soil structure interaction analysis methods state of ... · soil structure interaction analysis...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 2, No 1, 2011

© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services Research article ISSN 0976 – 4399

Received on July 2011 published on November 2011 176

Soil structure interaction analysis methods State of artReview Siddharth G. Shah 1 , Solanki C.H. 2 , Desai J.A. 3

1, Research Scholar 2 Associate Professor,

SV National Institute of Technology Surat, Gujarat, India. 1 Asst. Prof, 3 Director & Professor

C G Patel Institute of Technology, Uka Tarsadia University, Bardoli, Gujarat, India. [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Soil flexibility has to be considered in the analysis of massive structures to avoid failure and ensure safe service. Post failure analysis of massive structures realized the importance of SSIsoil structure interaction. In the literature as many as half dozen methods are available but researches and designers are not clear about the history & development in this field. Current paper attempts to review the stat of art about soil structure interaction analysis methods. The review reveals that for simple analysis direct methodsGlobal procedures are physible while for non linear analysis substructure method is effective and simple to apply.

Keywords: Soil structure interaction, global procedure, local procedure, thin layer method, boundary layer method, finite element method, transmitting boundary, infinite element, absorbing boundary.

1. Introduction

Soil conditions have a great deal to do with damage to structures during earthquakes. Foundation motions deviate from freefield motions for two principal reasons: (1) the imposition of stiff foundation systems on (or in) a geologic medium experiencing nonuniform shaking will result in foundation motions being reduced relative to those in the freefield and (2) inertial forces developed in the structure will cause base shear and moment, which in turn will induce relative foundation/freefield motions due to the foundation compliance. These phenomena are commonly termed SoilStructure Interaction (SSI). The general SSI problem is subdivided into kinematic SSI, which is concerned with first factor identified above, and inertial SSI, which is concerned with the second factor. Depending mainly on the relative stiffness of the soil and structure, SSI can have an impact on the response of the structure.

Over the last four decades, various methods have been proposed for the solution of wave equations in unbounded domains. This paper summarizes briefly the existing literature with particular emphasis on the dynamic soilstructure interaction. In general, these approaches fall into two broad categories: global and local procedures. Global procedures in Section 2 are divided into subsections presenting the boundary element method, thin layer method, exact nonreflecting boundary conditions and the scaled boundary finite

Soil structure interaction analysis methods State of artReview Siddharth G. Shah et.al.,

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 177

element method. Local procedures in Section 3 are grouped as transmitting boundary conditions, infinite elements and absorbing layers. An investigation on the capacity of popular commercial finiteelement packages for modeling unbounded domains is presented in Section 4.

2. Global procedures

Global procedures have been proposed for the dynamic analysis of unbounded domains from 1970s. They are constructed through integral operators with respect to space or time leading to globality in space or time. This is consistent with the physical nature of wave propagation. the global procedures are generally rigorous. Due to their high accuracy, they can be placed immediately beyond the structuremedia interface leading to a reduction of the number of degrees of freedom in the bounded domain and thus total computational time. However, because of the spatially and temporally global formulation the computational effort in global procedures increases with the size of the problem. Generally speaking, extension to unbounded domains of general anisotropic and non homogeneous media with arbitrary geometry increases the complexity of the global procedures.

2.1 Boundary Element Method

The well known boundary element method based on boundary integral equations presents an attractive computational framework especially for problems involving singularity and unbounded domains. The basic idea of this method is to formulate the equation of motion of the unbounded domain in the form of an integral equation instead of a differential equation. Finally, this integral equation is solved numerically. The method has been applied in various areas of engineering and science. A detailed literature on the formulation of the method and its applications in different fields is addressed in the book by Brebbia et al. (1984). A full literature review on the method is beyond the scope of this paper.

Firstly, essential features of the method are summarized. Secondly, a brief review of the recent researches for the dynamic soilstructure interaction analysis with the particular emphasis on anisotropic and nonhomogeneous soils is presented. Finally, new developments for improving the efficiency of the method are summarized.

In the boundary element method (Beskos, 1987, 1997; Hall and Oliveto, 2003) (Figure 2.1) rather than throughout the interior domain (Ω), as its name suggests, only the boundary (Γ) is discretized resulting in a reduction of the spatial discretization by one. For instance, for a threedimensional problem only a twodimensional surface has to be addressed. Surface and line elements are used to discretize the structuresoil interface in three and twodimensional problems, respectively. Over each element the functions under consideration, for example displacement in elastodynamics, can vary in much the same manner as in finite elements. They are interpolated in terms of the nodal values by the socalled shape functions in a local coordinate system. The weighting functions are chosen as fundamental solutions, or Green’s functions, satisfying rigorously the radiation condition at infinity and the governing equations. Generally speaking, the exact solution


International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011

178

of the governing equation subjected to a concentrated unit load in an infinite domain represents the fundamental solution.

Figure 2.1: Spatial discretization in boundary element method for an unbounded domain

The boundary element method is applicable to problems for which the fundamental solutions can be calculated. Determining the fundamental solutions for general anisotropic media is very complicated and sometimes even impossible. Applying the fundamental solutions and the method of weighted residual to the governing equations followed by integration by parts, yields the boundary integral equation. For example, a typical boundary integral equation in the frequency domain is in the form

= +

Where, and are the corresponding displacements and tractions respectively,

describing the fundamental solutions. B j (ω) is the body load. U j (ω) and Pj (ω) are the boundary displacement and tractions respectively.

As can be observed in Eq. (2.1), only the contribution of body load B j (ω) is represented by an integration over the domain Ω. Two other terms are expressed by the integration over the boundary Γ. The boundary integral equation (Eq. (2.1)) is discretized into boundary elements. Generally, the integrals involving fundamental solutions are performed by using numerical integration schemes. The fundamental solutions are generally the response to a concentrated force. They are singular. Special techniques have to be applied to compute their integrals. Having calculated the integrations and discretized Eq. (2.1) for different nodes, a global system of linear algebraic equations is



179

derived. After imposing the prescribed boundary conditions, the system of linear algebraic equations can be solved by direct or iterative solvers for unknown nodal values. The coefficient matrices are fully populated and nonsymmetric. This leads to a high storage requirement and computational costs. Boundary integral equation can also be formulated in the time domain.

=

+

Convolution integrals are encountered. Evaluation of these convolution integrals leads to a large amount of computational costs. The fundamental solutions for fullplane or full space are derived without satisfying any boundary condition. Using these fundamental solutions, one has to discretize the free surfaces (halfplanes or halfspaces) (Figure 2.2a). In the boundary element method, the interface between two different materials when non homogeneity is encountered, has to be discretized (Figure 2.2a) too. Obviously, the infinite extent of these boundaries requires a special treatment in any numerical scheme. The most straightforward approach consists in restricting the discretization to a finite part of the boundary, thereby truncating the boundary integrals leading to modeling errors. To reduce the computational efforts, in addition to fundamental solutions for fullspace or fullplane in three and twodimensional problems, fundamental solutions for halfspace or halfplane may also be determined. These fundamental solutions satisfy the boundary conditions on the free surfaces of halfplane or halfspace. Doing so, the freesurfaces need not to be discretized reducing considerably the amount of numerical work involved in the solution of the problem (Figure 2.2b). An infinite boundary element has also been developed by Zhang et al. (1989, 1991) for dynamic problems of threedimensional half space by making use of the transformation technique from an infinite domain to a finite domain. A decaytype shape function based on the asymptotic behavior of fundamental solutions for threedimensional dynamic problems was used in the element. The coupled finiteelement/boundary element method has been used in wave propagation problems as well. In this case, the bounded domain is modeled by finite elements and the unbounded domain by boundary element method.

Figure 2.2: (a) boundary discretization in the boundary element method when fundamental solutions for fullplane are used and the discretization of interface between different materials when nonhomogeneity is encountered; (b) boundary discretization

when fundamental solutions for halfplane are used.



