Seismic Performance of Large Underground Water Tank Structures Considering Fluid–Structure Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread application of large underground water tank structures in urban areas necessitates reliable design guidelines to ensure their safety as critical infrastructure. This paper investigated the seismic response of large underground water tank structures considering fluid–structure interaction (FSI). Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian (CEL) was employed to analyze the highly nonlinear FSI caused by intense fluid sloshing during earthquakes. The patterns of fluid sloshing amplitude observed from the finite element model were summarized based on analyses of fluid velocity, hydrodynamic stress components, and overall kinetic energy. In addition, the seismic response of the water tank structure was thoroughly assessed and compared with the simulation results of the empty tank structure. The results indicate that significant fluid sloshing occurs within the structure under seismic excitation. The amplitude of fluid sloshing increases horizontally from the center toward the edges of the structure, corresponding to higher hydrodynamic loads at the side area of the structure. By comparing the analysis results of the water tank structure with and without water, it was concluded that FSI is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The hydrodynamic loads on the roof, diversion walls, and external walls lead to significant localized damage.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".