Simplified Calculations of Impressed Current Anode Bed Resistance Underneath Tank Bottoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impressed current cathodic protection using uniformly distributed ribbon anodes has proven to be effective in controlling the corrosion of soil-side aboveground storage tank bottoms. Parallel and concentric ribbon anodes are two of the most common patterns of laying anode beds some distance underneath tank bottoms. At the design stage, the rule-of-thumb approach and historical data are used to determine the spacing between ribbon nodes. Computer-aided finite element analysis is potentially also available to assist in determining anode distributions. However, because of its complexity, this approach is not used frequently in practice. In this work, we address the design issue by taking a simplified approach based only on the geometries and the cathodic protection current requirement. The equations derived enable the determination (using a pocket calculator) of the number of concentric or parallel anodes, the spacing between them, and the anode bed resistances. Support of the derived resistance equations is established by comparing them with the well-known expressions for symmetrical geometries.
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".