MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120176518 · doi:10.3390/mca26010006

Prediction of Maximum Pressure at the Roofs of Rectangular Water Tanks Subjected to Harmonic Base Excitation Using the Multi-Gene Genetic Programming Method

2021· article· en· W3120176518 on OpenAlexafffund
Iman Bahreini Toussi, Abdolmajid Mohammadian, Reza Kianoush

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical and Computational Applications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDimensionless quantityGenetic programmingGenetic algorithmExcited stateExcitationSymbolic regressionBase (topology)RoofHarmonicStructural engineeringMathematicsMechanicsEngineeringPhysicsComputer scienceAcousticsMathematical analysisMathematical optimizationAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid storage tanks subjected to base excitation can cause large impact forces on the tank roof, which can lead to structural damage as well as economic and environmental losses. The use of artificial intelligence in solving engineering problems is becoming popular in various research fields, and the Genetic Programming (GP) method is receiving more attention in recent years as a regression tool and also as an approach for finding empirical expressions between the data. In this study, an OpenFOAM numerical model that was validated by the authors in a previous study is used to simulate various tank sizes with different liquid heights. The tanks are excited in three different orientations with harmonic sinusoidal loadings. The excitation frequencies are chosen as equal to the tanks’ natural frequencies so that they would be subject to a resonance condition. The maximum pressure in each case is recorded and made dimensionless; then, using Multi-Gene Genetic Programming (MGGP) methods, a relationship between the dimensionless maximum pressure and dimensionless liquid height is acquired. Finally, some error measurements are calculated, and the sensitivity and uncertainty of the proposed equation are analyzed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical and Computational ApplicationsSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207