MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333610188 · doi:10.1061/9780784479117.072

Proposed Refinements to Design Snow Load Derivation

2015· article· en· W2333610188 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Dale, Scott Gamble, Albert Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2015 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsRowan Williams Davies & Irwin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowRoofAerodynamicsStructural engineeringCladding (metalworking)Building envelopeEnvelope (radar)Wind engineeringEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyThermalEngineeringAerospace engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In contrast to other naturally occurring loads such as wind-induced or earthquake loads, design snow loads are generally the result of a series of events that occur over an entire winter. As a result, a number of key variables are inherently generalized when developing standardized guidelines. While the ASCE 7 Standard is employed by engineers to define snow loading for structural design, a strict application of the standard is not necessarily synonymous with an optimized structural design due to these generalizations. The variability is increased further as building designs push the envelope in terms of geometry and energy performance. With improvements in design practice comes the need for refinement to the basis for loading derivation. Factors such as roof size, exposure, thermal capacity, and aerodynamics need to be considered when deriving loads. Design snow loads for roofs are typically considered as a fraction of the snow loading on the ground to account for the potential for snow that is drifted off of the roof surface. However, the potential for this loading relief decreases as the roof increases in size. The consideration given to area averaging effects when considering wind loading, as structural and cladding wind load components, is not realized when designing for snow loads. Wind directionality effects on the potential snow load distributions are also not accounted for. All step regions are treated as though there is an equal probability of occurrence of the loading magnitude. Further, with the exception of overheated structures such as greenhouses or unheated structures, the effects of thermal variations over a roof surface are not considered. However, variations to the internal operating temperatures and roof insulation values may lead to similar building performance characteristics. The use of alternative analysis tools including wind tunnel and finite area element modeling to determine the potential variability in design snow loads resulting from these factors is discussed and refinements to the current ASCE 7 snow load provisions that account for these factors are proposed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2015Same topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207