## 7 Conclusions  
Based on the results of this investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn:  
* The concepts related to systems reliability can be applied to derive partial factors for design equations. The above-described results indicated that the partial factors can vary considerably depending on the governing limit state function and the scatter of the basic variables. This confirmed the importance of a thorough definition of stochastic models for the basic variables and the importance of a careful selection of the reliability-based method (i.e., level II or level III method).
* In this investigation, it was seen that the use of the simple bounds in combination with a first-order reliability method (i.e., level II methods) can give a decent preliminary indication of the system safety level. Yet, the results should be carefully interpreted to avoid deriving unsafe partial factors. If sufficient computing power is available, simulation methods (i.e., level III methods) should be used since they enable the calculation of more precise system failure probabilities.
* The results of the sensitivity analysis confirmed the premise that a thorough analysis of the reliability may support the reduction of partial factors \(\gamma_{\rm C}\). This could be a possible approach for practitioners to save material and costs and reduce CO\({}_{2}\) emissions during the structural design process without compromising socially accepted safety levels (e.g., the \(\beta\) value of 3.8 recommended in DIN EN 1990 [22]).  
The investigated approach seems to have potential for further applications and developments. For example, instead of changing a partial factor, other parameters of the design equations could instead vary, such as the pre-empirical factor \(C_{\rm Rd,c}\). This would enable the reduction in \(C_{\rm Rd,c}\) while maintaining the code-recommended value for a partial factor. Further investigations could include the evaluation of the impact of different basic variables on the derivation of partial factors. Another possibility is to consider correlated variables in the analysis. A more precise analysis that involves using second-order bounds (e.g., Ditlevsen bounds) should be also conducted. Finally, distinct failure mechanisms could be considered to evaluate the transferability of the proposed concept, not only regarding other structural components but also concerning a broader scope of Eurocode 2.  
**Author Contributions:** Conceptualisation, T.F. and M.R.; methodology, T.F. and M.R.; software, T.F.; validation, T.F., J.P.S.-A. and M.R.; formal analysis, T.F., J.P.S.-A. and M.R.; investigation, T.F.; resources, T.F. and M.R.; data curation, T.F.; writing--original draft preparation, T.F.; writing--review and editing, T.F., J.P.S.-A. and M.R.; visualisation, T.F.; supervision, M.R.; project administration, M.R. and J.H.; funding acquisition, M.R. and J.H. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (in German: _Bundesministerium fur Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz_, BMWK), grant number 03 TNK003E. The financial support is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Acknowledgments:** The authors are very thankful to [PERSON], a former member of the Institute of Structural Engineering at the Hochschule Biberach--University of Applied Sciences, for the support provided during the set-up of the design models and the computations presented in this manuscript.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.