MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1929838126 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2013-0191

Three-dimensional numerical analysis for rock slope stability using shear strength reduction method

2013· article· en· W1929838126 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiayi Shen, Murat Karakus

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsHoek–Brown failure criterionRock mass classificationSlope stability analysisNonlinear systemStrength reductionGeotechnical engineeringSlope stabilitySlope stability probability classificationGeologyShear strength (soil)Convergence (economics)Factor of safetySafety factorGeological Strength IndexStability (learning theory)Structural engineeringEngineeringFinite element methodComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing numerical modeling of three-dimensional (3D) slopes is performed mainly by using the shear strength reduction (SSR) technique based on the linear Mohr–Coulomb (MC) criterion, whereas the nonlinear failure criterion for rock slope stability is seldom used in slope modeling. However, it is known that rock mass strength is a nonlinear stress function and that, therefore, the linear MC criterion does not agree with the rock mass failure envelope very well. In this research, a nonlinear SSR technique is proposed that can use the Hoek–Brown (HB) criterion to represent the nonlinear behavior of a rock mass in the FLAC3D program to analyze 3D slope stability. Extensive case studies are carried out to investigate the influence of the convergence criterion and boundary conditions on the 3D slope modeling. Results show that the convergence criterion used in the 3D model plays an important role, not only in terms of calculation of the factor of safety (FOS), but also in terms of the shape of the failure surface. The case studies also demonstrate that the value of the FOS for a given slope will be significantly influenced by the boundary condition when the slope angle is less than 50°.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations159
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207