Critical Appraisal of Common Simplified Assumptions in Seismic Stability Analyses of Gravity Dams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In practical seismic stability analyses of gravity dams, it is common to (1) oversimplify irregular dam-rock interfaces, (2) neglect the effects of cohesion and tensile strength, and (3) ignore the effects of vertical ground accelerations. In this paper, a critical appraisal of such simplifying assumptions is proposed. For this purpose, an efficient procedure for dam seismic stability analysis not requiring the above-mentioned assumptions is first proposed. The developed technique is applied to investigate the seismic stability of an existing gravity dam with a stepped dam-rock foundation. The response of the dam is studied under the effects of two earthquakes differing by their frequency contents. The resulting stresses at the dam-rock interface, sliding safety factors, crack lengths, and residual displacements are examined. Detailed discussion of the effects of dam-rock geometry, mechanical properties at the dam-rock interface, and the vertical seismic component is presented. It is primarily shown that a simplified dam-rock geometry should be used with caution because it may lead to inaccurate results for the dam sliding safety factor and residual displacement. The results also emphasize the importance of cohesion, tensile strength, and friction in dam seismic stability assessment. The sensitivity of stress distributions at dam-rock interface to ground accelerations is illustrated. The sliding safety factor is found to be practically insensitive to the vertical seismic component, whereas dam residual displacements are more affected.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".