Iacmag05 CMM

11th International Conference of IACMAG, Torino
21 Giugno 2005
Exact bearing capacity calculations

using the method of characteristics
Dr C.M. Martin
Department of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
Outline
Introduction
Bearing capacity calculations using the method
of characteristics
Exact solution for example problem
Can we solve the N problem this way?
The fast (but apparently forgotten) way to find N
Verification of exactness
Conclusions
Bearing capacity
Idealised problem (basis of design methods):
Central, purely vertical loading
qu = Qu/B
Rigid strip footing

B
Semi-infinite soil
c, , , =
Bearing capacity
Idealised problem (basis of design methods):
Central, purely vertical loading
qu = Qu/B
q = D
Rigid strip footing

B
Semi-infinite soil
c, , , =
q = D
Classical plasticity theorems

A unique collapse load exists, and it can be
bracketed by lower and upper bounds (LB, UB)
LB solution from a stress field that satisfies
equilibrium
stress boundary conditions
yield criterion
Statically
admissible
Plastically admissible
UB solution from a velocity field that satisfies

flow rule for strain rates
velocity boundary conditions
Kinematically
admissible
Theorems only valid for idealised material

perfect plasticity, associated flow ( = )
Method of characteristics
Technique for solving systems of quasi-linear
PDEs of hyperbolic type
Applications in both fluid and solid mechanics
In soil mechanics, used for plasticity problems:
bearing capacity of shallow foundations
earth pressure on retaining walls
trapdoors, penetrometers, slope stability,
Method can be used to calculate both stress and

velocity fields (hence lower and upper bounds)
In practice, often gives LB = UB exact result
2D problems only: plane strain, axial symmetry
Method of characteristics
Technique for solving systems of quasi-linear
PDEs of hyperbolic type
Applications in both fluid and solid mechanics
In soil mechanics, used for plasticity problems:
bearing capacity of shallow foundations
earth pressure on retaining walls
trapdoors, penetrometers, slope stability,
Method can be used to calculate both stress and

velocity fields (hence lower and upper bounds)
In practice, often gives LB = UB exact result
2D problems only: plane strain, axial symmetry
Outline
Introduction
of characteristics
Conclusions
Lower bound stress field

To define a 2D stress field, e.g. in x-z plane
normally need 3 variables (xx, zz, xz)
if assume soil is at yield, only need 2 variables (, )
x
c
3
3 = R
1 n
2
Z
1 = + R
z
R c cos sin
[ R f (, )
M-C
general ]

x
c
3
3 = R
1 = + R
1 n
2
R c cos sin
[ R f (, )
M-C
general ]

x
= /2
c
3 = R
1 = + R
R c cos sin
[ R f (, )
1 n
2
Z
M-C
general ]

Substitute stresses-at-yield (in terms of , ) into
equilibrium equations
xx xz
0
x
z
xz zz
x
z
Result is a pair of hyperbolic PDEs in ,

Characteristic directions turn out to coincide with
and slip lines aligned at
Use and directions as curvilinear coords
obtain a pair of ODEs in , (easier to integrate)
Solution can be marched out from known BCs

Substitute stresses-at-yield (in terms of , ) into
equilibrium equations
xx xz
0
x
z
xz zz
x
z
>0
Result is a pair of hyperbolic PDEs in ,

Characteristic directions turn out to coincide with
obtain a pair of ODEs in , (easier to integrate)

Marching from two known points to a new point:
x
z
B (xB, zB, B, B)
A (xA, zA, A, A)

x
z
B (xB, zB, B, B)
A (xA, zA, A, A)
(xC, zC, C, C)

x
z
B (xB, zB, B, B)
dx
tan
dz
A (xA, zA, A, A)
2R
d tan dx dz
cos
dx
tan
dz
d
(xC, zC, C, C)
2R
d tan dx dz
cos

x
z
B (xB, zB, B, B)
dx
tan
dz
A (xA, zA, A, A)
2R
d tan dx dz
cos
dx
tan
dz
d
2R
d tan dx dz
cos
(xC, zC, C, C)
One-legged variant for marching from a known

point onto an interface of known roughness

x
z
B (xB, zB, B, B)
dx
tan
dz
2R
d tan dx dz
cos
FD form
A (xA, zA, A, A)
dx
tan
dz
d
(xC, zC, C, C)
2R
d tan dx dz
cos
FD form