180

The earliest works on applying boundary element method to soilstructure interaction problems address the homogeneous isotropic unbounded domains. Luco and Westmann (1971) studied the dynamic response of a rigid circular footing on the surface of an isotropic halfspace using the mixed boundary value problem. Wong and Luco (1976) computed the dynamic compliance of a surface rigid massless foundation of arbitrary shape on an elastic halfspace by dividing the soilfoundation interface into rectangular elements. They used the integration of Lamb’s point load solution to obtain the relation between the tractions over an element and the displacements on the soil surface. It was actually a boundary element method with a halfspace fundamental solution. Dominguez (1978) applied for the first time the boundary element method to dynamic soilstructure interaction problems. Using a frequencydomain formulation he obtained the dynamic stiffness of rectangular foundations resting on, or embedded in, a viscoelastic halfspace. From the early 1970s the boundary integral methods have been used for the dynamic analysis of soilstructure interaction problems in anisotropic soils. A brief literature review for the frequencydomain analysis is included here. Freedman and Keer (1972) studied the response of a body resting on the surface of a transversely isotropic halfplane and presented exact solutions in terms of dual integral equations. Wang and Rajapakse (1991) studied the dynamic response of rigid strip foundations embedded in orthotropic elastic soils. Rajapakse and Wang (1993) presented a boundary integral solution for the dynamic response of threedimensional problems in a transversely isotropic elastic half space. They applied the Fourier expansion with respect to the circumferential coordinate and Hankel integral transforms with respect to the radial coordinates to derive general solutions for equations of equilibrium expressed in terms of displacements. These general solutions are used to derive the explicit solutions for Green’s functions corresponding to a set of timeharmonic circular ring loads acting inside a halfspace. Wang and

Achenbach (1995) obtained Green’s functions in an anisotropic medium by using the Radon transform. This transformation reduces a three or twodimensional partial differential equation to onedimensional differential equations of the same kind. Having solved the onedimensional problem, the 3D and 2D solutions follow from the inverse Radon transform. Dravinski and Zhang (2000) utilized the Radon transform to develop an efficient algorithm for evaluation of timeharmonic Green’s functions for an orthotropic fullspace. Wang and Rajapakse (2000) used the boundary element method to investigate the dynamic response of rigid massless cylindrical and hemispherical foundations embedded in transversely isotropic elastic soils. Ahmad et al. (2001) analyzed the time harmonic twodimensional elastodynamic problems of anisotropic media. They used the full and halfspace Green’s functions developed by Rajapakse and Wang (1991), higher order isoparametric curvilinear boundary elements and the selfadapting numerical integration technique to deal with problems of orthotropic and nonorthotropic solids with arbitrary geometries. They illustrated the effect of soil anisotropy on the compliance of a rigid strip foundation resting on a twolayered media through an extensive parametric study. Dravinski and Niu (2002) developed threedimensional timeharmonic Green’s functions based on Radon transform for the most general anisotropic material, i.e., for a triclinic material. They used a symbolic computation system to efficiently evaluate the finite integrals of the Green’s function. One and twodimensional Gauss Legendre quadratures were used. Niu and Dravinski (2003) used the timeharmonic Green’s functions proposed in Dravinski and Niu (2002) to study the scattering of elastic



181

waves in 3D general anisotropic media (triclinic). They formulated the scattering problems for scatterer in form of a cavity only. Denda et al. (2003) investigated two dimensional time harmonic response of solids of general anisotropy. They split the fundamental solution obtained by Radon transform into static singular and dynamic regular parts. The boundary integrals for the static singular part are evaluated analytically and those for the dynamic regular part numerically over a unit circle. They also applied the developed boundary element method to an eigenvalue analysis. Arias and Achenbach (2004) proposed a simple approach to correct the error introduced by the truncation of the infinite boundary in the boundary element method modeling of elastodynamic wave propagation in semiinfinite domains when Green’s functions of a fullspace are used. They exploited the asymptotic behavior of the solution and invoked the reciprocity theorem of elastodynamics to adequately correct the boundary element method results. Chen and Dravinski (2007) derived the displacement and stress Green’s functions for a general anisotropic 2D halfspace with embedded harmonic line load. Both displacement and stress fields were expressed in terms of double Fourier integrals. The integrals were evaluated by using contour integrations and a composite GaussLegendre quadrature over a finite domain. Only a limited number of boundary element method studies have taken into account the nonhomogeneity of soils in a dynamic soilstructure interaction analysis. Most of them are for cases when the foundation is located at the surface of the unbounded soil. A summary of the existing literature is presented here. Guzina and Pak (1998) studied the vertical vibration of a rigid circular footing resting on an elastic halfspace with a linear wave velocity profile in the vertical direction. Using a displacement potential representation and integral transforms, the problem is formulated as a set of dual integral equations which are reducible to a Fredholm’s integral equation. Pak and Guzina (1999) derived a regularized format of the timeharmonic direct boundary element formulations for the threedimensional elastodynamics for general anisotropic materials. As in the conventional direct boundary element methods the evaluation of the Cauchy principal values leads to mathematical and numerical complexities, they derived the regularized boundary integral equation based on the decomposition of Green’s functions into their singular and regular parts. This alternative form of the conventional boundary integral equation involves weakly singular integrals only. They extended their formulations to the general soilstructure interaction problems in the semiinfinite domains including inhomogeneous and anisotropic media. Vrettos (1999) investigated the vertical and rocking response of rigid rectangular foundations resting on a linear elastic nonhomogeneous halfspace utilizing semianalytical solutions for mixed boundary value integrations. Using the boundary integral method, Muravskii (2001) studied the dynamic response of surface footings on a heterogeneous isotropic and transversely isotropic elastic halfspace. The variation of shear modulus with depth as linear functions and as exponential functions to a finite or infinite depth are addressed.

Most of the studies for the dynamic analysis of soilstructure interaction problems in non homogeneous anisotropic soils using the boundary element method have been carried out in the frequency domain. Here a summary of works done in the time domain is presented. Wang and Achenbach (1992, 1993) developed two and threedimensional Green’s functions for general anisotropic media based on Radon transform. Rajapakse and Gross (1995) investigated the timedomain response of an orthotropic elastic halfplane containing a cavity of arbitrary shape using the Laplace transformation. Wang et



182

al.(1996) presented a twodimensional transient boundary element method using the Green’s functions presented by Wang and Achenbach (1993) to solve elastodynamic boundary initialvalue problems in solids of general anisotropy. Richter and Schmid (1999) derived the transient Green’s functions of the elastodynamic halfplane for cases where source and observation points are situated beneath the tractionfree surface. The derivations are based on Laplace transform methods and the Cagniardde Hoop inversion.

In the conventional boundary element approaches, the storage requirements and computational time will tend to grow according to the square of the problem size. This is because of the dense and nonsymmetric nature of the boundary element matrix. To improve the efficiency in terms of computational time and memory requirement, several fast algorithms have been proposed in the past 20 years. Fast multipole method was first introduced by Rokhlin (1983). It was developed for potential problems based on iterative algorithms. It has been shown that this approach is efficient for the integral equations of second kind. For the integral equations of first kind, appropriate matrix conditioning techniques are necessary to result in similar computational costs because of the unboundedness of the condition number of the matrix. Alpert et al. (1993) proposed waveletbased methods. They transformed the coefficient matrix to waveletlike coordinates leading to a sparse matrix. Grigoriev and Dargush (2004b) proposed a fast multilevel boundary element method for the twodimensional solution of Laplace equation with mixed boundary condition. They used doublenoded corners to facilitate the implementation of a patchby patch boundary element. They employed a biconjugate gradient method as an iterative solver and also utilized the multigrid method to accelerate the convergence rate of the proposed iterative solver. They later extended the fast multilevel boundary element into Helmholtz (Grigoriev and Dargush, 2004a) and Stokes problems (Grigoriev and Dargush,2005). Wang et al. (2005) recently applied the fast multilevel boundary element into the transient diffusion. In addition to fast algorithms, the symmetric Galerkin boundary element methods have been proposed. The symmetry property of the coefficient matrices permits the employment of efficient symmetric solvers. The symmetric Galerkin boundary element methods are beneficial from the point of view of coupling with finite elements as well. The main difficulty associated with the symmetric Galerkin boundary element methods is the existence of hyper singular integrals leading to more complex fundamental solutions. A fairly extensive recent review on symmetric Galerkin boundary element methods can be found in Bonnet et al. (1998). PerezGavilan and Aliabadi (2001) presented a symmetric Galerkin boundary element formulation for the frequencydomain solution of two dimensional viscoelastic problems. Kallivokas et al. (2005) introduced a symmetric Galerkin boundary element method for the solution of interior problems based on an energybased variational framework.

