Numerical Study on Earthquake Performance of Gravity Dam Considering Earthquake Frequencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the seismic stability evaluation of concrete gravity dams is raised due to the failure of dams occurred by the Izmit, Turkey and JiJi, Taiwan earthquake in 1999. Dams failure may incur loss of life and properties around the dam as well as damage to dam structure itself. Recently, there has been growing much concerns about "earthquake - resistance" or "seismic safety" of existing concrete gravity dams designed before current seismic design provisions were implemented. This research develops three evaluation levels for seismic stability of concrete gravity dams on the basis of the evaluation method of seismic stability of concrete gravity dams in U.S.A., Japan, Canada, and etc. Level 1 is a preliminary evaluation which is for purpose of screening. Level 2 is a pseudo-static evaluation on the basis of the seismic intensity method. And level 3 is a detail evaluation by the dynamic analysis. Evaluation results on existing concrete gravity dams on operation showed good seismic performance under designed artificial earthquake(KHC 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".