Load factor calibration for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada: Companion-action load combinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) will adopt a companion-action format for load combinations and specify wind and snow loads based on their 50 year return period values. This paper presents the calibration of these factors, based on statistics for dead load, live load due to use and occupancy, snow load, and wind load, which are summarized in a companion paper. A target reliability index of approximately 3 for a design life of 50 years was adopted for consistency with the 1995 NBCC. The load combinations and load factors for strength and stability checks recommended for the 2005 NBCC were based on preliminary values from reliability analysis that were subsequently revised slightly to address major inconsistencies with past practice. The recommended load combinations and factors generally give factored load effects similar to those in the 1995 NBCC, but are up to 10% more severe for the combination of dead load plus snow load and are generally less severe for the combination of dead load, snow load, and live load due to use and occupancy. Load factors less than one are recommended for checking serviceability limit states involving specified snow and wind loads. Importance factors for various classifications of structure are also presented. Revisions to the commentaries of the NBCC are recommended that will provide guidance on dead load allowances for architectural and mechanical superimposed dead loads and cast-in-place cover slabs and toppings.Key words: buildings, code calibration, companion action, dead loads, live loads, load combinations, load factors, reliability, safety, snow loads, wind loads.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".