Assessment of Occupant Comfort in Wind-Sensitive Buildings Using a Six-Degree-of-Freedom Motion Simulator
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 motions of tall buildings and other structures, if perceptible, may cause discomfort to the occupants. In order to ensure acceptable performance for wind-sensitive tall buildings and structures, it is important to keep the levels of more frequently occurring, objectionable motion below the discomfort threshhold. Design guidelines that address this issue have been developed over the years and are used as reference by structural engineers to assess the performance of buildings in terms of occupant comfort. These guidelines are general in nature and usually developed based on sinusoidal motion experiments or by comparing wind-tunnel predictions with the performance of already built and occupied buildings. They do not necessarily cover other important aspects that are related to motion perception, such as site-specific surrounding environment, coupling between sway and torsional motions, frequency content of the wind-induced building motions, duration of motion etc. In this paper, RWDI's recent experience of using a six-degree-of-freedom motion simulator as a tool to guide design decisions regarding occupant comfort in two wind-sensitive buildings is presented. One of the buildings is a tall, slender tower that was designed for the city of Chicago in the USA, while the other is a low-rise, high-end development designed for the city of London in the UK.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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