Equivalent mechanical models of tuned liquid dampers with different tank geometries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the development of equivalent mechanical models for tuned liquid dampers (TLDs) with rectangular, vertical-cylindrical, horizontal-cylindrical, and hyperboloid (conical) tank shapes under external excitation in the transverse direction. Potential flow theory is utilized to obtain the free-surface response amplitude and the corresponding velocity of the sloshing liquid and Lagrange’s equations are used to determine the generalized properties. Morison’s equation and the virtual work method are used to estimate an equivalent viscous damping ratio based on the screen loss coefficient. The equivalent mechanical properties derived in this paper model the fundamental sloshing mode only and are restricted to small response amplitudes. Subsequently, the equivalent mechanical properties including effective mass, natural frequency, and damping ratio of the TLDs, having different tank geometries, are compared. It is found that the effective mass values for horizontal-cylindrical and hyperboloid TLDs are larger than the effective mass values for vertical-cylindrical and rectangular TLDs. The increased effective mass values for horizontal-cylindrical and hyperboloid TLDs can result in improved tuned liquid damper performance given the same total liquid mass as that of rectangular or vertical-cylindrical TLDs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".