Bibliographic record
Abstract
The across-wind loads on structures having a circular cross-section, such as chimneys or stacks, have the potential to exceed the along-wind loads due to the aerodynamic phenomenon of vortex shedding. Unlike sharp-edged bluff bodies, where wind tunnel testing can provide a direct evaluation of wind load representative of those on the prototype, the interpretation of measurements for circular or rounded structures is more involved due to the presence of Reynolds number effects. Wind tunnel testing was carried out to evaluate the responses of four steel stacks in a square arrangement. Four aeroelastic models were constructed, characterized by a length scale of 1:90 and a frequency scale of 10.7:1. Stacks in arrangements are known to be susceptible to aerodynamic instability, including increased vortex shedding response or interference galloping. A test on an isolated stack was first carried out, which provided baseline measurements of the mean and peak responses. Wind tunnel tests were then performed for the four stacks in square arrangement over a range of wind speed and direction; the response of each stack in the arrangement was measured simultaneously. Two levels of structural damping were investigated. Mean and peak resultant base moments for each stack are presented as a function of wind speed and direction, and as a ratio to that measured for the isolated stack. The effect of stack position within the arrangement is discussed for the mean and peak resultant base moments. It was found that the peak responses of the stacks in the arrangement exceed that for the isolated stack at many wind directions. The effects of aerodynamic instability can be mitigated by increasing the level of structural damping.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".