![Sample our Computer Science journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5928/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Computer-Science.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
As the awareness of environmental protection and safety becomes increasingly important in route design, it is crucial to emphasize line position optimization of mountain roads in sloped sections. In this study, we devised a combined optimization factor (F), which includes the displacement mutation factor (F1), two types of energy mutation factors (F2 and F3), and the regional earthwork balance factor (F4), to measure the optimization options. We then applied this combined factor to a rural road in Gansu Province, China, to calculate and compare the different line position optimization results according to numerical calculation models. This method allowed the selection of a better optimization option (b = 2.5 m) as the final result. From a short-term perspective, the proposed method can ensure the slope stability and balance earthwork quantities in mountain road sections, as well as promote environmental protection. In addition, this method can provide an optimization concept for long-term application to engineering practices.
CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
ASSOCIATE EDITOR:
Nomenclature
| B | = | embedding depth of the route cross-section into the slope |
| C | = | the amount of earthwork in other sections in the region |
| E | = | the elasticity modulus |
| F | = | combined optimization factor |
| F1 | = | displacement mutation factor |
| F2 | = | elastic strain energy mutation factor |
| F3 | = | kinetic energy mutation factor |
| F4 | = | regional earthwork balance factor |
| Fse | = | the value of elastic strain energy mutation criteria |
| Fsk | = | the value of kinetic energy mutation criteria |
| Fsxi | = | the horizontal displacement mutation factor value of the feature point |
| Fszi | = | the vertical displacement mutation factor value of the feature point |
| F(xk) | = | the amount of graben excavation under line position optimization option k |
| F(zk) | = | the amount of embankment filling under line position optimization option k |
| Fmax(x) | = | the maximum amount of graben excavation for all of the potential optimization options |
| Fmin(z) | = | the minimum amount of embankment filling for all of the potential optimization options |
| H | = | height of unit body |
| N | = | the number of feature points. |
| ∆Ud | = | the increase in dissipated energy |
| ∆Ue | = | the increase in the elastic strain energy |
| ∆Ug | = | the decrease in the gravitational potential energy |
| ∆Uk | = | the change in kinetic energy |
| ue | = | elastic strain energy |
| ug | = | gravitational potential energy |
| uk | = | kinetic energy |
| v | = | the velocity of the unit’s center of gravity |
| σ1,σ2and σ3 | = | first principal stress, second principal stress and third principal stress |
| ε1,ε2and ε3 | = | first principal strain, second principal strain and third principal strain |
| μ | = | Poisson’s ratio |
| ρ | = | density |
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.