Experimental and numerical investigations on the effect of water-filled barriers on the vortex-induced vibrations of large span bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water-filled barriers have been reported to significantly affect the vortex-induced vibrations (VIVs) of large-span bridges. However, few studies have systematically investigated the influence mechanisms of water-filled barriers on bridge decks. In this research, both wind tunnel tests and numerical simulations were conducted to analyze the VIV behavior of the considered bridge model with various arrangements of water-filled barriers on the bridge deck. Six configurations with different water-filled barrier positions on the bridge deck were tested in a wind tunnel, and numerical simulations were conducted to explore the influence mechanisms of water-filled barriers. The results show that with the installation of water-filled barriers, the maximum RMS of the vertical VIV amplitudes are increased by 100% compared with that in Case 1 without water-filled barriers, whereas the torsional VIV amplitudes may slightly decrease. Compared with the most unfavorable case, where the water-filled barriers were positioned near the crash barriers, moving the water-filled barriers further away from the upstream or adopting a sparse arrangement along the bridge deck may reduce the VIV amplitudes. Therefore, it is important to consider both the incoming flow direction and the positioning of water-filled barriers on the deck should be considered in bridge maintenance to avoid the most unfavorable scenarios.
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) | 0.000 | 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".