Comparisons of Two Wind Tunnel Pressure Databases and Partial Validation against Full-Scale Measurements
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
Database-assisted design (DAD) is an integrated methodology that calculates wind loadings and wind-induced internal forces. It can also calculate demand-to-capacity indexes for each structural member, and by checking whether they differ significantly from unity, determine the adequacy of the members’ structural design. Its practical usefulness depends on the availability of comprehensive aerodynamic databases. A public domain aerodynamic database produced in 2003 by the University of Western Ontario (UWO) is not sufficiently extensive to satisfy design needs generally encountered in practice. For this reason, the Tokyo Polytechnic University (TPU) recently developed comprehensive sets of aerodynamic databases that are publicly available and would fill large voids present in the UWO database. This paper presents comparisons of aerodynamic pressures and forces based on TPU and UWO data for low-rise buildings to help assess the extent to which the respective aerodynamic pressure measurements are comparable. In addition, the paper presents a brief review of comparisons between full-scale and UWO wind tunnel measurements of pressures on the Texas Tech University experimental building. The results presented in the paper, though not exhaustive, suggest that TPU and UWO pressure simulations are reasonably equivalent, and may in practice be used for the design of main wind force resisting systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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