MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413524626 · doi:10.1061/jsendh.steng-14983

Methodology for Obtaining Aerodynamic Coefficients for Unified Wind Loading Provisions in ASCE 7

2025· article· en· W4413524626 on OpenAlexaff
Yitian Guo, Jin Wang, Timothy John Acosta, Stefano Brusco, Gregory A. Kopp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamicsStructural engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to develop a method to update and consolidate the aerodynamic coefficients that are currently in the directional procedure and envelope procedure for the Main Wind Force Resisting Systems (MWFRS) in Chapters 27 and 28 of ASCE 7-22. A large data set of wind tunnel data, including 85 building models with different geometries, was employed. Design pressure coefficients, and the zones on the building surfaces in which they apply, were developed to represent realistic spatial distribution patterns of the wind-induced pressures associated with critical structural responses. The pressure coefficient models, provided in a combined peak coefficient (GCp) form, are applicable to buildings of all (allowable) heights and aspect ratios. Nondimensional geometric parameters are used to capture the variations due to building shape and size for the pressure coefficients. The proposed provisions are a significant improvement in matching the wind tunnel data compared with existing provisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207