Upper bound velocity field

Substitute velocities u, v into equations for
associated flow (strain rates normal to yield surface)
coaxiality (princ. strain dirns = princ. stress dirns)
Result is a pair of hyperbolic PDEs in u, v

Characteristic directions again coincide with the
obtain a pair of ODEs in u, v (easier to integrate)

x,u
z,v
B (xB, zB, B, B, uB, vB)
A (xA, zA, A, A, uA, vA)

x,u
z,v
(xC, zC, C, C, uC, vC)

x,u
z,v
du sin( ) dv cos( ) 0

x,u
z,v


x,u
z,v
FD form
FD form

Outline
Introduction
of characteristics
Conclusions
Example problem
Rough base
qu
q = 18 kPa
q = 18 kPa
B=4m
c = 16 kPa, = 30, = 18 kN/m3
after Salenon & Matar (1982)
Example problem: stress field (partial)

known (passive failure); = /2

Symmetry: = 0 on z axis (iterative construction reqd)

Symmetry: = 0 on z axis (iterative construction reqd)
Shape of false head region emerges naturally

qu from integration of tractions
Solution not strict LB until stress field extended:
Example problem: stress field (complete)
Minor principal
stress trajectory
Example problem: stress field (complete)

Extension strategy
by Cox et al. (1961)
Here generalised for
>0
Utilisation factor at
start of each spoke
must be 1
Minor principal
stress trajectory
Extension technique
q
z0
1
z
3
1
z0 + q
1 + (z z0)
z + q
Extension technique
q
z0
1
z
3
1
z0 + q
Critical utilisation is here:
1 z0 q
2c cos 1 z0 q sin
1 + (z z0)
z + q
Example problem: velocity field
Rigid
id
g
i
R
Rig
id
id
g
i
R
Rigid
Rigid
id
g
i
R
Rig
id
id
g
i
R
Rigid
Discontinuities are easy to handle treat as

degenerate quadrilateral cells (zero area)
Some cautionary remarks

Velocity field from method of characteristics
does not guarantee kinematic admissibility!
principal strain rates &1, &3 may become mismatched
with principal stresses 1, 3
this is OK if = 0 (though expect UB LB)
but not OK if > 0: flow rule violated no UB at all
If > 0, as here, must check each cell of mesh

condition &xx &zz 0 is sufficient
Only then are calculations for UB meaningful

& c cos &
D
internal dissipation, e.g. using
max
external work against gravity and surcharge
Rigid
id
g
i
R
Rig
id
id
g
i
R
Rigid
qu from integration of internal and external work rates

for each cell (4-node , 3-node )
Discontinuities do not need special treatment
Convergence of qu (kPa) in example

Mesh
Initial
2
4
8
16
32
64
etc.

Mesh
Stress calc.
Initial
1626.74
1625.96
1625.76
1625.71
16
1625.70
32
1625.70
64
1625.70
etc.
1625.70
LB

