Seismic and static 3D stability of two-stage rock slope based on Hoek–Brown failure criterion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-stage slope is beneficial to improve slope stability in comparison with single-stage slope. Based on nonlinear Hoek–Brown criterion, a three-dimensional failure mechanism is employed to estimate the stability of two-stage rock slope, with the effect of seismic inertia force being taken into account. A generalized tangential technique is used to formulate the stability factor problem as a classical optimization problem corresponding to the dissipated energy. The upper-bound solutions are obtained by minimizing the objective function with respect to the location of sliding body center and the location of tangency point. The seismic inertia force is considered and incorporated into the objective function. In comparison with previously published solutions using the linear Mohr–Coulomb criterion, the validity of the present solutions is shown. The analytical expressions for two-stage slope are derived to estimate the seismic stability of slopes. Numerical results for different types of rocks are presented for practical use in engineering, and the effects of different parameters on slope stability are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it