Review of the Resistance Factor for Steel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current resistance factor of 0.90 specified in CSA S16.1-94 “Limit States Design of Steel Structures” was reviewed for tension members failing by gross section yield or net section fracture, columns under concentric axial loads and laterally supported bending members. Large quantities of dimensional and material property data for rolled W, WWF and HSS shapes were collected. Analyses were performed, which allowed distinct populations within the large data sets to be discovered. The statistical parameters determined for geometric properties were similar to values reported in the landmark study by Kennedy and Gad Aly (1980). Yield strengths of HSS and WWF have improved. Resistance factors, Φ, were determined using the new resistance distributions based on a First-Order Second-Moment safety index, load statistics obtained from the literature, and load factors in the 1995 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC, 1995). When compared to Kennedy and Gad Aly (1980) the resistance factor has increased by an average of 0.046. A value of 0.95 is sufficient for laterally supported beams, stocky columns and tension members failing by gross section yield and a Φ value of 0.90 is sufficient for intermediate columns and tension members failing by net section fracture.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".