Comparison of wind tunnel measurements with NBCC 2010 wind-induced torsion provisions for low- and medium-rise buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess wind-induced torsional loads on low- and medium-rise buildings determined in accordance with the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2010). Two building models with the same horizontal dimensions but different gabled-roof angles (0° and 45°) were tested at different full-scale equivalent eave heights (6, 12, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 m) in open terrain exposure for several wind directions (every 15°). Wind-induced measured pressures were numerically integrated over all building surfaces and results were obtained for along-wind force, across-wind force, and torsional moment. Torsion load case (i.e., maximum torsion and corresponding shear) and shear load case (i.e., maximum shear and corresponding torsion) were evaluated to reflect the maximum actual wind load effects in the two horizontal directions (i.e., transverse and longitudinal). The evaluated torsion and shear load cases were also compared with the current torsion- and shear-related provisions in the NBCC 2010. The results demonstrated significant discrepancies between NBCC 2010 and the wind tunnel measurements regarding the evaluation of torsional wind loads on low- and medium-rise buildings. Finally, shear and torsion load cases were suggested for evaluating wind loads in the design of low- and medium-rise rectangular 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".