MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407162765 · doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2025.108329

Machine learning assisted axial strength prediction models for concrete filled stainless steel tubular columns

2025· article· en· W4407162765 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceStructural engineeringComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concrete filled stainless steel tubular (CFSST) columns have gained popularity over conventional concrete filled steel tubular (CFST) columns owing to their higher axial capacity and excellent corrosion resistance of stainless steel (SS). Numerous experimental and numerical research have been performed to evaluate CFSST column response under different loading scenarios. Despite all these studies, inaccuracy still exists in predicting the axial strength of CFSST columns. Moreover, unique properties of SS do not allow using conventional code equations developed for CFST columns to be used for axial strength prediction of CFSST columns. To this end, this study aims to develop data-driven machine learning (ML) techniques for predicting the axial capacity of CFSST columns. A comprehensive dataset of 422 circular and rectangular CFSST columns are carefully gathered from literature, which is employed for developing the data-driven ML models. Model accuracy is assessed using various performance metrics such as coefficient of determination (R 2 ), root mean square error ( RMSE ), mean absolute error ( MAE) , Nash-Sutcliffe Model (NSE ) and Index of Agreement ( d ). Out of the ten ML algorithms considered in this study, CatBoost (CatB) turns out to be the most accurate one. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis is performed to interpret the outcomes of the ML model and explain the importance of each input feature. The best performing CatB model is compared with six different design code equations to showcase its acceptance and superior performance. It is observed that the ML model provides a quick and accurate estimate of the axial capacity of CFSST columns by overcoming the limitations of existing design codes. For identifying the resistance factor for the CatB model, reliability analysis is also performed following AISC 360–16 provision. Finally, an interactive graphical user interface is developed for practicing engineers to enhance the accuracy of CFSST axial capacity prediction while promoting the use of interpretable ML models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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