A method for assessing the relative likelihood of failure of embankment dams by piping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method for estimating the relative likelihood of failure of embankment dams by piping, the University of New South Wales (UNSW) method, is based on an analysis of historic failures and accidents in embankment dams. The likelihood of failure of a dam by piping is estimated by adjusting the historical frequency of piping failure by weighting factors which take into account the dam zoning, filters, age of the dam, core soil types, compaction, foundation geology, dam performance, and monitoring and surveillance. The method is intended only for preliminary assessments, as a ranking method for portfolio risk assessments, to identify dams to prioritise for more detailed studies, and as a check on event-tree methods. Information about the time interval in which piping failure developed and the warning signs which were observed suggest that the piping process often develops rapidly, giving little time for remedial action. In the piping accidents, the piping process reached some limiting condition allowing sufficient time to draw down the reservoir or carry out remedial works to prevent breaching.Key words: dams, failures, risk, probability, piping.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".