MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401431252 · doi:10.1061/jsendh.steng-13500

Real-Time Aeroelastic Hybrid Simulation Method for a Flexible Bridge Deck Section Model

2024· article· en· W4401431252 on OpenAlexaff
Youchan Hwang, Jae-Hong Shim, Oh‐Sung Kwon, Ho-Kyung Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsHudbay Minerals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeroelasticitySection (typography)Bridge (graph theory)Structural engineeringDeckComputer scienceBridge deckFlutterEngineeringAerospace engineeringAerodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To address the challenges in predicting the aeroelastic phenomenon and the resulting wind-induced forces on slender bridges, a real-time aeroelastic hybrid simulation (RTAHS) system was developed. The RTAHS system directly measures the aerodynamic and aeroelastic forces through load cells. It controls the next step’s position of the deck section model with linear motors by solving the governing equations of motion in real time. Given the complex shape of a bridge deck section geometry, load cells are chosen for force measurement instead of as pressure sensors. In the previous RTAHS system proposed by the authors, the inertial forces of a rectangular section model were eliminated from the measured forces under the assumption of the model’s rigid-body motion. However, when conducting RTAHS experiments with a realistic bridge deck section model, increasing the mass ratio between the mass of the model and the target mass input to the hybrid system results in unstable vibrations. This instability is primarily attributed to forces generated by the model’s flexibility. This study developed an improved RTAHS system, which took into account the inertial forces arising from the nonrigid motion of the flexible bridge deck section model. An accelerometer was additionally installed at the midpoint of the model, and the inertial forces caused by the nonrigid behavior were compensated using a calibration factor derived from impact hammer tests. This approach was validated by comparing the spring-supported experiments conducted on a realistic bridge deck section 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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207