d_{j}^{2} \) equals the square Euclidian distance of the pixels to the object center

Wurm et al. (2016)

Areal asymmetry (IB_ASYM, AB_ASYM)

The asymmetry feature describes the relative length of an image object, compared to a regular polygon. An ellipse is approximated around a given image object, which can be expressed by the ratio of the lengths of its minor and the major axes. The feature value increases with this asymmetry

Wurm et al. (2016)

Geomtry-extent 3D

Building height (IB_HEIGHT)

For each IB polygon the height has been calculated as:

Average interstorey height × number of floors × area

Hermosilla et al. (2014)

Maximum height AB (AB_Max_HEIGHT)

Building height of AB polygons calculated considering the maximum height value of the IB polygons forming each AB polygon

Hermosilla et al. (2014)

Area weighed maximum height AB (AB_WEIGHT_A)

Area-weighed height based on maximum heights of IB polygons within AB polygons

Hermosilla et al. (2014)

Building average height (AB_MEAN_H)

Building height of AB polygons calculated considering the average height value of the IB polygons forming each AB polygon

Hermosilla et al. (2014)

Area weighed mean height (AB_MEAN_W_A)

Area-weighed height based on the average height of IB polygons forming each AB polygon

Hermosilla et al. (2014)

Maximum height BD (BD_MAX_HEIGHT)

Maximum height value within BD polygon

Hermosilla et al. (2014)

Area-weighted maximum height BD (BD_WEIGHT_A)

Area-weighed height based on maximum heights of IB polygons within BD polygons

Hermosilla et al. (2014)

Mean of building height within BD (AV_IB_HEIGHT)

Average height of IB within BD polygons

Voltersen et al. (2014), Hermosilla et al. (2014) and Geiß et al. 2015

Area-weighted on mean heights BD (BD_AV_MA)

Area-weighed height based on average heights of IB polygons within BD polygons

Yu et al. (2010)

Building volume (IB_VOLUME)

The building volume of the IB is calculated as:

\( IB_{VOLUME} = average\,floor\,area\,\times\,average\,interstorey\,height\,\times\,number\,of\,floors \)

Yu et al. (2010)

Maximum building volume based on maximum height (AB_VOL_MAX_H)

Maximum building volume of AB polygons within BD polygons based on maximum height of IB polygons

Hermosilla et al. (2014)

Mean building volume (AB_AV_VOL)

Average building volume of AB polygons within BD polygons based on maximum height of IB polygons

Hermosilla et al. (2014)

Geometry-shape 3D

IB Shape index 3D (SI_3D)

Describes the smoothness of the object in three dimension; it is calculated by the proportion of the real perimeter with the approximated perimeter of a cube with the same volume than the real object

\( SI_{3D} = \frac{P}{{4 \times \sqrt[3]{V}}} \)

Wurm et al. (2016)

Shape index 3D_maxHeight (AB_SI3D_MAX_H)

Shape index 3D of AB polygons based on area-weighted maximum heights of IB

Wurm et al. (2016)

Shape index 3D_meanHeight (AB_SI3D_AV_H)

Shape index 3D of AB polygons based on area-weighed mean heights of IB

Wurm et al. (2016)

Spatial context/configuration

Orientation (IB_ORIENT, AB_ORIENT)

Orientation of the major axis of the minimum bounding rectangle

Belgiu et al. (2014) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Distance to nearest building (IB_DIST, AB_DIST)

The shortest distance between buildings

** and comprehensive feature calculation for an automated derivation of urban structure types at block level. Remote Sens Environ 154:192–201" href="/article/10.1007/s10518-019-00648-7#ref-CR57" id="ref-link-section-d80340767e5878">2014)

Building aggregation measure (BD_BA)

\( BA = \frac{{\frac{{A_{b} }}{{A_{AOI} }}}}{{Median\left( {D_{b} } \right)}} - \frac{{Median\left( {IFAR} \right)}}{{N_{B} }} \)

where \( A_{b} \), floor area covered by buildings; \( A_{AOI} \), area of interest; \( D_{b} \), distance to the nearest building; \( IFAR \), Inverted Floor area Ratio; \( N_{B} \), number of buildings

Berger et al. (2013)

Normalized building aggregation measure (BD_NBA)

\( {\text{NBA}} = \frac{{BA_{i} - BA_{min} }}{{BA_{max} - BA_{min} }} \)

where \( BA_{i} \), BA in the i-th BD polygon; \( BA_{max} \), maximum BA value; \( BA_{min} \), minimum BA value

