<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-09-20T01:57:42Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/82811" metadataPrefix="dim">https://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/82811</identifier><datestamp>2022-01-13T07:53:59Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_1721.1_7582</setSpec><setSpec>com_1721.1_7581</setSpec><setSpec>col_1721.1_131023</setSpec></header><metadata><dim:dim xmlns:dim="http://www.dspace.org/xmlns/dspace/dim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.dspace.org/xmlns/dspace/dim http://www.dspace.org/schema/dim.xsd">
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="advisor" lang="en_US">Herbert H. Einstein.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="author" lang="en_US">Donohue, Catherine, M. Eng. Massachusetts Institute of Technology</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="other" lang="en_US">Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="department">Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="accessioned">2013-12-06T20:45:07Z</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="available">2013-12-06T20:45:07Z</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="copyright" lang="en_US">2013</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="issued" lang="en_US">2013</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="identifier" qualifier="uri">http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/82811</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="identifier" qualifier="oclc" lang="en_US">862809648</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Thesis (M. Eng.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2013.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Includes bibliographical references (p. 79-81).</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="abstract" lang="en_US">Minimizing the uncertainty in predicting the critical gradient of a dam (i.e. the critical reservoir pool level) is important during the risk analysis of dams. Uncertainty leads to inexact relative risk in portfolio management; therefore it is essential to get as accurate a risk estimation as possible for each project in a portfolio. To understand the uncertainty inherent in the predictive methodologies, this thesis sets out to compare the two most commonly used predictive methodologies, Sellmeijer and Schmertmann, in the USACE portfolio in order to make a suggestion of when to use which. Both methodologies have been calibrated for a small range of ideal soil characteristics that may not reflect of existing conditions of the portfolio. This thesis concludes with the recommendation to broaden the range of applicability through additional experiments that include anisotropic conditions.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="statementofresponsibility" lang="en_US">by Catherine Donohue.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="degree" lang="en_US">M.Eng.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="format" qualifier="extent" lang="en_US">103 p.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="language" qualifier="iso" lang="en_US">eng</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="publisher" lang="en_US">Massachusetts Institute of Technology</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="rights" lang="en_US">M.I.T. theses are protected by 
copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but 
reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written 
permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="rights" qualifier="uri" lang="en_US">http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="subject" lang="en_US">Civil and Environmental Engineering.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="title" lang="en_US">Critical gradient for internal erosion in earthen d ams : a comparative analysis of two predictive methodologies</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="type" lang="en_US">Thesis</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="format" qualifier="mimetype">application/pdf</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dspace" element="entity" qualifier="type">Publication</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="others" element="access-status">unknown</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="others" element="access-status">unknown</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="cerif" element="openaire" authority="" confidence="-1">&lt;Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="344a2434-ba43-4cfc-b39d-4cca2a13ac5a">
	&lt;Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843&lt;/Type>
	&lt;Language>eng&lt;/Language>
   	&lt;Title>Critical gradient for internal erosion in earthen d ams : a comparative analysis of two predictive methodologies&lt;/Title>
   	&lt;PublishedIn>
    	&lt;Publication>
      	&lt;/Publication>
   	&lt;/PublishedIn>
   	&lt;PublicationDate>2013&lt;/PublicationDate>
   	&lt;Authors>
      	&lt;Author>
        	&lt;DisplayName>Donohue, Catherine, M. Eng. Massachusetts Institute of Technology&lt;/DisplayName>
         	&lt;Affiliation>
         		&lt;OrgUnit>
         		&lt;/OrgUnit>
         	&lt;/Affiliation>
      	&lt;/Author>
	&lt;/Authors>
   	&lt;Editors>
	&lt;/Editors>
    &lt;Publishers>
        &lt;Publisher>
            &lt;DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology&lt;/DisplayName>
            &lt;OrgUnit />
        &lt;/Publisher>
    &lt;/Publishers>
    &lt;License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582&lt;/License>
    &lt;Keyword>Civil and Environmental Engineering.&lt;/Keyword>
   	&lt;Abstract>Minimizing the uncertainty in predicting the critical gradient of a dam (i.e. the critical reservoir pool level) is important during the risk analysis of dams. Uncertainty leads to inexact relative risk in portfolio management; therefore it is essential to get as accurate a risk estimation as possible for each project in a portfolio. To understand the uncertainty inherent in the predictive methodologies, this thesis sets out to compare the two most commonly used predictive methodologies, Sellmeijer and Schmertmann, in the USACE portfolio in order to make a suggestion of when to use which. Both methodologies have been calibrated for a small range of ideal soil characteristics that may not reflect of existing conditions of the portfolio. This thesis concludes with the recommendation to broaden the range of applicability through additional experiments that include anisotropic conditions.&lt;/Abstract>
	&lt;Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right" 
    >
    &lt;/Access>
&lt;/Publication>
</dim:field>
</dim:dim>
</metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>