Login
Registrieren
Passwort zurücksetzen
Veröffentlichen & Verteilen
Verlagslösungen
Vertriebslösungen
Themen
Veröffentlichungen
Zeitschriften
Bücher
Konferenzberichte
Verlage
Blog
Kontakt
Suche
Warenkorb
EUR
USD
GBP
Deutsch
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Home
Zeitschriften
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Band 44 (2022): Heft 1 (March 2022)
Uneingeschränkter Zugang
An iterative algorithm for random upper bound kinematical analysis
Marcin Chwała
Marcin Chwała
| 10. Nov. 2021
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Band 44 (2022): Heft 1 (March 2022)
Über diesen Artikel
Vorheriger Artikel
Nächster Artikel
Zusammenfassung
Artikel
Figuren und Tabellen
Referenzen
Autoren
Artikel in dieser Ausgabe
Vorschau
PDF
Zitieren
Teilen
Article Category:
Original Study
Online veröffentlicht:
10. Nov. 2021
Seitenbereich:
13 - 25
Eingereicht:
29. Mai 2021
Akzeptiert:
27. Sept. 2021
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2021-0027
Schlüsselwörter
random bearing capacity
,
shallow foundation
,
scale of fluctuation
,
iterative algorithm
,
upper bound
,
spatial variability
© 2022 Marcin Chwała, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1
The three algorithms discussed in the study. Path ‘A’ is the base iterative algorithm, which is described in detail in the text, the path ‘B’ differs only from ‘A’ in Step 3 (see the description in the text), and the path ‘C’ is dedicated to a constant covariance matrix. Both ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ are repeated N times in the Monte Carlo framework.
Figure 2
Failure geometry for two-layered soil for the probabilistic case. The indicated points and lengths are used to determine the failure geometry.
Figure 3
Eight randomly selected results among 200 Monte Carlo realizations for the case of θh=2 m, θv=1 m, and a=2 m.
Figure 4
Bearing capacity mean values as a function of covariance matrix iteration number (a). Bearing capacity standard deviations as a function of covariance matrix iteration number (b). Case k=0 is for the constant covariance matrix. Results for two-layered soil, vertical scale of fluctuation θv=0.5 m,, foundation width b=1 m and averaging lengths a=2 m and a=8 m.
Figure 5
Bearing capacity mean values as a function of covariance matrix iteration number (a). Bearing capacity standard deviations as a function of covariance matrix iteration number (b). Case k=0 is for the constant covariance matrix. Results for two-layered soil, vertical scale of fluctuation θv=1 m,, foundation width b=1 m and averaging lengths a=2 m and a=8 m.
Figure 6
Three-dimensional failure geometry of the rough foundation base for the probabilistic case. The indicated angles and lengths are used to determine the failure geometry.
Figure 7
Bearing capacity mean values as a function of covariance matrix iteration number (a). Bearing capacity standard deviations as a function of covariance matrix iteration number (b). Case k=0 is for the constant covariance matrix. Results for a square foundation of size 1 m × 1 m.
Figure 8
Bearing capacity mean values as a function of covariance matrix iteration number (a). Bearing capacity standard deviation as a function of covariance matrix iteration number (b). Case k=0 is for the constant covariance matrix. Results for a rectangular foundation of size 1 m × 4 m.
Figure 9
Bearing capacity mean values (a), standard deviations (b), and coefficient of variations (c) as a function of coefficient of variation of undrained shear strength. Two-layered soil considered with homogenous top layer (all parameters not mentioned here are the same as for earlier analyses).
Figure 10
Stabilisation of bearing capacity mean values (a) and standard deviations (b) for the iterative approache for k=6.
Vorschau