Wind Tunnel Study of Wind-Induced Loads on Building Balconies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wind-induced pressure coefficients for the balcony guardrail design are based on the provision of wall cladding and components provided in building codes, such as the National Building Code of Canada 2015. However, the balcony guard’s failure frequently occurred, which caused a number of accidents and casualties in the past years. This work studies the wind-induced pressure coefficients on the two typical balconies guard models, an isolated balcony and a continuous balcony, based on various wind direction, wind speeds, and balcony configurations through wind tunnel test. The test results in the wind tunnel are compared with the provisions of the National Building Code of Canada 2015. The study concluded that the wind direction effectively declined the wind-induced pressure coefficient on the windward side of the balcony guards as the wind attack angle increased. The variation of wind speed also influenced the wind-induced pressure coefficient. For the different balcony types, the wind-induced pressure coefficient was still different. The balcony configuration such as the gap between the front panel and the floor did not alter the wind-induced pressure coefficient. The tested results verified that recommended wind-induced pressure coefficients in the provision of the National Building Code of Canada 2015 are too 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.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".