Metals (Jun 2024)

On Least Squares Support Vector Regression for Predicting Mechanical Properties of Steel Rebars

  • Renan Bessa,
  • Guilherme Alencar Barreto,
  • David Nascimento Coelho,
  • Elineudo Pinho de Moura,
  • Raphaella Hermont Fonseca Murta

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/met14060695
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 6
p. 695

Abstract

Read online

Aiming at ensuring the quality of the product and reducing the cost of steel manufacturing, an increasing number of studies have been developing nonlinear regression models for the prediction of the mechanical properties of steel rebars using machine learning techniques. Bearing this in mind, we revisit this problem by developing a design methodology that amalgamates two powerful concepts in parsimonious model building: (i) sparsity, in the sense that few support vectors are required for building the predictive model, and (ii) locality, in the sense that simpler models can be fitted to smaller data partitions. In this regard, two regression models based on the Least Squares Support Vector Regression (LSSVR) model are developed. The first one is an improved sparse version of the one introduced in a previous work. The second one is a novel local LSSVR-based regression model. The task of interest is the prediction of four output variables (the mechanical properties YS, UTS, UTS/YS, and PE) based on information about its chemical composition (12 variables) and the parameters of the heat treatment rolling (6 variables). The proposed LSSVR-based regression models are evaluated using real-world data collected from steel rebar manufacturing and compared with the global LSSVR model. The local sparse LSSVR approach was able to consistently outperform the standard single regression model approach in the task of interest, achieving improvements in the average R2 from previous studies: 5.04% for UTS, 5.19% for YS, 1.96% for UTS/YS, and 3.41% for PE. Furthermore, the sparsification of the dataset and the local modeling approach significantly reduce the number of SV operations on average, utilizing 34.0% of the total SVs available for UTS estimation, 44.0% for YS, 31.3% for UTS/YS, and 32.8% for PE.

Keywords