Avaliação de métodos normativos para determinação da resposta aerodinâmica de edificações
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design code procedures are the result of extensive research and often consist of simplified models, easy to be applied. The Brazilian code for wind action on buildings (NBR6123), in force since 1988, presents methods to determine aerodynamic forces in structures considering quasi-static and dynamic responses induced by wind turbulence. The NBR6123 discrete model method is focused in the present work, resulting on a proposal of a new set of abacuses to obtain the dynamic factor. The accuracy of this method is also studied when a bending second mode is considered in the dynamic response, and a new set of factors is proposed to adjust the application of the method to vibration modes with changing sign. In regard to static response procedures, a comparative study was performed between results from experimental data processing, given by wind tunnel tests using High-Frequency Pressure Integration (HFPI) technique, theoretical methodologies and code procedures from Brazilian, European and Canadian design codes. The comparison shows that the results from NBR6123/1988 static procedure underestimates the structures responses. Hence, adjustments on gust duration definition are recommended.
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".