<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" "journalpublishing.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Front. Built Environ.</journal-id>
<journal-title>Frontiers in Built Environment</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="pubmed">Front. Built Environ.</abbrev-journal-title>
<issn pub-type="epub">2297-3362</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Frontiers Media S.A.</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">1108319</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fbuil.2023.1108319</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Built Environment</subject>
<subj-group>
<subject>Original Research</subject>
</subj-group>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Non-linear modeling parameters for new construction RC columns</article-title>
<alt-title alt-title-type="left-running-head">Khodadadi Koodiani et al.</alt-title>
<alt-title alt-title-type="right-running-head">
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1108319">10.3389/fbuil.2023.1108319</ext-link>
</alt-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
<name>
<surname>Khodadadi Koodiani</surname>
<given-names>Hamid</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c001">&#x2a;</xref>
<uri xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2018794/overview"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Majlesi</surname>
<given-names>Arsalan</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
<uri xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2114998/overview"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Shahriar</surname>
<given-names>Adnan</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">
<sup>2</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Matamoros</surname>
<given-names>Adolfo</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
<institution>Civil Engineering Department</institution>, <institution>The University of Texas at San Antonio</institution>, <addr-line>San Antonio</addr-line>, <addr-line>TX</addr-line>, <country>United States</country>
</aff>
<aff id="aff2">
<sup>2</sup>
<institution>Department of Mechanical Engineering</institution>, <institution>The University of Texas at San Antonio</institution>, <addr-line>San Antonio</addr-line>, <addr-line>TX</addr-line>, <country>United States</country>
</aff>
<author-notes>
<fn fn-type="edited-by">
<p>
<bold>Edited by:</bold> <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1933405/overview">Mohammad Salehi</ext-link>, Rice University, United States</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="edited-by">
<p>
<bold>Reviewed by:</bold> <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/723431/overview">Afaq Ahmad</ext-link>, University of Engineering and Technology, Pakistan</p>
<p>
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2178489/overview">Mohammad Abbasi</ext-link>, University of Nevada, Reno, United States</p>
</fn>
<corresp id="c001">&#x2a;Correspondence: Hamid Khodadadi Koodiani, <email>h.koodiani@gmail.com</email>
</corresp>
<fn fn-type="other">
<p>This article was submitted to Earthquake Engineering, a section of the journal Frontiers in Built Environment</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>27</day>
<month>03</month>
<year>2023</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
<year>2023</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>9</volume>
<elocation-id>1108319</elocation-id>
<history>
<date date-type="received">
<day>25</day>
<month>11</month>
<year>2022</year>
</date>
<date date-type="accepted">
<day>28</day>
<month>02</month>
<year>2023</year>
</date>
</history>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>Copyright &#xa9; 2023 Khodadadi Koodiani, Majlesi, Shahriar and Matamoros.</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2023</copyright-year>
<copyright-holder>Khodadadi Koodiani, Majlesi, Shahriar and Matamoros</copyright-holder>
<license xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
<p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.</p>
</license>
</permissions>
<abstract>
<p>Modeling parameters (MP) of reinforced concrete columns are a critical component of performance-based seismic assessment methodologies because in these approaches damage is estimated based on element deformations calculated using non-linear models. To ensure model fidelity and consistency of assessment results, performance-based seismic assessment methods in ASCE 41, ACI 369.1, and ACI 374.3R prescribe modeling parameters calibrated using experimental data. This paper introduces a new set of equations to calculate reinforced concrete column non-linear modeling parameters optimized for design verification of new buildings using response history analysis. Unlike modeling parameters provided in ACI 369.1 and ASCE 41, intended for columns of older non-ductile buildings, the equations for modeling parameters <italic>a</italic>
<sub>
<italic>nl</italic>
</sub> and <italic>b</italic>
<sub>
<italic>nl</italic>
</sub> presented in this study were calibrated to simulate the load-deformation envelope of reinforced concrete columns that meet the detailing requirements of modern seismic design codes. Specifically, the proposed equations are intended for use with provisions in ACI 374.3R, Chapter 18 and Appendix A of ACI 318-19 and Chapter 16 of ASCE/SEI 7-16. The proposed equations were calibrated using the ACI Committee 369 column database, which includes column configuration parameters, material properties, and deformation capacity modeling parameters inferred from the measured response of columns under load reversals. Dimension reduction techniques were applied to visualize different clusters of data in 2D space using the negative log-likelihood score. This technique allowed decreasing the non-linearity of the problem by identifying a subset of columns with load-deformation behavior representative of new construction conforming to current codes requirements. A Neural Network model (NN) was calibrated and used to perform parametric variations to identify the most relevant input parameters and characterize their effect on modeling parameters, and to stablish the degree of non-linearity between each input variable and the model output. Developing equations for modeling parameters applicable to a wide range of columns is challenging, so this research considered subsets of the database representative of new construction columns to calibrate simple practical equations. Linear regression models including the most relevant features from the parametric study were calibrated for rectangular and circular columns. The proposed linear regression equations were found to provide better estimates of new construction column modeling parameters than the available tables in ACI 374.3R and ASCE 41-13, and the equations ASCE 41-17.</p>
</abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd>machine learning</kwd>
<kwd>dimension reduction</kwd>
<kwd>modeling parameters</kwd>
<kwd>non-linear responce</kwd>
<kwd>Asce 41</kwd>
<kwd>ACI 374</kwd>
<kwd>concrete columns</kwd>
<kwd>deformation capacity</kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="s1">
<title>Introduction</title>
<p>The ASCE/SEI 7 Standard (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">ASCE, 2007</xref>) and the ACI 318 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">318-19, 2019</xref>) Building Code recently introduced provisions for design and verification of new building structures using response history analysis. The goal of these provisions is to provide guidance to engineers seeking to go beyond the prescriptive design approach in the main body of the 318 Building Code by implementing performance-based design. The provisions for response history analysis in Appendix A of 318-19 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">318-19, 2019</xref>) give engineers significant latitude in choosing modeling parameters and acceptance criteria. Section A.6.2 of ACI 318-19 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">318-19, 2019</xref>) stipulates that &#x201c;modeling of member non-linear behavior, including effective stiffness, expected strength, expected deformation capacity, and hysteresis under force or deformation reversals, shall be substantiated by applicable physical test data and shall not be extrapolated beyond the limits of testing.&#x201d; The commentary of Section RA.6.2 of ACI 318-19 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">318-19, 2019</xref>) states that &#x201c;multiple element formulations and material models are appropriate for use in inelastic dynamic analysis of concrete structures. ASCE/SEI 41 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Elwood et al., 2007</xref>), ACI 374.3R (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>), ACI 369.1 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">ACI-369.1-17, 2017</xref>), and NIST GCR 17-917-46 (NIST) provide guidance on modeling and defining model parameters.&#x201d;</p>
<p>Among the references cited in Section RA.6.2 of ACI 318-19 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">318-19, 2019</xref>), ACI 374.3R-16 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>) provides two sets of modeling parameters for columns. <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> of ACI 374.3R-16 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>) provides modeling parameters for flexure-shear and flexure critical rectangular columns adopted from <xref ref-type="table" rid="T8">Tables 8</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="table" rid="T10">10</xref> of ASCE 41-13 (41&#x2013;13, 2013), which only provided modeling parameters for rectangular columns. Furthermore, values for MPs <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic> in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T8">Tables 8</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="table" rid="T10">10</xref> of ASCE 41-13 (41&#x2013;13, 2013) were chosen to be conservative. The probability of MP <italic>a</italic> being lower than the value in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T8">Tables 8</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="table" rid="T10">10</xref> was set to 15% for columns expected to fail in shear and 35% for columns expected to fail in flexure. The probability of MP <italic>b</italic> being lower than the value in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T8">Tables 8</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="table" rid="T10">10</xref> was set to 15%. Target limits for probabilities of exceedance were selected based on the judgment of the ASCE/SEI 41 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Elwood et al., 2007</xref>) Supplement 1 Ad Hoc Committee responsible for the development of <xref ref-type="table" rid="T8">Tables 8</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="table" rid="T10">10</xref>.</p>
<p>Alternatively, <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> of ACI 374.3R-16 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>) provide column MP values derived using linear regression analysis of a subset of the ACI 369 column database (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Ghannoum et al., 2012</xref>) that met detailing requirements in Chapter 18 of the 318 Building Code (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">318-19, 2019</xref>). The column subset used in the calibration consisted of 38 rectangular columns and 25 circular columns, and the linear regression analysis was used the same input variables used by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Ghannoum and Matamoros (2014)</xref>.</p>
<p>Modeling parameters in the ASCE 41-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) Standard, adopted from Chapter 10 of ACI 369.1-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">ACI-369.1-17, 2017</xref>) and developed through a more complex analysis of the ACI 369 column database by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Ghannoum and Matamoros (2014)</xref>, are intended to be representative of a wide range of columns, including non-ductile columns with detailing deficiencies.</p>
<p>MPs provided in the standards and documents referenced in Section RA.6.2 of the ACI 318 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">318-19, 2019</xref>) Building Code are based on outdated information or were developed based on a data set that included non-ductile columns. The main objective of this paper is to address this gap by developing MP equations for new building columns based on a more in-depth analysis of well-detailed column data than performed for <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> in ACI 374.3R, and optimized for a narrower subset of column data than the equations developed by Ghannoum and Matamoros for ACI 369.1-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">ACI-369.1-17, 2017</xref>).</p>
