MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604959600 · doi:10.1061/9780784480403.020

A Computational Framework for the Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Long-Span Bridge Decks

2017· article· en· W2604959600 on OpenAlexaff
Tibebu Birhane, Girma Bitsuamlak, J Peter C King

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2017 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamicsStructural engineeringComputational fluid dynamicsAerodynamic forceSpan (engineering)DeckBridge (graph theory)Computer scienceDragWingWind tunnelEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A computational framework for automated shape modification of long-span bridge decks is proposed. The proposed technique involves the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for aerodynamic analysis, surrogate models for response function approximation and numerical optimization routines for iterative selection of optimal shapes. A brief review of aerodynamic shape modification measures for decks of long-span bridges is presented. The framework is applied for aerodynamic fairing design of a typical plate-girder stiffened deck with the objective of reducing the lateral wind load and improving aerodynamic stability under smooth flow. Numerically evaluated optimal fairing shapes are compared with that of Bronx Whitestone Bridge and Deer Isle Bridge. It is shown that sharper triangular fairings are effective to reduce wind induced drag, but shorter fairings with height around 60% to 70% of deck depth are effective to improve the aerodynamic stability of elongated H-shaped decks. Furthermore, asymmetric triangular fairings are found to be effective to improve the aerodynamic performance of asymmetric decks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2017Same topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207