Mesh
Stress calc.
Velocity calc.
Initial
1626.74
1626.94
1625.96
1626.01
1625.76
1625.77
1625.71
1625.72
16
1625.70
1625.70
32
1625.70
1625.70
64
1625.70
1625.70
etc.
1625.70
1625.70
LB
UB
Outline
Introduction
of characteristics
Conclusions
Why not?
The solutions obtained from [the method of characteristics]
are generally not exact collapse loads, since it is not
always possible to integrate the stress-strain rate relations
to obtain a kinematically admissible velocity eld, or to
extend the stress eld over the entire half-space of the soil
domain.
Hjiaj M., Lyamin A.V. & Sloan S.W. (2005). Numerical limit analysis
solutions for the bearing capacity factor N. Int. J. Sol. Struct. 42,
1681-1704.
N problem as a limiting case

qu
q
B
c = 0, > 0, > 0, =

qu
q
B
c = 0, > 0, > 0, =
Nq lim qu q
B q 0

qu
q
B
c = 0, > 0, > 0, =
Nq lim qu q
B q 0
e tan tan2 4 2

qu
q
B
c = 0, > 0, > 0, =
Nq lim qu q
B q 0
e tan tan2 4 2
N lim 2qu B
B q
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
0.1
397.0
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
0.2
211.9
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
0.5
99.43
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
60.69
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
40.28
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
26.84
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
10
21.70
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
10
21.70
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
20
18.74
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
50
16.65
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
100
15.83
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
200
15.35
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
500
15.03
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
1000
14.91
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
104
14.77
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
105
14.76
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
106
14.75
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
109
14.75
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
1012
14.75
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Stress field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
1012
14.75
Take as N
Fan (almost)
degenerate
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Velocity field as B/q

B/q
2qu/B
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
0.1
397.0
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
0.2
211.9
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
0.5
99.43
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
60.69
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
40.28
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
26.84
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
10
21.70
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
10
21.70
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
20
18.74
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
50
16.65
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
100
15.83
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
200
15.35
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
500
15.03
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
1000
14.91
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
104
14.77
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
105
14.76
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
106
14.75
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
109
14.75
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
1012
14.75
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )

B/q
2qu/B
1012
14.75
Take as N
Fan (almost)
degenerate
c = 0, = 30, Rough ( = )
Convergence of 2qu/B when B/q = 109

Mesh
Initial
2
4
8
16
32
64
etc.

Mesh
Stress calc.
Initial
14.7166
14.7446
14.7518
14.7537
16
14.7541
32
14.7542
64
14.7543
etc.
14.7543
LB

Mesh
Stress calc.
Velocity calc.
Initial
14.7166
14.8239
14.7446
14.7713
14.7518
14.7585
14.7537
14.7553
16
14.7541
14.7545
32
14.7542
14.7543
64
14.7543
14.7543
etc.
14.7543
14.7543
LB
UB
Completion of stress field (coarse)
c=0
= 30
B/q = 109
Rough ( = )
N = 14.7543
Completion of stress field (fine)
c=0
= 30
B/q = 109
Rough ( = )
N = 14.7543
Completion of stress field (fine)
c=0
= 30
B/q = 109
Rough ( = )
N = 14.7543
EXACT
It also works for smooth footings
c=0
= 30
B/q = 109
Smooth ( = 0)
N = 7.65300
and other friction angles
c=0
= 20
B/q = 109
Rough ( = )
N = 2.83894
Outline
Introduction
of characteristics
Conclusions
Notice anything?
c=0
= 30
B/q = 109
Smooth ( = 0)
N = 7.65300
Tractions distance from singular point

Characteristics self-similar w.r.t. singular point
Recall N problem definition

q=0
Semi-infinite soil
c = 0, > 0, > 0
Recall N problem definition

q=0
Semi-infinite soil
c = 0, > 0, > 0
Governing equations
No fundamental length can solve in terms of
polar angle and radius r
Along a radius, stress state varies only in scale:
r s( )
mean stress r
major principal stress orientation = const
( )
Combine with yield criterion and equilibrium

equations to get a pair of ODEs:
ds s sin 2 2 sin 2
d
cos 2 2 sin
2
d cos cos 2 sin s cos
d
2s sin cos 2 2 sin
von Krmn
(1926)
Direct solution of ODEs

r s( ), ( )
Underside of
footing ( = 0):
0 2
s0 ?
0 0
Edge of
passive zone:
1 4 2
solve
(iteratively)
cos 1
s1
1 sin
1 2
Direct solution of ODEs

