Analysis and design of elevated liquid-filled reinforced concrete conical tanks
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
Reinforced concrete conical tanks are used in municipalities and industrial applications as liquid containing vessels. These tanks can be ground supported tanks or elevated on a supporting shaft. Although most design codes provide guidelines for rectangular and cylindrical tanks, no guidance is provided in these codes for conical tanks. This study focuses on assessing the accuracy of a design approach based on the provisions of Portland Cement Association Circular Concrete Tanks without Pre-stressing code for cylindrical tanks combined with an equivalent cylinder approach provided by the American Water Works Association-D100. Several reinforced concrete conical tanks with different geometric configurations are analyzed under the effect of hydrostatic loading using this approach. The internal forces obtained according to code provisions are compared with those predicted by a linear finite element analysis model developed for all studied tanks. The finite element analysis model is based on a degenerated consistent sub-parametric triangular shell element developed in-house. The results of this comparison show that Portland Cement Association Circular Concrete Tanks without Pre-stressing approach leads to larger hoop tension and smaller meridional moment compared to those obtained from the finite element analysis. Therefore, the Portland Cement Association Circular Concrete Tanks without Pre-stressing provisions combined with the equivalent cylinder approach lead to an inadequate design if applied to conical-shaped tanks.
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