Estimation of Wind Hazard over Canada and Reliability-based Assignment of Design Wind Load
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) recommends a wind load factor of 1.4 and the nominal wind velocity pressure corresponding to 50-year return period value of the annual maximum hourly-mean wind speed, VAH. This study is focused on mapping wind hazard for Canada and on calibrating the required design wind load to improve reliability consistency of the designed structures.\nExtreme value analysis of VAH was carried out by considering surface wind observations from approximately 1300 stations. The results indicate that the spatial trends of the estimated mean of VAH are similar whether the data from stations with at least 20 or 10 years’ useable wind observations are considered, but the small sample size affects the spatial variations of the coefficient of variation (cov) of VAH. The estimated 50-year return period values of VAH based on the at-site analysis differ from those inferred from two previous versions of the NBCC, and the differences persist if the estimates were obtained by using the region of influence approach. Potential reasons for the discrepancy were elaborated.\nIt was shown that an improved reliability consistency can be achieved if a wind load factor of 1.0 is employed and the nominal wind velocity pressure is assigned using 500-year return period value of VAH. It is also shown that a further improvement on the reliability consistency can be achieved if a variable return period as a function of cov of VAH is used to assign the nominal wind velocity pressure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".