MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155351206 · doi:10.12989/was.2018.27.2.071

Aero-elastic response of transmission line system subjected to downburst wind: Validation of numerical model using experimental data

2018· article· en· W3155351206 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWind and Structures · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmission lineStructural engineeringElectric power transmissionFinite element methodAeroelasticityExperimental dataTest dataComputer scienceEngineeringMechanicsMathematicsPhysicsAerodynamicsStatisticsTelecommunicationsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the University of Western Ontario (UWO), numerical tools represented in semi-closed form solution for the conductors and finite element modeling of the lattice tower were developed and utilized significantly to assess the behavior of transmission lines under downburst wind fields. Although these tools were validated against other finite element analyses, it is essential to validate the findings of those tools using experimental data. This paper reports the first aeroelastic test for a multi-span transmission line under simulated downburst. The test has been conducted at the three-dimensional wind testing facility, the WindEEE dome, located at the UWO. The experiment considers various downburst locations with respect to the transmission line system. Responses obtained from the experiment are analyzed in the current study to identify the critical downburst locations causing maximum internal forces in the structure (i.e., potential failure modes), which are compared with the failure modes obtained from the numerical tools. In addition, a quantitative comparison between the measured critical responses obtained from the experiment with critical responses obtained from the numerical tools is also conducted. The study shows a very good agreement between the critical configurations of the downburst obtained from the experiment compared to those predicted previously by different numerical studies. In addition, the structural responses obtained from the experiment and those obtained from the numerical tools are in a good agreement where a maximum difference of 16% is found for the mean responses and 25% for the peak responses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.251 · 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