MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800592331 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2015-0014

INVESTIGATING THE EFFECT OF SLOSHING ON THE ENERGY ABSORPTION OF TANK WAGONS CRASH

2015· article· en· W2800592331 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reza Razaghi, Majid Sharavi, Mohammad Mahdi Feizi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlosh dynamicsComputational fluid dynamicsFuel tankCrashAbsorption (acoustics)AccelerationEngineeringMechanicsStructural engineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComputer sciencePhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main fluid mechanics phenomena is fluid sloshing which is originated from the free surface of fluid and should be taken into account in design of fluid structures such as fuel tank wagons, ships and so on. The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of tank fluid sloshing on energy absorption and reducing tank acceleration during the tank wagon impact. For this purpose, methods of software simulation and dynamics solution methods are accomplished. The assumed wagon includes a tank with the approximate volume of 95 m 3 and capacity of 65 tons of fluid. Using finite element method, the tank impact is simulated based on the corresponding standards for different heights of fluid in the tank. Obtained results show fluid height increase has an inappropriate effect on energy absorption among impact however the more fluid in tank, the more time would be consumed for energy absorption in general. At the end, by using crash test results for a tank with aforementioned scale, validity of impact software simulation and dynamic solution method considering the tank fluid as mass-spring model are checked.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207