Field and Wind Tunnel Experiments to Evaluate Wind-Induced Cladding and Structural Loads on a Low Wooden Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full-scale studies, wind tunnel experiments and finite element modeling were used for the study of a wooden low-rise building subjected to wind loads. The conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows: 1) The pressure distribution comparison between the wind tunnel and the full-scale results shows good agreement. Some discrepancies can be justified by the high fluctuations of the wind direction in the full-scale records. The peak pressure coefficient comparison is characterized by higher discrepancies. 2) The wind tunnel / full-scale general agreement allows the use of wind tunnel data for numerical simulation. 3) The comparison between the full-scale load cell readings and the base reactions computed by the finite element analysis made in the form of force coefficients shows good agreement, as far as mean values are concerned. Higher values of forces have been found by using the measured pressure coefficients on the building envelope in comparison with those recorded directly by load cells placed on building foundation. 4) The experimental critical local pressures (suctions) tend to be higher (lower) in comparison to the code suggested values. Topography and surrounding structures effects can justify these discrepancies. 5) Field pressure data are, in some cases, significantly higher than the corresponding ASCE 7 values for components and cladding. The study confirms that full-scale structural monitoring is very difficult, time-consuming, yet necessary task. The ongoing collection of data will lead to more complete outcomes. Furthermore, roof load cells have been installed on the base of roof trusses and a more detailed picture of the structural response will be available in the near future.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".