Wind-Induced Cladding and Structural Loads on Low-Wood Building
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
A test building was constructed in Fredericton, New Brunswick and was used to collect pressure and force coefficient data. A 1:200 scale model was also fabricated and tested for a total of 15 angles of wind attack at the Building Aerodynamics Laboratory of Concordia University. Mean and peak local and area-averaged pressure coefficients were measured and finite-element analysis via a 3D linear model was performed in order to compute force coefficients for the selected wind directions. Pressure distribution comparisons between the full-scale and the wind tunnel results showed generally good agreement with small discrepancies attributed to the direction fluctuations of the full-scale records. Force coefficient comparison between the full-scale and the finite element analysis results showed good agreement for the mean values. However, significant overestimation of the fluctuating dynamic component of the foundation force is apparent when this is derived from the fluctuating roof pressures, in comparison to the directly measured values in the field. The experimental critical local pressures (suctions) tend to be higher (lower) in comparison to the ASCE 7-05 provisions, although area-averaged pressures and suctions seem to agree much better. The results can be used to provide realistic provisions for wind design of building structural systems and foundations.
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