<p>Developing equations for MPs applicable to a wide range of columns is challenging because parameters that affect component behavior change depending on their configuration and the magnitude of the actions that components are subjected to. For example, columns subjected to high axial load are susceptible to compression failure, so axial load and compressive strength are important parameters. At low axial loads, the behavior is governed by transverse reinforcement and diagonal tension properties of the concrete instead. Reinforced concrete column MP equations in the ACI 369.1/ASCE 41 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">ACI-369.1-17, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) standards were calibrated through linear regression of an experimental data set that lumped all component configurations and actions, with the objective of minimizing the coefficient of variation for the totality of the experimental data set. As a result of this calibration approach, ACI 369.1/ASCE 41 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">ACI-369.1-17, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) equations are inherently underfitted (they have a high training and testing error), smoothing out behaviors specific to element subsets by eliminating complex non-linear relationships between input variables and MPs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Lynn, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Elwood and Moehle, 2005b</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">a</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Sezen and Moehle, 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Elwood et al., 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Matamoros et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Woods and Matamoros, 2010</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Ghannoum and Matamoros, 2014</xref>). Equations for modeling parameters in ACI 374.3R (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>) are less susceptible to underfitting because they were calibrated with and intended to be used on a smaller data set of columns with similar mode of failure, where the relationship between input variables and column MPs is significantly less non-linear. The main limitation of the provisions of ACI 374.3R (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>) is that they are based on simple regression of a limited data set, which adopted the same input parameters used in ACI 369.1 for non-ductile columns even though the mode of failure is different, and where non-linear interactions between input and output parameters were not considered.</p>
<p>In recent years, there has been extensive research on the use of Machine Learning (ML) tools in the field of structural engineering. These tools have found diverse applications in various aspects of structural engineering such as structural analysis, design, health monitoring, mechanical behavior and capacity of structural elements, and optimization. A comprehensive overview of the broad spectrum of ML applications in structural engineering was presented by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Thai (2022)</xref> in their review. By employing computer-based vision and object detection algorithms, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Shahin et al. (2023)</xref> monitored and detected instances of workers failing to comply with standard safety practices, such as not wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). In 2022 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Dabiri et al. (2022)</xref> used NN, Random Forest and regression-based models to predict the displacement ductilitu ration of RC joints. This paper seeks to address a research gap in the literature, namely, the lack of references that explore the usage of machine learning tools for studying non-linear modeling parameters of reinforced concrete columns.</p>
<p>In this paper, reinforced concrete column MP equations were developed for use in non-linear dynamic analyses using a methodology that addresses the limitations of provisions in ACI 374.3R. Unlike MPs provided in ACI 369.1 and ASCE 41, intended for columns of older non-ductile buildings, the equations for MPs <italic>a</italic>
<sub>
<italic>nl</italic>
</sub> and <italic>b</italic>
<sub>
<italic>nl</italic>
</sub> presented in this study were calibrated to simulate the load-deformation envelope of reinforced concrete columns that meet the detailing requirements of modern seismic design codes. Specifically, the proposed equations are intended for use with provisions in ACI 374.3R, Chapter 18 and Appendix A of ACI 318-19 and Chapter 16 of ASCE/SEI 7-16.</p>
<p>In performance-based seismic assessment methodologies, non-linear numerical models are used to simulate component behavior using lateral force versus lateral deformation envelopes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Figure 1</xref>) and hysteresis rules. The shape of the envelopes is defined using element MPs provided in ACI 369.1/ASCE 41 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">ACI-369.1-17, 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) standards and the ACI 374.3R guide (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>). Two critical parameters that define the shape of load-deformation envelopes are non-linear modeling parameters <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic>, defined as the plastic deformation at incipient lateral-strength degradation (loss of lateral load capacity) and at incipient axial degradation (loss of the ability to carry axial load in columns), respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Figure 1</xref>). These two parameters are used to characterize the force-deformation relationship beyond the proportional limit (point <italic>B</italic> in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Figure 1</xref>). The study proved that the implemented algorithm had higher accuracy than the equations and tables provided in previous design standards and guides.</p>
<fig id="F1" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 1</label>
<caption>
<p>ASCE 41 (41&#x2013;13, 2013) force-displacement envelope for non-linear modeling of deformation-controlled RC components.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g001.tif"/>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec id="s2">
<title>Data analytics</title>
<p>The database included 319 rectangular column tests and 171 circular column tests for a total of 490 tests (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Ghannoum and Matamoros, 2014</xref>). The data set included only quasi-static tests of experimental models. Of all the columns in the database, 37 rectangular columns and 24 circular columns satisfied ACI 318-11 Building Code criteria for columns of Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF). A limited number of rectangular columns (25 out of 171) were reported to have ties with 90<sup>o</sup> hooks, not allowed for SMRF systems according to the provisions of the 318 Building Code. The tie hook-angle was unknown for 26 rectangular columns, while 269 rectangular columns had ties with 135<sup>o</sup> hooks or welded ends. A limited number of circular columns had ties with lapped ends (13 out of 171), and except from one case, all circular columns had spirals, ties with welded ends, or hooks anchored into the core. Columns in the data subsets used to calibrate the equations were chosen based on their behavior and mode of failure instead of strict adherence to the provisions in Chapter 18 of the ACI 318 Building Code for SMRF. Code provisions are very complex and change with every code cycle, so it was deemed more important to capture behavior and mode of failure patterns in the data to gain statistical significance. Filtering based on strict compliance with the 318 Building Code would have resulted in a very small data set to calibrate the equations. This approach to filtering the data provided a data set sufficiently large to allow the use of machine learning techniques, although a larger set would untroubledly be preferrable.</p>
<p>The experimental data set used in this study included six non-dimensional input variables and two output MPs, a and b, for each column test. The input variables are column span-to-depth ratio (<inline-formula id="inf1">
<mml:math id="m1">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), axial load ratio (<inline-formula id="inf2">
<mml:math id="m2">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), longitudinal reinforcement ratio (<inline-formula id="inf3">
<mml:math id="m3">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, transverse reinforcement ratio (<inline-formula id="inf4">
<mml:math id="m4">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> &#x3d; <inline-formula id="inf5">
<mml:math id="m5">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>v</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>b</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>w</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mtext>&#x2009;</mml:mtext>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, transverse reinforcement spacing-to-effective depth ratio (<inline-formula id="inf6">
<mml:math id="m6">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>S</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), and the ratio of shear demand at yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement-to-shear capacity or shear capacity ratio (<inline-formula id="inf7">
<mml:math id="m7">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>). Histograms of input variables used in this study are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">Figures 2A, B</xref> for rectangular and circular columns, respectively.</p>
<fig id="F2" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 2</label>
<caption>
<p>Histogram of input variables in column database for <bold>(A)</bold> rectangular and <bold>(B)</bold> circular columns.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g002.tif"/>
</fig>
<p>The correlation matrix for input and output parameter <italic>a</italic> of rectangular columns is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">Figure 3</xref>. Values of 1 and &#x2212;1 indicate the highest correlation and inverse correlation between two variables. The first and second highest correlation between input variables was found between <inline-formula id="inf8">
<mml:math id="m8">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf9">
<mml:math id="m9">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> (<italic>R</italic> &#x3d; 0.54), and between <inline-formula id="inf10">
<mml:math id="m10">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf11">
<mml:math id="m11">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> (<italic>R</italic> &#x3d; 0.35), respectively. The strong correlation between <inline-formula id="inf12">
<mml:math id="m12">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf13">
<mml:math id="m13">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> was expected because both variables are inversely proportional to shear capacity, and shows that to some extent the two are redundant. The strong correlation between <inline-formula id="inf14">
<mml:math id="m14">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf15">
<mml:math id="m15">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> reflects a feature of the data set, where researchers chose to use larger amounts of transverse reinforcement in columns with high axial load ratios likely because they perceived that they required more confinement and because they were expected to produce higher shear demands. The first and second highest inverse correlation between input variables was found between <inline-formula id="inf16">
<mml:math id="m16">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf17">
<mml:math id="m17">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> (<italic>R</italic> &#x3d; &#x2212;0.61), and between <inline-formula id="inf18">
<mml:math id="m18">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf19">
<mml:math id="m19">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> (<italic>R</italic> &#x3d; &#x2212;0.51), respectively. The first was expected because shear strength <inline-formula id="inf20">
<mml:math id="m20">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> increases with <inline-formula id="inf21">
<mml:math id="m21">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>. The second reflects that shear demand at yield <inline-formula id="inf22">
<mml:math id="m22">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> decreases with <inline-formula id="inf23">
<mml:math id="m23">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> ratio.</p>
<fig id="F3" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 3</label>
<caption>
<p>Correlation matrix of the input and output (Mp <italic>a</italic>) variables used in this study.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g003.tif"/>
</fig>
<p>The input variables with the first and second highest correlation with MP <italic>a</italic> were <inline-formula id="inf24">
<mml:math id="m24">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> (<italic>R</italic> &#x3d; 0.32) and <inline-formula id="inf25">
<mml:math id="m25">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> (<italic>R</italic> &#x3d; 0.23), respectively. The input variables with the first and second highest inverse correlation with MP <italic>a</italic> were <inline-formula id="inf26">
<mml:math id="m26">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> (<italic>R</italic> &#x3d; &#x2212;0.45) and <inline-formula id="inf27">
<mml:math id="m27">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> (<italic>R</italic> &#x3d; &#x2212;0.38), respectively.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s3">
<title>Data visualization and different machine learning algorithms</title>
<p>The TSNE algorithm (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008</xref>) was used as a dimension reduction method to reduce the six features in the dataset to two features and facilitate visualization in 2D space. The Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Duda and Hart, 1973</xref>) was then used to visualize the non-linear separability of clusters of data. Four different clusters of data were identified using these techniques, shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4A</xref>, where the center of each cluster is identified with a red dot. The black dots in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4A</xref> correspond to individual data points, and the clouds around each cluster center show the distribution of the data. Areas of <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4A</xref> with similar background color indicate that relationships among the data are linear, and changes in the background color are indicative of non-linear behavior. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4A</xref> shows that there is a high degree of non-linearity in the column dataset which necessitates the use of non-linear models to accurately capture the relationships between inputs and outputs if a single equation is used to estimate MPs of columns in all four clusters.</p>
