MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280490353 · doi:10.3390/app12104851

Applications of Decision Tree and Random Forest as Tree-Based Machine Learning Techniques for Analyzing the Ultimate Strain of Spliced and Non-Spliced Reinforcement Bars

2022· article· en· W4280490353 on OpenAlexaff
Hamed Dabiri, Visar Farhangi, Mohammad Javad Moradi, Mehdi Zadehmohamad, Moses Karakouzian

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcementStructural engineeringDecision treeComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Random forestContext (archaeology)Tree (set theory)Bar (unit)Machine learningMaterials scienceMathematicsEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of both non-spliced and spliced steel bars significantly affects the overall performance of structural reinforced concrete elements. In this context, the mechanical properties of reinforcement bars (i.e., their ultimate strength and strain) should be determined in order to evaluate their reliability prior to the construction procedure. In this study, the application of Tree-Based machine learning techniques is implemented to analyze the ultimate strain of non-spliced and spliced steel reinforcements. In this regard, a database containing the results of 225 experimental tests was collected based on the research investigations available in peer-reviewed international publications. The database included the mechanical properties of both non-spliced and mechanically spliced bars. For better accuracy, the databases of other splicing methods such as lap and welded-spliced methods were excluded from this research. The database was categorized as two sub-databases: training (85%) and testing (15%) of the developed models. Various effective parameters such as splice technique, steel grade of the bar, diameter of the steel bar, coupler geometry—including length and outer diameter along with the testing temperatures—were defined as the input variables for analyzing the ultimate strain using tree-based approaches including Decision Trees and Random Forest. The predicted outcomes were compared to the actual values and the precision of the prediction models was assessed via performance metrics, along with a Taylor diagram. Based on the reported results, the reliability of the proposed ML-based methods was acceptable (with an R2 ≥ 85%) and they were time-saving and cost-effective compared to more complicated, time-consuming, and expensive experimental examinations. More importantly, the models proposed in this study can be further considered as a part of a comprehensive prediction model for estimating the stress-strain behavior of steel bars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207