Effect of wind loads on the stability of conical tanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past few decades, a number of conical tanks have collapsed in various locations around the globe. Previous studies attributed the reason of collapse to inadequate thickness of the conical vessel especially at the bottom part. Most of the previous studies focused on studying the stability of conical tanks under the effect of only hydrostatic pressure. The current study focuses on studying the combined effect of wind loading and hydrostatic pressure on the stability of conical tanks. The study is conducted numerically, using a three-dimensional finite element model that is developed in-house. The critical imperfection shapes leading to minimum buckling capacity of conical shells under wind load alone, and under the combined effect of wind load and hydrostatic pressure, are determined. The study shows that a non-axisymmetric imperfection shape leads to minimum buckling capacity of empty conical tanks subjected to wind loads, while an axisymmetric distribution is noticed in the case of conical tanks under the combined effect of wind loads and hydrostatic pressure. In addition, the current study assesses the adequacy of an existing design procedure, which accounts for hydrostatic pressure, when the combination of hydrostatic pressure and wind load is considered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".