Exposure Categories and Transitions for Design Wind Loads
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
One of the greatest sources of uncertainty in the calculation of wind loads occurs in the selection of the wind exposure. This paper compares the traditional power-law exposure–coefficient curves used in North American codes and standards such as ASCE 7-02, 2002, with curves derived from modern models of the planetary boundary. It is concluded that the traditional exposure coefficients are reasonably consistent with modern boundary layer theory for heights below about 300m. Above that height the traditional exposure coefficients increasingly depart from modern theory. The paper also examines the relationship between the dimensions and density of ground roughness obstacles and the exposure coefficient. This relationship enables a more objective assessment to be made than by the typical method of judging exposure “by eye,” at least where the ground roughness is fairly uniform. However, many sites are affected by upwind changes in ground roughness. Simple expressions, suitable for use in a building code or standard, are proposed for calculating the effect of an upwind change in roughness on the exposure coefficient.
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