2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.112
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of an Evidence-based Geotechnical Asset Management Policy for Network Rail, Great Britain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It would be expected that most of the failures would occur in slopes of classes "C" and mainly "D". However, for rock slopes such behavior is not observed as reported on Power et al (2016). In fact, the number of failures for each EHC class is almost constant from classes "A" to "D", particularly when compared with soil cuttings.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 62%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…It would be expected that most of the failures would occur in slopes of classes "C" and mainly "D". However, for rock slopes such behavior is not observed as reported on Power et al (2016). In fact, the number of failures for each EHC class is almost constant from classes "A" to "D", particularly when compared with soil cuttings.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…A possible explanation for the lower performance, namely for classes "C" and "D" of rock cutting slopes could be related with the EHC classes being assumed as representative of the real stability condition of each slope. Indeed, analyzing the number of slope failures by EHC class for rock slopes there are some indications that the classification attributed to each rock slope could lack of some accuracy as reported in the work of Power et al (2016), which used the same source of information. It would be expected that most of the failures would occur in slopes of classes "C" and mainly "D".…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…While substantial research has been carried out in the field of landslide risk assessment (Dai et al 2002;Lee and Jones 2004;Fell et al 2005), comparatively little attention has been given to the application of landslide risk assessment frameworks to transport infrastructure slopes (Gavin et al 2016). Studies in the area (Fell et al 2008;Corominas et al 2014;Power et al 2016) consider vulnerability in a relatively simple manner. Vulnerability indices typically vary depending on the element type, landslide type and the predicted landslide intensity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%