Use any standard adaptive Runge-Kutta solver
ode45 in MATLAB, NDSolve in Mathematica
Easy to get N factors to any desired precision

Much faster than method of characteristics
Definitive tables of N have been compiled for
= 1, 2, , 60
/ = 0, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 1
< 10 s to generate
Values are identical to those obtained from the

method of characteristics, letting B/q
Selected values of N
[]
5
Smooth
/ = 1/2
0.1001
/ = 2/3
0.1048
Rough
0.08446
/ = 1/3
0.09506
10
0.2809
0.3404
0.3678
0.3929
0.4332
15
0.6991
0.9038
0.9940
1.072
1.181
20
1.579
2.167
2.411
2.606
2.839
25
3.461
5.030
5.626
6.060
6.491
30
7.653
11.75
13.14
14.03
14.75
35
17.58
28.46
31.60
33.34
34.48
40
43.19
73.55
80.62
83.89
85.57
45
117.6
209.7
225.9
231.9
234.2
0.1134
Exactness checked by method of characteristics: LB =

UB, stress field extensible,
match&, &
,
1
Selected values of N
[]
5
Smooth
/ = 1/2
0.1001
/ = 2/3
0.1048
Rough
0.08446
/ = 1/3
0.09506
10
0.2809
0.3404
0.3678
0.3929
0.4332
15
0.6991
0.9038
0.9940
1.072
1.181
20
1.579
2.167
2.411
2.606
2.839
25
3.461
5.030
5.626
6.060
6.491
30
7.653
11.75
13.14
14.03
14.75
35
17.58
28.46
31.60
33.34
34.48
40
43.19
73.55
80.62
83.89
85.57
45
117.6
209.7
225.9
231.9
234.2
0.1134
Exactness checked by method of characteristics: LB

= UB, stress field extensible,
match
&, &
,
1
Influence of roughness on N
/ = 2/3
/ = 1/2
/ = 1/3
Smooth
0.504719
0.500722
0.500043
Outline
Introduction
of characteristics
Conclusions
N by various methods
25
20
15
10
Limit Eqm Characteristics ODEs Upper Bd
= 30, =
FE/FD
FELA Formulae
25
20
15
10
= 30, =
FE/FD
FELA Formulae
N by FE limit analysis
Ukritchon et al. (2003)
UPPER
BOUND
LOWER
BOUND
Rough
Smooth
Smooth
Rough
Hjiaj et al. (2005)
UPPER
BOUND
Smooth
Rough
LOWER
BOUND
Smooth
Rough
Hjiaj et al. (2005)
UPPER
BOUND
Smooth
Rough
LOWER
BOUND
Smooth
Rough
Hjiaj et al. (2005)
UPPER
BOUND
Smooth
Rough
LOWER
BOUND
Smooth
Rough
Hjiaj et al. (2005)
UPPER
BOUND
Smooth
Rough
LOWER
BOUND
Structured meshes (different for each )
Smooth
Rough
Makrodimopoulos & Martin (2005)
UPPER
BOUND
Rough
Smooth
LOWER
BOUND
Smooth
Rough
Makrodimopoulos & Martin (2005)
UPPER
BOUND
Rough
Smooth
LOWER
BOUND
Smooth
Rough
Single unstructured mesh (same for each )
25
20
15
10
= 30, =
FE/FD
FELA Formulae
N ( = ) by common formulae: error [%]

[]
Meyerhof
(1963)
Hansen
(1970)
Vesi
(1975)
Eurocode
(1996)
Poulos et
al. (2001)
-38.5
-34.3
296.3
-12.4
114.9
10
-15.3
-10.2
182.6
19.8
30.0
15
-4.4
0.1
124.1
33.4
10.1
20
1.1
3.8
89.7
38.4
5.9
25
4.2
4.1
67.6
38.8
7.1
30
6.2
2.1
51.8
36.2
8.9
35
7.8
-1.6
39.3
31.2
7.7
40
9.5
-7.0
27.9
23.9
0.3
45
12.2
-14.3
16.0
14.3
-15.3
Bearing capacity factors for design

