Impact of Intermediate Buildings on Interference Effects for Tall Buildings
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
The effect of aerodynamic interference on tall buildings due to adjacent and upstream structures is routinely assessed for a building of interest (i.e., the project building) through wind tunnel testing. Due to the complexity of most urban environments, it is often challenging to attach the underlying aerodynamic mechanism (cause) to an increased response (effect) for particular wind directions. To broaden the understanding in this regard, research has been carried out by many parties focused on a singlebuilding or on multiple interfering buildings. However, in each instance found in the literature, the only buildings present in the wind tunnel tests are the interfering building(s) and the building of interest. While this approach improves the understanding of individual interference effects, it may not reflect realistic urban density. In reality, there are often many buildings in between the significant interfering buildings and the building of interest, which are likely characterized by varying height and geometry. Thus, the interference factors obtained in the experiment without these intermediate buildings, while useful, reflect values which may not be representative of true urban interference factors. It is often assumed that the interference factors obtained without the inclusion of intermediate buildings provide an upper bound of interference effects and are, therefore, on the conservative side. However, the extent of this conservatism, or whether they do indeed reflect a conservative estimate, remains to be seen. Wind tunnel tests were carried out based on a single upstream building and multiple configurations of simplified intermediate buildings to provide a comparison to the traditional approach to interference effects. Results from previous experimental work provide estimates of the peak response interference factors for the traditional approach to interference effects, which serve as the basis of comparison for experiments including intermediate 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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