An appraisal of tornado-induced load provisions in ASCE/SEI 7-22 and 7-16 for residential low-rise buildings.
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
In this study, the loads induced by tornado-like vortices on scaled models of eight low-rise residential buildings with real-world shapes in a typical North American community are quantified and compared to the provisions provided by ASCE/SEI 7-16 and 7-22. Physical simulations of the interaction between translating tornado-like vortices representative of EF1-, EF2-and EF3-rated tornadoes and the scaled models were performed in the WindEEE Dome at the University of Western Ontario. Three internal pressure scenarios were numerically simulated. The tornado velocity gust factor was identified as a critical parameter when translating loads from model to full-scale. The load comparison results show that the provisions are safer as the rating of the design tornado increases. The uplift forces on the whole roof in the internal pressure scenarios with one dominant opening are between 44% and 63% higher than the distributed leakage scenario, highlighting the importance of keeping the integrity of the envelope. The ratios of pressures obtained from physical simulation to the ones calculated using the standard are higher on the walls than on the roof. Pressure ratios on the eaves are higher than on the other parts of the roof.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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