<fig id="F4" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 4</label>
<caption>
<p>The Negative log-likelihood predicted by GMM for <bold>(A)</bold> the whole dataset and <bold>(B)</bold> flexure-critical empirical subset for rectangular columns.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g004.tif"/>
</fig>
<p>Four different clusters were identified for the complete dataset in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4A</xref>. The data was tracked back to identify the salient characteristics of each cluster, including the number of specimens and the mode of failure. These and minimum, maximum and mean of each input variable are reported in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>, where mean values are shown in parenthesis. The last two rows in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref> show statistically significant input variables for parameters <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic> based on a <italic>p</italic>-value analysis. Among the clusters, the (<inline-formula id="inf28">
<mml:math id="m28">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) ratio decreased from cluster 1 to cluster 4, while the shear load ratio increased. Clusters 1 and 4 represent slender and short columns respectively. Cluster 2 and 3, with average (<inline-formula id="inf29">
<mml:math id="m29">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) ratios of 5.5 and 3.7 and shear load ratios of 0.39 and 0.62, respectively, represent ductile columns where longitudinal reinforcement yields prior to shear failure and columns that fail in flexure. Column mode of failure is taken from the ACI 369 column database.</p>
<table-wrap id="T1" position="float">
<label>TABLE 1</label>
<caption>
<p>Data analytics of rectangular column clusters.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th align="left"/>
<th align="center">Cluster 1</th>
<th align="center">Cluster 2</th>
<th align="center">Cluster 3</th>
<th align="center">Cluster 4</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">No. of specimens</td>
<td align="center">33</td>
<td align="center">37</td>
<td align="center">138</td>
<td align="center">106</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">No. of Flexure-critical specimens</td>
<td align="center">31</td>
<td align="center">34</td>
<td align="center">83</td>
<td align="center">49</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">No. of Flexure-Shear critical specimens</td>
<td align="center">2</td>
<td align="center">3</td>
<td align="center">49</td>
<td align="center">23</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">No. of Shear critical specimens</td>
<td align="center">0</td>
<td align="center">0</td>
<td align="center">6</td>
<td align="center">34</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf30">
<mml:math id="m30">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) interval</td>
<td align="center">6.6&#x2013;8.9 (7.1)</td>
<td align="center">5.3&#x2013;5.6 (5.5)</td>
<td align="center">2.9&#x2013;4.7 (3.7)</td>
<td align="center">1.1&#x2013;2.8 (2.1)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf31">
<mml:math id="m31">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) interval</td>
<td align="center">0&#x2013;0.53 (0.3)</td>
<td align="center">0&#x2013;0.46 (0.27)</td>
<td align="center">0&#x2013;0.7 (0.17)</td>
<td align="center">0&#x2013;0.9 (0.29)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf32">
<mml:math id="m32">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> interval</td>
<td align="center">0.010&#x2013;0.025 (0.021)</td>
<td align="center">0.015&#x2013;0.060 (0.033)</td>
<td align="center">0.012&#x2013;0.038 (0.021)</td>
<td align="center">0.006&#x2013;0.069 (0.024)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf33">
<mml:math id="m33">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> interval</td>
<td align="center">0.0009&#x2013;0.032 (0.012)</td>
<td align="center">0.002&#x2013;0.016 (0.008)</td>
<td align="center">0.0006&#x2013;0.022 (0.005)</td>
<td align="center">0.0007&#x2013;0.016 (0.007)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf34">
<mml:math id="m34">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>S</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) interval</td>
<td align="center">0.20&#x2013;0.95 (0.37)</td>
<td align="center">0.24&#x2013;0.74 (0.44)</td>
<td align="center">0.14&#x2013;1.16 (0.39)</td>
<td align="center">0.11&#x2013;1.27 (0.31)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf35">
<mml:math id="m35">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) interval</td>
<td align="center">0.09&#x2013;0.99 (0.25)</td>
<td align="center">0.19&#x2013;0.68 (0.39)</td>
<td align="center">0.12&#x2013;1.94 (0.62)</td>
<td align="center">0.13&#x2013;1.94 (0.75)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Significant inputs for MP <italic>a</italic>
</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf36">
<mml:math id="m36">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf37">
<mml:math id="m37">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf38">
<mml:math id="m38">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>S</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf39">
<mml:math id="m39">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, (<inline-formula id="inf40">
<mml:math id="m40">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, (<inline-formula id="inf41">
<mml:math id="m41">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf42">
<mml:math id="m42">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf43">
<mml:math id="m43">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf44">
<mml:math id="m44">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>S</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf45">
<mml:math id="m45">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, (<inline-formula id="inf46">
<mml:math id="m46">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf47">
<mml:math id="m47">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf48">
<mml:math id="m48">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>S</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Significant inputs for MP <italic>b</italic>
</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf49">
<mml:math id="m49">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf50">
<mml:math id="m50">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf51">
<mml:math id="m51">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>S</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf52">
<mml:math id="m52">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, (<inline-formula id="inf53">
<mml:math id="m53">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf54">
<mml:math id="m54">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>S</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf55">
<mml:math id="m55">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf56">
<mml:math id="m56">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf57">
<mml:math id="m57">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf58">
<mml:math id="m58">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, (<inline-formula id="inf59">
<mml:math id="m59">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf60">
<mml:math id="m60">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>Of the four data clusters in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4A</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>, clusters 2 and 3 are of most interest for this study. These clusters correspond to intermediate columns with shear span-to-depth ratios between 3 and 6, and with a large percentage of columns failing in flexure (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>). Among clusters 2 and 3, cluster 2 had the largest percentage of columns identified as failing in flexure while cluster 3 columns had smaller shear span-to-depth ratios.</p>
<p>
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4B</xref> shows the same analysis for another subset of data including flexure critical columns with span-to-depth ratio between 3&#x2013;7 and axial load ratio less than 0.5. This subset was created through trial and error to be representative of new construction building columns considering commonly used column dimensions, axial load limits in the 318 Building Code, amount of transverse reinforcement, and mode of failure, and is designated throughout this study as the flexure-critical empirical subset. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4B</xref> shows that the background color was similar for all columns in the flexure-critical empirical subset, which is indicative of linear relationships between inputs and outputs.</p>
<p>The goal of the cluster analysis and the creation of the flexure-critical empirical subset was to identify larger sets of data to develop MP equations than subsets including columns that strictly complied with the provisions in Chapter 18 of the 318 Building Code. Larger sets improve statistical significance and improve the opportunity to capture the effects of input variables on MPs, while constraining the analysis to columns with large deformation capacities.</p>
<p>The next step in the process was to choose and calibrate a machine learning model that captured the effect of input variables on MPs. We also evaluated the accuracy of different machine learning algorithms to estimate column non-linear modeling parameters <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic>. We found that deep Neural Networks (NNs) were the most accurate machine learning models to match experimentally measured values in a database of 490 pseudo-static column tests. The analysis showed that NN models provided the most accurate estimates and that NN accuracy did not diminish at the periphery of the experimental data set. The NN models are available to users through a GUI script in GitHub<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref> and also through a web service<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2">
<sup>2</sup>
</xref>.</p>
<p>Different linear regression and non-linear models like Decision Tree (DT), Polynomial Regression Model (PRM) and Neural Network (NN) were used to identify the machine learning algorithm that provided the most accurate estimates of MPs <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic>. All models were trained using 85% of the data selected at random and evaluated using the remaining 15%. Accuracy metrics <italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> and MSE for MP <italic>a</italic> of rectangular columns are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">Table 2</xref> for both the complete column set, including all clusters, and the subset including only columns identified as having failed in flexure. A combination of high accuracy for the training subset and low accuracy for the evaluation subset is indicative of a tendency to overfit the data. Low accuracy for both the training and evaluation subsets are indicative of a tendency to underfit the data.</p>
<table-wrap id="T2" position="float">
<label>TABLE 2</label>
<caption>
<p>Accuracy metrics <italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> and MSE for MP <italic>a</italic> of rectangular columns calculated with different machine learning algorithms.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th align="left"/>
<th colspan="4" align="center">Complete dataset</th>
<th colspan="4" align="center">Flexure-critical empirical subset</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="left"/>
<th colspan="2" align="center">Training subset</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">Test subset</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">Training subset</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">Test subset</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="left"/>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">MSE (&#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>)</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">MSE (&#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>)</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">MSE (&#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>)</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">MSE (&#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">Linear Regression</td>
<td align="center">41.0</td>
<td align="center">0.215</td>
<td align="center">35.6</td>
<td align="center">0.219</td>
<td align="center">41.6</td>
<td align="center">0.185</td>
<td align="center">53.7</td>
<td align="center">0.069</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Ridge Regression</td>
<td align="center">37.0</td>
<td align="center">0.230</td>
<td align="center">33.2</td>
<td align="center">0.227</td>
<td align="center">37.0</td>
<td align="center">0.198</td>
<td align="center">33.8</td>
<td align="center">0.131</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Polynomial Regression</td>
<td align="center">55.7</td>
<td align="center">0.162</td>
<td align="center">43.9</td>
<td align="center">0.176</td>
<td align="center">65.2</td>
<td align="center">0.108</td>
<td align="center">31.9</td>
<td align="center">0.143</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Decision Tree</td>
<td align="center">99.5</td>
<td align="center">0.002</td>
<td align="center">33.3</td>
<td align="center">0.209</td>
<td align="center">98.0</td>
<td align="center">0.005</td>
<td align="center">15.6</td>
<td align="center">0.268</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Neural Network</td>