In summary, in the boundary element method only the boundary is discretized reducing the spatial discretization by one. The fundamental solutions satisfy rigorously the governing equations and the radiation condition at infinity. Although the boundary element method in last four decades has gained the recognition as the logical tool for dealing with unbounded domain problems, difficulties are encountered in its application to many practical engineering problems owing to its reliance on the fundamental solution. For instance, when the material is general anisotropic, the complexity of the fundamental



183

solution increases dramatically. Furthermore, in the conventional boundary element methods the coefficient matrices are densely populated and unsymmetric. It leads to expensive computations. Fictitious frequencies embedded in singular integral equations are encountered in the frequencydomain analysis (Brebbia et al., 1984) too.

2.2 Thin layer method

The rigorous thin layer method, also known as consistent boundary or hyperelement, was first developed by Lysmer and Waas (1972) for the dynamic analysis of unbounded domains subjected to antiplane loads. This method discretizes the boundary in the vertical direction only consistent with that used for finite elements (Figure 2.3). The displacement functions in the horizontal direction are expressed analytically to satisfy the radiation condition at infinity. This semianalytical technique is well suited to model horizontal layers Layered medium.

Figure 2.3: Spatial discretization in thin layer method

Absorbing boundaries with material properties varying in the vertical direction. The boundary conditions on the free surfaces and on the interfaces between adjacent layers are rigorously satisfied with the same computational effort as for a homogeneous horizontal layer. Thin layer method can be easily implemented in a finiteelement analysis. Applying the semidiscretization to the governing equations of motion and enforcing the relevant boundary conditions, result in a complexvalued quadratic eigen value problem in the frequency domain. After solving the complex eigenvalue problem, the wave numbers and the corresponding mode shapes of the waves in the medium are determined yielding the dynamicstiffness matrix. The Fourier transformation can be applied to the displacement functions obtained in the frequency domain to compute the response in the time domain. It is obtained step by step by: (1) formulating the equations of motion in the frequencywavenumber domain; (2) solving a complexvalued quadratic eigenvalue problem in the wavenumbers; (3) integrating analytically the displacement functions over wavenumbers; (4) integrating numerically the displacement functions over frequencies by means of the Fast Fourier transform (Kausel, 1992). In the following the literature for the thin layer method is briefly reviewed.

Waas (1972) extended the method to inplane motion of layered soils. Kausel et al. (1975) and Kausel and Roesset (1977) generalized the method to axisymmetric problems.



184

Kausel and Peek (1982) applied the method to obtain Green’s functions for point forces acting within (or on) a layered medium. These Green’s functions were later extended by Seale and Kausel (1989) for the modeling of layered media over elastic halfspaces. The thin layer method was extended to poroelastic unbounded domains by Bougacha et al. (1993). Kausel (1992) extended the thin layer method to the timedomain formulation. The extension is restricted to a class of anisotropic materials for which the required linear eigenvalue problem involves only real, narrowly banded symmetric matrices. In this approach the timedomain formulation is obtained by: (1) expressing the governing equations in the frequencywavenumber domain; (2) solving a linear realvalued eigen value problem in the frequency variable; (3) performing an analytical integration of the displacement functions over frequencies; and finally (4) performing a numerical transformation of the displacement functions over wavenumbers. This formulation avoids using the complex variables, involves only a real, linear eigenvalue problem and allows obtaining the Green’s functions directly in the time domain. This strategy is particularly appealing for the problems when the response is required at only a few receivers, when the dynamic loads do not vary sharply in space, when the loads are applied impulsively, and when the system has little or no damping (Kausel, 1992). Kausel (1999) presented Green’s functions for the solution of various types of point sources acting within (or on) horizontally layered media: point forces, force dipoles, blast loads, seismic double couples with no net resultant and moment dipoles. He modeled the full space in the examples with a homogeneous finite layer of unit depth (horizontal

layer) to which paraxial boundaries were added to simulate the infinite medium. Park and Tassoulas (2002) extended the thin layer method into inclined boundaries with the so called zigzag shape for both antiplane motion and planestrain problems. In the thin layer method, since it is necessary to consider a rigid rock under the layered media, the formulation ignores any possible vertical radiation. The assumption of rigid bases and horizontally layered media are not always close to reality. There are cases in practical geotechnical problems where the soil deposit is not very rigid or the soil geometry is far from being horizontally layered.

2.3 The Scaled boundary finiteelement method

The scaled boundary finiteelement method, a fundamentalsolutionless boundary element method, is an attractive alternative to the numerical schemes in computational mechanics. It not only combines some important advantages of the finiteelement and boundary element methods but also has its own salient features. This method, which is semianalytical, is based on the finiteelement technology so that it does not require fundamental solutions. The radiation condition at infinity is satisfied rigorously. Like the boundary element method only the boundary is discretized reducing the spatial discretization by one and leading to the increase of computational efficiency. Problems involving stress singularities and discontinuities can be modeled accurately. Anisotropic media can be handled without additional computational efforts.

In the scaled boundary finiteelement method, a socalled scaling center O is chosen in a zone from which the total boundary, other than the straight surfaces passing through the scaling center must be visible (Figure 2.4a). Only the boundary S directly visible from the



185

scaling center O is discretized as shown in Figure 2.4a. Onedimensional line element is used (Figure 2.4b). The straight surfaces passing through the scaling center (side faces) and the interfaces between different materials are not discretized (Figure 2.4a). The geometry of an element on the boundary is interpolated using the shape functions formulated in the local coordinate η in the same way as in the finiteelement method. The geometry of the Side faces

Figure 2.4: (a) Spatial discretization for an unbounded domain in scaled boundary finite element method; (b) threenode line element on boundary domain V is described by scaling the boundary with the dimensionless radial coordinate ξ pointing from the scaling center to a point on the boundary (Figure 2.4a).

The radial and circumferential coordinates ξ and η form the scaled boundary coordinates. Along the radial lines passing through the scaling center and a node on the boundary, the nodal displacement functions are introduced. The shape functions are employed in the circumferential direction to interpolate the displacement functions piece wisely. Having expressed the governing differential equations in the scaled boundary coordinates, Galerkin’s weighted residual method or the principle of virtual work is applied in the circumferential direction transforming the governing partial differential equations to the ordinary differential equations with the radial coordinate ξ as an independent variable. This set of EulerCauchy ordinary differential equations is called the scaled boundary finiteelement equation in displacement. The coefficient matrices of this scaled boundary finiteelement equation are calculated and assembled in the same way as the static stiffness and mass matrices in the finiteelement method. For static analysis, the scaled boundary finiteelement equation can be transformed into a system of firstorder ordinary differential equations. An eigen value problem can be used to solve this system of first order ordinary differential equations. Thus, the displacement and stress fields are described by semianalytical solutions permitting the boundary condition at infinity to be satisfied rigorously. Obtaining the nodal forces on the boundary, introducing the definition of the dynamicstiffness matrix of an unbounded domain on the boundary and making use of the scaled boundary finiteelement equation in displacement, the scaled boundary finiteelement equation in dynamic stiffness with the frequency as the independent variable is derived. It is a system of nonlinear firstorder ordinary



186

differential equations to be solved numerically for the dynamicstiffness matrix. The radiation condition at infinity is satisfied using an asymptotic expansion of the dynamic stiffness matrix for high frequency. Applying the inverse Fourier transformation to the scaled boundary finiteelement equation in dynamic stiffness leads to the scaled boundary finiteelement equation in time domain involving the convolution integrals. The time discretization method is used to solve the scaled boundary finiteelement equation in the time domain.

A literature review on the evolution of the method from the first inspiration until March 2006 is presented by Vu (2006) in her PhD thesis. A brief summary with emphasis on the application to the dynamic soilstructure interaction analysis is provided here.

