MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162421341 · doi:10.1061/9780784412626.044

Wind Load on Ridge and Field Tiles on a Residential Building: A Full Scale Study

2012· article· en· W2162421341 on OpenAlexaff
Amanuel Tecle, Girma Bitsuamlak, Arindam Gan Chowdury

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGableRoofTileRidgeGeologyLow-riseCeramic tilesFull scaleFlat roofGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a large-scale Wall of Wind (WoW) investigation of external and underneath wind pressures on roof tiles installed on a low-rise building. The dimension of the low-rise building tested was 2.74 m (9 ft) long, 2.13 m (7 ft) wide, and 2.13 m (7 ft) high (wall height). The building was tested with interchangeable gable roofs with three different slopes (2:12; 5:12 and 7:12). The field tiles of these gable roofs were tested under three different tile profiles. namely: high (HP), medium (MP), and low profiles (LP) in accordance with Florida Building Code of Practice; but, only the MP profile is discussed in this paper. For the ridge part of the roof, two different types of tiles were considered, namely: rounded and three-sided. The results showed that the ridge tiles were exposed to high pressure coefficients as compared to the field tiles, including those located at the corners. Considerably higher pressure developed on the gable-end ridge tiles compared to those at the roof center. Positive mean underneath pressure on the field tiles develops on the windward side, thus increasing the net pressures on the windward surface of the roof. On the leeward side, however, reductions in net pressure to a non-significant level were observed due to the opposite direction of the internal and external pressures.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207