Performance Analysis of the Ituango Dam, Based On Geotechnical Instrumentation and Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of the Ituango Dam is analyzed in this document by comparing the results of geotechnical instrumentation with analytical and numerical models.Ituango Hydropower Plant Project has an Earth Core Rockfill Dam with modifications in its upper 50 meters.These modifications include a bentonite cement cutoff wall.The analyses focus on the behavior of pore pressures, settlements, and total stresses to identify the level of performance of the dam fills, the foundation, and important elements such as the cutoff wall indicated above.The field measurements (considering their range of statistical variation) are compared with the outcomes from analytical and finite element models in 2D and 3D.The geotechnical performance analysis of the dam corresponds to the current state, 3 years after its construction was completed.Through this research, it was found that the degree of correlation between field measurements and numerical calculations is high and, therefore, the measured variables are within what was expected.This information has also been of particular importance for the identification of anomalous behaviors, which complements the project's risk management plan.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".