Design guidelines for the wind uplift resistance of architectural metal roofing systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there are no national or international guidelines for the wind uplift resistance of architectural metal roofing systems. Given the increasing use of metal as roof covering materials/systems, it has been determined that there is a need for the development of a metal roof wind resistance guideline or standard, that would be applicable to all regions of Canada. In this paper, standing seam metal roof-covering systems were investigated under dynamic wind load conditions. Air leakage of the structural deck is an important factor for wind uplift performance of the architectural metal roofing systems. It has been noted that the wind uplift resistance is increasing dramatically as the air leakage ratio i.e., the amount of leakage area compared to the total roofing deck area, is decreasing. A modeling method was also described to quantify the metal roofing system response by simulating the wind gusts over roof specimens of different leakage levels that can represent typical field assemblies. Based on the laboratory experiments, a simplified design guideline was developed for the wind uplift resistant design of roof assemblies with metal covering located in the province of British Columbia, Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".