3. Local procedures

To avoid the expensive computational problems associated with the global procedures, various local procedures have been proposed over the last four decades. As was explained in Section 1.4.2 local procedures are approximate. In them the response at a specified location and time depends to the response at its immediate neighbors (spatially local) and at a few previous times (temporally local). Most of them are constructed based on the theory of wave propagation and using differential operators to enforce outgoing plane waves (Wolf and Song, 1996). They can be constructed by enforcing artificial damping to a finite layer to absorb the outgoing waves too. On the surface, the local procedures appear to be vastly different from each other from the mathematical formulation, conceptual basis and implementation point of views. However, many of them are mathematically related and comparable in energyabsorbing performance (Kausel, 1988). Generally speaking, local procedures are algorithmically simple so that most of them can be easily implemented into the finitedifference or the finiteelement methods. The approximations in the local procedures lead to spurious reflections from the artificial boundary. In order to obtain results of an acceptable level of accuracy a local procedure has to be applied at a socalled artificial boundary sufficiently far away from the structuremedia interface. It increases the number of degrees of freedom in the computational domain. Most of the local procedures have been developed for scalar wave equations in unbounded domains of simple geometry and material property. However, a reliable local procedure for modeling vector wave equations in unbounded domains of arbitrary geometry and material property does not exist at present.

3.1 Transmitting boundary conditions

Transmitting boundary conditions have been introduced since the late 1960s. Most of them are based on the mathematical representation of plane wave propagation to eliminate the incident waves at special angle of incident. Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer (1969) proposed the first transmitting boundary for elastodynamics often referred to as the classical viscous boundary condition. It absorbs plane waves propagating perpendicularly to the artificial boundary. For twodimensional cases the viscous boundary condition is formulated as ∂u



187

σ = a ρ Cp

τ = b ρ Cs

where,

σ and τ are the normal and shear stresses on the boundary, respectively; ρ is the mass density;

Cp and Cs are the longitudinal and shear wave velocities, respectively and u and v are the normal and tangential displacements on the boundary, respectively.

Dimensionless parameters a and b are chosen to minimize the reflected energy for an incident plane wave impinging at a given angle of incidence. Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer (1969) found that the choice of a = b = 1 leads to good absorptions. The viscous boundary condition can easily be implemented in finiteelement codes for both frequencydomain and transient analyses. It is algorithmically simple, geometrically universal and frequency independent. As dashpots have no static stiffness, the viscous boundary condition is not able to model a static problem as the limiting case of a dynamic problem at low frequency. White et al. (1977) proposed the unified boundary condition which is a viscous boundary condition applicable to anisotropic media with a certain choice of the parameters a and b. By discretizing the domain using the finite elements, and then determining the linear relationship between stresses and velocities on the boundary, they obtained the parameters a and b. They presented formulations for both planestrain and Axisymmetric conditions. Akiyoshi (1978) presented a viscous boundary for shear waves called compatible viscous boundary. It is actually a correction to the viscous boundary to account for the discretization scheme used for the domain. This approach has the disadvantage of involving a convolution integral in its formulation. It loses the local character of the boundary condition. Smith (1974) proposed the superposition boundary condition to solve both the scalar and elastic wave propagation problems. The superposition boundary averages the solutions from two sets of boundary conditions corresponding to symmetry and antisymmetry, which eliminates the reflected waves for a single boundary. The formulation is independent of both frequency and angle of incidence. This boundary condition is not able to eliminate multiple reflections. The superposition boundary condition was later modified to overcome multiple reflections by introducing two overlapping narrow boundary neighborhoods in which the reflected waves are canceled as they occur (Cundall et al., 1978; Kunar and Marti, 1981). Underwood and Geers (1981) introduced the doublyasymptotic boundary condition for dynamic soilstructure interaction. In this boundary, dashpots and coupled static springs are used which are asymptotically exact at high and low frequencies for plane waves propagating perpendicularly to the boundary, respectively. They used the boundary element method to determine the staticstiffness matrix for the medium leading to fully coupled and nonsymmetric coefficients. The doublyasymptotic boundary results in errors for modeling the intermediate frequencies. The approach is temporally local but spatially global. The low accuracy is the most important concern associated with the



188

above mentioned transmitting boundary conditions named as Sommerfeldlike transmitting boundary conditions (Givoli, 2004). Since late 1970s, highorder transmitting boundary conditions have been proposed for modeling unbounded domains. They have the potential of leading to accurate results with increasing orders of approximation. At the same time, they are computationally efficient owing to the local formulation. Lindman (1975) proposed a very general set of transmitting boundary conditions using projection operators leading to a high degree of effectiveness for the timedependent scalar wave equations. He determined coefficients for the highorder boundary conditions to minimize reflections over a broad range of angle of incidence for both traveling and evanescent waves. Engquist and Majda (1977) and Clayton and Engquist (1977) proposed the socalled paraxial boundary conditions, which are closely related to the boundary conditions proposed by Lindman (1975), using rational approximations (Padé) to pseudodifferential equations for scalar and elastic wave equations. This paraxial boundary constructs a differential equation which favors outgoing waves by splitting the differential operator of the wave equation for plane waves. It was the first time that the method of rational approximation appeared as a tool to derive local absorbing boundary conditions. The paraxial boundary condition is exact for plane waves propagating perpendicularly to the boundary and any wave with oblique incidence will necessarily cause some reflections. The paraxial boundary condition leads to a formulation with highorder derivatives. The first and secondorder paraxial boundary conditions for scalar wave equations in rectangular coordinates are formulated as

u = 0

u = 0

The firstorder boundary condition (Eq. (2.8)) is identical to the viscous boundary condition. They showed that for any given angle of incidence other than right angle, the secondorder boundary condition (Eq. (2.9)) generates less reflections than the firstorder one (Eq. (2.8)). The EngquistMajda boundary conditions are easily implemented in a finitedifference scheme. There are instability problems associated with higher order boundaries and for inclined body waves (Wolf, 1988). Bayliss and Turkel (1980) proposed a sequence of transmitting boundary conditions based on an asymptotic expansion of an exact solution at large distances for timedependent wavelike equations in polar coordinate systems. They constructed a set of special local differential relations that identically eliminates a prescribed number of leading terms in the corresponding series. For threedimensional scalar wave equation in spherical coordinates, the m th Bayliss and Turkel boundary condition is formulated as



189

The highorder formulations lead to higher derivatives. The first order Bayliss and Turkel boundary coincides with the firstorder Engquist and Majda boundary. Bayliss et al. (1982) extended the approach to Helmholtz and Laplace equations and implemented them into finite elements. Utilizing the idea of factorizing the highorder operators, Higdon (1986) constructed multidirectional boundary conditions for the scalar and elastic wave equations at preselected angles of incidence. He demonstrated that all transmitting boundary conditions based on a rational approximation of a pseudo differential operator can be cast in this form so that they are special cases of his multi directional boundary condition. Higdon’s boundary condition is expressed as

where, α is the angle of incidence.

The multidirectional boundary condition which is exact for plane waves propagating at preselected angle of incidence, can be regarded as the general case of the viscous and paraxial boundaries. The higher the number of orders, the higher the accuracy is. In his numerical studies, Higdon found instabilities for thirdorders of these boundary conditions. Same as in the paraxial boundary, number of orders higher than two is not practical. Higdon later extended this idea to stratified media (Higdon, 1992) and dispersive systems (Higdon, 1994). Liao and Wong (1984) proposed the extrapolation boundary condition in elastodynamics which calculates the displacements at the artificial boundary by extrapolating the data in the interior nodes at earlier times requiring an estimate of the propagation velocity. Using higher order extrapolation or smaller distance between the data points, can lead to more accurate results. For frequencies less than the cutoff frequency, increasing the order of extrapolation does not improve accuracy. Extrapolation boundary condition is more convenient to be implemented into finite elements. Later Liao (1996) generalized the original extrapolation boundary condition by coupling a space extrapolation to the spacetime extrapolation and by introducing multiple artificial wave speeds. Explicit timeintegration schemes can only be used to perform a timedomain analysis. The socalled doubly asymptotic multi directional transmitting boundary (Wolf and Song, 1995b) combines the advantages of the doubly asymptotic and multidirectional boundary conditions. Wolf and Song (1995b) used the interaction forces rather than displacements in the doubly asymptotic operators and discretized the boundary condition with a forward difference formula. The static or low frequency behavior is modeled using a doubly asymptotic boundary implemented implicitly. This boundary condition is temporally local but spatially global due to fully coupled staticstiffness matrix in doubly asymptotic formulation. They used an approximate banded staticstiffness matrix to construct a spatially local boundary condition. Kellezi (2000) developed the so called linear cone and cone boundary conditions for 2D and 3D transient models, respectively, which can be considered as doubly asymptotic ones and a generalization of the viscous boundary. In constructing these boundary conditions, it is assumed that the body waves in planestrain analysis should propagate radially outward along a cylindrical and hemispherical wave front for