<td align="center">93.0</td>
<td align="center">0.025</td>
<td align="center">61.3</td>
<td align="center">0.045</td>
<td align="center">81.3</td>
<td align="center">0.055</td>
<td align="center">52.3</td>
<td align="center">0.136</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>Accuracy metrics in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">Table 2</xref> indicate that for the complete dataset the DT model had a tendency to overfit that data while the linear regression models had a tendency to underfit the data. The NN and PRM performed the best capturing the non-linearity of the complete dataset. The most accurate estimates of MP <italic>a</italic> for rectangular columns were provided by the NN model, which did not exhibit tendencies to overfit or underfit the data.</p>
<p>For the flexure-critical empirical subset the analysis illustrated in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4</xref> indicates that non-linearity of the data set decreased by choosing columns with similar behavior, which reduced the tendency of linear regression models to underfit the data and improved their accuracy as indicated by the metrics in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">Table 2</xref>. For this subset, the accuracy of the linear regression models for the evaluation set improved so much that it was comparable or better to that of the NN model for MP <italic>a</italic>. These linear regression models were used to create the equations to calculate new construction column MPs proposed in this study.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s4">
<title>Partial dependence plots (PDP)</title>
<p>Partial Dependence Plots (PDPs) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Friedman, 2001</xref>) are presented to illustrate the marginal effect that each feature had on the predicted outcome of the NN model, and to identify mathematical expressions that adequately represent their effect on MPs. These plots show the relationship between the NN model output and each input variable for different sets of data in the database. The optimal statistical distribution of each input was determined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in Scipy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Virtanen et al., 2020</xref>). After that, 100,000 samples were generated for each point of the PDP (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Friedman, 2001</xref>) using the optimal statistical distribution. For each point, the input variable under study was kept constant and combined with variations of the remaining input variables to generate an input set, which was fed to the NN model. The average of the outputs of all input sets along with the average plus and minus two times the standard deviation are plotted in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5">Figure 5</xref> for MP <italic>a</italic> of rectangular columns for the complete dataset (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5">Figure 5A</xref>) and the flexure-critical empirical subset (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5">Figure 5B</xref>).</p>
<fig id="F5" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 5</label>
<caption>
<p>PDPs for MP a of rectangular columns for <bold>(A)</bold> the whole data set and <bold>(B)</bold> flexure-critical empirical subset.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g005.tif"/>
</fig>
<p>
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5">Figure 5A</xref> shows that for the complete dataset, the relationships between input variables and NN model output are non-linear, except for <inline-formula id="inf61">
<mml:math id="m61">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf62">
<mml:math id="m62">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>. Among all variables, the (<inline-formula id="inf63">
<mml:math id="m63">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) ratio introduced the most non-linearity into the model. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5">Figure 5B</xref> shows that the non-linearity of the problem is significantly reduced by segregating and limiting the analysis to a subset of flexure-critical columns. The relationships between model inputs and output shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5">Figure 5B</xref> are mostly linear.</p>
<p>A <italic>p</italic>-value analysis was performed to control the degree of importance of each input variable. In this type of analysis lower <italic>p</italic>-values are indicative of higher statistical significance. Calculated <italic>p</italic>-values for each variable presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">Table 3</xref> indicate that the <inline-formula id="inf64">
<mml:math id="m64">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> ratio, <inline-formula id="inf65">
<mml:math id="m65">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, <inline-formula id="inf66">
<mml:math id="m66">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> ratio and <inline-formula id="inf67">
<mml:math id="m67">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> were the most influential parameters affecting MP <italic>a</italic> of rectangular columns. The <inline-formula id="inf68">
<mml:math id="m68">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> ratio, <inline-formula id="inf69">
<mml:math id="m69">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, <inline-formula id="inf70">
<mml:math id="m70">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> ratio and <inline-formula id="inf71">
<mml:math id="m71">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> were found to be the most important parameters for MP <italic>b</italic> of rectangular columns.</p>
<table-wrap id="T3" position="float">
<label>TABLE 3</label>
<caption>
<p>
<italic>p</italic>-value analysis for the flexure-critical empirical column subset.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf72">
<mml:math id="m72">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">a</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf73">
<mml:math id="m73">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">b</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="center">Variable</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>p</italic>-value</th>
<th align="center">Variable</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>p</italic>-value</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf74">
<mml:math id="m74">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0000</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf75">
<mml:math id="m75">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf76">
<mml:math id="m76">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.6472</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf77">
<mml:math id="m77">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.2103</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf78">
<mml:math id="m78">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0002</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf79">
<mml:math id="m79">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf80">
<mml:math id="m80">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0629</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf81">
<mml:math id="m81">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.6891</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf82">
<mml:math id="m82">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0010</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf83">
<mml:math id="m83">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0042</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf84">
<mml:math id="m84">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.1028</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf85">
<mml:math id="m85">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0546</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>Using the most influential parameters, linear regression models were fitted to offer a simple set of formulas (Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref>) to estimate non-linear MPs of flexure-critical rectangular columns.<disp-formula id="e1">
<mml:math id="m86">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.075</mml:mn>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.007</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.33</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.37</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.037</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(1)</label>
</disp-formula>
<disp-formula id="e2">
<mml:math id="m87">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>b</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.106</mml:mn>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.011</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.55</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.03</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.02</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(2)</label>
</disp-formula>
</p>
<p>Accuracy metrics <italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup>, Mean Squared Error (MSE), and standard deviation, mean and coefficient of variation of the measured to calculated ratio for Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref> were compared with metrics for <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> in ACI 374.3R (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>) and the column MP equations in ASCE 41-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref>. As it shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref>, for all the metrics, the proposed formula provided much more accurate estimates of MPs <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic> than ACI 374.3R and ASCE 41-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>).</p>
<table-wrap id="T4" position="float">
<label>TABLE 4</label>
<caption>
<p>Accuracy metrics for proposed equations, ACI 374.3R and ASCE 41-17 for rectangular columns in the flexure-critical empirical subset.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th rowspan="2" align="center">Rectangular columns flexure-critical empirical subset</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">Measured to calculated <italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>b</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">Measured to calculated <italic>b</italic>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref>
</td>
<td align="center">43</td>
<td align="center">0.17</td>
<td align="center">0.37</td>
<td align="center">0.99</td>
<td align="center">0.37</td>
<td align="center">45</td>
<td align="center">0.20</td>
<td align="center">0.28</td>
<td align="center">0.99</td>
<td align="center">0.28</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">ACI 374 Table 4.1.2a</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;5</td>
<td align="center">0.31</td>
<td align="center">0.55</td>
<td align="center">0.97</td>
<td align="center">0.56</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;62</td>
<td align="center">0.61</td>
<td align="center">0.57</td>
<td align="center">1.08</td>
<td align="center">0.53</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">ASCE 41-17</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;15</td>
<td align="center">0.34</td>
<td align="center">0.65</td>
<td align="center">1.22</td>
<td align="center">0.53</td>
<td align="center">3</td>
<td align="center">0.36</td>
<td align="center">0.37</td>
<td align="center">0.96</td>
<td align="center">0.38</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>A similar analysis was performed for columns in clusters 2 and 3 to provide a measure of how the different procedures perform for a broader set consisting of columns with flexure-shear and flexure-critical columns that with a significant number of specimens that although had ductile behavior did not meet the detailing requirements in Chapter 18 of the ACI 318 Building Code. For example, <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref> shows that clusters 2 and 3 included some columns with hoop spacing exceeding <italic>d</italic>/2. The 2D visualization of the cluster 2 &#x2b; cluster 3 dataset and the negative log-likelihood is presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F6">Figure 6</xref>. Although all the specimens (black dots) appear in a fringe with similar background color, they are clearly grouped in two different clusters.</p>
<fig id="F6" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 6</label>
<caption>
<p>The Negative log-likelihood predicted by GMM for clusters 2 and 3.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g006.tif"/>
</fig>
<p>The PDPs for MP <italic>a</italic> of columns in clusters 2 and 3 are presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F7">Figure 7</xref>. As it shown in the figure, all input variables with the exception of <inline-formula id="inf86">
<mml:math id="m88">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf87">
<mml:math id="m89">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> exhibited non-linear relationships with the NN model output MP <italic>a</italic>. A comparison between <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F7">Figure 7</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5">Figure 5B</xref> shows that the cluster 2 &#x2b; cluster 3 subset exhibits a higher degree of non-linearity than the flexure-critical empirical subset, so it is expected that linear regression models will be less accurate due to their lack of flexibility.</p>
<fig id="F7" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 7</label>
<caption>
<p>PDPs for MP <italic>a</italic> of rectangular columns for clusters 2 and 3.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g007.tif"/>
</fig>
