MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329163461 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2003-45518

Flow Over Model Buildings With Sloped Roofs

2003· article· en· W2329163461 on OpenAlexaff
Gérard J. Poitras, Laurent-E. Brizzi, Yves Gagnon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds numberTurbulenceFlow (mathematics)RoofParticle image velocimetryFlat roofObstacleVortexGeologyBoundary layerMechanicsGeometryStructural engineeringEngineeringPhysicsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flow field around model buildings with different sloped roofs was investigated using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV). The flow around model buildings having flat roofs was studied by many authors. Although buildings with sloped roofs are the most common type of low rise buildings, the flow around these buildings are not well known. Most of the studies for these types of buildings were made for the determination of surface pressures. The aim of this study is to highlight the fundamental differences between flat roofs and sloped roofs for three-dimensional obstacle flows. The experiments were performed in a wind tunnel having a cross section of 300 mm × 400 mm. All the models were 30 mm high (vertical wall) and were placed in a thin turbulent boundary layer. Three Reynolds numbers, based on the height of the obstacle, were used (12000, 22 000, 32 000). Furthermore, the quantitative data is analyzed and statistical results describing the mean and fluctuating velocity fields are presented. Finally, the surface pressures on the median plane were studied in order to correlate these pressures with the flow topology of different sloped roofs. It was found that upstream of the obstacle, the flow topology for the model having sloped roofs was similar to that of a flat roof apart from an increase in size of the well-known horseshoe vortex. However, the flow topology is not the same over different roofs, on the sides of the models and immediately downstream of the models. For the Reynolds number studied, there are no coherent flow structures over the upstream sloped roofs while an arch vortex is created on the sides of the models. This arch vortex is similar to the arch vortex that is created over a flat roof. An arch vortex is also present downstream of the models. The lower part of this vortex is similar to the one created for a flat roof. However, the upper part of the arch vortex starts from the tip of the roof and continues downstream and has an ellipse shape. This vortex also increases in size with the slope of the roof.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207