Wind Loading and Building Exposure: Are We Still on A, B, C?
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
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.
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