A rigorous method for three-dimensional asymmetrical slope stability analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most slope failures exhibit remarkable asymmetrical variation in the transverse direction. A rigorous method satisfying all six equilibrium conditions is proposed for evaluating three-dimensional (3-D) asymmetrical slope stability. As there is no need to predefine a symmetrical plane in this analysis, the method is applicable to slopes with complex geometries, geologies, and loading conditions. The proposed method can not only calculate the factor of safety, but also predict the direction of sliding of the potential failure mass. Global equilibrium equations are formulated in light of the safety factor, sliding direction, and an assumed distribution of normal stress on the slip surface. The Newton method is then used to solve these equations, which has been proven to enjoy both a large range of convergence and a fast convergence rate. Thereafter, physical admissibility conditions of the solutions, and the effects of the size of discretized columns on solution accuracy, are discussed in the present 3-D analysis. The method is validated by using five typical examples documented in the literature. The failure of the Kettleman, California, waste landfill slope is also re-evaluated using the proposed method. The calculated stability and direction of sliding match field observations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".