<p>A <italic>p</italic>-value analysis was performed (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T5">Table 5</xref>) to determine the statistical significance of input variables in the presence of the new features introduced to capture non-linearity (the second order of all input variables except <inline-formula id="inf88">
<mml:math id="m90">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf89">
<mml:math id="m91">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>). The <italic>p</italic>-value analysis indicates that <inline-formula id="inf90">
<mml:math id="m92">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, <inline-formula id="inf91">
<mml:math id="m93">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, <inline-formula id="inf92">
<mml:math id="m94">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf93">
<mml:math id="m95">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> are the most influential parameters affecting MP <italic>a</italic> of rectangular columns. For MP <italic>b</italic> of rectangular columns the most influential parameters were <inline-formula id="inf94">
<mml:math id="m96">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, <inline-formula id="inf95">
<mml:math id="m97">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, <inline-formula id="inf96">
<mml:math id="m98">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, <inline-formula id="inf97">
<mml:math id="m99">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf98">
<mml:math id="m100">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>.</p>
<table-wrap id="T5" position="float">
<label>TABLE 5</label>
<caption>
<p>
<italic>p</italic>-value analysis for cluster 2 and 3 subset.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf99">
<mml:math id="m101">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">a</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf100">
<mml:math id="m102">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">b</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="center">Variable</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>p</italic>-value</th>
<th align="center">Variable</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>p</italic>-value</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf101">
<mml:math id="m103">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.9583</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf102">
<mml:math id="m104">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.1166</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf103">
<mml:math id="m105">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.7416</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf104">
<mml:math id="m106">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.1638</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf105">
<mml:math id="m107">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.4974</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf106">
<mml:math id="m108">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0096</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf107">
<mml:math id="m109">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.2859</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf108">
<mml:math id="m110">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.9592</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf109">
<mml:math id="m111">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0017</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf110">
<mml:math id="m112">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf111">
<mml:math id="m113">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.9401</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf112">
<mml:math id="m114">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.6562</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf113">
<mml:math id="m115">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0001</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf114">
<mml:math id="m116">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0028</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf115">
<mml:math id="m117">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0000</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf116">
<mml:math id="m118">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf117">
<mml:math id="m119">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.2112</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf118">
<mml:math id="m120">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.9072</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf119">
<mml:math id="m121">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.6262</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf120">
<mml:math id="m122">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.1152</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>Using the most influential parameters, Polynomial Regression Models (PRM) were fitted to develop a set of formulas (Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e3">3</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e4">4</xref>) to estimate non-linear MPs of new construction rectangular columns.<disp-formula id="e3">
<mml:math id="m123">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.054</mml:mn>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.22</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.09</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.006</mml:mn>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(3)</label>
</disp-formula>
<disp-formula id="e4">
<mml:math id="m124">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>b</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.078</mml:mn>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.09</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.40</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.06</mml:mn>
<mml:msup>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
</mml:msup>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.09</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.02</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(4)</label>
</disp-formula>
</p>
<p>Accuracy metrics <italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup>, Mean Squared Error (MSE) and standard deviation, mean and coefficient of variation of the measured to calculated ratio for Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e3">3</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e4">4</xref> are compared with those from Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref>, calibrated based on the flexure-critical empirical data set, and ASCE 41-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T6">Table 6</xref>.</p>
<table-wrap id="T6" position="float">
<label>TABLE 6</label>
<caption>
<p>Accuracy metrics for Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref> through Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e4">4</xref> and ASCE 41-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) for cluster 2 &#x2b; cluster 3 subset.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th rowspan="2" align="center">Rectangular column cluster 2 and 3 subset</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">Measured to calculated <italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>b</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">Measured to calculated <italic>b</italic>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref>
</td>
<td align="center">18</td>
<td align="center">0.27</td>
<td align="center">0.42</td>
<td align="center">0.83</td>
<td align="center">0.50</td>
<td align="center">16</td>
<td align="center">0.37</td>
<td align="center">0.38</td>
<td align="center">0.87</td>
<td align="center">0.44</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e3">3</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e4">4</xref>
</td>
<td align="center">39</td>
<td align="center">0.20</td>
<td align="center">0.48</td>
<td align="center">0.98</td>
<td align="center">0.49</td>
<td align="center">53</td>
<td align="center">0.20</td>
<td align="center">0.81</td>
<td align="center">1.0</td>
<td align="center">0.81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">ASCE 41-17</td>
<td align="center">17</td>
<td align="center">0.27</td>
<td align="center">1.15</td>
<td align="center">1.39</td>
<td align="center">0.83</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;16</td>
<td align="center">0.51</td>
<td align="center">2.37</td>
<td align="center">1.32</td>
<td align="center">1.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>The PRM models performed better at capturing the non-linearity of the broader dataset and provided the most accurate estimates of MPs <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic> for data in clusters 2 and 3. Also, the linear regression models calibrated using the flexure-critical empirical subset (Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref>) provided more accurate estimates of MPs <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic> than ASCE 41-17 in terms of standard deviation, mean and coefficient of variation of measured to calculated target outputs, as well as a lower MSE for MP <italic>b</italic>. The lower flexibility of Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref> and the ASCE 41-17 equations with respect to Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e3">3</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e4">4</xref> is also reflected in the mean measured-to-calculated ratios for MPs <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic>. Equations <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref>, calibrated on the basis of the most ductile data set, had the lowest mean values (0.83 and 0.87 for MPs <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic>). Equations <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e3">3</xref>, calibrated on the basis of less ductile columns than Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref>, had mean values of approximately 1.0. The equations in the ASCE 41-17 provisions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>), calibrated using the largest number of non-ductile columns, had the highest mean values (1.39 and 1.32 for MPs <italic>a</italic> and <italic>b</italic>).</p>
<p>The cumulative distribution of column total rotation for the three data sets (the complete database, clusters 2 and 3, and the flexure-critical empirical subset) are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F8">Figure 8</xref>. Section 16.4 of ASCE 7 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">ASCE, 2007</xref>) states that mean drift ratio must not exceed two times the limits in Table 12.12-1, which for most structures in Risk categories I or II is 2%. The vertical line in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F8">Figure 8</xref>, designated minimum allowable drift capacity, corresponds to a total rotation of 4% (2 times 2%) and all columns to the right of the vertical line exceed this limit. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F8">Figure 8</xref> shows that the flexure-critical empirical subset had the lowest percentage of columns not meeting this limit (approximately 25%), followed by the cluster 2 &#x2b; cluster 3 subset (approximately 32%) and the complete dataset (approximately 50%).</p>
<fig id="F8" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 8</label>
<caption>
<p>Cumulative distribution of the total rotation of rectangular columns.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g008.tif"/>
</fig>
<p>A simplification was performed by eliminating input variable <italic>a/d</italic> from Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref> taking advantage of the fact that the effect of this parameter is relatively small for columns with <italic>a/d</italic> ratios between 3 and 5 of typical building columns (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5">Figures 5A, B</xref>). The simplified Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e5">5</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e6">6</xref> for MPs or rectangular columns include only 3 input variables.<disp-formula id="e5">
<mml:math id="m125">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:mtext>&#x2009;</mml:mtext>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.60</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.03</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(5)</label>
</disp-formula>
<disp-formula id="e6">
<mml:math id="m126">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>b</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:mtext>&#x2009;</mml:mtext>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.55</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.40</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(6)</label>
</disp-formula>
</p>
<p>Accuracy and precision metrics for Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e6">6</xref>, ACI 374R3 <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> and ASCE 41-17 equations for the subset of specimens showing total rotation capacity exceeding 4% are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T7">Table 7</xref>. Simplified Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e5">5</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e6">6</xref> had similar MSEs to Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e4">4</xref>, and much lower MSEs than existing provisions. Similarly, Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e5">5</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e6">6</xref> had significantly lower COVs than existing provisions.</p>
<table-wrap id="T7" position="float">
<label>TABLE 7</label>
<caption>
