Large-Scale Wind Testing on Roof Overhangs for a Low-Rise Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roof overhangs are prone to wind damage because they are subject to wind load at both the upper and bottom surfaces. Wind standards assume that the pressure at the bottom covering of a roof overhang will be the same as the external pressure coefficient on the adjacent wall surface. A large-scale experimental campaign was carried out at the Wall of Wind (WOW) Research Experimental Facility to investigate the validity and possible limitations of such assumptions. The experimental setup considered two 1:10 scaled models [0.61 m (2 ft) and 1.83 m (6 ft) inclined overhangs with a soffit] of a low-rise hip roof building with roof slope 4:12, eave height of 7.5 m (24 ft), and horizontal dimensions of 12.2 m (40 ft)× 15.24 m (50 ft). The two models were tested for open terrain for 40 wind directions (WDs). The study provided information on pressure variations at the top and bottom surfaces of overhangs, adjacent roof areas, and underneath walls. Pressure and correlation coefficients were generated between soffits and underneath walls to quantify the effect of overhang width. The research showed that the 0.61 m (2 ft) overhang experienced higher suction coefficients at the edges compared to the 1.83 m (6 ft) overhang. In addition, the results confirmed that, for both configurations, soffit positive pressure coefficients may be assumed to be equal to the adjacent wall external pressure, as stated by a common standard, while this might not be applicable for negative pressure coefficients. Correlation and regression analyses between soffit pressure taps and wall upper taps show that the 1.83 m (6 ft) soffit appeared to be less correlated with the wall upper taps, compared to the 0.61 m (2 ft) soffit. Finally, area-averaged pressure coefficients for overhangs and adjacent roof areas were compared to the provisions in one standard for each specified zone, and differences were found.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".