If we use Nc and Nq that are exact for =
Nq e tan tan2 4 2
Nc Nq 1 cot
then we should, if we want to be consistent,

also use N factors that are exact for =
Then start worrying about corrections for
non-association ( < )
stochastic variation of properties
intermediate principal stress
progressive failure, etc.
Bearing capacity factors for design

If we use Nc and Nq that are exact for =
Nq e tan tan2 4 2
Nc Nq 1 cot
then we should, if we want to be consistent,

also use N factors that are exact for = .
Then start worrying about corrections for
non-association ( < )
stochastic variation of properties
intermediate principal stress
progressive failure, etc.
less capacity!
Conclusions
Shallow foundation bearing capacity is a longstanding problem in theoretical soil mechanics
The method of characteristics, carefully applied,
can be used to solve it c, , (with = )
In all cases, find strict lower and upper bounds
that coincide, so the solutions are formally exact
If just values of N are required (and not proof of
exactness) it is much quicker to integrate the
governing ODEs using a Runge-Kutta solver
Exact solutions provide a useful benchmark for
validating other numerical methods (e.g. FE)
Downloads
Program ABC Analysis of Bearing Capacity

Tabulated exact values of b.c. factor N
Copy of these slides
www-civil.eng.ox.ac.uk

Iacmag05 CMM

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Iacmag05 CMM

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

11th International Conference of IACMAG, Torino

Exact bearing capacity calculations

Rigid strip footing

Rigid strip footing

Classical plasticity theorems

UB solution from a velocity field that satisfies

Theorems only valid for idealised material

Method can be used to calculate both stress and

Method can be used to calculate both stress and

Lower bound stress field

Lower bound stress field

Lower bound stress field

Lower bound stress field

Result is a pair of hyperbolic PDEs in ,

Lower bound stress field

Result is a pair of hyperbolic PDEs in ,

Lower bound stress field

Lower bound stress field

Lower bound stress field

Lower bound stress field

One-legged variant for marching from a known

Lower bound stress field

One-legged variant for marching from a known

Upper bound velocity field

Result is a pair of hyperbolic PDEs in u, v

Upper bound velocity field

B (xB, zB, B, B, uB, vB)

A (xA, zA, A, A, uA, vA)

Upper bound velocity field

B (xB, zB, B, B, uB, vB)

A (xA, zA, A, A, uA, vA)

(xC, zC, C, C, uC, vC)

Upper bound velocity field

B (xB, zB, B, B, uB, vB)

A (xA, zA, A, A, uA, vA)

(xC, zC, C, C, uC, vC)

Upper bound velocity field

B (xB, zB, B, B, uB, vB)

A (xA, zA, A, A, uA, vA)

(xC, zC, C, C, uC, vC)

One-legged variant for marching from a known

Upper bound velocity field

B (xB, zB, B, B, uB, vB)

A (xA, zA, A, A, uA, vA)

(xC, zC, C, C, uC, vC)

One-legged variant for marching from a known

c = 16 kPa, = 30, = 18 kN/m3

after Salenon & Matar (1982)

Example problem: stress field (partial)

Example problem: stress field (partial)

Symmetry: = 0 on z axis (iterative construction reqd)

Example problem: stress field (partial)

Symmetry: = 0 on z axis (iterative construction reqd)

Shape of false head region emerges naturally

Example problem: stress field (complete)

Example problem: stress field (complete)

Example problem: velocity field

Example problem: velocity field

Discontinuities are easy to handle treat as

Some cautionary remarks

If > 0, as here, must check each cell of mesh

Only then are calculations for UB meaningful

Example problem: velocity field