Moving from 2D to a 3D Unsaturated Slope Stability Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-dimensional (2D) limit equilibrium analyses remain the most common method of analysis in slope engineering practice. It is commonly perceived that 2D slope stability analysis always provides a more conservative estimate of the 3D slope stability problem. Most previous studies comparing 2D and 3D stability analysis also ignore the effect of negative pore-water pressures (i.e., matric suctions) in the soil zone above the groundwater table. In this paper, a comparison study is reported between 2D and 3D slope stability analysis for soil slopes with a portion of the soil profile having matric suctions. The differences between a 2D and a 3D factor of safety are found to be heightened when unsaturated conditions are considered. The paper also presents a framework for the inclusion of soil suctions in the calculated factor of safety for geotechnical engineering practice. A discussion on reducing a 3-D numerical model to give answers similar to a 2-D slope stability analysis will be presented. A basis for transitioning to 3-D analysis will be developed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".