Composite Cut-Off Walls for Existing Dams: Theory and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last 10 years, the theory and practice of composite cut-off walls has been developed in the United States. The theory is that, prior to the construction of a remedial concrete diaphragm wall through a dam and into its foundation rock, the whole alignment is systematically grouted to a verified residual permeability. The grouting is conducted in two rows, and the wall is then built between them. This approach has the following advantages: 1. The drilling and grouting constitutes an extremely intense site investigation, as well as being a ground treatment in "clean" fissure conditions. Thus, the depth and extent of the diaphragm wall can be logically determined, i.e., it will be installed only where potentially erodible material has been found in the rock mass. Since the cost of drilling and grouting is a fraction of the cost of a diaphragm wall, the overall project costs are minimized. 2. The alignment of the diaphragm wall is pretreated, so that potentially catastrophic, sudden slurry losses are prevented from occurring. 3. By conducting the drilling and grouting into the clean fissured rock mass below and beyond the concrete diaphragm to an engineered target, the effective extent of the concrete cut-off is significantly and cost-effectively increased. Guidance is provided on the design and construction of the grouted element of the composite wall 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".