MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980528154 · doi:10.1002/eqe.542

Seismic behaviour of cracked concrete gravity dams

2005· article· en· W1980528154 on OpenAlexaff
O. A. Pekau, Xueye Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravity damStructural engineeringDisplacement (psychology)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringResidualFinite element methodEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A finite element model of incremental displacement constraint equations (IDCE), based on an existing node‐to‐surface concept, is implemented to deal with dynamic contact surfaces in the seismic behaviour analysis of cracked concrete gravity dams. After verification for sliding, rocking and impact, the IDCE model is applied to study the seismic responses of concrete gravity dams with different profiles and crack locations for a variety of parameters, such as coefficient of friction, water level and type of earthquake, as well as impact damping based on the concept of coefficient of restitution. It is revealed that cracked concrete gravity dams can experience not only sliding and rocking modes, but also the drifting mode in some cases of crack either at the base or at a height. Downstream sliding is normally accompanied by rocking, especially for the cases of crack at a height. Due to rocking and drifting, a cracked dam may still acquire a certain amount of residual sliding even if the effective coefficient of friction is relatively high. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake Engineering & Structural DynamicsSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207