Two- and three-dimensional analyses of translational slides in soils with nonlinear failure envelopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to assess the effect of nonlinearity of the soil shear strength envelope on the sliding mass configurations and the minimum two- and three-dimensional factors of safety for slopes susceptible to translational failure in both static and seismic conditions. An extensive parametric study was conducted using slope models and nonlinear soil strength envelopes that simulate translational failure case histories. Analysis of the results led to the development of stability charts that do not require an iterative procedure when determining the factors of safety. The introduction of a two-dimensional stability number and three-dimensional stability function, the values of which depend on the degrees of nonlinearity of the involved soils’ strength envelopes, has made it possible to develop such charts. These charts give the practicing geotechnical engineer a reliable and fast method to analyze translational failures. Using available software in such an analysis can be complicated if shear resistance along the sliding mass vertical sides and nonlinearity of soil shear strength envelopes are considered. Numerical examples and a case history are given to verify the reliability and illustrate the different applications of these charts.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".