Wind-induced shear and torsion in low-rise and medium-rise buildings: Provisions of National Building Code of Canada 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the shear and torsion induced in low-rise and medium-rise buildings, according to wind load specifications provided in NBCC 2015. Results from experimental studies, carried out in wind tunnels were compared with corresponding NBCC 2015 provisions under different upstream roughness conditions. These comparisons demonstrated notable discrepancies for the case of torsion in low-rise buildings. Further, comparisons between the wind load specifications given in NBCC 2015 and ASCE/SEI 7-10 standard were carried out. Following both sets of provisions, wind-induced shear and torsion were computed and compared for five low-rise and medium-rise buildings with the same horizontal dimensions but different heights. Emphasis was directed towards the cases that create maximum shear forces and (or) maximum torsions to reflect critical design conditions. For low-rise buildings, the ASCE/SEI-7-10 and NBCC-2015 yield similar shear coefficients but quite different torsional coefficients; while for medium-rise buildings, clear agreement was found, for both shear and torsion. The diversity of the results is discussed and some suggestions for improvement of code provisions are made. A definition for medium-rise buildings was provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".