190

two and threedimensional cases, respectively. In the original highorder transmitting boundary conditions the order of derivatives in the formulations increases with the order of the transmitting boundary so that beyond the second order, the implementation in a finiteelement computer program becomes complex and instability may occur. Their secondorder terms are still widely used. (Givoli, 2004) considers these original ones as loworder transmitting boundary conditions. Introducing auxiliary variables to highorder transmitting boundary conditions to eliminate higherorder derivatives has recently attracted interest of many researchers. Most of them have been developed for scalar wave equations with simple geometry and isotropic and homogeneous materials. For certain types of waves and geometries of unbounded domains, a twoand threedimensional problem can be decomposed into a series of onedimensional problems. The method of separation of variables is applicable to the Helmholtz equation in cylindrical and spherical unbounded domains. Starting from onedimensional wave equations, approximate procedures can be constructed. They lead to a system of linear firstorder ordinary differential equations in the time domain. These highorder transmitting boundary conditions are increasingly recognized as a potential technique for modeling unbounded domains. They have the potential of leading to accurate results with increasing orders of approximation. The order of boundary condition can be easily increased to a desired level. They are local in time but nonlocal in space. They not only can produce numerical results of high accuracy but also can be straightforwardly implemented into finite elements. However, the application of current methods for constructing highorder transmitting boundary conditions is usually limited to unbounded domains of simple geometry. The extension to elastic wave propagation in unbounded domains of arbitrary geometry and material property is not a straightforward task. Here the literature of the existing highorder transmitting boundary conditions is briefly reviewed. Grote and Keller (1995a) developed highorder local boundary conditions for threedimensional timedependent scalar wave equations based on spherical harmonic transformations. These boundary conditions are constructed for threedimensional problems as they are based on special properties of the spherical harmonics. Grote and Keller (1996) implemented the boundary condition developed in Grote and Keller (1995a) within finite difference and finiteelement methods and proved the uniqueness of the solution and discussed the stability issues associated with their boundary condition. They later extended the highorder boundary condition to threedimensional elastodynamics (Grote and Keller, 2000) and Maxwell equations (Grote and Keller, 1998). Thompson and Huan (2000) rederived the highorder boundary conditions presented in Grote and Keller (1995a, 1996) to improve the scaling of the related first order system of equations. They (Thompson and Huan, 1999, 2000) implemented the local highorder boundary condition into the standard finiteelement method with several alternative implicit and explicit time integrators. Most recently, Grote (2006) derived a spatially local formulation for the boundary condition proposed in Grote and Keller (1998) for threedimensional timedependent Maxwell equations. It only involves first time derivatives and second tangential derivatives of the electromagnetic field and is of certain auxiliary functions. This new boundary condition does not need any vector spherical harmonics or inner products with them. It leads to a somewhat easier and cheaper implementation. Hagstrom and Hariharan (1998) derived local highorder boundary conditions for two and threedimensional timedependent scalar and Maxwell



191

wave equations based on Bayliss and Turkel (1980) operators representing outgoing solution of the equations. Twodimensional boundary conditions are asymptotic while the threedimensional ones are exact. Huan and Thompson (2000) rederived the sequence of boundary conditions formulated in Hagstrom and Hariharan (1998) based on the hierarchy of local boundary operators used by Bayliss and Turkel (1980) and a recursion relation for the expansion coefficients appearing in a radial asymptotic expansion. They later in Thompson et al. (2001) extended this idea into twodimensional scalar wave equations on a circle. Zhao and Liu (2002) rederived the local highorder boundary conditions proposed in Hagstrom and Hariharan (1998) for twodimensional scalar problems using the operator splitting method. They later in Zhao and Liu (2003) used the splitting operator method to derive a highorder local boundary condition for a two dimensional infinite horizontal layer. Ruge et al. (2001) used a mixedvariable formulation to transfer the solution of an unbounded domain approximated by a Padé series in the frequency domain, into a highorder local boundary condition used for the solution directly in the time domain. The mixedvariable formulation possesses a continuedfraction form. The technique is applicable to scalar and vector wave equations, arbitrary geometries and anisotropic and nonhomogeneous materials. However, the dynamicstiffness matrix has to be specified at discrete frequencies using the global procedures, for instance boundary element method or the scaled boundary finiteelement method, resulting in a high computational cost. Krenk (2002) derived a highorder transmitting boundary condition from a rational function approximation of the plane wave representation for scalar waves. This boundary condition is a modified form of that proposed by Lindman (1975). It is suitable for the finiteelement formulation. Guddati and Tassoulas (2000) developed a highorder local boundary condition based on recursive continued fraction of the dispersion relation for scalar wave equations in Cartesian coordinates. This continuedfraction boundary was limited to straight computational boundaries. Most recently, Guddati and Lim (2006) extended the continuedfraction absorbing boundary condition to polygonal computational domains. In their new derivations, the infinite domain is replaced by a computationally tractable finiteelement mesh to absorb the propagating waves. The infinite domain is recursively split to an infinite number of finite element layers. Length of each layer is frequency dependent and determined by choosing reference phase velocities. They found a link between the continued fraction and the complex coordinate stretching of perfectly matched layers. Zahid and Guddati (2006) modified the continuedfraction absorbing boundary condition with adding padding elements to model dispersive waves. Special techniques were used to discretize the resulting system of evolution equations which are different form the conventional secondorder systems in dynamic problems.

Givoli and Patlashenko (2002) proposed a frequencydomain highorder local boundary condition for twodimensional Helmholtz equation based on the localization of the non local DtN map in the frequency domain. The boundary geometry is of 2D cylindrical and 2D waveguide configurations. Givoli and Neta (2003) developed highorder boundary conditions based on Higdon (1986) boundary condition for both dispersive and non dispersive linear timedependent scalar waves. It was limited to a geometry with a single plane boundary (wave guide). In his review paper, Givoli (2004) summarizes the key aspects of different highorder local boundary conditions developed by that time. Hagstrom and Warburton (2004) generalized Givoli and Neta (2003) boundary condition



192

to a fullspace configuration and enhanced its stability by deriving corner compatibility conditions for the auxiliary variable equations. van Joolen et al. (2005) extended the highorder boundary condition proposed in Givoli and Neta (2003) in unbounded domains with a rectangular boundary. Kechroud et al. (2005) proposed a highorder Padétype nonreflecting boundary condition for twodimensional acoustic scattering problems. The boundary condition can be applied on any convex fictitious boundary. Givoli et al. (2006) incorporated the boundary condition developed in Hagstrom and Warburton (2004) in a finiteelement scheme and compared its performance with the boundary condition developed in Givoli and Neta (2003).

3.2 Infinite Elements

In the standard finiteelement method, it is only possible to discretize a finite part of the domain. To overcome the difficulty in satisfying the radiation condition at the infinity for modeling unbounded domains, infinite elements (Bettess, 1992; Astley, 2000) have been developed. The infinite elements use decay functions representing the wave propagation toward infinity as the shape functions of the displacements. The decay rate and the phase velocity must be specified. The form of the shape functions in the unbounded direction is usually derived from exact solutions of associated onedimensional wave propagation problems. Infinite elements can capture only a few propagation modes so that they are generally not accurate even if the finiteelement mesh is very fine. The sequence of decaying functions may be expressed as reciprocal (1/rn), exponential (1/enr ) or logarithmic (1/ln r)n types, in the radial coordinate r. The formulation of infinite elements is spatially local. In this section a summary of the literature for this method is provided. Bettess and Zienkiewicz (1977) proposed the original unconjugated infinite elements using the exponential decay functions for radial distance. These infinite elements led to symmetric discrete problems but were unable to simulate the correct asymptotic decay. Astley (1983) introduced the socalled wave envelope elements using the complex conjugate weighting functions in a PetrovGalerkin scheme, along with mapping for the exterior problems in acoustics. These infinite elements represent the correct asymptotic behavior. This technique led to remarkable simplifications in the problem due to cancellation of the oscillatory terms within integrands but results in local nonsymmetric matrices which destroy the symmetric structure of the semidiscretization of the interior domains. Zienkiewicz et al. (1983) developed the mapped infinite elements. This approach incorporates an amplitude decay which is asymptotically correct. The original infinite elements use cylindrical or spherical boundaries to truncate the exterior domains. For slender bodies like submarines, truncating the exterior domains using a spherical boundary leads to a large computational bounded domains to be processed. To tackle this problem for long and thin bodies, Burnett (1994) developed a novel unconjugated spheroidal infinite elements in terms of prolate spheroidal coordinates for Helmholtz equations. In addition to choose of spheroidal coordinate system, separate shape functions in the radial and transverse directions are used. It leads to analytical radial integrals. Later Burnett and Holford (1998a,b) extended this approach to ellipsoidal and oblate acoustic infinite elements. The convergence of the ellipsoidal multiple expansions is proved. As three axes of an ellipsoid can be chosen independently, an ellipsoid boundary leads to a small number of meshes in the computational domains. It results in a greater computational speed than those derived for the spheroidal elements. Shirron and



