Axi-symmetric Research Problem (Lower bound Method)

Table 1. Comparison of the values of

for smooth and rough footings from various approaches

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)
-

Table 3. Comparison of the values of

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
-

for smooth and rough footings from various approaches

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

Figure 1. Mesh used in the analysis

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 2. Plastic zones obtained from analysis with: (a)

,
; (d)
,

; (b)

; (c)

(a)

(b)
)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3. Variation of
,
; (d)

in soil domain for : (a)

,

; (b)

; (c)

Shear stress and normal stress distribution below footing

(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

Present results (Smooth footing)

Present results (Rough footing)

-100

-200

-300

Figure 4: The variation of (a)

; (b)

along the footing-soil interface

Axi-symmetric Research Problem (Upper bound Method)

Table 4. Comparison of the values of

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

for smooth and rough footings from various approaches

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)