MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975061827 · doi:10.1002/fld.2216

Numerical modeling of sloshing motion in a tuned liquid damper outfitted with a submerged slat screen

2010· article· en· W1975061827 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlosh dynamicsLinearizationVolume of fluid methodComputer scienceDamperBoundary value problemFlow (mathematics)Boundary (topology)Finite difference methodFree surfaceMechanicsAlgorithmControl theory (sociology)SimulationPhysicsEngineeringStructural engineeringNonlinear systemMathematicsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tuned liquid dampers (TLDs) are among the most economical and effective passive damping devices. They have been increasingly used to reduce dynamic response and protect structures from failure due to external dynamic excitations. Slat screens are one of the most effective devices used to increase the inherent damping of a TLD, and to reduce the non‐linearity of the free surface motion. A numerical algorithm has been developed to solve the complete non‐linear, moving boundary flow problem in a TLD outfitted with slat screens. The model has been developed to handle conditions leading from small to large interfacial deformations without imposing any linearization assumptions. The numerical algorithm is based on the finite‐difference method. The free surface has been determined using the volume‐of‐fluid method and the donor–acceptor algorithm. The effect of the slat screens has been modeled explicitly by using the partial‐cell treatment method. The present algorithm has been validated against experimental data. The results indicated that the present algorithm is capable of providing accurate details of the flow field inside the TLD and through the screens. These details are essential to improve our understanding of the important parameters governing the performance of a TLD, and hence, to enhance our ability to design better TLDs. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.336 · 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