193

Babuska (1998) formulated a conjugated spheroidal infinite element based on the Burnett formulation and compared various local boundary conditions with infinite elements. They mentioned that the rate of convergence for the conjugated infinite elements was slower than the unconjugated ones. Once the domain tends to infinity, the unconjugated infinite elements diverge from the exact solutions whereas the conjugated ones converge. The instability of the unconjugated infinite elements is due to the bilinear form on which they are based.

Astley (1998a) formulated conjugated infinite elements with geometric weight factor 1/r2 and based on Burnett’s spheroidal trial solutions (Burnett, 1994). Astley (2000) summarized the developments of the infinite elements during 1980s and 1990s and discussed their merits and drawbacks. Comparing different convergence studies, he mentions that the unconjugated formulations lead to the most accurate results in the near field but is limited by illconditioning as the radial orders increase. The conjugated elements, on the other hand, are stable and less accurate in the near fiel dbut converge to the exact solution in the far field. Astley and Coyette (2001) studied the performance of the prolate spheroidal infinite elements. They investigated the convergence of these infinite elements for conjugated and unconjugated test functions. They analyzed examples for high and low frequencies and also low and highaspect ratios. Most of the developments for the infinite elements have been performed for time harmonic analyses. They tend to not performing well in a transient analysis since the wave shapes are not constant and changing with time. Only low radial orders (up to order three) have been implemented. Astley (1996) extended the conjugated infinite elements into a time domain analysis of acoustic problems by taking an inverse Fourier transform of the discrete infinite element equation in the frequency domain. For conjugated elements, the coefficient matrices can be written in terms of frequencyindependent mass, stiffness and damping matrices. However, for unconjugated elements this is not the case so that it leads to convolution integrals. Later Astley (1998b) implemented the transient formulation in spheroidal coordinate systems. He analyzed several examples to investigate the required element orders, effect of temporal step size and the performance of the iterative solutions. Astley and Hamilton (2006) studied the stability of infinite elements for transient acoustic problems. Numerically mapped elements and analytically formulated spheroidal elements were considered. In both cases the form of the interface between the finite and infinite element meshes was shown to be critical in determining whether the transient equations yield stable solutions.

In summary, the infinite elements use decay displacement shape functions to represent the wave propagation toward infinity. The decay rate and phase velocity must be specified. It overcomes the problem of satisfying the radiation condition at the infinity in the standard finiteelement method. However, instability and illconditioning problems are associated with highorder elements. The loworder ones suffer from low accuracy. The infinite elements do not perform well in a transient analysis.

3.3 Absorbing layers

The absorbing layers are alternatives to local boundary conditions discussed in the previous sections. They are constructed by replacing the unbounded domain by an



194

absorbing layer of finite thickness with the properties that appreciably reduces the wave reflection into computational domain. Israeli and Orszag (1981) developed the sponge layers in which artificial material damping is introduced to absorb waves propagating through the layer. In the damping solvent extraction method (Song and Wolf, 1994), the effect of the artificial damping on the outgoing waves is extracted leading to higher accuracy.

Figure 2.5: Perfectly matched layer technique

The perfectly matched layers are the most developed absorbing layers. The theory and concept of perfectly matched layers (PMLs), was initially introduced by Berenger (1994) for electromagnetic waves (Maxwell equation). In this technique as shown in Figure 2.5, the computational domain is surrounded by a finitethickness layer in which artificial attenuation of wave propagation in a preselected direction pointing to infinity is introduced to the governing equations for the unbounded domain. As the wave propagation in the other independent directions is not attenuated, the transmission of plane waves from the domain of interest to the surrounding absorbing layer is improved. Propagating waves of all nontangential anglesofincidence and of all nonzero frequencies can be absorbed (Basu and Chopra, 2003). The perfectly matched medium may be equivalently interpreted as an nonhomogeneous viscoelastic medium as material damping is introduced through the governing equations. Computational domain perfectly matched layers in the pioneering paper; Berenger (1994) presented a finitedifference timedomain formulation (FDTD) for 2D electromagnetic split fields.

Later Berenger (1996) extended the perfectly matched layers to threedimensional electromagnetic waves. Beranger’s computational domains are Cartesian rectangle and parallelepiped in two and three dimensions, respectively. It has been demonstrated that the Beranger’s original splitfield formulation is weakly illposed (Tsynkov, 1998). Abarbanel and Gottlieb (1998) used the nonsplit field components to obtain wellposed formulations. Perfectly matched layers have been extended to various linear wave equations: the Helmholtz equation (Qi and Geers, 1998; Harari et al., 2000), the linearized Euler equations (Hu, 1998) and the wave equation for poroelastic media (Zeng



195

et al., 2001). A literature review of perfectly matched layers applied to fields other than elastodynamics is not covered in this paper.

4. Conclusions

This paper has described in brief, different methods for dynamic analysis of unbounded domains. Various global and local procedures with particular emphasis on those developed for elastodynamics are covered. Their mathematical backgrounds, potentials and limitations are stated. In spite of existence of different techniques for treating unbounded domains, a reliable and efficient technique applicable to vector wave equations in unbounded domains of arbitrary geometry and material property does not exist at present.

5. References

1. Abarbanel, S. and Gottlieb, D. (1998), “On the construction and analysis of absorbing layers in CEM”. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 27, pp 331–340.

2. Achenbach, J. D. (1984), “Wave propagation in elastic solids. Elsevier Science”. ADINA (2004). ADINA User Interface Primer. Version 8.2, ADINA R & D, Inc. (http://www.adina.com).

3. Ahmad, S., Leyte, F., and Rajapakse, R. K. N. D. (2001), “BEM analysis of twodimensional elastodynamics problems of anisotropic solids”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 127, pp 149–156.

4. Akiyoshi, T. (1978), “Compatible viscous boundary for discrete models”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 104, pp 1253–1265.

5. Alpert, B., Beylkin, G., Coifman, R., and Rokhlin, V. (1993), “Waveletlike bases for the fast solution of secondkind integral equations”. SIAM Journal on scientific and statistical computing, 14, pp 159–184.

6. Alpert, B., Greengard, L., and Hagstrom, T. (2002), “Nonreflecting boundary conditions for the timedependent wave equation”. Journal of Computational Physics, 180, pp 270–296.

7. ANSYS (2003), Multyphysics. Version 8.0, Canonsburg, P.A: ANSYS, Inc. (http://www.ansys.com).

8. Arias, I. and Achenbach, J. D. (2004), “Rayleigh wave correction for the BEM analysis of twodimensional elastodynamic problems in a halfspace”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 60, pp 2131– 2146.

9. Astley, R. J. (2000), “Infinite elements for wave problems: a review of current formulations and an assessment of accuracy”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 49, pp 951–976.



196

10. Bartels, R. H. and Stewart, J. L. (1972), “Solution of the matrix equation AX + X B = C.” Communications of the ACM, 15: pp 820–826.

11. Basu, U. and Chopra, A. K. (2003), “Perfectly matched layers for time harmonic elastodynamics of unbounded domains: theory and finiteelement implementation”. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 192, pp 1337–11375.

12. Bayliss, A. and Turkel, E. (1980), “Radiation boundary conditions for wave like equations”. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 33, pp 707–725.

