MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7120368386

Evaluation of aerodynamic pressure coefficients on four water roofs

2022· dissertation· pt· W7120368386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William de Oliveira Pol

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languagept
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamicsRoofTurbulenceComputational fluid dynamicsWind directionWind engineeringPressure coefficient
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every building is subject to wind action consistent with its immersion zone, that is, depending on the surrounding conditions and its geometry will be the magnitude of the force imposed on it. The external pressure, important for developing structural projects, is essentially dependent on the flow turbulence properties and, above all, on the velocity. They are the external pressure coefficients that relate the force acting on the solid immersed to the flow, with the dynamic force of the wind to the windward side of the building, which is bound to the roughness, wind incidence and shape of the building. Therefore, through the pressure coefficients it is determined how much of the dynamic pressure of the wind will be taken as effort in the structural analysis. The hip roofs began to be studied after post-hurricane analyzes revealed that some less damaged or intact homes had this type of coverage. Henceforth, this typology became known for its proven resistance to extreme winds, being commonly used in civil construction. In Brazil, the ABNT NBR 6123:1988 standard, which recommends the calculation of actions due to wind in buildings, does not include a hipped roof in its premises. Therefore, the objective is, from computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, evaluating different geometric proportions and slopes of different roofs, it is possible to map the wind behavior to determine calculation subsidies for its adequate sizing. To this end, essays from consolidated studies were reproduced in order to validate the numerical methodology and, on the other hand, compare it with codes ASCE-7:2022, National Building Code of Canada 2005, EUROCODE-1991-1- 4:2010 and AS/NZS 1170.2 .2011:2017 holders of great international reputation. At the end of the process, an initial contribution of an abacus of external pressure coefficients for hip roofs is proposed to assist structural engineers in the determination of wind actions with this roof typology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207