MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321996382 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-10650

Comparison of outflow hydrographs following dam breach arising from overtopping, wide-width overtopping, and geotechnical seepage failure mechanisms.

2023· preprint· en· W4321996382 on OpenAlexaff
Megan McKellar, S McDougall, Steve Evans, W. Andy Take

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrographDam failureOutflowGeotechnical engineeringGeologyDebris flowFlumeDam breakLandslideFlood mythNatural hazardHydrology (agriculture)DebrisFlow (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dam breach is a large-scale, highly unsteady, and complex water-sediment flow. Dam breach events span scenarios involving natural dams (created following valley blocking landslides) to scenarios involving anthropogenic structures such as water-retaining dams and dams designed specifically to store mine waste (e.g. tailings). Management of the risk posed by a potential breach of a dam structure requires a careful analysis of the consequences of failure. These analyses, often called dam breach studies, aim to improve safety and risk management through the prediction of travel time, flow velocity, and spatial extent of the hazard (e.g. map of depth of inundation) in the event of a breach. These factors in turn define the consequence classification of a dam and guide the development of emergency preparedness plans. The key boundary condition required for flood routing numerical simulations often conducted for dam breach studies is the outflow hydrograph which describes the relationship between outflow of the retained volume with time. In this study we explore the effect of failure mechanism on the characteristics of the outflow hydrograph of otherwise identical physical model dams. Physical model dams of 1 m in height were constructed of fine sand near the midspan of the 36 m long, 2.1 m wide, and 1.2 m high large landslide flume facility at Queen’s University Coastal Engineering Laboratory. Three failure mechanisms are explored; a) notch overtopping, initiated by incising a v-notch into the dam crest and allowing the impounded reservoir to intersect this local low point; b) wide-width overtopping, where a retaining wall placed along the crest of the dam allows for an additional reservoir capacity above the height of the crest that when rapidly removed a full width sheet of water cascades over the dam; and c) geotechnical seepage failure, where closing the toe drain allows a seepage face to develop that causes a failure in the downstream face of the dam. The reservoir surface elevation during breach was monitored with a series of five Akamina AWP-24 wave capacitance height gauges distributed centerline in the upstream reservoir. The evolution of breach shape is captured every 3 s using five Canon EOS Rebel T5 Digital Single-lens Reflex (DSLR) that capture a plan view area of the entire 2.1 m width of the dam and a combined upstream and downstream length of 4.3 m. To further capture the evolution of failure a Blickfeld LiDAR sensor was positioned oblique to the downstream slope to capture a point cloud scan ever 1.4 s. These data sets are then used to compare the physical characteristics of each breach process and the resulting implications for the observed outflow hydrographs for each failure mechanism.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207