Implications of variationally derived 3D failure mechanism
Summary This paper revisits the variational limit equilibrium (LE) analysis of three‐dimensional (3D) slope stability in the context of limit analysis (LA). It proves the kinematic admissibility of the 3D mechanism in LA, although it was derived from LE variational extremization. It also includes al...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics 2016-12, Vol.40 (18), p.2514-2531 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2531 |
---|---|
container_issue | 18 |
container_start_page | 2514 |
container_title | International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics |
container_volume | 40 |
creator | Zhang, Fei Leshchinsky, Dov Baker, Rafi Gao, Yufeng Leshchinsky, Ben |
description | Summary
This paper revisits the variational limit equilibrium (LE) analysis of three‐dimensional (3D) slope stability in the context of limit analysis (LA). It proves the kinematic admissibility of the 3D mechanism in LA, although it was derived from LE variational extremization. It also includes algorithms in the realm of LA that are associated with the variational mechanism. A comparison between the variational results and reported LA upper‐bound or LE closed‐form results is conducted. It demonstrates that the variationally derived mechanism consistently yields upper‐bound solutions for 3D symmetrical slopes that are as accurate as those produced by postulated mechanisms in LA. However, the results are more critical than those derived from spherical failure mechanism in LE. The generalized log spiral 3D mechanism rigorously legitimizes the variational slope stability analysis in both frameworks of mechanics LE and LA. Stability charts were produced where the 3D factor of safety can be assessed for a constrained length of failure, while including factors like pore water pressure and seismic loading. The results presented within this study demonstrate the capabilities of the variational 3D solution and can be used to evaluate approximate methods, numerical or closed‐form, developed in 3D slope stability analyses. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/nag.2543 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1864529866</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1846408801</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4203-1ebe0a6e7cdeada226303e3e33377816c7bae399ab6c714f8d026168de1533f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0FFLwzAQB_AgCs4p-BEKvvjSeem1aerbnK6bjPngwMeQtVfNbNeZbNN9ezsnioIg93AX8uPg_oydcuhwgOBirh87QRTiHmtxSISfyAj3WQtQoJ-A4IfsyLkZAETNb4tdDqtFaTK9NPXceXXhrbU1Hy9dlhsvJ2vWlHt47RXalCtLXkXZk54bVx2zg0KXjk4-e5tN-jeT3sAf3aXDXnfk6zAA9DlNCbSgOMtJ5zoIBAJSU4hxLLnI4qkmTBI9bUYeFjKHQHAhc-IRYoFtdr5bu7D1y4rcUlXGZVSWek71yikuRRgFiRTiHzQUIUgJvKFnv-isXtnm6K1CIWXEAb8XZrZ2zlKhFtZU2m4UB7WNWzVxq23cDfV39NWUtPnTqXE3_emNW9Lbl9f2WYkY40g9jFM1ug8Hvdv-lUrxHd6DjcQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1836885103</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Implications of variationally derived 3D failure mechanism</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Zhang, Fei ; Leshchinsky, Dov ; Baker, Rafi ; Gao, Yufeng ; Leshchinsky, Ben</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Fei ; Leshchinsky, Dov ; Baker, Rafi ; Gao, Yufeng ; Leshchinsky, Ben</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
This paper revisits the variational limit equilibrium (LE) analysis of three‐dimensional (3D) slope stability in the context of limit analysis (LA). It proves the kinematic admissibility of the 3D mechanism in LA, although it was derived from LE variational extremization. It also includes algorithms in the realm of LA that are associated with the variational mechanism. A comparison between the variational results and reported LA upper‐bound or LE closed‐form results is conducted. It demonstrates that the variationally derived mechanism consistently yields upper‐bound solutions for 3D symmetrical slopes that are as accurate as those produced by postulated mechanisms in LA. However, the results are more critical than those derived from spherical failure mechanism in LE. The generalized log spiral 3D mechanism rigorously legitimizes the variational slope stability analysis in both frameworks of mechanics LE and LA. Stability charts were produced where the 3D factor of safety can be assessed for a constrained length of failure, while including factors like pore water pressure and seismic loading. The results presented within this study demonstrate the capabilities of the variational 3D solution and can be used to evaluate approximate methods, numerical or closed‐form, developed in 3D slope stability analyses. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-9061</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9853</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/nag.2543</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IJNGDZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bognor Regis: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>3D stability analysis ; Algorithms ; Exact solutions ; Failure mechanisms ; kinematic admissibility ; limit analysis ; limit equilibrium ; Mathematical analysis ; Mathematical models ; Numerical methods ; Slope stability ; Slopes ; variational analysis</subject><ispartof>International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics, 2016-12, Vol.40 (18), p.2514-2531</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4203-1ebe0a6e7cdeada226303e3e33377816c7bae399ab6c714f8d026168de1533f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4203-1ebe0a6e7cdeada226303e3e33377816c7bae399ab6c714f8d026168de1533f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fnag.2543$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fnag.2543$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leshchinsky, Dov</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Rafi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Yufeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leshchinsky, Ben</creatorcontrib><title>Implications of variationally derived 3D failure mechanism</title><title>International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics</title><addtitle>Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech</addtitle><description>Summary
