MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054553549 · doi:10.1139/t05-095

Hydromechanical analysis of flow behavior in concrete gravity dam foundations

2006· article· en· W2054553549 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravity damGeotechnical engineeringGeologyFoundation (evidence)Joint (building)Rock mass classificationClassification of discontinuitiesLithologyFlow (mathematics)Safety factorFinite element methodEngineeringStructural engineeringMechanicsPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key requirement in the evaluation of sliding stability of new and existing concrete gravity dams is the prediction of the distribution of pore pressure and shear strength in foundation joints and discontinuities. This paper presents a methodology for evaluating the hydromechanical behavior of concrete gravity dams founded on jointed rock. The methodology consisted of creating a database of observed dam behavior throughout typical cycles of reservoir filling and simulating this behavior with a distinct element method (DEM) numerical model. Once the model is validated, variations of key parameters including lithology, in situ stress, joint geometry, and joint characteristics can be incorporated in the analysis. A site-specific simulation of a typical reservoir cycle was carried out for Albigna Dam, Switzerland, founded on granitic rock, to assess the nature of the flow regime in the rock foundations and to evaluate the potential for sliding surfaces other than the dam–rock interface to develop. The factor of safety against sliding of various rock wedges of differing geometry present within the dam foundations was also evaluated using the DEM model and conventional analytical procedures. Estimates of crack propagation patterns and corresponding uplift pressures and factors of safety against sliding along the dam–rock interface obtained with the DEM were also compared with those from simplified procedures currently used in engineering practice. It was found that in a jointed rock, foundation uplift estimates after crack development obtained from present design guidelines can be too conservative and result in factors of safety that are too low and do not correspond to the observed behavior.Key words: hydromechanical, jointed rock, flow, dam design.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
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