MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586518700 · doi:10.1115/1.4035935

Calculating Failure Pressure Under Different Failure Modes in the Roof-to-Shell of a Vaulted Tank

2017· article· en· W2586518700 on OpenAlexaff
Yuqi Ding, Jubao Liu, Zengtao Chen, Feng Qiu, Qifa Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoofStructural engineeringFailure mode and effects analysisShell (structure)BucklingFinite element methodCompression (physics)Geotechnical engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, two failure modes, yield buckling of the compression ring section and strength failure in the roof-to-shell of the tank, have been proposed for a vertical vaulted tank. The failure criteria of the two failure modes in the roof-to-shell of vault tanks are established via finite element analysis of three tanks of 640 m3, 3200 m3, and 6800 m3 in volume. The finite element models are built with axisymmetric elements and spatial multi-elements. Based on the strength failure criterion, the failure pressure formula in the vaulted tank roof-to-shell is derived. The maximum relative error between the theoretical calculation and numerical simulation is 9.7%. Finally, we verify the strength failure criterion through a tank failure test; the maximum relative error between the test and theoretical calculation is 9.6%. The failure pressure of both failure modes has been compared and analyzed. The failure pressure of the yield buckling in the compression ring section is about 1.65 times that of the strength failure in the roof-to-shell of the tank.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207