MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078304105 · doi:10.1061/40889(201)9

The Impact of Exposure on Wind Loading of Low Buildings

2006· article· en· W2078304105 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2006 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityRowan Williams Davies & Irwin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainFetchInterpolation (computer graphics)Wind speedBuilding codeSurface finishMeteorologyRoughness lengthCurrent (fluid)Environmental scienceContrast (vision)Structural engineeringMarine engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeologyWind profile power lawGeographyMechanical engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary wind load standards and codes of practice have placed an ever-increasing emphasis on the detailed determination of pressure coefficients appropriate for the design of low buildings of various shapes. In contrast, the evaluation of the upwind exposure is rather rudimentary, although its influence on the design wind loading may be at least as critical. Problems and discrepancies have been found in the provisions of exposure factors (Ce) when comparing different national wind standards and codes of practice, as well as when examining experimental findings in relation to code predictions. For instance, the minimum fetch length of suburban exposure required for equilibrium of wind speed profile is 460 m or 10 building heights, whichever is larger, as per ASCE 7, but 1500 m in the Canadian code NBCC 1995 (note the just released NBCC 2005 has modified this to 1000 m or 10 building heights; it also allows some interpolation of Ce values for upwind terrain patches greater than 50 m.) Problems have also been found in application of current Ce provisions for design in case of complex terrain or inhomogeneous extreme exposure. These problems may be attributed to the fact that the current codification approach is based on the assumptions that low building wind loads are well predictable with explicit analytical relationships of terrain roughness, wind speed and pressure coefficients. Roughness patches of different distance to site are considered of equal importance (as long as within a cut-off fetch length from site). Those assumptions appear to be oversimplified. The current analytical models may not predict well wind speeds at close-to-ground levels, i.e. `roughness sub-layer' [Raupach et al]. Moreover, those assumptions do not account for the turbulence loading effects which have not been fully understood yet. Wang and Stathopoulos noticed that patches of different distance to site have different strengths of impact. A wind tunnel study has been carried out investigating the low building wind load variation above different terrain configurations with particular attention to small-scale roughness changes close to site. It was found that the peak wind loads are dominated by the terrain configurations in a short distance upwind the site. This paper presents key results of this study and compares them with the ASCE 7 provisions for low buildings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it