Recent Developments Concerning Vortex-Induced Oscillations of Edge Girder Bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common configuration of decks on long span cable stayed bridges is to have local stiffness provided by plate girders located near the two edges. However, these sections are susceptible to vortex-induced oscillations that can be disturbing to bridge users and may potentially lead to other problems such as fatigue damage. A recent wind-tunnel investigation was conducted using a generic edge girder section model with a variable edge girder depth. This was done to capture the response characteristics of a range of practical cross-section geometries. The paper outlines the characteristics of both vertical and torsional vortex-induced responses observed in this investigation. Incorporating these response characteristics with the results of various wind tunnel studies, the effectiveness of baffle plates as possible mitigation measures is discussed. The characteristics of the responses, specifically the differences between the vertical and torsional vortex-induced oscillations, are important when optimizing the design of mitigation measures. Approximate prediction methods using Strouhal number estimates of basic sections, which allow specific mitigation measures to be incorporated early in the design process, are discussed. Guidelines for conducting detailed wind tunnel investigations on these sections are also proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".