Ensemble Learning Models for Prediction of Punching Shear Strength in RC Slab-Column Connections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In reinforced concrete (RC) structures, accurate prediction of the punching shear strength (PSS) of slab-column connections is imperative for ensuring safety. The existing equations in the literature show variability in defining parameters influencing PSS. They neglect potential variable interactions and rely on a limited dataset. This study aims to develop an accurate and reliable model to predict the PSS of slab-column connections. An extensive dataset, including 616 experimental results, was collected from earlier studies. Six robust ensemble machine learning techniques—random forest, gradient boosting, extreme gradient boosting, adaptive boosting, gradient boosting with categorical feature support, and light gradient boosting machines—are employed to predict the PSS. The findings indicate that gradient boosting stands out as the most accurate method compared to other prediction models and existing equations in the literature, achieving a coefficient of determination of 0.986. Moreover, this study utilizes techniques to explain machine learning predictions. A feature importance analysis is conducted, wherein it is observed that the reinforcement ratio and compressive strength of concrete demonstrate the highest influence on the PSS output. SHapley Additive exPlanation is conducted to represent the influence of variables on PSS. A graphical user interface for PSS prediction was developed for users’ convenience. Doi: 10.28991/CEJ-SP2024-010-01 Full Text: PDF
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".