Interactive algorithm for geometric modelling double-curvature arch dams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rapid and efficient algorithm for interactive geometric modelling of arch dams is presented. It combines the advantages of the traditional geometricdesign with innovative computational capabilities offering simple procedures for otherwise complex process of laying out double-curvature arch dam-reservoir coupled systems. The key parameters taken into account are: terrain topography, shape and thickness of crown cantilever, reference cylinder, thickness and curvature of individual arches, excavation depth, concrete volume, vertical and peripheral construction joints and automatic generation of finite element and boundary element models. The proposed algorithm was implemented in and runs parallel to the ADAD-IZIIS FEM-BEM, a finite element-boundary element software for structural analyses of concrete arch dams. To demonstrate the performances of the proposed algorithm, an example of a 130m high double-curvature arch dam was considered in a narrow V-shape canyon. The number of graphical options available at the push of a button, such as vertical and horizontal cross sections and 3D perspectives, allows the user to rapidly conduct the dam design within the optimization process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".