Assessment of Partial Safety Factors for Limit States Design of Foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While limit states design (LSD) is currently the standard structural design practice, it is relatively new in the geotechnical design. Adoption of LSD far geotechnical design is an international trend. In the present study, various LSD codes from the United States, Canada, and Europe were reviewed. A simple first-order-second-moment (FOSM) reliability analysis was performed to determine theoretically the ranges of load and resistance factor values for representative loads and foundation bearing capacity, respectively. In order for foundation design to be consistent with current structural design practice, it would be desirable to use the same loads, load factors and load combinations. The values of load factor, obtained from the FOSM analysis, were found to be generally consistent with those given in the codes, whereas the values of resistance factor indicated overall lower ranges due to high values of coefficient of variation used in the analysis. Since the degree of uncertainties included in bearing capacity of foundations varies with the methods used to estimate the bearing capacity, different values of resistance factor should be used fur different methods. For the purpose, continuous efforts are needed to be made first to accurately identify and quantify the uncertainties in the methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".