ENHANSING EARTH DAM SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WITH ENERGY-BASED APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately assessing the seismic performance of earth dams is crucial for ensuring their safety and cost-effective design. Various methods exist for evaluating the behavior of these structures during earthquakes, ranging from simpler force-based pseudo-static methods to more complex numerical analyses using finite element method (FEM) or finite difference method (FDM). However, the applicability and reliability of these methods depend on factors such as site seismicity, geotechnical characteristics, and material geometry, which influence the development of excess pore water pressure and deformation patterns during seismic loading. Over the years, geotechnical engineering has witnessed the development of several total and effective stress constitutive models to evaluate the nonlinear dynamic response of soil materials in earth dams under seismic conditions. One of the most recent approaches is the coupled energy-based method, which aims to accurately predict earthquake-induced pore water pressure in the constituent materials of earth dams under various physical conditions. This article presents a step-by-step procedure for evaluating the dynamic performance of earth dams using simplified deformation approaches, highlighting their limitations and precision levels. Subsequently, a novel numerical coupled energy-based approach is introduced for assessing the dynamic response of an earth dam subjected to seismic loads. The simulated earth dam in this study comprises different homogeneous layers with varying compactness and density. To model each constituent material, the energy-based model is combined with the Sigmoidal model in FLAC 2D software, resulting in a novel coupled energy-based pore pressure model. The proposed models were calibrated and verified based on a series of tests conducted on representative materials from the dam at the Université de Sherbrooke, considering shear stress-strain response and excess pore pressure. Overall, this research contributes to advancing the understanding of seismic performance evaluation for soil materials in earth dams by transitioning from conventional approaches to novel energy-based methods.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".