Interpretable Machine Learning Algorithms to Predict the Axial Capacity of FRP-Reinforced Concrete Columns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) rebars are increasingly being used as an alternative to steel rebars in reinforced concrete (RC) members due to their excellent corrosion resistance capability and enhanced mechanical properties. Extensive research works have been performed in the last two decades to develop predictive models, codes, and guidelines to estimate the axial load-carrying capacity of FRP-RC columns. This study utilizes the power of artificial intelligence and develops an alternative approach to predict the axial capacity of FRP-RC columns more accurately using data-driven machine learning (ML) algorithms. A database of 117 tests of axially loaded FRP-RC columns is collected from the literature. The geometric and material properties, column shape and slenderness ratio, reinforcement details, and FRP types are used as the input variables, while the load-carrying capacity is used as the output response to develop the ML models. Furthermore, the input-output relationship of the ML model is explained through feature importance analysis and the SHapely Additive exPlanations (SHAP) approach. Eight ML models, namely, Kernel Ridge Regression, Lasso Regression, Support Vector Machine, Gradient Boosting Machine, Adaptive Boosting, Random Forest, Categorical Gradient Boosting, and Extreme Gradient Boosting, are used in this study for capacity prediction, and their relative performances are compared to identify the best-performing ML model. Finally, predictive equations are proposed using the harmony search optimization and the model interpretations obtained through the SHAP algorithm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".