13. Bazyar, M. H. and Song, C. (2006a), “Timeharmonic response of non homogeneous elastic unbounded domains using the scaled boundary finite element method. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35, pp 357–383.

14. Becache, E., Fauqueux, S., and Joly, P. (2003), “Stability of perfectly matched layers, group velocities and anisotropic waves”. Journal of Computational Physics, 188, pp 399–433.

15. Bender, C. M. and Orszag, S. A. (1978), “Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers”. McGrawHill, Singapore.

16. Berenger, J. P. (1994), “A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves. Journal of Computational Physics, 114, pp 185–200.

17. Beskos, D. E. (1997), “Boundary element methods in dynamic analysis: Part II (19861996). Applied Mechanics Reviews, ASME, 50, pp 149–197.

18. Bettess, P. (1992).”Infinite Elements”. Penshaw Press, Sunderland, UK.

19. Bougacha, S., Tassoulas, J. L., and Roesset, J. M. (1993), “Analysis of foundations on fluidfilled poroelastic stratum”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 119, pp 1632–1648.

20. Brebbia, C. A., Telles, J. C. F., and Wrobel, L. C. (1984), “Boundary Element Techniques”. SpringerVerlag.

21. Burnett, D. S. (1994), “A threedimensional acoustic infinite element based on a prolate spheroidal multipole expansion. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 96, pp 2798–2816.

22. Chen, Z. and Dravinski, M. (2007), “Numerical evaluation of harmonic Green’s functions for triclinic halfspace with embedded sourcespart I: A 2D model”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 69, pp 347–366.



197

23. Chew, W. C. and Liu, Q. H. (1996). “Perfectly matched layers for elastodynamics: a new absorbing boundary condition”. Journal of Computational Acoustics, 4,341–359.

24. Chidszey, S. and Deeks, A. J. (2005), “Determination of coefficients of crack tip asymptotic fields using the scaled boundary finiteelement method”. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 72, pp 2019–2036.

25. Chopra, A. K. (1995), “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering”. PrenticeHall, New Jersey.

26. Cook, R. D., Malkus, D. S., Plesha, M. E., and Witt, R. J. (2002). “Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

27. Dasgupta, G. (1982), “A finite element formulation for unbounded homogeneous continua”. Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, 49, pp 136– 140.

28. Deeks, A. J. (2004), “Prescribed sideface displacements in the scaled boundary finiteelement method”. Computers & Structures, 82, pp 1153–1165.

29. Doherty, J. and Deeks, A. (2003), “Elastic response of circular footings embedded in a non homogeneous halfspace”. Geotechnique, 53, pp 703–714.

30. Dominguez, J. (1978), “Dynamic stiffness of rectangular foundations”. Research Report R7820, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

31. Dravinski, M. and Niu, Y. (2002), “Threedimensional timeharmonic Green’s functions for a triclinic fullspace using a symbolic computation system”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 53, pp 455–472.

32. Dravinski, M. and Zhang, T. (2000), “Numerical evaluation of three dimensional timeharmonic Green’s functions for anisotropic fullspace”. Wave motion, 32, pp 141–151.

33. Ekevid, T., Lane, H., and Wiberg, N. E. (2006), “Adaptive solid wave propagation influences of boundary conditions in highspeed train applications”. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 195: pp 236–250.

34. Engquist, B. and Majda, A. (1977), “Absorbing boundary conditions for the numerical simulation of waves”. Mathematics of Computation, 31, pp 629– 651.

35. Engquist, B. and Majda, A. (1979), “Radiation boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave calculations”. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 32, pp 314–358.



198

36. Fan, S. C., Li, S. M., and Yu, G. Y. (2005), “Dynamic fluidstructure interaction analysis using boundary element methodfinite element method”. Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, 72, pp 591–598.

37. Freedman, L. M. and Keer, L. M. (1972), “Vibration motion of a body on an orthotropic halfplane”. Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, 94, pp 1033– 1039.

38. Fried, I. and Malkus, D. S. (1975), “Finite element mass matrix lumping by numerical integration with no convergence rate loss”. International Journal of Solid Structures, 11, pp 461–466.

39. Gazetas, G. (1981), “Strip foundations on crossanisotropic soil layer subjected to static and dynamic loadings”. Geotechnique, 31, pp 161–179.

40. Gazetas, G. and Dobry, R. (1984), “Simple radiation damping model for piles and footings”. 110, pp 937–956.

41. Geers, T. L. (1997), proceedings of the IUTAM Symposium on Computational Methods for Unbounded Domains. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

42. Genes, M. C. and Kocak, S. (2005), “Dynamic soilstructure interaction analysis of layered unbounded media via a coupled finite element/boundary element/scaled boundary finite element model”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 62, pp 798–823.

43. Gibson, R. E. (1967), “Some results concerning displacements and stresses in a non homogeneous elastic halfspace”. Geotechnique, 17, pp 58–67.

44. Gilat, A. (2004), MATLAB: an introduction with applications. Wiley, Chichester.

45. Givoli, D. (1991), “Nonreflecting boundary conditions: a review”. Journal of Computational Physics, 8, pp 1–29.

46. Grigoriev, M. M. and Dargush, G. F. (2004a), “A fast multilevel boundary element method for the Helmholtz equation”. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 193, pp 165–203.

47. Grigoriev, M. M. and Dargush, G. F. (2004b), “A fast multilevel boundary element method for the twodimensional steady heat diffusion”. Numerical Heat Transfer, 46: pp 329–356.

48. Grote, M. (2006), “Local nonreflecting boundary condition for Maxwell’s equations”. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,



199

195, pp 3691–3708.

49. Grote, M. and Keller, J. (1995a), “Exact nonreflecting boundary conditions for the timedependent wave equation”. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, 55, pp 280–297.

50. Grote, M. and Keller, J. (1995b), “On nonreflecting boundary conditions”. Journal of Computational Physics, 122, pp 231–243.

51. Guddati, M. and Lim, K. (2006), “Continuedfraction absorbing boundary conditions for convex polygonal domains”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 66, pp 949–977.

52. Guddati, M. and Tassoulas, J. L. (1998b), “An efficient numerical algorithm for transient analysis of exterior scalar wave propagation in a homogeneous layer”. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 167, pp 261–273.

53. Gurtin, M. E. (1972), “The linear theory of elasticity”. Section 74, Mechanics of Solids II,C. Truesdell, ed., in Encyclopedia of physics, Vol. VIa/2, Springer, Berlin, pp 257264.

54. Guzina, B. B. and Pak, R. Y. S. (1998), “Vertical vibration of a circular footing on a linearwavevelocity halfspace”. Geotechnique, 48, pp 159–168.

55. Hagstrom, T. (2003), “New results on absorbing layers and radiation boundary conditions”. M. Ainsworth, et al. (eds). Springer: New York.

56. Hall, W. S. and Oliveto, G. (2003), “Boundary Element Methods for Soil Structure Interaction”. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

57. Harari, I. and Albocher, U. (2006), “Studies of FE/PML for exterior problems of timeharmonic elastic waves”. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 195, pp 3854–3879.

58. Hasting, F. D., Schneider, J. B., and Broschat, S. L. (1996), “Application of the perfectly matched layer (PML) absorbing boundary condition to elastic wave propagation”. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 100, pp 3061– 3069.

59. Higdon, R. L. (1986), “Absorbing boundary conditions for difference approximations to the multidimensional wave equation”. Mathematics of Computation, 176, pp 437–459.

60. Hu, F. Q. (1998), “On absorbing boundary conditions for linearized Euler equations by a perfectly matched layer”. Journal of Computational Physics, 129, pp 201–219.



200

61. Huan, R. N. and Thompson, L. L. (2000), “Accurate radiation boundary conditions for the timedependent wave equation on unbounded domains”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 47, pp 1569– 1603.

62. Hughes, T. J. R. (1987), “The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis”. PrenticeHall.

63. Israeli, M. and Orszag, S. (1981), “Approximation of radiation boundary conditions”. Journal of Computational Physics, 41, pp 115–135.

64. Jafargandomi, A., Fatemi Aghda, S. M., Suzuki, S., and Nakamaru, T. (2004), “Strong ground motions of the 2003 Bam Earthquake, southeast of Iran (Mw=6.5)”. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 79, pp 47–57.

