MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133856383 · doi:10.2749/newyork.2019.2664

Flutter Analysis Using Quasi-Steady Time-Domain Flutter Derivatives

2019· article· en· W3133856383 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Maheux, Sébastien Langlois, Frédéric Légeron

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlutterAccelerationTime domainVibrationDeckNonlinear systemStructural engineeringBridge (graph theory)MechanicsComputer scienceEngineeringAcousticsPhysicsAerodynamicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To be able to perform nonlinear flutter analyses for bridges, time‐domain approaches should be used instead of Scanlan’s formulation of self‐excited forces. Thus, this paper addresses the development and validation of a modified quasi‐steady time‐domain model similar to Scanlan’s approach that is based on the velocity and acceleration of the bridge deck. In this formulation, quasi‐steady time‐domain flutter derivatives measured in the wind tunnel through forced‐vibration tests at absolute constant velocity and acceleration are used. For this, a unique test rig, which can be used either for free‐ or forced‐vibration tests, was utilized. By measuring the time‐domain flutter derivatives of the Great Belt Bridge, their nondimensionalization with respect to the bridge‐deck width, velocity and acceleration of the deck is validated. Then, time‐domain flutter analyses are performed using this new model. They agree with the experimental critical speed and the prediction using Scanlan’s model.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207