Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Proposed
Turgeman and
Martin
Kumar and
Erickson and
formulationa
Pastor(1982)b
(2004,2005)c
Khatri(2011)d Drescher(2002)e
0
5.72(6.22)
5.69(6.05)
5.61(6.01)
5
7.52(8.40)
7.23(7.89)
7.43(8.06)
7.31(8.00)
10
10.06(11.66)
9.63(10.80)
9.99(11.09)
9.78(10.99)
15
14.17(16.81)
13.29(15.36)
13.87(15.84)
13.51(15.66)
20
20.48(25.34)
18.99(22.68)
20.07(23.67)
19.38(23.22)
19.50(22.30)
25
31.07(40.21)
28.32(35.26)
30.52(36.17)
29.06(36.17)
30
49.81(67.73)
44.65(58.49)
49.29(61.48)
47.10(61.48)
35 85.34(122.85)
85.88(112.47) 81.47(112.47)
84.00(108.00)
40 161.41(244.79)
164.82(224.27) 153.94(224.27) 161.00(186.00)
45 331.10(537.32)
358.81(501.74) 324.85(501.74) 320.00(380.00)
Table 2. Comparison of the values of
for smooth and rough footings from various approaches
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Proposed
formulationa
1.66(1.73)
2.78(3.00)
4.78(5.49)
8.45(10.21)
15.49(19.75)
29.50(40.10)
61.21(86.69)
136.30(206.43)
332.52(538.35)
Turgeman and
Pastor(1982)b
1.63(1.69)
2.70(2.90)
4.56(5.12)
7.91(9.26)
14.23(17.44)
26.78(34.77)
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Proposed
formulationa
0.06(0.09)
0.23(0.35)
0.57(0.94)
1.33(2.42)
3.06(6.39)
7.24(15.68)
18.14(41.98)
48.36(126.36)
144.38(392.33)
Turgeman and
Pastor(1982)b
0.06(0.08)
0.20(0.30)
0.50(0.86)
1.14(2.21)
2.70(5.54)
6.28(13.81)
-
Martin
Kumar and
c
(2004,2005)
Khatri(2011)d
1.65(1.71)
1.64(1.70)
2.76(2.96)
2.72(2.94)
4.72(5.25)
4.62(5.20)
8.31(9.62)
8.05(9.45)
15.23(18.40)
14.55(17.87)
29.46(37.20)
28.20(36.50)
61.13(80.81)
58.04(79.75)
139.30(192.83) 130.17(189.19)
359.81(521.31) 325.85(502.74)
Erickson and
Drescher(2002)e
-
Martin
Kumar and
c
(2004,2005)
Khatri(2011)d
0.06(0.08)
0.06(0.08)
0.21(0.32)
0.20(0.30)
0.53(0.93)
0.52(0.88)
1.27(2.41)
1.23(2.27)
2.97(6.07)
2.84(5.68)
7.10(15.54)
6.72(14.65)
18.02(41.97)
16.73(39.97)
50.17(124.10) 45.36(116.20)
160.01(419.47) 138.42(379.79)
Erickson and
Drescher(2002)e
1.70(2.80)
21.00(45.00)
58.00(130.00)
186.00(456.00)
Note: Values within and outside parentheses correspond to rough and smooth foundations, respectively.
a
Lower-bound limit analysis with FEs and linear programming obtained by using the proposed formulation.
b
Lower-bound limit analysis with FEs and linear programming obtained by using an extended version of the Turgeman and Pastor
(1982) formulation.
c
Stress characteristics method.
d
Lower-bound limit analysis with FEs and linear programming.
e
Obtained by using FLAC 4.0.
