SYSTEM RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF 3D STEEL FRAMES DESIGNED PER AISC LRFD SPECIFICATIONS
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
This paper presents the system reliability analysis of a three-dimensional steel frame designed per AISC LRFD with respect to the collapse limit state under the dead and live loads. The system reliability is evaluated using the first-order reliability method (FORM)-based adaptive response surface approach. The uncertainties in the material properties, geometric properties of frame members, initial geometric imperfection of the structure, dead load and live load as well as the spatial variability of the live load are accounted for in the reliability analysis. The analysis results suggest that the system reliability of the example frame is similar to that of the planar steel frames designed per AISC LRFD and evaluated in a previous study. It is observed that the spatial variability of the live load leads to a decreased system reliability. Results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that the failure probability of the example frame increases by almost one order of magnitude if the coefficient of variation of the steel yield strength increases from 0.06 to 0.1. Furthermore, the system reliability decreases drastically if the upper bound of the magnitude of initial geometric imperfection is greater than 0.4% of the overall height of the example frame.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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