ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Interpretable Machine Learning-Based Prediction Model for Concrete Cover Separation of FRP-Strengthened RC Beams.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repair and Strengthening of Existing Reinforced Concrete Structures: Recent Advances and Developments.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Application of Machine Learning Algorithms to Bond Strength between Steel Rebars and Concrete Using Bayesian Optimization.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study focuses on the prediction of concrete cover separation (CCS) in reinforced concrete beams strengthened by fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) in flexure. First, machine learning models were constructed based on linear regression, support vector regression, BP neural networks, decision trees, random forests, and XGBoost algorithms. Secondly, the most suitable model for predicting CCS was identified based on the evaluation metrics and compared with the codes and the researcher's model. Finally, a parametric study based on SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) was carried out, and the following conclusions were obtained: XGBoost is best-suited for the prediction of CCS and codes, and researchers' model accuracy needs to be improved and suffers from over or conservative estimation. The contributions of the concrete to the shear force and the yield strength of the reinforcement are the most important parameters for the CCS, where the shear force at the onset of CCS is approximately proportional to the contribution of the concrete to the shear force and approximately inversely proportional to the yield strength of the reinforcement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.