65. Kallivokas, L. F., Juneja, T., and Bielak, J. (2005), “A symmetric Galerkin BEM variational framework for multidomain interface problems”. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 194, pp 3607–3636.

66. Kausel, E. (1988), “Local transmitting boundaries”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 114, pp 1011–1027.

67. Kausel, E. (1992), “Thin layer method: formulation in time domain”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 37, pp 927–941.

68. Keller, J. B. and Givoli, D. (1989), “Exact nonreflecting boundary conditions”. Journal of Computational Physics, 82, pp 172–192.

69. Kellezi, K. (2000), “Local transmitting boundaries for transient elastic analysis”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake, 19, pp 533–547.

70. Keys, R. G. (1985), “Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic media”. Geophysics, 50, pp 892–902.

71. Krenk, S. (2002), “Unified formulation of radiation conditions for the wave equations”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 53, pp 275–295.

72. Kunar, R. R. and Marti, J. (1981), “A nonreflecting boundary for explicit calculations. Computational methods for infinite domain mediastructure interaction”, AMD (Ed. A.J.Kalinowski), 46, pp 183–204.

73. Lehmann, L. (2005), “An effective finite element approach for soilstructure analysis in the timedomain”. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 21, pp 437–450.



201

74. Lehmann, L. and Ruberg, T. (2006), “Application of hierarchical matrices to the simulation of wave propagation in fluids”. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering, 22, pp 489–503.

75. Liao, Z. P. (1996), “Extrapolation nonreflecting boundary conditions”. Wave motion, 24, pp 117–138.

76. Liao, Z. P. and Wong, H. L. (1984), “A transmitting boundary for the numerical simulation of elastic wave propagation”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 3, pp 174–183.

77. Lin, H. and Tassoulas, J. L. (1986), “A hybrid method for threedimensional problems of dynamics of foundations”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 14, pp 61–74.

78. Lindemann, J. and Becker, W. (2002a), “Analysis of the freeedge effect in composite laminates by the boundary finiteelement method”. Mechanics of Composite Materials, 36, pp 207–214.

79. Lindemann, J. and Becker, W. (2002b), “Freeedge stresses around holes in laminates by the boundary finiteelement method”. Mechanics of Composite Materials, 38, pp 407–416.

80. Luco, J. E. (1982), “Linear soilstructure interaction: a review”. Earthquake Ground Motion and Its Effects on structures, AMD (Ed. S.K. Datta), ASME, 53, pp 41–57.

81. Luco, J. E. and Westmann, R. A. (1971), “Dynamic response of circular foundations”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 97, pp 1381–1395.

82. Lysmer, J. (1970), “Lumped mass method for Rayleigh waves”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 43, pp 17–34.

83. Lysmer, J. and Kuhlemeyer, R. L. (1969), “Finite dynamic model for infinite media”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 95, pp 859–877.

84. Muravskii, G. (2001), “Mechanics of nonhomogeneous and anisotropic foundations”. Springer, Berlin.

85. NicolasVullierme, B. (1991), “A contribution to doubly asymptotic approximation: an operator topdown approach”. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, ASME, 113, pp 409–415.

86. Park, S. and Tassoulas, R. S. (2002), “Timeharmonic analysis of wave propagation in unbounded layered strata with zigzag boundaries”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 128, pp 359–368.

87. Paronesso, A. and Wolf, J. P. (1995), “Global lumpedparameter model with



202

physical representation for unbounded medium”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 24, pp 637–654.

88. Rajapakse, R. K. N. D. and Gross, D. (1995), “Transient response of an orthotropic elastic medium with a cavity”. Wave motion, 21, pp 231–252.

89. Rajapakse, R. K. N. D. and Wang, Y. P. (1991), “Elastodynamic Green functions of orthotropic halfplane”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 117, pp 588–603.

90. Rajapakse, R. K. N. D. and Wang, Y. P. (1993), “Green’s functions for transversely isotropic elastic half space”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 119, pp 1725–1746.

91. Richter, C. and Schmid, G. (1999), “A Green function timedomain boundary element method for the elastodynamics halfplane”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 46, pp 627–648.

92. Rokhlin, V. (1983), “Rapid Solution of Integral Equations of Classical Potential Theory”. Journal of Computational Physics, 60, pp 187–207.

93. Ruge, P., Trinks, C., and Witte, S. (2001), “Timedomain analysis of unbounded media using mixedvariable”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30, pp 899–925.

94. Seale, S. H. and Kausel, E. (1989), “Point loads in crossanisotropic, layered half spaces”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 115, pp 509–524.

95. Shirron, J. J. and Babuska, I. (1998), “A comparison of approximate boundary conditions and infinite element method for exterior Helmholtz problems”. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 164, pp 121–139.

96. Sommerfeld, A. (1949), “Partial Differential Equations in Physics”, chapter 28. Academic Press, New York.

97. Song, C. (2004a). “A matrix function solution for the scaled boundary finite element equation in statics”. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 193, pp 2325–2356.

98. Song, C. (2004b), “Weighted blockorthogonal base functions for static analysis of unbounded domains”; Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Computational Mechanics, Beijing, China, 510 September; pp 615620.

99. Song, C. and Wolf, J. P. (1994), “Dynamic stiffness of unbounded medium based on dampingsolvent extraction”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 23: pp 169–181.

100. Song, C. and Wolf, J. P. (2002), “Semianalytical representation of stress



203

singularity as occurring in cracks in anisotropic multimaterials with the scaled boundary finiteelement method”. Computers & Structures, 80, pp 183–197.

101. Tan, H. and Chopra, A. (1996), “Damfoundation rock interaction effects in earthquake response of arch dams. Journal of Structural Engineering”, ASCE, 122, pp 528–538.

102. Thatcher, R. W. (1978), “On the finite element method for unbounded regions”. SIAM Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and Its Applications, 15, pp 466–477.

103. Thompson, L. L. and Huan, R. N. (1999), “Finiteelement formulation of exact nonreflecting boundary condition for the timedependent wave equation”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 45, pp 1607–1630.

104. Ting, L. and Miksis, M. J. (1986), “Exact boundary conditions for scattering problems”. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 80: pp 1825–1827.

105. Tsynkov, S. V. (1998), “Numerical solution of problems on unbounded domains: a review”. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 27, pp 465–532.

106. Underwood, P. and Geers, T. L. (1981), “Doubly asymptotic boundary element analysis of dynamic soilstructure interaction”. International Journal of Solid Structures, 17, pp 687–697.

107. van Joolen, V., Neta, B., and Givoli, D. (2005), “Highorder Higdonlike boundary conditions for exterior transient wave problems”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 63, pp 1041–1068.

108. Velez, A., Gazetas, G., and Krishnan, R. (1983), “Lateral dynamic response of constrained head piles”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 199, pp 1063–1081.

109. Vrettos, C. H. (1999), “Vertical and rocking impedence for rigid rectangular foundations on soils with bounded nonhomogeneity”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28, pp 1525–1540.

110. Wang, C. H., Grigoriev, M. M., and Dargush, G. F. (2005), “A fast multilevel convolution boundary element method transient diffusion problems”. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 62, pp 1895– 1926.

111. Wang, C. Y. and Achenbach, J. D. (1995), “3dimensional timeharmonic elastodynamics Green’s functions for anisotropic solids”. Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series AMathematical and Physical Sciences, 449, pp 441–458.



204

112. Wegner, J. L., Yao, M. M., and Zhang, X. (2005), “Dynamic wavesoil structure interaction analysis in the time domain”. Computers & Structures, 83, pp 2206–2214.

113. Wegner, J. L. and Zhang, X. (2001), “Freevibration analysis of a three dimensional soilstructure system”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30, pp 43–57.

114. Wolf, J. P. (1985), “Dynamic SoilStructure Interaction”. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs.

115. Wolf, J. P. (1986), “A comparison of timedomain transmitting boundaries”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 14, pp 655–673.

116. Wolf, J. P. (1988), “SoilStructureInteraction Analysis in Time Domain”. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs.

117. Wolf, J. P. (2003), “The Scaled Boundary Finite Element Method”. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.

soil structure interaction analysis methods state of ... · soil structure interaction analysis...

Documents