MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501223228 · doi:10.1155/2015/989536

Impact of Cross‐Tie Properties on the Modal Behavior of Cable Networks on Cable‐Stayed Bridges

2015· article· en· W1501223228 on OpenAlexafffund
Javaid Ahmad, Shaohong Cheng, Faouzi Ghrib

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStiffnessModalComputer scienceVibrationDissipationStructural engineeringModal analysisEngineeringAcousticsPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic behaviour of cable networks is highly dependent on the installation location, stiffness, and damping of cross-ties. Thus, these are the important design parameters for a cable network. While the effects of the former two on the network response have been investigated to some extent in the past, the impact of cross-tie damping has rarely been addressed. To comprehend our knowledge of mechanics associated with cable networks, in the current study, an analytical model of a cable network will be proposed by taking into account both cross-tie stiffness and damping. In addition, the damping property of main cables in the network will also be considered in the formulation. This would allow exploring not only the effectiveness of a cross-tie design on enhancing the in-plane stiffness of a constituted cable network, but also its energy dissipation capacity. The proposed analytical model will be applied to networks with different configurations. The influence of cross-tie stiffness and damping on the modal response of various types of networks will be investigated by using the corresponding undamped rigid cross-tie network as a reference base. Results will provide valuable information on the selection of cross-tie properties to achieve more effective cable vibration control.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207