Stability of slope corners: a displacement-based FEM study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stability of slopes is typically evaluated by two-dimensional plane strain analysis. However, many slopes exhibit three-dimensional (3D) geometries, including slope corners. Several researchers have studied the stability of slope corners but found that the factor of safety (FS) was close to the FS for the plane strain case. The results of a new series of 3D finite element method (FEM) simulating slope corners, including slope angle, plan view angle, radius of curvature, and slope height are presented. They confirm that the FS does not vary much for corners compared to the plane strain case. However, 220 cases using an elastic-perfectly plastic soil model together with the FEM shear strength reduction method show that the displacement field is very different at the corners compared to plane strain with differences reaching over 100%. The displacement ratio between corners and plane strain is presented as a function of the plan view angle of the corner. Often failure is defined at a chosen large displacement, as in the ultimate load of foundation elements. If this concept is carried over to slope stability, it would indicate that the FS of corners should be very different from the plane strain case. A possible explanation is discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".