Wind Pressures on 4∶12-Sloped Hip Roofs of L- and T-Shaped Low-Rise Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive wind tunnel experimental study for 4∶12-sloped hip roofs of L- and T-shaped low buildings was carried out in a simulated open terrain exposure to examine wind load characteristics and assess the applicability of wind provisions specified by the American wind load standard for such geometries. Results show that considering roof shape effects, hip roofs with rectangular or complex plans perform differently from rectangular gable roofs and incur smaller local and area-averaged suction. For L- and T-shaped hip roofs, distinctive pressure distributions occur, particularly along roof eaves near building re-entrant corners, where considerable suction appears for the wind blowing toward these building re-entrant corners. Furthermore, the building length-to-width aspect ratio effects are in most cases moderate. Generally, the wind load provisions of the American wind load standard are adequate for L- and T-shaped hip roofs, except for the edge zone along ridge and hip with large areas, for which measured values exceed the code-specified wind pressure coefficients. Finally, it was found more appropriate to utilize the entire L- or T-shaped roof dimensions, as opposed to the rectangular section only, to determine the least horizontal dimension of such nonrectangular hip roofs for the definition of roof zones.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".