Effect of Seismic Uplift Pressure on the Behavior of Concrete Gravity Dams with a Penetrated Crack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proper consideration of the uplift pressure at the base of a concrete gravity dam is of great importance in practical engineering, since it is crucial to the safety of the dam, specifically for a cracked dam under seismic conditions. However, constant uplift pressure, which is suitable for the static case only, was adopted in almost all the seismic analyses of cracked concrete gravity dams. To adequately estimate the seismic behavior of cracked concrete gravity dams, a seismic uplift pressure model is proposed for a penetrated crack. In this model, the amount and the distribution of the uplift pressure along the assumed rigid crack walls are determined by the earthquake acceleration, the water heads, the aperture of the crack, and the opening/closing velocity. Application of the model to a typical concrete gravity dam with a penetrated crack at the base reveals that the seismic behavior of the dam is markedly affected by the seismic uplift pressure. In general, the residual downstream sliding is considerably enlarged compared to that of constant uplift pressure. Computations show that the seismic uplift pressure can be several times higher than the constant one, increasing the dynamic instability of the cracked dam. It is also revealed that the dynamic water flow plays the role of a wedge while the upper mouth of the crack is closing. When the dam rocks back to upstream, the uplift pressure increases until it is so high that the pivot at the toe is raised up and the whole dam loses its contact. Then the resultant uplift pressure remains constant until the dam is inclined to the upstream. During this period of time, the cracked dam is normally drifting towards the downstream due to the hydro pressure.
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".