Machine Learning-Based Models for Shear Strength Prediction of UHPFRC Beams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating shear strength is a crucial aspect of beam design. The goal of this research is to develop a shear strength calculation technique for ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) beams. To begin, a shear test database of 200 UHPFRC beam specimens is established. Then, random forest (RF) is used to evaluate the importance of influence factors for the shear strength of UHPFRC beams. Subsequently, three machine learning (ML)-based models, including artificial neural network (ANN), support vector regression (SVR), and eXtreme-gradient boosting (XGBoost), are proposed to compute shear strength. Results demonstrate that the area of longitudinal reinforcement has the greatest influence on the shear capacity of UHPFRC beams, and ten parameters with high importance (e.g., the area of longitudinal reinforcement, the stirrup strength, the cross-section area, the shear span ratio, fiber volume fraction, etc.) are selected as input parameters. The models of ANN, SVR, and XGBoost have close accuracy, and their R2 are 0.8825, 0.9016, and 0.8839, respectively, which are much larger than those of existing theoretical models. In addition, the average ratios of prediction values of ANN, SVR, and XGBoost models to experimental results are 1.08, 1.02, and 1.10, respectively; the coefficients of variation are 0.28, 0.21, and 0.28, respectively. The SVR model has the best accuracy and reliability. The accuracy and reliability of ML-based models are much better than those of existing models for calculating the shear strength of UHPFRC beams.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it