Wind Load Combinations Including Torsion for Rectangular Medium-Rise Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a set of wind tunnel tests carried out to examine wind-induced overall structural loads on rectangular medium-rise buildings.Emphasis was directed towards torsion and its correlation with peak shear forces in transverse and longitudinal directions.Two building models with the same horizontal dimensions but different gabled-roof angles (0 o and 45 o ) were tested at different full-scale equivalent eave heights (20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 m) in open terrain exposure for all wind directions (every 15 o ).Wind-induced pressures were integrated over building surfaces and results were obtained for along-wind force, across-wind force, and torsional moment.Maximum wind force component was given along with the other simultaneously-observed wind force components normalized by the overall peak.The study found that for flat-roofed buildings maximum torsion for winds in transverse direction is associated with 80% of the overall shear force perpendicular to the longer horizontal building dimension; and 45% of the maximum shear occurs perpendicular to the smaller horizontal building dimension.Comparison of the wind tunnel results with current torsion provisions in the American wind standard, the Canadian and European wind codes demonstrate significant discrepancies.Suggested load combination factors were introduced aiming at an adequate evaluation of wind load effects on rectangular medium-rise 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".