Effect of installation geometry on dynamic stability of small earth dams retrofitted with a geosynthetic clay liner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs), used to repair small earth dams, are typically installed with the GCL panel placed parallel to the upstream slope of the dam or on the surface of benches cut into the upstream side of the earth dam fill. While the former requires less earthwork, leading to a more cost-effective and rapid construction, it can potentially introduce a plane of weakness if the interface shear strength between the GCL and the cover soil is less than the shear strength of the cover soil. The inclusion of benches in the upstream slope of an earth dam can potentially be an effective strategy for reducing the significance of this preferential failure plane, resulting in an increased seismic performance during earthquakes. However, the expected increase in seismic performance has not yet been quantified in large-scale shaking table tests. In this study, a full-scale shaking table test on an earth dam with a GCL installed parallel to the upstream slope of the dam is reported and compared to previously published results from tests on an identical earth dam with the GCL placed in the benched configuration under the same seismic boundary conditions. The results indicate that, for the configuration tested, the seismic deformation of the benched installation was half of that of the earth dam with the GCL installed parallel to the slope, providing significant motivation for adopting the benched installation method.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".