First Reservoir’s Impoundment of Plovdivtsi Asphalt-Concrete Core Rockfill Dam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A two-dimensional explicit FD program FLAC 2D (Itasca Consulting Group Inc., 2011) model was developed to simulate the seepage flow and evaluate the static performance of the Plovdivtsi ACRD dam. Plate load tests conducted on site during construction were modelled in this study to establish the Duncan-Chang parameters. The calibration of Duncan–Chang parameters is based on the experimental oedometric curves carried out for the Romaine-2 ACRD dam (Lashin et al., 2021). The distribution of stresses and deformations during and at the end of the construction phase, as well as following the first reservoir impoundment, were calculated with numerical analyses. Results expose that the core, the adjacent fill zones and the base of the ACRD dam appear to behave in a similar way, as a retaining wall. Based on these calibrated parameters, the pressure induced by the reservoir displaces the core downstream, favouring the formation of a Vshaped section immediately behind the core on the upstream side with larger vertical displacements in comparison with the whole of the embankment. This contrast in vertical displacements leads to notable differential displacements, which could likely lead to the formation of cracks in the upper part of the upstream dam fill. Although this behaviour is consistent with literature, instrumental data from this dam tends to support that deformations during the first reservoir impoundment would be lower than those calculated with the calibrated model. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to study two scenarios that could result in less deformation during the first reservoir impoundment. One scenario involves doubling rockfill stiffness while the second one is to study the effect of very rapid impoundment, as was the case for this dam, also considering the upstream rockfill shell could possibly be slightly less permeable. This scenario simulates the effects of rapid reservoir impoundment while considering calibrated stiffness parameters in line with the results of plate load tests carried out during construction appear to be the most realistic based on construction data, the first reservoir impoundment conditions and instrumental data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".