Comparison Between 3D Limit Equilibrium and Shear Strength Reduction Methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limit equilibrium analysis of slopes has been commonplace in the geotechnical industry for many years. The 2D approach is conservative in that 3D geometric influences are not accounted for in the 2D analysis. The conservatism associated with a 2D analysis has been viewed as a "buffer" or added factor of safety but such conservatism can be problematic. Recent software tools allow for an improved analysis of 3D slopes through limit equilibrium analysis techniques. The industry as a whole must also examine the use of 3D analysis in light of how design expectations are managed. The shear strength reduction (SSR) technique calculates the factor of safety based on an FEM analysis of stresses. However, the SSR technique remains a new analysis in the geotechnical industry. The purpose of this paper is to compare 3D finite element stability analysis with 3D limit equilibrium analysis through the examination of benchmark examples. The classic differences between 2D finite element stress analysis and 2D limit equilibrium stress analysis will be examined. Continuity when going from 2D to 3D analysis is examined.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".