Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review of literature and standards revealed no standardized process exists for the evaluation or characterization of wind uplift resistance of Adhesive Applied Roofing Systems (AARS). It was determined that a pullout test method -- a test in which the adhered components of roofing samples were subjected to tensile loading until failure -- could be used to quantify wind uplift performance. From the literature study, critical variables were extracted. Among these were the pullout rate, the specimen size and the specimen attachment condition. After conducting a series of extensive pullout tests, data showed that the optimum pullout rate was 6.35mm/min. Additional tests showed that a specimen size of 300 mm x 450 mm with all flutes fastened provided the experimentally consistent data. Based on the investigation outlined above, the present study drafted a standard test method for the determination of the pullout resistance of adhesively applied roofing components. This contribution is being presented to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) for adoption of a standardized test method. The present study also implemented the standardized test procedure to characterize the pullout behaviour of a variety of different configurations. Over 400 specimens were constructed varying the deck type (steel & concrete), insulation facer (paper and acrylic facer) and coverboard (fiberboard and asphalt core board). Experimental results showed that the use of steel deck, paper faced polyisocyanurate, and asphalt core board yielded optimum pullout resistance. Alternative adhesion patterns were also tested and showed a maximum reduction of 60% from the optimized adhesion pattern.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".