Comparison of the empirical formula and the “CFD”-based semi-empirical method in the prediction of the critical speed of flutter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the critical wind speed of flutter has been predicted by using two-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model side by side with the empirical formula (Selberg's formula, 1961). The deck section of the Great Belt Bridge's main span has been used herein as a reference among other sectional varieties. For each case of the examined sections, the width was changed case by case, while its depth maintained unchanged. Both of the two methods, the semi-empirical using the “CFD” simulation and the empirical formula have been employed to predict the critical wind speed of flutter for a variety of the (width/depth) ratio and the natural frequency ratio (torsional/vertical). The results were obtained from the semi-empirical method and validated by comparison with wind tunnel test for typical section model of the Great Belt Bridge presented in the literature, and also compared with the empirical method. The results were represented graphically for each method and they have indicated the variation of the critical speed in terms of the section dimension and its natural frequencies, and furthermore, the change of the difference between the two methods was represented too.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".