Modeling the unsaturated soil zone in slope stability analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linear form of the extended Mohr–Coulomb shear strength equation uses a [Formula: see text] parameter to quantify the rate of increase in shear strength relative to matric suction. When the [Formula: see text] value is unknown, a [Formula: see text] equal to 15° is sometimes used in the slope stability study to assess the influence of matric suction on the stability of a slope. In many cases, however, a [Formula: see text] value of zero is used, signifying that the effect of matric suction is ignored. Experiment results have shown that the relationship between the shear strength of an unsaturated soil and matric suction is nonlinear. Several semi-empirical estimation equations have been proposed relating the unsaturated shear strength to the soil-water characteristic curve. In this paper, the results of a study using two-dimensional slope stability analysis along with an estimated nonlinear shear strength equations is presented. The effects of using an estimated nonlinear shear strength equation for the unsaturated soils are illustrated using three example problems. Several recommendations are made for engineering practice based on the results of the example problems. If the air-entry value (AEV) of a soil is smaller than 1 kPa, the effect of matric suction on the calculated factor of safety is trivial and the [Formula: see text] value can be assumed to be zero. If the AEV of a soil is between 1 and 20 kPa, the nonlinear equations of unsaturated shear strength should be adopted. For soils with an AEV value between 20 and 200 kPa, an assumed [Formula: see text] value of 15° provides a reasonable estimation of the effects of unsaturated shear strength in most cases. For soils with an AEV greater than 200 kPa, [Formula: see text] can generally be assumed to be equal to the effective angle of internal friction, [Formula: see text], in applications where geotechnical structures have matric suctions around 100 kPa.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".