The effect of strength envelope nonlinearity on slope stability computations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineering analysis of slope stability includes three separate but interrelated phases: (a) experimental strength measurements, (b) determination of a strength envelope that best fits the experimental results, and (c) formal limiting equilibrium analysis using the resulting strength envelopes. Studying the interrelations between these phases leads to an integrated approach to slope stability analysis. The present work uses a single experimental database that is fitted with both linear (MohrCoulomb) and nonlinear failure envelopes and investigates the effect of different forms of the failure criterion on slope stability computations for both 2D and 3D problems. It has been indicated that calculated minimum safety factors could be significantly overestimated by the linear approximation of a nonlinear strength envelope. The effect of neglecting strength envelope nonlinearity is more pronounced under 3D conditions than in a 2D simplification. As a result, the use of nonlinear failure criterions in slope stability analyses is recommended to account for the stress-dependent nature of the shear strength of soils.Key words: nonlinear strength envelope, MohrCoulomb failure criterion, limit equilibrium, critical slip surface, minimum factor of safety, three-dimensional stability analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".