MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Two-Dimensional Aerodynamic Admittance of a Flat Closed-Box Bridge

2020· article· en· W3117542995 on OpenAlexaff
Junxin Wang, Cunming Ma, Elena Dragomirescu, Xin Chen, Yang Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamicsAdmittanceAeroelasticityStructural engineeringWind tunnelTurbulenceDeckMechanicsAerodynamic forceLift (data mining)WavenumberPhysicsGeometryGeologyEngineeringMathematicsOpticsComputer scienceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind tunnel tests were carried employing two different free-stream turbulent flow fields and one harmonic vertical gust profile conditions, and pressure measurements of the buffeting force on six separated strips of a flat closed-box bridge-deck section model were recorded. Two-dimensional aerodynamic admittance functions (2D-AAF) were obtained using one- and two-wavenumber computational theory, respectively. An empirical expression for determining the 2D-AAF for flat closed-box bridge decks in free-stream turbulence was proposed based on the extensive results of the experimental data. This study indicates that the 2D-AAF of the flat closed-box bridge deck is higher than the Sears function in the low-frequency range, and the aerodynamic admittance remains almost constant for reduced frequencies in the range of 0–0.145. For a given bridge section, its 2D-AAF is unique and related only to the geometry of the deck cross section, regardless of whether or not the strip assumption is valid. The fluctuating pressure near the leading edge of the bridge deck in the harmonic vertical gust was obviously much larger than that obtained in free-stream turbulent wind fields, which significantly affects the magnitude of the lift force.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207