<p>Performance metrics for Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e6">6</xref>, ACI 374.3R <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> and ASCE41-17 equations for rectangular columns with rotation capacity greater than 4%.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th rowspan="2" align="center">Rectangular columns (total rotation capacity greater than 4%)</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">Measured to calculated <italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>b</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">Measured to calculated <italic>b</italic>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7; 10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e1">1</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e2">2</xref>
</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;52</td>
<td align="center">0.25</td>
<td align="center">0.72</td>
<td align="center">1.27</td>
<td align="center">0.56</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;54</td>
<td align="center">0.40</td>
<td align="center">0.58</td>
<td align="center">1.14</td>
<td align="center">0.50</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e3">3</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e4">4</xref>
</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;48</td>
<td align="center">0.25</td>
<td align="center">0.37</td>
<td align="center">1.26</td>
<td align="center">0.29</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;40</td>
<td align="center">0.37</td>
<td align="center">0.38</td>
<td align="center">1.15</td>
<td align="center">0.33</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e5">5</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e6">6</xref>
</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;57</td>
<td align="center">0.26</td>
<td align="center">0.39</td>
<td align="center">1.29</td>
<td align="center">0.30</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;11</td>
<td align="center">0.29</td>
<td align="center">0.29</td>
<td align="center">1.03</td>
<td align="center">0.28</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">ACI 374 Table 4.1.2a</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;66</td>
<td align="center">0.28</td>
<td align="center">0.46</td>
<td align="center">1.27</td>
<td align="center">0.36</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;124</td>
<td align="center">0.59</td>
<td align="center">0.57</td>
<td align="center">1.28</td>
<td align="center">0.44</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">ASCE 41-17</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;206</td>
<td align="center">0.51</td>
<td align="center">2.82</td>
<td align="center">1.97</td>
<td align="center">1.43</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;96</td>
<td align="center">0.52</td>
<td align="center">3.51</td>
<td align="center">1.48</td>
<td align="center">2.37</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="s5">
<title>Circular column analysis</title>
<p>Log-likelihood scores of circular column data is presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9">Figure 9</xref>. The procedure to create <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9">Figure 9</xref> is the same used for rectangular columns. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9">Figure 9A</xref> shows that there were two distinct clusters for circular columns, with the center of each shown with a red dot. Salient features of the two clusters are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T8">Table 8</xref>. The mean (<inline-formula id="inf121">
<mml:math id="m127">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) ratio was higher for cluster 2 than cluster 1, which included short and some intermediate columns. Cluster 2 had a lower mean shear load ratio, which is consistent with higher <italic>a/d</italic> ratios. Cluster 2, which had a mean (<inline-formula id="inf122">
<mml:math id="m128">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) ratio of 6.6 and shear load ratio of 0.34, was the most representative of new construction columns with flexure-critical behavior.</p>
<fig id="F9" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 9</label>
<caption>
<p>The Negative log-likelihood predicted by GMM for <bold>(A)</bold> the whole dataset and <bold>(B)</bold> flexure-critical subset for circular columns.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g009.tif"/>
</fig>
<table-wrap id="T8" position="float">
<label>TABLE 8</label>
<caption>
<p>Data analytics for circular column clusters.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th align="left"/>
<th align="center">Cluster 1</th>
<th align="center">Cluster 2</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">No. of specimens</td>
<td align="center">102</td>
<td align="center">69</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">No. of Flexure -critical specimens</td>
<td align="center">30</td>
<td align="center">69</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">No. of Flexure-Shear critical specimens</td>
<td align="center">38</td>
<td align="center">0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">No. of Shear critical specimens</td>
<td align="center">34</td>
<td align="center">0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf123">
<mml:math id="m129">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) interval</td>
<td align="center">1.2&#x2013;3.7 (2.5)</td>
<td align="center">4.6&#x2013;12.5 (6.6)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf124">
<mml:math id="m130">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) interval</td>
<td align="center">0&#x2013;0.74 (0.13)</td>
<td align="center">0&#x2013;0.74 (0.16)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf125">
<mml:math id="m131">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> interval</td>
<td align="center">0.0046&#x2013;0.052 (0.026)</td>
<td align="center">0.012&#x2013;0.056 (0.024)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf126">
<mml:math id="m132">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> interval</td>
<td align="center">0.0003&#x2013;0.015 (0.0036)</td>
<td align="center">0.0008&#x2013;0.016 (0.004)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf127">
<mml:math id="m133">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>S</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) interval</td>
<td align="center">0.04&#x2013;0.68 (0.24)</td>
<td align="center">0.05&#x2013;0.83 (0.16)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf128">
<mml:math id="m134">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>) interval</td>
<td align="center">0.29&#x2013;2.55 (1.1)</td>
<td align="center">0.13&#x2013;0.83 (0.34)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Significant inputs for MP <italic>a</italic>
</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf129">
<mml:math id="m135">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf130">
<mml:math id="m136">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf131">
<mml:math id="m137">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf132">
<mml:math id="m138">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf133">
<mml:math id="m139">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf134">
<mml:math id="m140">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Significant inputs for MP <italic>b</italic>
</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf135">
<mml:math id="m141">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, (<inline-formula id="inf136">
<mml:math id="m142">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf137">
<mml:math id="m143">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
<td align="center">(<inline-formula id="inf138">
<mml:math id="m144">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf139">
<mml:math id="m145">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>), (<inline-formula id="inf140">
<mml:math id="m146">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mn>0</mml:mn>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9">Figure 9B</xref> shows the log-likelihood score of circular columns labelled as flexure critical in the database, without any constraint on the span-to-depth and axial load ratios. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F9">Figure 9B</xref> shows that all black dots had similar scores, indicative of linear behavior of all the data in the flexure-critical subset, which was taken as representative of new construction columns.</p>
<p>Following the same procedure used for rectangular columns a <italic>p</italic>-value analysis was conducted to the significance of each input variable. The results of the <italic>p</italic>-value analysis are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T9">Table 9</xref>. These values indicate that <inline-formula id="inf141">
<mml:math id="m147">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> ratio, axial load ratio <inline-formula id="inf142">
<mml:math id="m148">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> , <inline-formula id="inf143">
<mml:math id="m149">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> and <inline-formula id="inf144">
<mml:math id="m150">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> ratio were the most influential parameters affecting MP <italic>a</italic> of circular columns. For MP <italic>b</italic> of circular columns the axial load ratio <inline-formula id="inf145">
<mml:math id="m151">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>, <inline-formula id="inf146">
<mml:math id="m152">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> ratio and <inline-formula id="inf147">
<mml:math id="m153">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula> were the most influential parameters.</p>
<table-wrap id="T9" position="float">
<label>TABLE 9</label>
<caption>
<p>
<italic>p</italic>-value analysis for the flexure-critical circular column subset.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf148">
<mml:math id="m154">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">a</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf149">
<mml:math id="m155">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">b</mml:mi>
<mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="center">Variable</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>p</italic>-value</th>
<th align="center">Variable</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>p</italic>-value</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf150">
<mml:math id="m156">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.1047</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf151">
<mml:math id="m157">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.1964</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf152">
<mml:math id="m158">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0001</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf153">
<mml:math id="m159">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf154">
<mml:math id="m160">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.1366</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf155">
<mml:math id="m161">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.2784</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf156">
<mml:math id="m162">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.6128</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf157">
<mml:math id="m163">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>t</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.1691</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf158">
<mml:math id="m164">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.1471</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf159">
<mml:math id="m165">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.1450</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf160">
<mml:math id="m166">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center">0.2288</td>
<td align="center">
<inline-formula id="inf161">
<mml:math id="m167">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="&#x7c;">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
</inline-formula>
</td>
<td align="center" style="background-color:#9CC2E5">0.0408</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>Linear regression models including the most influential parameters were fitted to the test data, resulting in Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e7">7</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e8">8</xref> to estimate non-linear MPs of new construction circular columns.<disp-formula id="e7">
<mml:math id="m168">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.037</mml:mn>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.004</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.37</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(7)</label>
</disp-formula>
<disp-formula id="e8">
<mml:math id="m169">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>b</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.094</mml:mn>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.07</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.02</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>s</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(8)</label>
</disp-formula>
</p>
<p>Accuracy metrics <italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup>, Mean Squared Error (MSE) and standard deviation, mean and coefficient of variation of the measured to calculated ratio for Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e7">7</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e8">8</xref> are compared with performance metrics for <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> of ACI 374.3R and ASCE 41-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">374, 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) equations in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T10">Table 10</xref>.</p>
<table-wrap id="T10" position="float">
<label>TABLE 10</label>
<caption>
