IMPACT OF LIQUID SLOSHING ON THE VEHICLE TANK DESIGN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several standards exist for the design and safety regulations for vehicles carrying dangerous goods. These standards apply to cargo tanks used for highway transportation. The increase in the reenhouse gases emission and governmental restrictions, research takes towards the use of lighter materials (Al, Mg, plastics, composites, etc.,) to reduce weight, fuel consumption and CO2 emission.These standards describe basic requirements for design, construction, testing, inspection, re-testing, qualification and maintenance, and identification aspects of such tanks. The container shapes most commonly associated with road tankers are the rectangular tank, the horizontal cylinder, the sphere, the cylindrical tank of trapezoidal cross section, the paraboloid and the conical tank for special vehicles. The standards also address the design requirements for joints, manholes, openings, piping, valves and fittings, supports, circumferential reinforcements and accident damage protections. However, the standards do not address the adverse influence of liquid sloshing forces in partially-filled tanks on the stability and handling of tank vehicles. In general, the tanks are designed based on their structural integrity rather than on vehicle system stability considerations. The forces and the moments resulting from the interactions between the liquid and the vehicle, in several maneuver situations as turning and braking in turning can make considerable variations of the liquid load shift and will cause high local pressures and dangerous stress on the tank structure.In this study, analytical and numerical liquid models are formulated based on the Navier-Stokes equations with some assumptions for the analytical model. The pressure forces will be calculated and compared to tensile strength for several materials proprieties. The configuration of the free surface of the liquid used in this study is illustrated in Figure 1. The Figure 2 highlights the numerical modeling of the free surface subject to lateral acceleration and longitudinal acceleration respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".