Seismic Behavior Analysis of the Bank Slope Considering the Effect of Earthquake-Induced Excess Pore Water Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil slopes, located near rivers or the sea, often get damaged dramatically under seismic action due to the high groundwater level. To determine the failure mechanism, this study proposed an analytical method for a composite critical slip surface of a multi-layer slope considering the effects of the excess pore water pressure using the Newmark’s method and variational principle. Based on this, a method for evaluating the effects of the excess pore water pressure on the permanent displacement of the slope under seismic action was established, and influence mechanisms of the excess pore water pressure on failure modes of the multi-layer bank slope at different groundwater levels were studied. The research results show that slip surfaces basically have same shapes at different groundwater levels; however, with the rise of the groundwater level, soil above a seepage line is not affected by the excess pore water pressure, and its sliding scale slightly changes. For soil below the seepage line influenced by the excess pore water pressure, the slip surface constantly extends to the interior of the slope, resulting in the increase in the sliding scale. Due to the cumulative increase in the excess pore water pressure, the bank slope at different groundwater levels is generally manifested as shear sliding at the slope toe and tensile fracture at the top. Finally, based on the shaking table test, the proposed method was verified to be reasonable and accurate. This research provides a simple and reliable method for slope engineering technicians to evaluate the stability of water-rich soil slopes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".