Performance of Lateral Cutoff Wall on Seepage Characteristics Around Hydraulic Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effect of the cutoff wall in 2D on the seepage characteristics, exit gradient, and uplift pressure has been extensively studied in previous studies; however, the impact of the lateral cutoff wall of various lengths and depths on side seepage and the overall stability of the hydraulic structures has yet to be fully understood in the 3D analysis.The main objective of this study is to investigate the effect of lateral cutoff on seepage discharge, uplift force, and the exit gradient for hydraulic structures founded on finite and infinite pervious strata.The analysis is carried out numerically by using a computer program, utilizing the finite element method (Midas GTS NX).Several configurations of the cutoff wall driven under the structure and extended laterally are analyzed including penetration depth, cutoff wall location, lateral length, and thickness of the foundation.The results of the Midas GTS NX are in good agreement with those of prior analytical and experimental studies.The numerical results confirmed that cutoff walls fixed downstream of the floor, substantially reduce the exit gradient; however, it slightly increases the uplift force acting on the structure.Seepage quantity and exit gradient do not increase any further when the soil foundation thickness to the structure length exceeds 2.18 and 2.27, respectively.An increase in the value of the uplift force is noticed with increasing the pervious soil foundation thickness for cutoff walls fixed before the mid-length of the structure.However, positioning the cutoff further downstream decreases the uplift force while increasing the pervious soil foundation thickness.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".