Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Catenary domes are a less conventional, but structurally efficient, alternative to traditional circular-profile domes. Unlike the more common circular forms, there is a dearth of wind loading information for catenary structures. This paper aims to provide some insight in this regard. A series of wind tunnel tests were undertaken to investigate the effects of geometry and Reynolds number on the mean pressure coefficient distributions over catenary domes in a turbulent boundary layer flow. A hemispherical dome was also assessed, and the results compared with that for the catenary shapes. These parameters were evaluated to elucidate their influence on the loading on these structures. Only the results relating to mean pressure coefficients are reported in this paper. An important finding was that the height to base radius (H/R) of the catenary dome had a substantial influence on the mean pressure coefficient distributions over the structure. Finally, the results of the investigation and their implications on the design of catenary domes are discussed. This may be of value to designers because at present no wind loading information exists for catenary domes</p><p>– at least to the author’s knowledge.</p>
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".