MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400235359 · doi:10.11159/iccste24.206

Evaluation of the stress history in a tailings dam raising stages: A study based on Finite Element Method (FEM) methodology

2024· article· en· W4400235359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicole Ildefonso

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodStress (linguistics)Raising (metalworking)TailingsTailings damStructural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tailings dams are complex geotechnical structures that require a thorough analysis of their stability. The traditional method for assessing stability, the Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM), focuses on calculating the factor of safety (FS), but omits critical aspects such as the stress distribution along the regrowth process. The finite element method (FEM), based on the strength reduction technique (SSR), is an alternative that allows calculating the FS and understanding the real behavior of the slope, by analysing stresses along the different raises stage. In this study, the FEM method was used to simulate the Ancash tailings dam, Peru. The simulation allowed obtaining detailed information on the stress states to which the soil foundation is subjected at each stage of regrowth. The results obtained in terms of displacements and stresses provided a more accurate understanding of the failure mechanism to which the slope may be subjected. It was concluded that the FEM method demonstrated its superiority over the traditional LEM approach, as it provides a more complete and realistic appreciation of the behavior of the slope body at different stages of its development.

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 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation EngineeringSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207