Berger et al. (2013)

Spectral-1st order

Mean blue (IB_sMeanB, AB_sMeanB)

Mean intensity in the blue channel

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

Mean green (IB_sMeanG, AB_sMeanG)

Mean intensity in the green channel

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

Mean red (IB_sMeanR, AB_sMeanR)

Mean intensity in the red channel

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

Mean NIR (IB_sMeanNIR, AB_ sMeanNIR)

Mean intensity in the NIR channel

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

St. Dev. blue (IB_sSTDV_B, AB_ sSTDV_B)

Standard deviation of the intensity in the blue channel

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

St. Dev. green (IB_sSTDV_G, AB_ sSTDV_B)

Standard deviation of the intensity in the green channel

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

St. Dev. red (IB_sSTDV_R, AB_ sSTDV_R)

Standard deviation of the intensity in the red channel

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

St. Dev. NIR (IB_sSTDV_NIR, AB_sSTDV_NIR)

Standard deviation of the intensity in the NIR channel

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

Blue/green (IB_sB/G, AB_ sB/G)

Mean blue/mean green

Bruzzone and Carli (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

Blue/red (IB_sB/R, AB_ sB/R)

Mean blue/mean red

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Blue/NIR (IB_sB/NIR, AB_ sB/NIR)

Mean blue/mean NIR

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Green/red (IB_sG/R, AB_ sG/R)

Mean green/mean red

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Green/NIR (IB_sG/NIR, AB_ sG/NIR)

Mean green/Mean NIR

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Red/NIR (IB_sR/NIR, AB_ sR/NIR)

Mean red/mean green

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Normalized green (IB_sG/GRNIR, AB_ sG/GRNIR)

Mean(green)/[mean(green) + mean(red) + mean(NIR)]

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Normalized red (IB_sR/GRNIR, AB_ sR/GRNIR)

Mean(red)/[mean(green) + mean(red) + mean(NIR)]

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Normalized NIR (IB_sNIR/GRNIR, AB_ sNIR/GRNIR)

Mean(NIR)/[mean(green) + mean(red) + mean(NIR)]

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Brightness (IB_sBRIGHT, AB_ sBRIGHT)

Mean intensity of all channels

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006), Geiß et al. (2015) and Voltersen et al. (2014)

Normalized differenced vegetation index (IB_sNDVI, AB_ sNDVI)

\( NDVI = \frac{NIR - red}{NIR + red} \)

Geiß et al. (2015) and Leinenkugel et al. (2011)

Soil-adjusted vegetation index (IB_sSAVI, AB_ sSAVI)

\( SAVI = \frac{NIR - red}{NIR + red + L} \times \left( {1 + L} \right) \)

where L = 0.5

Bruzzone and Carlin (2006) and Geiß et al. (2015)

Spectral-2nd order

\( GLCM_{inv.} \) (Angular 2nd moment) (IB_GLCM_ANG, AB_GLCM_ANG)

\( \mathop \sum \limits_{i,j = 0}^{N - 1} \left( {Pi,j} \right)^{2} \)

where i, row number; j, column number; \( P_{i,j} \), normalized value in the cell i, j; N is the number of rows or columns

Geiß et al. (2015) and Zhang et al. (2006)

\( GLCM_{inv.} \) (entropy) (IB_GLCM_ENT, AB_GLCM_ENT)

\( \mathop \sum \limits_{i, j = 0}^{N - 1} P_{i,j} ( - \ln P_{i,j} ) \)

where i, row number;

j, column number; \( P_{i,j} \), normalized value in the cell i, j; N, number of rows or columns

Geiß et al. (2015) and Zhang et al. (2006)

\( GLCM_{inv.} \) (homogeneity) (IB_GLCM_HOM, AB_GLCM_HOM)

\( \mathop \sum \limits_{i, j = 0}^{N - 1} \frac{{P_{i,j} }}{{1 + \left( {i - j} \right)^{2} }} \)

where i, row number; j, column number; \( P_{i,j} \), normalized value in the cell i, j; N, number of rows or columns

Geiß et al. (2015) and Zhang et al. (2006)

  1. List of the state-of-the-art features deployed to describe the building stock in the present study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liuzzi, M., Aravena Pelizari, P., Geiß, C. et al. A transferable remote sensing approach to classify building structural types for seismic risk analyses: the case of Val d'Agri area (Italy). Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 4825–4853 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00648-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00648-7

Keywords

Navigation