Large-Scale Wind Testing on Roof Overhangs for a Low-Rise Building
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it