MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Three-Dimensional Seismic Analysis of Tsankov Kamak Dam

2025· article· W4417493857 on OpenAlexaff
Bikram Kesharee Patra, Avirup Sarkar, Saikat Sarkar, Ashutosh Bagchi

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Displacement (psychology)Finite element methodBoundary (topology)InertiaArch damBenchmark (surveying)Seismic analysisStatic analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents the finite element analysis of Tsankov Kamak Dam, a double-curvature concrete arch dam in the Rhodope Mountains of Bulgaria, conducted as part of Theme A of the 17th ICOLD Benchmark Workshop on Numerical Analysis of Dams. The theme includes six case studies (Cases A to F), covering static, modal, foundation dynamic, linear dynamic, and non-linear dynamic analyses. Five subcases are mandatory for a systematic performance assessment of the three-dimensional Dam-Foundation-Reservoir (DFR). This study evaluates all five mandatory subcases along with one optional subcase, providing insights into the seismic performance of the DFR system. The model was reconstructed from the provided orphan mesh using HyperMesh, and numerical simulations were carried out in Abaqus 2022 with benchmark material properties, boundary conditions, loading schemes, and seismic inputs. For Case D (Linear Dynamic Analysis with massed foundation), free-field motions were deconvoluted using DEEPSOIL v7 to ensure realistic wave propagation at the foundation base. Symmetric boundary conditions were used in the static analysis, while dashpot boundaries were applied in the dynamic cases to absorb outgoing energy and simulate free-field conditions. The results demonstrate that foundation flexibility and inertia significantly influence crest response and stress distribution, while reservoir coupling reduces natural frequencies and alters hydrodynamic pressures. Case D produced physically consistent accelerations and displacements with proper damping decay, while Case F (massless foundation) confirmed the inadequacy of neglecting foundation mass for stress evaluation despite comparable displacement trends. These findings validate the necessity of full DFR modeling in seismic safety assessments of arch dams and underscore the effect of model complexity on predicted dynamic behavior.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207