Seismic analysis of high arch dams considering contraction-peripheral joints coupled effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dam-reservoir interaction is one of the classic coupled problems in which two various environments with different physical characteristics are in contact with each other on interface boundary. Consideration of such interaction is important in design of new dams as well as on safety evaluation of the existing ones. In the present study, the effect of hydrodynamic pressures at various reservoir operational levels on seismic behavior of an arch dam is investigated. Dez ultra-high arch dam in Iran was selected as case study and all contraction and peripheral joints were simulated using node-to-node contact elements which have the ability of opening/closing and tangential movement. In addition, stage construction effects including joint grouting based on available construction reports were considered. The reservoir was assumed to be compressible and the foundation rock was modeled to account for its flexibility. The TABAS earthquake record was used to excite the finite element model of dam-reservoir-foundation system. It was found that dam-reservoir interaction has significant structural effects on the system and generally, operating the considered arch dam at different water levels can highly affects the distribution of the crack prone area under the maximum credible earthquake.
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 | 0.001 | 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".