Integrating Eurocode 7 (load and resistance factor design) using nonconventional factoring strategies in slope stability analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In traditional allowable stress design, as known, the safety factor is calculated with respect to shear strength of soil(s) by dividing the available shear strength by the mobilized stresses. The limit-state method, on the other hand, compares — in the form of the inequality E d ≤ R d — the effects of all the actions, E d , with the corresponding resistance of the ground, R d . Although this method considers different loading conditions by using suitable combinations of design values, it is still based on direct comparison of the available shear strength with the mobilized stresses. In the present paper, various factoring strategies (in addition to the traditional one with respect to shear strength of soils) are integrated into a limit-state method framework. Eurocode 7 has been chosen for this purpose. The whole procedure aims at giving a more comprehensive insight into the design of slopes and the sensitivity of safety level of slopes to the various parameters. In addition, the proposed methodology, as shown, may result in a safety level of slopes significantly lower than the respective one obtained using the limit-state method in its traditional form. As man-made slopes that conform to design standards often fail in practice, even though conservative input values are used, these failures must be treated with more skepticism by practitioners adopting supplementary design practices such the one presented herein.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".