MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313422988 · doi:10.1016/j.prostr.2022.12.216

Damage of a concrete gravity dam under the effect of the hydrodynamic loads

2022· article· en· W4313422988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hichem Mazighi, Mustapha Kamel Mihoubi

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Structural Integrity · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerationGeotechnical engineeringGravity damCrestStructural engineeringGeologySeismic loadingUltimate tensile strengthSeismic resistancePeak ground accelerationSeismologyEngineeringMaterials scienceFinite element methodGround motionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the proper design of vital structures as a dam, in order to avoid considerable damage in downstream of the structure, a deepen study must be established. The hydrodynamic behavior is very important for the determination of the damages through the dam body, which have effects on the failures and consequences on the internal resistance and the stability of the structure. This work attempts to elucidate the effect of seismic loading and inertia through the variation of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and the time of seismic recording. A damage model based on a continuous approach and taking into account the tensile strength of the concrete and the elastic deformations is applied. The Koyna dam situated in India with a height of 103 m, which experienced in 1967 a considerable earthquake causing the rupture of the structure is taken as an example of application for our study, two seismic records are applied, the first is that of Koyna in December 1967 with a duration of 10 seconds, and the other that of Saguenay in Canada in November 1988 of a duration of 15 seconds with intensities less than the first. We noted that the acceleration considerably induces the horizontal displacements at the crest dam which lead to more important damages going from downstream to upstream causing the rupture of the structure, on the other hand the duration of the recording with weak intensities does not cause significant damage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Structural IntegritySame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207