This paper revisits the variational limit equilibrium (LE) analysis of three‐dimensional (3D) slope stability in the context of limit analysis (LA). It proves the kinematic admissibility of the 3D mechanism in LA, although it was derived from LE variational extremization. It also includes algorithms in the realm of LA that are associated with the variational mechanism. A comparison between the variational results and reported LA upper‐bound or LE closed‐form results is conducted. It demonstrates that the variationally derived mechanism consistently yields upper‐bound solutions for 3D symmetrical slopes that are as accurate as those produced by postulated mechanisms in LA. However, the results are more critical than those derived from spherical failure mechanism in LE. The generalized log spiral 3D mechanism rigorously legitimizes the variational slope stability analysis in both frameworks of mechanics LE and LA. Stability charts were produced where the 3D factor of safety can be assessed for a constrained length of failure, while including factors like pore water pressure and seismic loading. The results presented within this study demonstrate the capabilities of the variational 3D solution and can be used to evaluate approximate methods, numerical or closed‐form, developed in 3D slope stability analyses. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>3D stability analysis</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Exact solutions</subject><subject>Failure mechanisms</subject><subject>kinematic admissibility</subject><subject>limit analysis</subject><subject>limit equilibrium</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Numerical methods</subject><subject>Slope stability</subject><subject>Slopes</subject><subject>variational analysis</subject><issn>0363-9061</issn><issn>1096-9853</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqN0FFLwzAQB_AgCs4p-BEKvvjSeem1aerbnK6bjPngwMeQtVfNbNeZbNN9ezsnioIg93AX8uPg_oydcuhwgOBirh87QRTiHmtxSISfyAj3WQtQoJ-A4IfsyLkZAETNb4tdDqtFaTK9NPXceXXhrbU1Hy9dlhsvJ2vWlHt47RXalCtLXkXZk54bVx2zg0KXjk4-e5tN-jeT3sAf3aXDXnfk6zAA9DlNCbSgOMtJ5zoIBAJSU4hxLLnI4qkmTBI9bUYeFjKHQHAhc-IRYoFtdr5bu7D1y4rcUlXGZVSWek71yikuRRgFiRTiHzQUIUgJvKFnv-isXtnm6K1CIWXEAb8XZrZ2zlKhFtZU2m4UB7WNWzVxq23cDfV39NWUtPnTqXE3_emNW9Lbl9f2WYkY40g9jFM1ug8Hvdv-lUrxHd6DjcQ</recordid><startdate>20161225</startdate><enddate>20161225</enddate><creator>Zhang, Fei</creator><creator>Leshchinsky, Dov</creator><creator>Baker, Rafi</creator><creator>Gao, Yufeng</creator><creator>Leshchinsky, Ben</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161225</creationdate><title>Implications of variationally derived 3D failure mechanism</title><author>Zhang, Fei ; Leshchinsky, Dov ; Baker, Rafi ; Gao, Yufeng ; Leshchinsky, Ben</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4203-1ebe0a6e7cdeada226303e3e33377816c7bae399ab6c714f8d026168de1533f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>3D stability analysis</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Exact solutions</topic><topic>Failure mechanisms</topic><topic>kinematic admissibility</topic><topic>limit analysis</topic><topic>limit equilibrium</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Numerical methods</topic><topic>Slope stability</topic><topic>Slopes</topic><topic>variational analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leshchinsky, Dov</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Rafi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Yufeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leshchinsky, Ben</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhang, Fei</au><au>Leshchinsky, Dov</au><au>Baker, Rafi</au><au>Gao, Yufeng</au><au>Leshchinsky, Ben</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Implications of variationally derived 3D failure mechanism</atitle><jtitle>International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics</jtitle><addtitle>Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech</addtitle><date>2016-12-25</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>18</issue><spage>2514</spage><epage>2531</epage><pages>2514-2531</pages><issn>0363-9061</issn><eissn>1096-9853</eissn><coden>IJNGDZ</coden><abstract>Summary
This paper revisits the variational limit equilibrium (LE) analysis of three‐dimensional (3D) slope stability in the context of limit analysis (LA). It proves the kinematic admissibility of the 3D mechanism in LA, although it was derived from LE variational extremization. It also includes algorithms in the realm of LA that are associated with the variational mechanism. A comparison between the variational results and reported LA upper‐bound or LE closed‐form results is conducted. It demonstrates that the variationally derived mechanism consistently yields upper‐bound solutions for 3D symmetrical slopes that are as accurate as those produced by postulated mechanisms in LA. However, the results are more critical than those derived from spherical failure mechanism in LE. The generalized log spiral 3D mechanism rigorously legitimizes the variational slope stability analysis in both frameworks of mechanics LE and LA. Stability charts were produced where the 3D factor of safety can be assessed for a constrained length of failure, while including factors like pore water pressure and seismic loading. The results presented within this study demonstrate the capabilities of the variational 3D solution and can be used to evaluate approximate methods, numerical or closed‐form, developed in 3D slope stability analyses. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Bognor Regis</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/nag.2543</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0363-9061 |
ispartof | International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics, 2016-12, Vol.40 (18), p.2514-2531 |
issn | 0363-9061 1096-9853 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1864529866 |
source | Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | 3D stability analysis Algorithms Exact solutions Failure mechanisms kinematic admissibility limit analysis limit equilibrium Mathematical analysis Mathematical models Numerical methods Slope stability Slopes variational analysis |
title | Implications of variationally derived 3D failure mechanism |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T16%3A04%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Implications%20of%20variationally%20derived%203D%20failure%20mechanism&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20for%20numerical%20and%20analytical%20methods%20in%20geomechanics&rft.au=Zhang,%20Fei&rft.date=2016-12-25&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=2514&rft.epage=2531&rft.pages=2514-2531&rft.issn=0363-9061&rft.eissn=1096-9853&rft.coden=IJNGDZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/nag.2543&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1846408801%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1836885103&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |