Investigation of Shear Strength Reduction Method in Slope Stability of Reinforced Slopes by Anchor and Nail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the stability of slopes in infrastructures such as road and railroad embankments, excavations, and, in general, earthwork is important, analyzing the stability of these slopes has been one of the main focuses of geotechnical engineers. Although analyzing both reinforced and unreinforced slopes is needed, reinforced slopes require special attention as the reinforcement elements significantly affect the calculations. Hence, the current study’s aim is to find out the differences between obtained safety factors using the Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) and Shear Strength Reduction Method (SSRM). For this purpose, first, the origin differences in terms of Safety Factor (SF) are theoretically determined according to basic formulas for the aforementioned techniques. Then, to verify the formula, several numerical modelings are carried out using in situ measured geotechnical data to better understand the differences in terms of safety factors. The results indicate that for the reinforced slope with an SF value of higher than 1, the SSRM provides a higher SF in comparison with the other techniques, and the origin of this difference is the definitions of the SF in the different methods.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".