## 5 Demonstration of Machine Learning Model
### Shear Demand Curve
The shear failure model is structured similarly to the flexure failure model, and the material model of the nonlinear beam-column elements using the Concrete01 and hysteretic material models are used to accurately depict the characteristics of steel. Shear springs were applied as zero-length elements at the top or bottom of the model to represent shear failure behavior. A commonly adopted method for incorporating shear behavior into a model is by serially connecting shear springs to elements describing flexural behavior [26; 27; 28]. However, this model does not consider the strength degradation occurring after shear failure. Hence, in this study, the shear springs used the shear limit curve proposed by [PERSON] [29] within the limit state material model. Shear failure, as shown in Figure 7c, occurs when the member displaying flexural behavior reaches a certain shear strength (\(V_{n}\)), at which point the shear limit curve is applied and the shear failure behavior is shown. The shear strength (\(V_{n}\)) was calculated using Equation (9) from ASCE 41-23 [26]. \[V_{n}=k(\frac{A_{v}f_{y}d}{s}+\lambda(\frac{0.5\sqrt{f_{c}^{\prime}}}{M/Vd} \sqrt{1+\frac{N_{u}}{0.5\sqrt{f_{c}^{\prime}}A_{g}}})0.8A_{g}) \tag{9}\]  
Here, \(k\) is 1.0 for a displacement ductility of \(<\)2, 0.7 for a displacement ductility of \(\geq\)6, and linearly progresses for 2\(\leq\) displacement ductility \(<\)6; \(A_{v}\) is the total cross-sectional area of the transverse reinforcement within spacing s (mm\({}^{2}\)); \(f_{y}\) is the designed yield strength of reinforcement (MPa); \(d\) is the effective depth of the column, which can be set as \(d=0.8h\) (mm); \(s\) is the spacing of the transverse reinforcement (mm); \(\lambda\) is 0.75 for lightweight concrete and 1 for normal concrete; \(f_{c}\) is the compressive strength of concrete; \(M/Vd\) is the maximum ratio of the column's moment to shear force and effective depth under the design load, which ranges from 2 to 4; \(N_{u}\) is the axial load perpendicular to the cross section, considered to be 0 for tensile loads (N); and \(A_{g}\) is the total cross-sectional area of the column (mm\({}^{2}\)). [PERSON] [29] defined the reloading stiffness (\(K_{dgs}\)) of the shear spring as a combination of the reloading stiffness during shear behavior (\(K_{dgs}\)) and unloading stiffness during flexural behavior (\(K_{unload}\)), as per Equation (10). The reloading stiffness (\(K_{dgs}\)) was determined using Equation (11), which was proposed by [PERSON] [30]. \[\frac{1}{K^{t}{}_{deg}}=\frac{1}{K_{unload}}+\frac{1}{K_{deg}} \tag{10}\]  
\[K^{t}{}_{deg}=-4.5\bigg{(}4.6\frac{A_{v}f_{vv}d_{c}}{P_{S}}+1\bigg{)}^{2}L \tag{11}\]  
Here, \(A_{v}\) is the total cross-sectional area of the transverse reinforcement (mm\({}^{2}\)), \(f_{vv}\) is the designed yield strength of the transverse reinforcement (MPa), \(d_{c}\) is the central width of the column cross section (mm), \(P\) is the axial load perpendicular to the column cross section (\(N\)), \(s\) is the spacing of the transverse reinforcement (mm), and \(L\) is the total length of the column (mm). The residual shear strength (\(V_{res}\)) is applied as 80% of the shear strength (\(V_{n}\)). The modeling methodology and results of past experimental studies [1; 2; 3] were compared using nonlinear static hysteresis analysis, and they are illustrated in Figure 8. A comparison of the flexure failure behavior and analysis results for the C3-1 specimen in [PERSON] and [PERSON]'s study [1] showed a gradual reduction in overall strength. In contrast, the shear failure behavior and analysis results of the 3 SLH18 specimen obtained by [PERSON] et al. [2] showed a rapid reduction in the strength and pinching effect. The comparison of the flexure-shear failure behavior and analysis results for Specim 1 in the study by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [3] showed a gradual reduction in strength followed by a rapid decrease.