Optimum design of composite conical tanks under hydrostatic pressure
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
Elevated tanks are used all over the world to store water for times of shortage. These tanks can be made of steel, reinforced concrete, or composite, that is, concrete and steel. Composite tanks consist of an external steel shell attached to an internal reinforced concrete wall through steel studs. Composite conical tanks combine the advantages of reinforced concrete and steel tanks as they resist efficiently both tensile and compressive stresses. A comparison showed that the material cost of composite conical tanks is significantly less than that of steel or reinforced concrete tanks having the same layout dimensions. A numerical tool is developed to obtain the optimum design of composite conical tanks under hydrostatic pressure incorporating both finite element and genetic algorithm techniques. This tool is used to obtain the optimum design of a case study composite conical tank that was recently constructed. The developed optimization tool provides the thicknesses of the concrete and steel walls as well as the stud configuration corresponding to the minimum material cost. A comparison between the optimized and unoptimized case study composite tank revealed that a reduction of 32% in the material cost can be achieved. A sensitivity analysis is conducted by changing the price of concrete, steel plate, and studs by (±) 50% of the datum prices and obtaining the corresponding optimum design variables. This analysis showed that the optimum thicknesses of the concrete wall and steel shell as well as studs’ configuration are significantly sensitive to the change in the material prices.
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