647
General Report of TC103
Numerical Methods
Rapport général du TC103
Méthodes numériques
Chau K.T.
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
ABSTRACT: This general report summarizes 52 papers being included in the TC103 Session on Numerical Methods. Instead of
summarized each paper, we have provided an overall view of these papers. A master table (Table 3) is given for all 52 papers in terms
of the types of numerical methods empolyed by different authors, together with the full references given at the end of the paper (paper
number follows in alphabetic order). The numerical methods used include finite element method (FEM), finite difference method
(FDM), material point method (MPM), smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), neural network (NN), genetic algorithm (AG), and
finite volume method (FVM). The failure models used in studies include Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, Drucker-Prager plastic
potential, Cam clay model, Matsuoka-Nakai failure model, and Hoek-Brown failure criterion. These numerical analyses have been
applied to model piles, tunnels, retaining walls, slopes, levees, tailings impoundment, and breakwaters. Errors of and methods of
vailidation for finite element method given by Brinkgreve and Engin (2013) was summarized briefly. Future challenges in numerical
methods are outlined.
RÉSUMÉ :
Ce rapport général résume les 52 articles inclus dans la session du TC103 sur les méthodes numériques. Au lieu de
résumer chaque article, nous avons fourni une vue d'ensemble de ces documents qui sont décrits dans un tableau principal en fonction
des types de méthodes numériques employées par différents auteurs, avec les références complètes en fin d'article (numéros d’articles
selon un ordre alphabétique). Les méthodes numériques utilisées sont la méthode des éléments finis (FEM), la méthode des
différences finies (FDM), la méthode du point matériel (MPM), l’hydrodynamique de particules lissé (SPH), les réseaux de neurones
(NN), l’algorithme génétique (AG) et la méthode des volumes finis (FVM). Les modèles de rupture utilisés dans les études
comprennent le critère de Mohr-Coulomb, le potentiel plastique de Drucker-Prager, le modèle Cam-Clay, le modèle de rupture de
Matsuoka-Nakai et le critère de rupture de Hoek-Brown. Ces analyses numériques ont été appliquées aux pieux modèles, aux tunnels,
aux murs de soutènement, aux pentes, aux digues, aux résidus miniers et aux brise-lames. Les erreurs et les modalités de validation
pour la méthode des éléments finis donnée par Brinkgreve et Engin (2013) a été brièvement résumées. Certains défis à venir dans les
méthodes numériques sont présentés.
KEYWORDS: Numerical Methods, Finite Element Method, Finite Difference Method, Mesh-free Method, SPH, MPM
1 INTRODUCTION. FIRST LEVEL HEADING
A total of 52 papers were submitted to the Technical Session of
TC103: Numerical Methods. However, it should be noted that
there is a number of papers included in this TC103 that are
actually somewhat falled into the borderline between TC103
and other techncial committees, including Tc101 Laboratory
Testing, TC 104 In-situ Testing, TC203 Earthquake, TC204
Underground Construction, TC207 Soil-Structure-Retaining
Wall, TC208 Slope Stability, TC211 Ground Improvement,
TC202 Transportation, and TC301 Historical & Case Studies.
Some of these 52 papers included here could well be classified
into these TC sessions. Indeed, it is very difficult to find a
paper which is purely devoted to "Numerical Methods" without
addressing real problems, such as slopes, piles, transportation,
and underground constructons. The Sesssion Chairman is Prof.
H. Nicot, and Session General Reporter is Prof. K.T. Chau. The
main purpose of this general report is to summarize the issues
that these 52 technical papers addressed. Some essential issues
raised by these papers or related issues will be given at the end
of this general report.
It is not
an
easy job to summarize a wide variety of papers
within a short paper like this. Due to limitation of time and of
printing space, it is impossible for me to review all 52 papers in
great details and present them here. In addition, my summary to
be given here will evitably be constrained by my personal
educational background, my previous research works and my
current interests, on different topics and issues. Neverthless, if I
do not do full justice to any author, please offer me your
forgiveness and understanding.
Table 1 summarizes the number of papers from each
continent. Note that we only take the continent of the leading
author of each papers. Geographically, 23 papers are from
Europe, 15 from Asia, 8 from North America, 4 from Australia,
1 from South America and 1 from Africa. It appears that Europe
is most active in ISSMGE meeting but it can likely be
influenced by the location of the conference being at Paris,
France. Proximity always makes travel commitment easier.
Table 2 compiles the country distribution of all 52 papers. A
total of 29 conutries were represented, including 5 from Canada,
4 from Australia, Japan and Norway, 3 from Spain and UK, 2
from Iran, France, The Netherlands, Russia, Singapore and
USA, and 1 from each of the following countries and regions:
Bangladesh, Brazil, China (Mainland), China (Taiwan), Croatia,
Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland,
Mexico, Portugal, South Korea, Switzerland, and Thailand.
Note that this distribution may not be accurate since there are
collaborations from different universities and different countries.
We only count the country of the leading author. In addition,
most of these papers are from universities but there are also
some from consultant firms.
