Use of Index Gradients and Default Tailwater Depth as Aids to Hydraulic Modeling of Flow-Through Rockfill Dams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the potential for unraveling failure of flow-through rockfill dams, a systematic study of three aspects of the hydraulic design of these structures was conducted. First, the gradient that is most useful in independently computing the height of the point of first flow emergence was established. The proposed method is based on the idea of the angle of the emergent flow field within the toe of the structure. Secondly, as a result, this study presents a method for independently computing the variation in hydraulic head within the vertical that allows the toe of the structure (i.e., downstream from the vertical associated with first flow emergence) to be isolated. This is based in part on a separate parametric study of 24 numerically simulated flow-through rockfill dams. Thirdly, the gradient that allows for the independent estimation of the default tailwater depth is presented and verified, with the help of laboratory results. The hope is that these three computational tools will facilitate the design and assessment of flow-through rockfill structures, as a particular class of pseudohydraulic structure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".