Assessment of Current Load Factors for Use in Geotechnical Load and Resistance Factor Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is the standard structural design practice. In order for foundation design to be consistent with current structural design practice, the use of the same loads, load factors, and load combinations would be required. In this paper, we review the load factors presented in various LRFD codes from the United States, Canada, and Europe. A simple first-order second-moment (FOSM) reliability analysis is presented to determine appropriate ranges for the values of the load factors. These values are compared with those proposed in the codes. The comparisons between the analysis and the codes show that the values of load factors given in the codes generally fall within ranges consistent with the results of the FOSM analysis. However, it would be desirable for the successful development and adoption of the geotechnical component of LRFD codes to have uniformity of load-factor values across different codes for the loads that are common for virtually all civil structures.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it