<p>Performance metrics for Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e7">7</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e8">8</xref>; <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> of ACI 374.3R and ASCE 41-17 equations for new construction circular columns.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th rowspan="2" align="center">Circular columns (flexure-critical)</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">For measured to calculated <italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>b</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">For measured to calculated <italic>b</italic>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7; 10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e7">7</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e8">8</xref>
</td>
<td align="center">33</td>
<td align="center">0.45</td>
<td align="center">0.40</td>
<td align="center">1.0</td>
<td align="center">0.40</td>
<td align="center">44</td>
<td align="center">0.35</td>
<td align="center">0.28</td>
<td align="center">0.99</td>
<td align="center">0.28</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">ACI 374 (Table 4.1.2a)</td>
<td align="center">33</td>
<td align="center">0.25</td>
<td align="center">0.38</td>
<td align="center">1.01</td>
<td align="center">0.37</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;13</td>
<td align="center">0.48</td>
<td align="center">0.42</td>
<td align="center">0.98</td>
<td align="center">0.43</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">ASCE 41-17</td>
<td align="center">14</td>
<td align="center">0.58</td>
<td align="center">0.56</td>
<td align="center">1.28</td>
<td align="center">0.44</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;21</td>
<td align="center">0.77</td>
<td align="center">1.96</td>
<td align="center">1.16</td>
<td align="center">1.68</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>As it shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T9">Table 9</xref>, for all the metrics, the proposed equations provided better estimates than ASCE 41-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) estimates, especially for the MP <italic>b</italic>. The proposed equations had similar performance metrics as <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> for MP <italic>a</italic>, but significantly better performance for MP <italic>b</italic>.</p>
<p>Following the same procedure adopted for rectangular columns a simpler set of equations was created for columns with span-to-depth ratios between 3&#x2013;5, typical of building structures. The regression model was recalibrated based on the new empirical subset. Simplified Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e9">9</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e10">10</xref> for MPs of circular columns include only the three most significant parameters.<disp-formula id="e9">
<mml:math id="m170">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>a</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.07</mml:mn>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.09</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.5</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(9)</label>
</disp-formula>
<disp-formula id="e10">
<mml:math id="m171">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>b</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>R</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:mo>&#x3d;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.09</mml:mn>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.09</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mi>P</mml:mi>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>A</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>g</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
<mml:msubsup>
<mml:mi>f</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>c</mml:mi>
<mml:mo>&#x2032;</mml:mo>
</mml:msubsup>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2b;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.4</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>&#x3c1;</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>l</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mo>&#x2212;</mml:mo>
<mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|">
<mml:mrow>
<mml:mfrac>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>y</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
<mml:mrow>
<mml:msub>
<mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
<mml:mi>o</mml:mi>
</mml:msub>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfrac>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mfenced>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:mrow>
</mml:math>
<label>(10)</label>
</disp-formula>
</p>
<p>The cumulative distribution of column total rotation for the three data sets (the complete database, clusters 2, and the flexure-critical subset) are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F10">Figure 10</xref>. The vertical line in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F10">Figure 10</xref> corresponds to a total rotation of 4%, or 2 times 2%, and all columns to the right of the vertical line exceed this limit. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F10">Figure 10</xref> shows that the cluster 2 subset had the lowest percentage of columns not meeting this limit (approximately 11%), followed by the flexure-critical subset (approximately 32%) and the complete dataset (approximately 41%). <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F10">Figure 10</xref> shows that in general columns in the circular column set have higher deformation capacities than columns in the rectangular column set.</p>
<fig id="F10" position="float">
<label>FIGURE 10</label>
<caption>
<p>Cumulative distribution of the total rotation for circular column set and subsets.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fbuil-09-1108319-g010.tif"/>
</fig>
<p>Performance metrics for Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e7">7</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e10">10</xref> and the equations for circular columns in ASCE 41-17 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Engineers, 2017</xref>) for the subset of specimens showing total rotation capacity more than 4% in the database is presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T11">Table 11</xref>. On the basis of this column subset, the performance of Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e7">7</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e10">10</xref> is better than existing code provisions.</p>
<table-wrap id="T11" position="float">
<label>TABLE 11</label>
<caption>
<p>Performance metrics for Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e7">7</xref>&#x2013;<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e10">10</xref> and ASCE 41-17 equations for MPs of circular columns with rotation capacity exceeding than 4%.</p>
</caption>
<table>
<thead valign="top">
<tr>
<th rowspan="2" align="center">Circular columns (total rotation capacity greater than 4%)</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">For measured to calculated <italic>a</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="2" align="center">
<italic>b</italic>
</th>
<th colspan="3" align="center">For measured to calculated <italic>b</italic>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7;10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
<th align="center">
<italic>R</italic>
<sup>2</sup> (%)</th>
<th align="center">MSE &#xd7; 10<sup>3</sup>
</th>
<th align="center">Std</th>
<th align="center">Mean</th>
<th align="center">C.O.V.</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody valign="top">
<tr>
<td align="center">Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e7">7</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e8">8</xref>
</td>
<td align="center">18</td>
<td align="center">0.46</td>
<td align="center">0.38</td>
<td align="center">1.08</td>
<td align="center">0.35</td>
<td align="center">31</td>
<td align="center">0.36</td>
<td align="center">0.33</td>
<td align="center">1.06</td>
<td align="center">0.31</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e9">9</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e10">10</xref>
</td>
<td align="center">13</td>
<td align="center">0.48</td>
<td align="center">0.46</td>
<td align="center">1.26</td>
<td align="center">0.36</td>
<td align="center">34</td>
<td align="center">0.34</td>
<td align="center">0.27</td>
<td align="center">0.94</td>
<td align="center">0.29</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">ACI 374 (Table 4.1.2a)</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;1</td>
<td align="center">0.56</td>
<td align="center">0.45</td>
<td align="center">1.14</td>
<td align="center">0.39</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;15</td>
<td align="center">0.60</td>
<td align="center">0.39</td>
<td align="center">1.0</td>
<td align="center">0.39</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">ASCE 41-17</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;15</td>
<td align="center">0.64</td>
<td align="center">0.65</td>
<td align="center">1.46</td>
<td align="center">0.44</td>
<td align="center">&#x2212;165</td>
<td align="center">1.39</td>
<td align="center">0.35</td>
<td align="center">0.79</td>
<td align="center">0.44</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="conclusion" id="s6">
<title>Conclusion</title>
<p>The main hypothesis of the study was that the machine learning methodology adopted could produce more accurate equations for new-construction column MPs and increase their statistical significance by identifying a larger training subset with a lower degree of non-linearity between input parameters and model output. It was found that the accuracy of modeling parameters calculated with the simplified proposed Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e5">5</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e6">6</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e9">9</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e10">10</xref>, for rectangular and circular columns respectively, was better than existing provisions in ACI 374.3R and ASCE 41-17. It was also found that equations calibrated using data from older and new construction columns, such as the provisions in ASCE 41-17, produce significantly more conservative estimates of new construction column modeling parameters than equations calibrated solely with experimental data from new construction columns. This observation is important because ACI 374.3R, Appendix A of the 318-19 Building Code and ASCE-7 allow the use of column modeling parameters in ASCE 41-17 to create non-linear models, and their conservatism may lead to bias in calculated element deformations and estimates of damage. For this reason it is recommended that the proposed equations be used to create non-linear models for new construction instead of the provisions in ASCE 41-17.</p>
<p>In regards to the machine learning methodology used in the study, it was found that visualizing data in the 2D space and clustering the specimens in bins was a successful approach to reduce the non-linearity of relationships between input variables and MPs for new construction columns. It was also found that reducing the degree of non-linearity by taking advantage of machine learning to choose better calibration sets for linear regression improved the accuracy and precision of MP estimates within the range of interest. Using this approach, the study produced simple and accurate formulas to estimate non-linear MPs of new construction columns (Eqs <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e5">5</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e6">6</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e9">9</xref>, <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="e10">10</xref>) with better performance than ACI 374.3R and ASCE 41-17. The study showed that both trial and error and the combined use of the TSNE algorithm (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008</xref>) the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) can be successfully used as a means to calculate log-likelihood scores and visualize the non-linearity of the data in 2D space for the purpose of identifying subsets with similar characteristics. PDPs generated with machine learning models were used to confirm that subsets identified in this manner had linear relationships between model inputs and outputs.</p>
<p>An evaluation of different machine learning algorithms showed that NN models provided the best estimates of MPs for the complete column dataset, which encompassed columns with different modes of failure and had highly non-linear relationships between input parameters and model output. It was found that the clustering approach adopted in this study was successful in reducing the degree of non-linearity in the relationships between input parameters and model output. To that effect, it was found that simple linear regression models were as effective as NN models for estimating MPs of the flexure-critical empirical column subset, where non-linearity between input parameters and model output is not significant, and did not exhibit tendencies to overfit or underfit the data. The effect of column set non-linearity on the accuracy of linear regression models was confirmed through the calibration of linear and polynomial regression models. It was shown that linear models lost precision as the non-linearity of the data set increased, and that polynomial regression models including higher order features of input variables became more effective than simple regression models as the non-linearity of the problem increased. It was also shown that NN models were the most effective in adapting to the non-linearity of the column data set and provided the best estimates of column modeling parameters.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<sec sec-type="data-availability" id="s7">
