The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Data-driven machine-learning-based seismic failure mode identification of reinforced concrete shear walls
Abstract
Abstract A reinforced concrete shear wall is one of the most critical structural members in buildings, in terms of carrying lateral loads. Despite its importance, post-earthquake reconnaissance and recent experimental studies have highlighted the insufficient safety margins of shear walls. The lack of empirical and mechanics-based models prevents rapid failure mode identification of existing shear walls. This study builds on recent advances in the area of machine learning to determine the failure mode of shear walls as a function of geometric configurations, material properties, and reinforcement details. This study assembles a comprehensive database consisting of 393 experimental results for shear walls with various geometric configurations. Eight machine learning models, including Naive Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Decision Tree, Random Forest, AdaBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost were evaluated in this study, in order to establish the best prediction model. As a result of detailed evaluation, a machine learning model based on the Random Forest method is proposed in this paper. The proposed method has 86% accuracy in identifying the failure mode of shear walls. This study also demonstrates that aspect ratio, boundary element reinforcement indices, and wall length-to-wall thickness ratio are the critical parameters influencing the failure mode of shear walls. Finally, an open-source data-driven classification model that can be used in design offices across the world is provided in this paper. The proposed model has the flexibility to account for additional experimental results yielding new insights.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.02754 · Cited by 7,104
Cited by
Machine Learning for Structural Engineering: A State-of-the-Art Review
Thai, H.-T. (2022) · Structures · doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2022.02.003 · Cited by 748
Malekloo, A., Ozer, E., AlHamaydeh, M., & Girolami, M. (2022) · Structural Health Monitoring · doi:10.1177/14759217211036880 · Cited by 607
Sun, H., Burton, H. V., & Huang, H. (2021) · Journal of Building Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101816 · Cited by 544
Rahman, J., Ahmed, K. S., Khan, N. I., Islam, K., & Mangalathu, S. (2021) · Engineering Structures · doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111743 · Cited by 346
Self-citationTapeh, A. T. G., & Naser, M. Z. (2023) · Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11831-022-09793-w · Cited by 320
Metadata
- Authors
- Mangalathu, S., Jang, H., Hwang, S.-H., & Jeon, J.-S.
- Venue
- Engineering Structures
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 208
- Pages
- 110331
- ISSN
- 0141-0296 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3006597564
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.