Components and Cladding Wind Pressures on Flat Nonrectangular Roofs: Assessment and Comparison with Code Provisions
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
Buildings with rectangular plans were, in the past 50 years, the main focus in the wind engineering field. Consequently, the wind design provisions of rectangular buildings are well-established in the wind codes and standards. On the other hand, wind design provisions for nonrectangular buildings are generally not available in wind codes and standards. This paper investigates wind pressures on roofs of noncurved and nonrectangular buildings with four shapes, L, U, T, and X, with different plan dimensions and heights. The experimental results were analyzed and compared with the design provisions and guidelines of National Building Code of Canada and the American standard for rectangular buildings. It was found that the wind loads on the inner edges and corners are higher than those on the outer edges and corners of nonrectangular buildings. In addition, the comparison with NBCC indicated that design provisions are comparable to the experimental results in the corner zone and lower than the experimental peaks in the edge and interior zones. The experimental results also indicated that the size of the roof pressure zone is mainly dependent on the roof height. Furthermore, the comparison with the American standard showed that the standard design provisions are conservative.
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