Evaluation of the Seismic Safely of Concrete Gravity Dams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
최근 1995년 일본의 고베 및 1999년도에 터키와 대만 등지에서 일어난 강진으로 많은 사상자와 피해가 발생되었고 일본 및 대만의 경우 일부 댐의 피해가 발생되었다. 댐의 경우 지진 발생시 국부적인 구조물의 손상뿐만 아니라 주변 주거지역에 많은 인명피해를 유발하기 때문에 국내에서도 내진설계기준 강화 이전의 콘크리트 중력식 댐에 대한 내진 안전성 평가의 필요성을 인식하게 되었다. 본 연구에서는 미국, 일본 및 캐나다의 내진설계기준 및 안전성 평가기법을 분석하여 국내 실정에 적합한 내진 안전성 평가 지침을 마련하였다. 평가단계는 제3단계로 구성하였다. 제1단계는 기초 문헌자료를 이용한 내진 안전성 평가 필요여부를 구분하는 예비평가단계이며 제2단계 평가는 진도법을 적용한 유사정적해석을 수행하여 성능기준 만족여부를 판단한다. 제3단계 평가는 제2단계를 만족하지 못하였을 경우 대상구조물에 동적해석을 적용하여 정밀한 평가를 수행한 후 성능기준을 평가한다. 본 연구에서는 현재 국내에서 운영중인 콘크리트 중력식 댐을 선정하여 본 평가 방법을 적용하였다. Recently, the seismic safety evaluation of concrete gravity dams is raised due to the damage or the failure of dams occurred by the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the 1999 Taiwan earthquake, etc. Failre of dam may incur loss of life and properties around the dam as well as damage to dam structure itself. Recently, there has been growing much concerns about 'earthquake-resistance' or 'seismic safety'of existing concrete gravity dams designed before current seismic design provisions were implemented. This research develops three evaluation levels for seismic safety of concrete gravity dams on the basis of the evaluation method of seismic safety of concrete gravity dams in U.S.A., Japan, Canada, and etc. level 1 is a preliminary evaluation which is for purpose f screening. Level 2 is a pseudo-static evaluation on the basis of the seismic intensity method. Finally, level 3 is a detail evaluation by the dynamic analysis. Evaluation results on existing concrete gravity dam on operation showed good seismic performance under the designed artificial earthquake.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".