Effects of upstream two-dimensional hills on design wind loads: A computational approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper describes a study about effects of upstream hills on design wind loads using two mathematical approaches: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Artificial Neural Network (NN for short). For this purpose CFD and NN tools have been developed using an object-oriented approach and C++ programming language. The CFD tool consists of solving the Reynolds time-averaged Navier-Stokes equations and $k-{\varepsilon}$ turbulence model using body-fitted nearly-orthogonal coordinate system. Subsequently, design wind load parameters such as speed-up ratio values have been generated for a wide spectrum of two-dimensional hill geometries that includes isolated and multiple steep and shallow hills. Ground roughness effect has also been considered. Such CFD solutions, however, normally require among other things ample computational time, background knowledge and high-capacity hardware. To assist the enduser, an easier, faster and more inexpensive NN model trained with the CFD-generated data is proposed in this paper. Prior to using the CFD data for training purposes, extensive validation work has been carried out by comparing with boundary layer wind tunnel (BLWT) data. The CFD trained NN (CFD-NN) has produced speed-up ratio values for cases such as multiple hills that are not covered by wind design standards such as the Commentaries of the National Building Code of Canada (1995). The CFD-NN results compare well with BLWT data available in literature and the proposed approach requires fewer resources compared to running BLWT experiments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".