MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling Variability in Seismic Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams: A Parametric Analysis of Koyna and Pine Flat Dams

2024· article· en· W4390670100 on OpenAlexafffund
Bikram Kesharee Patra, Rocio L. Segura, Ashutosh Bagchi

Bibliographic record

VenueInfrastructures · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParametric statisticsComputer scienceNonlinear systemRobustness (evolution)Parametric modelGravity damModalStructural engineeringGeologyCivil engineeringEngineeringFinite element methodMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the vital issue of the variability associated with modeling decisions in dam seismic analysis. Traditionally, structural modeling and simulations employ a progressive approach, where more complex models are gradually incorporated. For example, if previous levels indicate insufficient seismic safety margins, a more advanced analysis is then undertaken. Recognizing the constraints and evaluating the influence of various methods is essential for improving the comprehension and effectiveness of dam safety assessments. To this end, an extensive parametric study is carried out to evaluate the seismic response variability of the Koyna and Pine Flat dams using various solution approaches and model complexities. Numerical simulations are conducted in a 2D framework across three software programs, encompassing different dam system configurations. Additional complexity is introduced by simulating reservoir dynamics with Westergaard-added mass or acoustic elements. Linear and nonlinear analyses are performed, incorporating pertinent material properties, employing the concrete damage plasticity model in the latter. Modal parameters and crest displacement time histories are used to highlight variability among the selected solution procedures and model complexities. Finally, recommendations are made regarding the adequacy and robustness of each method, specifying the scenarios in which they are most effectively applied.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfrastructuresSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207