Seismic Isolation Effects on Elevated and Ground-Supported Flexible Concrete Cylindrical Tanks Under Bi-Directional Excitation Using an Advanced Mechanical Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the effectiveness of seismic isolation using lead rubber bearings (LRBs) and friction pendulum systems (FPSs) for slender and broad, grounded and elevated tanks (two seat locations of isolation systems in elevated tanks) is investigated under bi-directional excitation of up to 10 records of earthquakes. An analytical mechanical model for a flexible, concrete cylindrical tank, taking into consideration the effect of wall mass and sloshing, is used. The assumptions underlying the mechanical model are basic equations of the motion according to the theory of fluid dynamics. So, the assumptions are more realistic and the results therefore are more accurate than the previous models. The results show that by selecting the best mechanical properties of base isolation systems, reductions of seismic base shear in the grounded broad tanks are around 35% and 30% and for the grounded slender tanks are around 55% and 58% in the x- and y-directions, respectively. Maximum total hydrodynamic pressure is reduced considerably by about 40% on average in all grounded and elevated models. As a result of isolation, elevated tanks are concluded to be better candidates in terms of more effective application of seismic isolation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".