Stability of concrete macro-roughness linings for overflow protection of earth embankment dams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A macro-roughness lining system for the protection of earth embankment dams during overflow is presented. It consists of precast concrete elements placed on a drainage-separation layer. The main difference between this system and other existing concrete element systems is the stability concept, based on the self-weight of the blocks. Several types of elements were developed and tested in a physical model for a typical dam slope of 1V:3H. Failure conditions were identified after submitting the elements to increasing flow discharges. Furthermore, different foundation drainage and shear conditions between the elements and their foundation and different joint alignments were studied. Flow characteristics were observed and measured for quasi-uniform flow conditions. Based on the experimental results, a stability model was developed to compute the design safety factor. The model is based on the governing overturning equation (predominant failure mechanism) and on assumptions concerning the acting hydrodynamic forces, the hydrostatic uplift, and the concentration of air in the flow. Synoptic design charts were derived for 1V:3H dam slopes, allowing the rapid estimate of the lining characteristics as dimensions and weight for a certain withstood design unit discharge, for various margins of safety. The developed macro-roughness lining system is envisaged for the spillway rehabilitation of existing dams, but also for the design and construction of spillways of low dams (up to 30 m in height) and for the protection of overflow cofferdams.Key words: overflow dams, erosion protection, linings, macro-roughness, stability, drainage and spillways.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".