Probabilistic standardized dam failure hydrograph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ: Conformément au cadre normatif actuellement en vigueur, la formulation du scénario « avec bris » est fondée sur des hypothèses décrivant la forme de la brèche (p. ex. trapézoïdale, rectangulaire), l'emplacement (p. ex. au centre de l'ouvrage) et le temps de formation de la brèche de rupture par submersion du barrage. En pratique ces hypothèses ont été établies sur les quelques cas de ruptures historiques de barrage disponibles, ayant d'ailleurs mené à une « cohérence / homogénéité » internationale des standards utilisés et à une utilisation répandue de modèles empiriques. En l'absence d'outils numériques permettant de « remettre en doute » l'influence des incertitudes des paramètres de brèches sur l'hydrogramme de rupture par de submersion, c'est pourquoi l'hydrogramme de rupture standardisé ainsi obtenu est encore aujourd'hui considéré comme le « plus critique ». Cet article de conférence vise explicitement les incertitudes liées aux paramètres de brèche standardisés de rupture d'un barrage, soit le ratio de la largeur à la base de la brèche sur la hauteur du barrage (WBB/HD), la pente des berges de la brèche (Z) et le temps de formation de la brèche complète (Tf). Dans cet article, les auteur(e)s sèment le doute sur le niveau de « criticité » du scénario de rupture standardisé, en introduisant une nouvelle approche probabiliste, et ce, à l'aide d'un cas d'application sur un barrage du Québec, et la norme HQ60-00-00 d'Hydro-Québec. Outre la démonstration de la contribution du nouveau modèle probabiliste développé pour la pratique des ingénieur(e)s dans le domaine de la sécurité des barrages, une discussion sur la portée et les perspectives d'application de la stratégie et de l'outil proposé vient clore l'article. ABSTRACT: In accordance with the legislative framework currently available, the standardized dam failure scenario is based on assumptions describing the shape of the breach (e.g. trapezoidal, rectangular), its location (e.g. at the center of the structure) and the time formation of the breach. In practice, these assumptions have been established based on the few historical dam failure case studies available, leading to an international "consistency / homogeneity" of the standards used and to a widespread use of empirical models. In the absence of digital tools to "question" the influence of the dam breach parameters uncertainties on the overtopping dam breach hydrograph, the standardized dam failure hydrograph obtained is still considered to be the "most critical". It is in this specific context that this paper is formulated, targeting the uncertainties linked to the standardized dam breach parameters, i.e. the ratio of the bottom breach width to the dam height (WBB/HD), the final breach slope (Z) and the time of formation of the breach (Tf). In this paper, the authors sow doubt on the level of "criticality" of the standardized dam failure scenario, while introducing a new probabilistic approach, based on a Quebec dam case study and Hydro-Quebec HQ-60-00-00 standard.). Besides the demonstration of the new probabilistic model's contribution for engineers' practice in the field of dam safety, a discussion of the scope and applications of the proposed strategy and model closes the article.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".