Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Flexible Liquid-Filled Cylindrical Steel Storage Tanks Subjected to Seismic Excitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cylindrical steel storage tanks are more vulnerable to local buckling when subjected to external pressure, axial loading, or lateral ground motion.This paper presents the static and seismic nonlinear analysis of empty shell and liquid-filled (83.4%) steel storage tanks using finite element analysis (FEA) commercial software ABAQUS.Firstly, to substantiate the accuracy of FEA, a perfect cylindrical specimen is considered for buckling analysis.Based on this study, the cylindrical steel storage tank is seismically excited in the horizontal direction under two real-world ground motions (Friuli 1974 and Northridge 1994 earthquake).Initially, the tank is subjected to the gravity load and hydrostatic nonlinear analysis in steps 1 and 2 for 1 second each.Then the dynamic implicit analysis is carried out for 20 and 30 seconds in each case to evaluate the seismic behavior of the storage tank.The results from static analysis show that the FEA buckling pressure is closely matched with the test and theoretical solution.Furthermore, from the parametric study, Nonlinear analysis shows that the maximum von Mises and hoop stresses are more dominant near the tank base.The response acceleration, distribution of the stresses including longitudinal and circumferential (hoop) stresses, and maximum pressure vs time response are evaluated.The results from seismic nonlinear analysis indicate that the tank experienced a maximum acceleration response when subjected to the Friuli earthquake which is slightly higher than the tank's response under the Northridge earthquake.Furthermore, the response shows that maximum excitation is in the lateral direction (x-component) where the ground motion is applied at the storage tank's base.The other components (y and zcomponents) do not significantly affect the tank's seismic performance.it can also be seen that the response in Z-direction is almost negligible.In case of the Northridge input excitation, the x-component represents the maximum response of the tank and the remaining components (y and z-components) does not have significant contribution in the tank excitations.Lastly, the pressure response shows that the tank under Friuli seismic excitation has a maximum peak compared to the tank subjected to the Northridge earthquake.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".