MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055515734

Computer-aided free vibration analysis of guyed towers

2000· other· en· W7055515734 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2000
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServiceability (structure)CatenaryFinite element methodMast (botany)TrussVibrationTowerRoof
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guyed towers are used for communication purposes and are frequently designed to heights of 300 meters (1000 feet). A guyed tower is a non-linear structure in which the mast, typically consisting of multiple truss members is supported laterally at several points by inclined guy cables. The guy cables are anchored to a foundation and are pre-tensioned. Wind induced vibrations may result in a fatigue failure of a guy anchor linkage or a cable, ultimately causing the collapse of an entire tower. In addition, excessive deflections or vibrations may interfere with communications and control systems resulting in serviceability failure. According to design standards, a basic understanding of the dynamic characteristics of guyed towers is important. This study develops an easy to use software package, aimed at practicing engineers, to determine free-vibration characteristics (natural frequencies and mode shapes) of guyed towers. The analysis presented herein employs the finite element method to determine the naturalfrequencies and mode shapes of guyed towers. The structural system is broken down into two main components, the tower mast and guy cables. Utilizing an equivalent beam-column analysis that take into consideration different lacing patterns, the mast is modelled as a beam-column with equivalent properties. A three-dimensional cable finite element following a catenary or parabolic profile is used to model guy cables. Several comparisons are made to ensure the accuracy of the cable element and the guyed tower model. Selected numerical results are presented for natural frequencies and mode shapes of a few representative towers. The influence of cable tension, lacing pattern of the mast and configuration of guy cables is also examined. The software package can be extended to include forced vibration response through the modal superposition method.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.130
Teacher spread0.127 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207