<title>Data availability statement</title>
<p>The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s8">
<title>Author contributions</title>
<p>HK performed writing-original draft, conceptualization, methodology, and programming. AdM performed writing review and editing, conceptualization, and methodology. ArM performed data curation. AS performed investigation.</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="COI-statement" id="s9">
<title>Conflict of interest</title>
<p>The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="disclaimer" id="s10">
<title>Publisher&#x2019;s note</title>
<p>All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.</p>
</sec>
<fn-group>
<fn id="fn1">
<label>1</label>
<p>H, K. K. GitHub repository address. Available at; <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://github.com/hamidkhodadadi/NN-models_MPs">https://github.com/hamidkhodadadi/NN-models_MPs</ext-link>.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn2">
<label>2</label>
<p>H, K. K. The NN and classification model web service at. Available at; <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://cloudcomputing-web-331222.uc.r.appspot.com">https://cloudcomputing-web-331222.uc.r.appspot.com</ext-link>.</p>
</fn>
</fn-group>
<ref-list>
<title>References</title>
<ref id="B1">
<label>318-19 A, 2019</label>
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>318-19, A</surname>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2019</year>). <source>Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19) and commentary</source>, <publisher-loc>Farmington Hills, United States</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>ACI Committee</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>374 A, 2016</label>
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>374, A</surname>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2016</year>). <source>Guide to nonlinear modeling parameters for earthquake-resistant structures</source>. <comment>ACI Report No. 374.3 R-16</comment>. <publisher-loc>Farmington Hills, United States</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>American Concrete Institute Farmington Hills</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>41&#x2013;13 A, 2007</label>
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>41&#x2013;13, A</surname>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2007</year>). <source>Asce 41-13: Seismic evaluation and upgrade of existing buildings</source>. <publisher-loc>Virginia, United States</publisher-loc>, <publisher-name>American Society of Civil Engineers Reston</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Aci-369. 1-17</surname>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2017</year>). <source>Standard requirements for seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete buildings</source>. <publisher-loc>Farmington Hills, United States</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>America Concrete Institute Farmington Hills</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Asce</surname>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2017</year>). <source>Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings</source>. <publisher-loc>Virginia, United States</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>American Society of Civil Engineers</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Dabiri</surname>
<given-names>H.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Rahimzadeh</surname>
<given-names>K.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Kheyroddin</surname>
<given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2022</year>). &#x201c;<article-title>A comparison of machine learning-and regression-based models for predicting ductility ratio of RC beam-column joints</article-title>,&#x201d; in <source>Structures</source> (<publisher-loc>Amsterdam, Netherlands</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Elsevier</publisher-name>), <fpage>69</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>81</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Duda</surname>
<given-names>R. O.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Hart</surname>
<given-names>P. E.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>1973</year>). <source>Pattern classification and scene analysis</source>. <publisher-loc>New York, United States</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Wiley</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Elwood</surname>
<given-names>K. J.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Matamoros</surname>
<given-names>A. B.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Wallace</surname>
<given-names>J. W.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Lehman</surname>
<given-names>D. E.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Heintz</surname>
<given-names>J. A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Mitchell</surname>
<given-names>A. D.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group> (<year>2007</year>). <article-title>Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions</article-title>. <source>Earthquake Spectra</source> <volume>23</volume> (<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>493</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>523</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1193/1.2757714</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Elwood</surname>
<given-names>K. J.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Moehle</surname>
<given-names>J. P.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2005a</year>). <article-title>Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns</article-title>. <source>ACI Structural Journal</source>. <volume>102</volume> (<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>578</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14359/14562</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Elwood</surname>
<given-names>K. J.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Moehle</surname>
<given-names>J. P.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2005b</year>). <article-title>Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement</article-title>. <source>Earthquake Spectra</source> <volume>21</volume> (<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>71</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>89</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1193/1.1849774</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Engineers</surname>
<given-names>A. S. o. C.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2017</year>). <source>Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings</source>. <publisher-loc>Virginia, United States</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>American Society of Civil Engineers</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Friedman</surname>
<given-names>J. H.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2001</year>). <article-title>Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine</article-title>. <source>Annals of Statistics</source>, <fpage>1189</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1232</lpage>. <volume>29</volume>, <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1214/aos/1013203451</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Ghannoum</surname>
<given-names>W. M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Matamoros</surname>
<given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2014</year>). <article-title>Nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for concrete columns</article-title>. <source>ACI Special Publication</source>. <volume>297</volume> (<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>24</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14359/51686898</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Ghannoum</surname>
<given-names>W.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Sivaramakrishnan</surname>
<given-names>B.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Pujol</surname>
<given-names>S.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Catlin</surname>
<given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Fernando</surname>
<given-names>S.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Yoosuf</surname>
<given-names>N.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group> (<year>2012</year>). <article-title>ACI 369 rectangular column database</article-title>. <source>Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (database), Dataset</source> <volume>10</volume>, <fpage>D36688J50</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4231/D36688J50</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Lynn</surname>
<given-names>A. C.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2001</year>). <source>Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building columns</source>. <publisher-loc>California, United States</publisher-loc>, <publisher-name>Berkeley: University of California</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<citation citation-type="confproc">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Matamoros</surname>
<given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Matchulat</surname>
<given-names>L.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Woods</surname>
<given-names>C.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2008</year>). &#x201c;<article-title>Axial load failure of shear critical columns subjected to high levels of axial load</article-title>,&#x201d; in <conf-name>The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,Citeseer: Citeseer)</conf-name>. <conf-date>October 2008</conf-date>, <conf-loc>Beijing, China</conf-loc>,</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>NIST GCR 17-917-46 v1</surname>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2017</year>). <article-title>Guidelines for nonlinear structural analysis for design</article-title>. <source>Applied Technology Council</source>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.6028/NIST.GCR.17-917-46v1</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Sezen</surname>
<given-names>H.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Moehle</surname>
<given-names>J. P.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>Seismic tests of concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement</article-title>. <source>ACI Structural Journal</source>. <volume>103</volume> (<issue>6</issue>), <fpage>842</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14359/18236</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Shahin</surname>
<given-names>M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Chen</surname>
<given-names>F. F.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Hosseinzadeh</surname>
<given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Khodadadi Koodiani</surname>
<given-names>H.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Bouzary</surname>
<given-names>H.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Shahin</surname>
<given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2023</year>). <article-title>Enhanced safety implementation in 5S&#x2b; 1 via object detection algorithms</article-title>. <source>The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology</source> <comment>in press</comment>, <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>21</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00170-023-10970-9</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Thai</surname>
<given-names>H.-T.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2022</year>). &#x201c;<article-title>Machine learning for structural engineering: A state-of-the-art review</article-title>,&#x201d; in <source>Structures</source> (<publisher-name>Elsevier</publisher-name>), <publisher-loc>Amsterdam, Netherlands</publisher-loc>, <fpage>448</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>491</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Van der Maaten</surname>
<given-names>L.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Hinton</surname>
<given-names>G.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2008</year>). <article-title>Visualizing data using t-SNE</article-title>. <source>Journal of Machine Learning Research</source>. <volume>9</volume> (<issue>11</issue>).</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B26">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Virtanen</surname>
<given-names>P.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Gommers</surname>
<given-names>R.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Oliphant</surname>
<given-names>T. E.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Haberland</surname>
<given-names>M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Reddy</surname>
<given-names>T.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Cournapeau</surname>
<given-names>D.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python</article-title>. <source>Nature Methods</source> <volume>17</volume> (<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>261</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>272</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B27">
<citation citation-type="confproc">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Woods</surname>
<given-names>C.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Matamoros</surname>
<given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2010</year>). &#x201c;<article-title>Effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the failure mechanism of R/C columns most vulnerable to collapse</article-title>,&#x201d; in <conf-name>9th Us National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering</conf-name>, <conf-date>July 2010</conf-date>, <conf-loc>Toronto, United States</conf-loc>.</citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>