Wind Loading and Building Exposure: Are We Still on A, B, C?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wind-induced pressures for the design of components and cladding, as well as primary structural systems of rigid buildings are calculated by using provisions of ASCE 7 [ASCE/SEI 7-05, 2006] or the National Building Code of Canada [NBCC 2005] depending on the building roof shape and location. In general, these pressures are the product of a dynamic velocity pressure (q), an exposure factor (Ce) and a gust pressure coefficient (CpCg). For simplicity, gust pressure coefficients used to originate from extreme values obtained in boundary layer wind tunnel experiments under conditions of open country upstream exposure and were reduced by directionality arguments by a factor of 0.80 or 0.85. Regardless of the actual exposure of the low building, the conservative assumption of open upstream exposure warranted very good results, at least in most, if not all, cases. The paper reviews some of the rationale behind the values provided in wind standards and codes of practice and compares experimentally measured vertical uplift and horizontal thrust coefficients on an end bay of gabled roof low buildings in suburban terrain roughness with Canadian, American and European corresponding provisions. Some recent work on the influence of exposure on wind loading of low buildings is also presented.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".