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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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