MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Three-Degree-of-Freedom Rigid Model for Seismic Analysis of Cracked Concrete Gravity Dams

2006· article· en· W2025853335 on OpenAlexafffund
O. A. Pekau, Xueye Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Mechanics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGravity damCoefficient of restitutionCoulomb frictionStability (learning theory)Structural engineeringRigid bodyCoulombGeologyPhysicsGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsGeometryClassical mechanicsNonlinear systemMathematicsEngineeringFinite element methodComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rigid model with three-degrees-of-freedom is proposed for the purpose of seismic analysis of cracked concrete gravity dams. The model considers the geometry of the dam and all its possible modes of motion: sliding, rocking, rock-sliding, and drifting. The governing equations for all the modes are derived with the Mohr-Coulomb friction assumption at the crack, and corresponding conditions to initiate and maintain the modes are also given. For impact that follows rocking and drifting modes, postimpact velocities of the model are explicitly determined according to the momentum principle and the concept of restitution from classical point collision. Studies with the proposed model on rectangular blocks demonstrate two different types of rocking according to the slenderness. Applications to dams indicate that a large coefficient of friction does not necessarily prevent sliding, and rocking and drifting modes should not be neglected in estimating the stability of concrete gravity dams cracked at the base or at a height.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering MechanicsSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207