Flow characteristics and wind-sheltering performance of wind barriers with different diameters of holes on railway viaducts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Constructing porous wind barriers is one of the most effective approaches to increase the running safety of trains on viaducts in crosswinds. This paper aims to further improve the wind-sheltering performance of the porous wind barriers. Design/methodology/approach Improved delayed detached eddy simulations based on the k-ω turbulence model were carried out, and the results were validated with wind tunnel tests. The effects of the hole diameter on the flow characteristics and wind-sheltering performance were studied by comparing the wind barriers with the porosity of 21.6% and the hole diameters of 60 mm–360 mm. The flow characteristics above the windward and leeward tracks were analyzed, and the wind-sheltering performance of the wind barriers was assessed using the wind speed reduction coefficients. Findings The hole diameters affected the jet behind the wind barriers and the recirculation region above the tracks. Below the top of the wind barriers, the time-averaged velocity first decreased and then increased with the increase in the hole diameter. The wind barrier with the hole diameter of 120 mm had the best wind-sheltering performance for the windward track, but such barrier might lead to overprotection on the leeward track. The wind-sheltering performance of the wind barriers with the hole diameters of 240 mm and 360 mm was significantly degraded, especially above the windward track. Originality/value The effects of the hole diameters on the wake and wind-sheltering performance of the wind barriers were studied, by which the theoretical basis is provided for a better design of the porous wind barrier.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it