Experimental study of the effects of the roughness, the interlocking and the material mechanical properties on the apparent cohesion of unbonded rock joints in the context of dam foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International gravity dam foundation design guidelines are suggesting to consider the rock-concrete foundation interface as unbonded and to use the Mohr-Coulomb criterion to assess the structure sliding safety factor. Engineers are invited to use the apparent cohesion with care but no consensus on the determination or on its influence parameters exists. Thus, an experimental\nstudy was developed and new insights on the apparent cohesion influence parameters (roughness, interlocking, material mechanical properties, contact type and normal load) were found. 64 direct shear tests were performed under CNL conditions at normal stresses similar to those found inside a large gravity dam foundation (from 100 to 1000 kPa). Results showed that higher the roughness is, higher is the apparent cohesion values. The degree of interlocking also plays a role on the apparent cohesion. Indeed, for the same\nroughness, a significant drop of the apparent cohesion was observed between the perfect and good interlocked joints. For the same roughness and interlocking conditions, it appeared that the apparent cohesion is also affected by the joint material mechanical properties. However, the influence of the material on the apparent cohesion is lower than that of the roughness or interlocking. An increase of the normal load also led to an increase of the apparent cohesion. These observations on the apparent cohesion influence\nparameters suggest that using the apparent cohesion in calculations or in numerical modelling for assessing the shear strength of rock joints may be realistic.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".