Accounting for Uncertainties in the Safety Assessment of Concrete Gravity Dams: A Probabilistic Approach with Sample Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Important advances have been made in the methodologies for assessing the safety of dams, resulting in the review and modification of design guidelines. Many existing dams fail to meet these revised criteria, and structural rehabilitation to achieve the updated standards may be costly and difficult. To this end, probabilistic methods have emerged as a promising alternative and constitute the basis of more adequate procedures of design and assessment. However, such methods, in addition to being computationally expensive, can produce very different solutions, depending on the input parameters, which can greatly influence the final results. Addressing the existing challenges of these procedures to analyze the stability of concrete dams, this study proposes a probabilistic-based methodology for assessing the safety of dams under usual, unusual, and extreme loading conditions. The proposed procedure allows the analysis to be updated while avoiding unnecessary simulation runs by classifying the load cases according to the annual probability of exceedance and by using an efficient progressive sampling strategy. In addition, a variance-based global sensitivity analysis is performed to identify the parameters most affecting the dam stability, and the parameter ranges that meet the safety guidelines are formulated. It is observed that the proposed methodology is more robust, more computationally efficient, and more easily interpretable than conventional methods.
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 | 0.000 | 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".