Expected seismic performance of gravity dams using machine learning techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods for the seismic analysis of dams have improved extensively in the last several decades. Advanced numerical models have become more feasible and constitute the basis of improved procedures for design and assessment. A probabilistic framework is required to manage the various sources of uncertainty that may impact system performance and fragility analysis is a promising approach for depicting conditional probabilities of limit state exceedance under such uncertainties. However, the effect of model parameter variation on the seismic fragility analysis of structures with complex numerical models, such as dams, is frequently overlooked due to the costly and time-consuming revaluation of the numerical model. To improve the seismic assessment of such structures by jointly reducing the computational burden, this study proposes the implementation of a polynomial response surface metamodel to emulate the response of the system. The latter will be computationally and visually validated and used to predict the continuous relative maximum base sliding of the dam in order to build fragility functions and show the effect of modelling parameter variation. The resulting fragility functions are used to assess the seismic performance of the dam and formulate recommendations with respect to the model parameters. To establish admissible ranges of the model parameters in line with the current guidelines for seismic safety, load cases corresponding to return periods for the dam classification are used to attain target performance limit states.
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".