## 6 Comparison with Theoretical Approaches  
### Theoretical Models  
Many scholars have proposed shear capacity calculation models based on the RCSW force characteristics, such as the classical truss model, modified pressure field theory, and the tensile compression bar model, and after many years of development, these models have been modified and simplified and also applied in the codes of various countries. This paper obtains the calculated shear capacity of each RCSW specimen in the above test database by using the Chinese code JGJ 3-2010 [48], the American code ACI 318-19 [21], the Sanchez-Alejandre model [49], and the strut-and-tie proposed by [PERSON] et al. [50]. Results are compared with the test values to assess the applicability of each calculation model for the shear capacity calculation of RCSWs. Equations (6)-(9) are the calculation formulae of the four models. The Chinese code JGJ 3-2010 [48] adopts the truss model and considers the effect of axial force on RCSW shear capacity, the American specification ACI 318-19 [21] also adopts the classical truss model without considering the effect of axial load, the Sanchez-Alejandre model [49] is similar to the model of JGJ 3-2010 with the adoption of the truss model and consideration of the effect of axial force and, at the same time, it  
Figure 8: Comparison of prediction performance of single, ensemble, and deep learning models. also considers the effect of vertical reinforcement of the wall on its shear-bearing capacity, and [PERSON] and [PERSON] [50] established the strut-and-tie model based on the transfer rule of the shear flow of RCSW, which is relative to the previous models, with clear mechanical principles and relatively complex. (1) Chinese code JGJ 3-2010 [48] is as follows:  
\[V=\frac{1}{\lambda-0.5}(0.5f_{t}t_{w}h_{o}+0.13N)+f_{yh}\rho_{h}t_{w}h_{o}\leq 0. 25\beta_{c}f_{c}t_{w}h_{o} \tag{6}\]  
where \(\lambda\) is the shear span ratio of the wall, and ho is the effective height of the wall section; if \(\lambda\) is less than 1.5, it uses 1.5, and if it is greater than 2.2, it uses 2.2; \(N\) is the axial force, \(\beta_{c}\) is the concrete strength influence coefficient; when the \(f_{cu}\) does not exceed the C50, \(\beta_{c}\) is 1.0, when the \(f_{cu}\) is greater than the C80, \(\beta_{c}\) is 0.8, and when the \(f_{cu}\) is between C50 and C80, \(\beta_{c}\) is determined according to the linear interpolation method. 2. American Norms ACI 318-19 [21] \[V=A_{g}\Big{(}\alpha_{c}\sqrt{f_{c}^{\prime}}+\rho_{h}f_{yh}\Big{)}\leq 0. 66A_{g}\sqrt{f_{c}^{\prime}}\] (7) where \(\alpha_{c}\) is the contribution coefficient of concrete strength to the shear strength of the wall, and takes the value of 0.249 when \(\lambda\) is less than 1.5, and 0.166 when \(\lambda\) is greater than 2.0, with the middle determined by linear interpolation. 3. Sanchez-Alejandre model [49] \[ \begin{array}{l}V=A_{g}\Big{[}\big{(}\gamma\eta_{v}+0.04N/A_{g}\big{)}\sqrt{ f_{c}^{\prime}}+\eta_{h}\rho_{h}f_{yh}\Big{]}\\ \gamma=0.042-0.08\lambda\\ \eta_{v}=0.75+0.05\rho_{v}f_{yv}\\ \eta_{h}=1-0.16\rho_{h}f_{yh}\geq 0.2\end{array} \] (8) (4) [PERSON] and [PERSON] [50] \[ \begin{array}{l}V=(K_{h}+K_{v}-1)\varsigma f_{c}^{\prime}A_{str}\cos( \alpha)\\ \varsigma=\frac{3.35}{\sqrt{f_{c}^{\prime}}}\leq 0.52\\ A_{str}=t_{w}a_{s}\end{array} \] (9) where \(K_{h}\) and \(K_{v}\) are functions of the web reinforcement. The predicted values of the shear capacity for each RCSW, based on the above models, are obtained, and the comparison with the test values is shown in Figure 9, with the distribution of the predicted-to-test value ratio for each wall specimen. Table 8 summarizes the predicted performance values of each model, as well as the mean, standard value, and CoV of the expected ratios of test values.