Deformation–failure mechanism of saturated fill slopes due to resonance phenomena based on 1<i>g</i> shaking-table tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthquake motions include waves of various frequency bands ranging from low to high frequency. Notably, the dominant frequency affects the seismic stability of fill slopes. Hence, to analyze the deformation–failure mechanism during an earthquake, 1g shaking-table tests were conducted in this study on saturated fill slopes considering the resonance phenomenon. Results show that the deformation–failure mechanism of a fill slope cannot be defined by only one sliding surface. Multiple sliding surfaces are formed progressively depending on the ground and external conditions. Moreover, evaluating the seismic stability of fill slopes depends not only on the magnitude of the acceleration, but also on the relationship between the natural frequency of the fill slope and the input frequency. These phenomena cannot be considered in the seismic-intensity method nor in the Newmark’s method used in conventional design. When implementing seismic countermeasures, it is important to determine the frequency characteristics of fill slopes and design the countermeasures considering the predominant frequency of the seismic wave anticipated at the site.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".