Effects of Geometry on the Wind Response of Super-Tall Towers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tall buildings become increasingly sensitive to wind as they go higher and for super-tall towers, which are going up at an increasing rate, wind becomes the dominant factor in the structural design, not only for strength but also for keeping the building motions within a comfort range for the occupants. Along wind forces are important but even more important are the crosswind forces. While stiffening the structure, increasing its mass, or adding supplementary damping systems are all ways of reducing the response, it must be remembered that the source of the wind excitation is interaction of the wind with the building's shape. The dominant form of excitation of building motions is often vortex shedding. Various shaping strategies such as tapering, varying the cross-section with height, softening the corners, using spoilers, and inserting openings in the building have been used to mitigate or even completely suppress vortex excitation. The alignment of the tower with strong wind directions or even with other towers nearby can also be important. Substantial cost savings are possible if the effect of shape is taken into account early in the design.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it