Numerical Simulation of Sloshing Tanks with Shallow Water Model Using Low Numerical Diffusion Schemes and Its Application to Tuned Liquid Dampers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initial part of this study fills a notable research gap by investigating the substantial impact of numerical diffusion errors from different schemes on sloshing tank models. Multiple numerical models were developed: first- and higher-order upwind schemes equipped with precise wall treatment using ghost nodes, MacCormack and central methods that are explicit second-order finite difference methods, and Preissmann and staggered methods employed in full-implicit and semi-implicit modes. Furthermore, the separation of variables technique was proposed for simulating sloshing tanks and deriving an analytical equation for the tank’s natural period. An analytical solution to the perturbation was employed to examine the numerical diffusion of the schemes. Subsequently, two sloshing tests, resonant and near-resonant excitations, were employed to determine the numerical diffusion and calibrate the physical diffusion coefficients, respectively. Finally, an efficient and accurate numerical scheme was applied to a linear shallow water model including physical diffusion and coupled with a single degree of freedom (SDOF), to simulate tuned liquid dampers (TLDs). It shows that the efficiency of TLD is associated with a compact domain around resonance excitation. Contrary to SDOF alone, when SDOF interacts with TLD the impact of structural damping on reducing the response is minimal in resonance excitation.
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".