Ni=16
N=4131
E=1377
Dc=2033
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
; (b)
; (c)
(a)
(b)
)
(c)
(d)
Figure 3. Variation of
,
; (d)
; (b)
; (c)
(a)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
r/B
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0
-2
-4
=0.1
=0.5
=1.0
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
(b)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
r/B
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-100
-200
-300
; (b)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Proposed
Kumar and
Turgeman and
Martin
Kumar and
Erickson and
a
b
c
d
e
formulation
Chakraborty
Pastor(1982)
(2004,2005)
Khatri(2011)
Drescher(2002)f
5.94(6.36)
5.78(6.16)
5.74(6.07)
5.69(6.05)
5.61(6.01)
8.33(8.41)
7.58(8.11)
7.52(8.09)
7.43(8.06)
7.31(8.00)
11.10(11.60)
10.19(11.18)
10.11(11.18)
9.99(11.09)
9.78(10.99)
15.95(16.63)
14.19(16.10)
14.06(16.05)
13.87(15.84)
13.51(15.66)
21.96(24.82)
20.65(24.24)
20.52(24.16)
20.07(23.67)
19.38(23.22)
19.50(22.30)
32.78(39.68)
31.68(38.62)
31.25(37.97)
30.52(37.31)
29.06(36.17)
52.15(67.25)
51.77(65.65)
50.15(63.44)
49.29(62.70)
47.10(61.48)
92.85(128.30)
91.24(120.40)
89.55(118.52)
85.88(113.99) 81.47(112.47)
84.00(108.00)
191.89(258.35) 176.77(245.80) 185.80(246.50) 164.82(228.62) 153.94(224.27) 161.00(186.00)
424.30(620.55) 397.38(596.02) 408.23(609.42) 358.81(520.30) 324.85(501.74) 320.00(380.00)
Table 5. Comparison of the values of
for smooth and rough footings from various approaches
Proposed
Kumar and
Turgeman and
Martin
Kumar and
Erickson and
formulationa
Chakrabortyb
Pastor(1982)c
(2004,2005)d
Khatri(2011)e Drescher(2002)f
1.73(1.77)
1.68(1.74)
1.65(1.73)
1.65(1.71)
1.64(1.70)
2.95(3.12)
2.84(3.03)
2.80(3.00)
2.76(2.96)
2.72(2.94)
5.27(5.46)
4.89(5.44)
4.81(5.39)
4.72(5.25)
4.62(5.20)
8.99(10.05)
8.66(9.99)
8.62(9.89)
8.31(9.62)
8.05(9.45)
17.28(20.50)
16.08(19.25)
15.98(19.04)
15.23(18.40)
14.55(17.87)
34.10(41.82)
31.31(39.36)
31.15(38.98)
29.46(37.20)
28.20(36.50)
69.01(90.83)
66.13(85.27)
66.16(85.19)
61.13(80.81)
58.04(79.75)
169.33(223.94) 147.90(210.98) 164.56(219.00) 139.30(192.83) 130.17(189.19)
423.62(643.55) 405.65(610.74) 415.23(621.46) 359.81(521.31) 325.85(502.74)
Table 6. Comparison of the values of
for smooth and rough footings from various approaches
Proposed
Kumar and
Turgeman and
Martin
Kumar and
Formulationa
Chakrabortyb
Pastor(1982)c
(2004,2005)d
Khatri(2011)e
0.09(0.13)
0.08(0.12)
0.07(0.10)
0.06(0.08)
0.06(0.08)
0.37(0.43)
0.33(0.40)
0.28(0.38)
0.21(0.32)
0.20(0.30)
0.73(1.15)
0.69(1.08)
0.61(1.01)
0.53(0.93)
0.52(0.88)
1.65(2.86)
1.51(2.72)
1.47(2.71)
1.27(2.41)
1.23(2.27)
3.98(6.94)
3.42(6.78)
3.22(7.04)
2.97(6.07)
2.84(5.68)
8.86(18.86)
8.32(17.54)
8.29(18.19)
7.10(15.54)
6.72(14.65)
23.69(54.41)
21.60(48.24)
21.78(51.52)
18.02(41.97)
16.73(39.97)
69.36(168.30) 62.73(147.85) 66.78(158.64) 50.17(124.10) 45.36(116.20)
241.27(559.68) 226.50(525.42) 237.97(543.42) 160.01(419.47) 138.42(379.79)
Erickson and
Drescher(2002)f
1.70(2.80)
21.00(45.00)
58.00(130.00)
186.00(456.00)
Note: Values within and outside parentheses correspond to rough and smooth foundations, respectively.
a
Upper-bound limit analysis with FEs and linear programming obtained by using the proposed formulation.
b
Upper-bound limit analysis with FEs and linear programming obtained by using Haar & Von Karman(1909) hypothesis
c
Upper-bound limit analysis with FEs and linear programming obtained by using an extended version of the Turgeman and Pastor
(1982) formulation.
d
Stress characteristics method.
e
Lower-bound limit analysis with FEs and linear programming.
f
Obtained by using FLAC 4.0.
u=0
Scale:--=100V0
u=v=0
Zoomed View
(a)
u=0
Scale:--=100V0
u=v=0
Zoomed View
(b)
Figure 5: Nodal velocity patterns, along with a zoomed-in view around the footing edge, for computing
(a)
; (b)
Scale:--=100V0
u=0
u=v=0
Zoomed View
(a)
Scale:--=100V0
u=0
u=v=0
Zoomed View
(b)
Figure 6: Nodal velocity patterns, along with a zoomed-in view around the footing edge, for computing
(a)
; (b)