Upper bound limit analysis using linear finite elements and non-linear programming

• Published in: International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics Vol. 26; no. 2; pp. 181 - 216
• Main Authors: Lyamin, A. V., Sloan, S. W.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.02.2002; Wiley
• Subjects: Applied sciences; Buildings. Public works; Computation methods. Tables. Charts; Exact sciences and technology; finite element; Geotechnics; kinematic; limit analysis; nonlinear programming; Structural analysis. Stresses; Structure-soil interaction; upper bound; Upper bound; Strip footing; Numerical simulation; Structure soil interaction; Non linear programming; Limit; Boundary condition; Computing method; Velocity; Optimization; Soil stability; Finite element
• ISSN: 0363-9061; 1096-9853
• DOI: 10.1002/nag.198

A new method for computing rigorous upper bounds on the limit loads for one‐, two‐ and three‐dimensional continua is described. The formulation is based on linear finite elements, permits kinematically admissible velocity discontinuities at all interelement boundaries, and furnishes a kinematically admissible velocity field by solving a non‐linear programming problem. In the latter, the objective function corresponds to the dissipated power (which is minimized) and the unknowns are subject to linear equality constraints as well as linear and non‐linear inequality constraints. Provided the yield surface is convex, the optimization problem generated by the upper bound method is also convex and can be solved efficiently by applying a two‐stage, quasi‐Newton scheme to the corresponding Kuhn–Tucker optimality conditions. A key advantage of this strategy is that its iteration count is largely independent of the mesh size. Since the formulation permits non‐linear constraints on the unknowns, no linearization of the yield surface is necessary and the modelling of three‐dimensional geometries presents no special difficulties. The utility of the proposed upper bound method is illustrated by applying it to a number of two‐ and three‐dimensional boundary value problems. For a variety of two‐dimensional cases, the new scheme is up to two orders of magnitude faster than an equivalent linear programming scheme which uses yield surface linearization. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.