MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seismic Performance Analysis of the Elevated RC Tanks under Strong Far- and Near-Fault Ground Motions Considering Fluid–Structure Interaction

2022· article· en· W4306765237 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Karimipour, Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi

Bibliographic record

VenueInfrastructures · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlosh dynamicsNonlinear systemParametric statisticsStructural engineeringFinite element methodFluid–structure interactionCurrent (fluid)GeologyWork (physics)Fault (geology)Geotechnical engineeringContainer (type theory)Seismic analysisEngineeringMechanicsSeismologyPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The elevated reinforced concrete tanks assessed in the current work were the subject of a nonlinear sloshing analysis resulting from fluid–container interactions. The primary response quantity of interest was the height of free surface sloshing. To achieve this aim, the effect of the liquid contents on the seismic behavior of tanks subjected to various sets of far- and near-fault ground motions were measured. The variables considered in this study included bidirectional loading, the earthquake’s frequency content, water sloshing, and the three-dimensional geometry. The primary goal of this work was to analyze these crucial parameters through a parametric analysis using a finite element method considering the influence of nonlinear fluid–structure interactions under the influence of different ground motions. By contrasting the numerical results obtained by previous studies and those of the current investigation, the applicability of the current simulation in seismic analyses of the elevated reinforced concrete tanks was then examined, and significant conclusions were formed. The findings showed that the nonlinearity of sloshing may significantly affect the seismic performance of the liquid–container interactions and that failing to properly account for it may pose a severe threat to these structures’ ability to perform satisfactorily for a particular class of tanks, particularly under the influence of near-fault events.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfrastructuresSame topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207