Behaviour of bolted lap joints in above-ground liquid-filled steel cylindrical tanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leakage is the main concern in steel bolted liquid tanks and past experience has indicated serviceability problems due to leakage, mainly from the joint locations, even in situations where the tank has only been subjected to an internal hydrostatic pressure. In this study, the performance of this type of construction was investigated using a detailed finite element (FE) analysis technique. Moreover, the validity of the American Water Works Association design practice in terms of the safe design of this type of structure at a wide range of service loads is evaluated through a parametric study. The FE analysis was performed in two stages using shell and solid elements in a three-dimensional ANSYS environment including the effect of geometric nonlinearity. The proposed FE model could estimating the behaviors such as capacity curve, yield/failure pattern, and the occurrence of ovalling and curling in bolted connections. In addition, the FE results were compared with experimental ones and found to be generally in good agreement. This study shows that a bolt arrangement chosen by design can efficiently improve the joint performance. Further, the use of a limited deformation criterion in the leak-resistant design of bolted lap joints in steel liquid containers is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".