Non-Deterministic Methods and Surrogates in the Design of Rockfill Dams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The parameters of the constitutive models used in the design of rockfill dams are associated with a high degree of uncertainty. This occurs because rockfill dams are comprised of numerous zones, each with different soil materials, and it is not feasible to extract materials from such structures to accurately ascertain their behavior or their respective parameters. The general approach involves laboratory tests using small material samples or empirical data from the literature. However, such measures lack an accurate representation of the actual scenario, resulting in uncertainties. This limits the suitability of the model in the design process. Inverse analysis provides an option to better understand dam behavior. This procedure involves the use of real monitored data, such as deformations and stresses, from the dam structure via installed instruments. Fundamentally, it is a non-destructive approach that considers optimization methods and actual performance data to determine the values of the parameters by minimizing the differences between simulated and observed results. This paper considers data from an actual rockfill dam and proposes a surrogate assisted non-deterministic framework for its inverse analysis. A suitable error/objective function that measures the differences between the actual and simulated displacement values is defined first. Non-deterministic algorithms are used as the optimization technique, as they can avoid local optima and are more robust when compared to the conventional deterministic methods. Three such approaches, the genetic algorithm, differential evolution, and particle swarm optimization are evaluated to identify the best strategy in solving problems of this nature. A surrogate model in the form of a polynomial regression is studied and recommended in place of the actual numerical model of the dam to reduce computation cost. Finally, this paper presents the relevant dam parameters estimated by the analysis and provides insights into the performance of the three procedures to solve the inverse problem.
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".