Crack analysis related to the stability of gravity and concrete dams using CADAM software (Case study: Dez regulatory dam)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates the stress and crack analysis in weighted concrete dams under constant acceleration resulting from earthquakes in the horizontal direction and induced earthquakes generated by the dam reservoir. This analysis was performed using CADAM software. The main purpose of stress calculations is to determine the amount of tensile length of the gap that is created by the inertial forces in the dam and the effect of these stresses on the stability of the concrete dam. CADAM software was developed in 2003 at the University of Montreal to analyze concrete dams in a variety of situations. In this paper, the gap and its effect on the stability of the concrete weight barrier with a maximum earthquake of 0.28 g were analyzed and the results were analyzed separately in each executive joint. In all joints, the minimum coefficient of safety against stability (at least 1.3) was obtained. Looking at the tables of results, it can be concluded that the stability of the regulating dam is suitable for acceleration of horizontal earthquake equal to 0.28 g. They are acceptable in earthquake and normal conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".