Assessment of current design procedures for conical tanks under seismic loading
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is motivated by the fact that no design provisions currently exist specifically for conical tanks under seismic excitations. The design of liquid storage structures is governed by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), American Petroleum Institute (API), or Eurocode 8. An approximate method based on replacing the conical tank with an equivalent cylinder is given in these design codes. The state of stresses in conical tanks is different than that of cylindrical tanks. A previously established equivalent mechanical model is used to determine the response of a number of conical tanks under horizontal excitations. The models incorporate the different components of the hydrodynamic pressure and account for flexibility of the tank walls. Using an assortment of seismic hazard areas, the maximum base shear force and overturning moment are evaluated for a number of conical tanks. Those are compared to the corresponding values predicted by the design codes using the equivalent cylinder approach. The results reveal that this approximate approach is not adequate for designing conical tanks to resist seismic excitations.
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 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 it