MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1862856874 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2015-0120

Application of advanced bounding surface plasticity model in static and seismic analyses of Zipingpu Dam

2015· article· en· W1862856874 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mojtaba E. Kan, Hossein A. Taiebat

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringEmbankment damGeologyBreakageSeismic loadingEarthquake shaking tablePlasticityComputer simulationStructural engineeringEngineeringLeveeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strong ground motion of the Wenchuan earthquake that hit the Zipingpu Dam in China in 2008 has provided an excellent benchmark to study the behaviour of large modern rockfill dams subjected to seismic loading. The performance of the dam during construction and prior to and after the earthquake loading has been recorded with good accuracy, and provides a reliable database to examine the reliability of available constitutive models and numerical methods in predicting the static and dynamic behaviour of embankment dams. In this paper, an advanced bounding surface plasticity model has been used in a series of numerical analyses to study the static and dynamic behaviour of Zipingpu Dam. The model can take into account particle breakage that may occur in monotonic and cyclic loading of rockfill materials. The material parameters required for the model are calibrated based on the results of available monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests. In the numerical procedure, the staged construction of the dam and the subsequent impounding of the reservoir are simulated, followed by dynamic loading. At each stage, the results of the numerical analysis are compared with in situ monitoring records of the dam. The results of the numerical simulation and the displacements measured after the earthquake are also compared with those estimated by two simplified engineering procedures that are routinely used in practice. The effectiveness and applicability of the simplified procedures to such a large dam subjected to an earthquake with a long duration is also discussed.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207