MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114956947 · doi:10.1177/1077546313514759

Experimental and numerical investigations of the dynamic interaction of tuned liquid damper–structure systems

2013· article· en· W2114956947 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

VenueJournal of Vibration and Control · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodEarthquake shaking tableNonlinear systemStructural engineeringVibrationFinite volume methodFlexibility (engineering)Computer scienceFluid–structure interactionRange (aeronautics)DamperEngineeringMathematicsMechanicsAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tuned liquid dampers (TLDs) are dynamic vibration absorbers used in suppressing structural vibration under wind and seismic loads. They are easy to design and implement with low cost and low maintenance. However, due to their highly nonlinear behavior, it is difficult to establish representative models for TLDs that are accurate for a wide range of operations. In this paper, a new numerical model (finite volume method/finite element method (FVM/FEM method)) is introduced by simultaneously using finite volume and finite element approaches to represent fluid and solid domains, respectively. In order to assess the accuracy of the FVM/FEM results a state of the art experimental technique, namely real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS), is used. During the RTHS the response from the TLD is obtained experimentally while the structure is modeled in a computer, thus capturing the TLD–structure interaction in real-time. By keeping the structure as the analytical model, RTHS offers a unique flexibility in that a wide range of influential parameters are investigated without modifications to the experimental setup. This is not possible in traditional shake-table dynamic tests where a physical model of the structure needs to be built and tested together with the TLD. As a result, the verification of the numerical models for TLD–structure interaction available in the literature only consider a smaller, restricted dataset. In this study three numerical models from the literature are selected and together with the FVM/FEM developed here, the accuracies of these four models are assessed in comparison with RTHS results that consider a wide range of influential parameters. Results show that the proposed FVM/FEM model can accurately predict TLD behavior in both sinusoidal and ground motion forces and Yu’s model is the most accurate among the investigated simplified models.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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