Seismic Safety of Gravity Dams: From Shake Table Experiments to Numerical Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present shake table experiments conducted on four 3.4-m-high plain concrete gravity dam models to study their dynamic cracking and sliding responses. The experimental results are then compared with a smeared cracked finite-element simulation using a nonlinear concrete constitutive model based on fracture mechanics. For the sliding mechanism, the numerical simulations use rigid body dynamics with frictional strength derived from the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. From the cracking tests, it is shown that a single triangular acceleration pulse could initiate and propagate a crack. The numerical correlation with the observed response is good. However, viscous damping varies experimentally from 1% in an uncracked situation to over 20% in a partially cracked case. For the sliding mechanism when the critical acceleration is exceeded, it is shown experimentally that sliding could occur due to a single triangular acceleration pulse. For actual seismic records, the cumulative sliding displacement for a given peak ground acceleration due to low frequency western North American records can be 3–4 times larger than the corresponding sliding displacements due to high frequency eastern records. For simplified pseudostatic or pseudodynamic sliding analyses, the concept of an effective acceleration is developed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".