MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801423554 · doi:10.1061/9780784481332.048

Dynamic Buckling of Aboveground Storage Tanks Subjected to Hurricane-Induced Waves

2018· article· en· W2801423554 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carl Bernier, Jamie E. Padgett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBucklingFinite element methodStructural engineeringStorage tankDeformation (meteorology)Materials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the buckling behavior of a typical aboveground storage tank (AST) under wave impacts. A finite element model is first developed and validated against experimental results to determine the hydrodynamic pressure time histories on the AST from hurricane-induced waves; the characteristics of a severe wave impact are derived from numerical simulations of hurricanes in the Houston Ship Channel. The pressure time histories are then applied on a separate finite element model of the AST and its internal liquid, considering geometric and material nonlinearities. Dynamic buckling analyses are performed using the Budiansky-Roth criterion and compared with simpler buckling analysis procedures. This comparison is performed for two different internal liquids, gasoline and crude oil, and three internal liquid heights. Results indicate that the dynamic effects from wave impacts are not significant and could be reasonably omitted to estimate the critical load. Simpler static pressure models and computationally cheaper static buckling analysis methods provide, for practical purposes, an adequate estimate of the buckling strength of the AST. However, dynamic buckling analysis may still be required if the objective is to assess the post-buckling behavior and deformation of an AST under wave impacts, rather than only to estimate the critical load.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207