Interference and Influence of Nearby Buildings: A Discussion of the Design Approach
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
Local wind effects due to adjacent structures can significantly impact the loading experienced by a building in a developed environment. Phenomena such as buffeting, channeling, and sheltering can have unique, and occasionally unpredictable, effects on the loading and response for a particular building. While sheltering is often beneficial, wake buffeting and channeling may result in increased responses for some wind directions. The consideration of these effects, whether advantageous or disadvantageous, has become a vital component of modern wind tunnel testing procedures. While accepting the influence of general terrain characteristics on wind speed and turbulence profiles many codes and standards, including ASCE 7, mandate that the beneficial effects of sheltering should not be relied upon. This is a conservative and justifiable provision, which grows in importance as an individual building begins to greatly exceed the height of its surroundings. Generally, the removal of an immediately adjacent building is required in order to separate the load reduction (from code-specified values) due to building aerodynamics from that due to sheltering. Building codes, however, do not have specifications targeting interference effects. This paper reviews the relevant underlying mechanisms driving aerodynamic interference in the context of arriving at recommendations of early detection of potential interference effects which should be considered in the wind tunnel testing program. Examples are given which illustrate situations where surrounding buildings significantly alter the mean and dynamic wind loads for a building, which could lead to increased dynamic response for some combinations of structural properties. Discussion of the assessment, treatment and prediction of interference effects is provided in the context of the interaction of the project building with its surroundings. The paper concludes with recommendations on the approach to identifying, dealing with and planning for local wind loading caused by interference effects.
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