Strategy to Assess the Aerodynamic Performance of the Golden Gate Bridge during the Planned Seismic and Wind Retrofit Program
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
The Golden Gate Bridge is undergoing an important seismic and wind retrofit program that will include, among other modifications, the addition of jumping deterrent nets and the replacement of structural members. To proceed with these retrofitting activities, platforms and tarps will be temporarily installed on the deck and are expected to have an influence on the sensitivity of the structure to wind-induced vibrations. Given the transient nature of the structure during this work, a strategy combining experimental methods (sectional model testing) and numerical predictions (buffeting analysis in the time domain) was employed to evaluate the aerodynamic performance of the bridge and to guide the construction schemes. In particular, the percentage of the length of the main span and side spans that could be tarped without negatively influencing the aerodynamic stability of the deck was determined. The risks of vibrations such as vortex-induced oscillations, galloping and flutter instabilities were evaluated in detail considering a large number of deck tarping scenarios and were compared to desired aerodynamic performance criteria. The methodology applied for the evaluation of the aerodynamic performance is outlined in this paper along with a presentation of the main findings of the study highlighting the benefits of such an extensive evaluation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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