Nonlinear dynamic behaviour of guy cables in turbulent winds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large amplitude cable vibrations are difficult to predict using linear theory due to the presence of sag in the suspended profile. A numerical study was therefore undertaken to investigate the dynamic behaviour of inclined cables excited by imposed displacements. To model the nonlinear nature of cable response, a time domain finite element approach was adopted using nonlinear catenary cable elements. Two types of horizontal displacement patterns were enforced at the upper end of the guy. In the first phase of the study, harmonic displacement histories with a wide range of forcing frequencies were considered. In the second phase, random enforced displacements were used to simulate the motion of a guyed mast in gusty winds. The influence of aerodynamic drag and damping forces was investigated by performing analyses under still air, steady wind, and turbulent wind conditions. It was found that nonlinear coupling of related harmonic response components was significant at certain critical frequencies, particular when the excitation was harmonic and acted in the plane of the guy. Positive aerodynamic damping was shown to effectively suppress resonant and nonlinear coupling response.Key words: cables, structural dynamics, wind loading, finite element method, nonlinear analysis, guyed towers.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".