A

Short Report

On

Numerical Analysis Techniques for assessing Dynamic Soil Structure

Interaction

532:-Advanced Soil Dyanamics

by
AKHILESH ANIL WABLE
(224104202)

Under the guidance of

Prof. Arindam dey

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI
Guwahati-781039, India
[October-22]
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and give warmest thanks to Research Scholar Sureka S. who made this
report possible.Her advice and guidance carried me through all the stages of my project.
I submit my heartiest gratitude to instructor Prof. Arindam Dey for his sincere guidance and also
for responding positively to my requests.
I am thankful to Prof. Anjan Dutta for recommending me books related to project which helped me
to dive in subject deeply and gain better understanding of topic assigned.
My joy and love knows no bounds in expressing cordial gratitude to my friends for their motivation
and encouragement which were of great help to me throughout the course of this project report.
I humbly extend my thanks to all who were there and cooperated with me,all throughout the report
work.
 ABSTRACT

Numerical analysis techniques using dynamic soil structure interaction comprises of various methods
such as Finite Element Method,Boundary Element Method,Finite Difference Method,Gaussian
Quadrature Method.These methods with help of geotechnical softwares are used to simulate field
conditions to get accurate results.
In this report using Finite Element Method and super SAP a viscous spring boundary condition is
formulated to simulate absorption phenomenon in soil medium.Further its accuracy is tested by taking
numerical wave problems a into account and further comparing with other types of artificial
boundaries.Further its significance to scattering wave problems and seismic input wave motion
problems is discussed.
The second numerical technique discussed is Boundary Element Method.The section focuses on
developing boundary integral equation.This equation developed is similar to conventional integral
boundary equation but posses certain advantages over the later one.Its concise nature and application
to seismic wave excitation problems are discussed.

Keywords: Numerical analysis,SSI,FEM,Boundary Element Method,

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF SYMBOLS vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL 9

1.2 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT 9

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND STUDY AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR DYNAMIC SSI 11

2.1 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 13

2.1.1. General 13

2.1.2 Importance 14

2.1.3 Viscous Spring Boundary 14

Precise Boundary 15
 local Boundary 15

2.1.4 Methodology 15

Formulation of Artificial Boundary 15

Reflective Coefficient of Viscous-Spring Boundary 17

Accuracy of Viscous-Spring Boundary 19

2.1.5. Results 22

2.1.6. Conclusion 22

2.2 BOUNDARY ELEMENT METHOD 23

2.2.1 General 23

2.2.2 Importance 23

2.2.3 Governing Differential Equation 24

Conventional direct boundary integral equation 27

Alternative direct boundary integral equation 28

2.2.4 Results and conclusion 30

CHAPTER 3

REVIEW 35

REFERENCES 36
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Figure Caption Page

No. No.

2.1 Coordinate system of incident and reflective wave, (1998) 18

2.2 Mechanical model for homogeneous elastic half space 20

2.3 Anti-plane wave motion with artificial boundaries 21

2.4 In-plane wave motion example with artificial boundaries(vertical 22

displacement)

2.2.1 Closed boundary (Interior problem) 24

2.2.2 Open boundary(Exterior problem) 27

2.2.3 Integration range of Cik 27

2.2.4 Geometry of embedded foundation and coordinate system 31

2.2.5 Contact shear traction due to horizontal translation of rigid surface 32

2.2.6 Stiffness coefficient khh square surface foundation (ν=0.33) 32

2.2.7 Damping coefficient Chh square surface foundation (ν=0.33) 33

2.2.8 Dynamic impedance Khh,embedded square 34

foundation(ν=0.33,ξ=0.002,h=a)

2.2.9 Dynamic impedance Kmm embedded square foundation 34

(ν=0.33,ξ=0.002,h=a)
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

w anti-plane displacement of medium

Cs shear wave velocity

G Shear Modulus

ω Frequency of wave

𝞺 Masss density

R artificial boundary reflective coefficient

ν Poisson’s ratio

𝑢𝑖 (𝜉,𝑡) Displacement Field

ξ Spatial coordinate

𝜏ij ( ξ , t ) Cauchy stress Tensor

fi Body Force per unit volume

Ω Boundary of field

Ti Traction

δik Kronecker delta

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SSI Seismic Soil Structure Interaction

FEM Finite element Method

BEM Boundary Element Method

VB Viscous Boundary

V.S.B Viscous Spring Boundary

 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
The majority of civil engineering structures are built to withstand the impacts of earthquakes on
the assumption that their bases are anchored to the ground (control point).
Commonly, the ground motion at the control point—also known as the control motion—is
computed experimentally using factors including the seismic hazard at the site, the structure's
design life, and local site circumstances, but without taking the structure's existence into
consideration.
The properties of a building built on rock are unaffected by the presence of the supporting material
since the ground motion is nearly constant there (amplitude, frequency content and duration).
The fixed base assumption is valid since the rock does not deform as a result of the forces put on
it by the foundation above. Because the fixed base assumption is false for sites with soft soil, the
presence of a relatively rigid foundation alters ground motion near the structure, forcing the soil
to deform. As a result, the responses of the soil and the structure are coupled. Soil Structure
Interaction is the name given to this coupled response (SSI). Since the 1950s, seismic soil-structure
interaction (SSI) has been studied. Early research, including Merritt and Housner (1954) and
Housner (1957), used data gathered from instrumented sites to examine the effects of SSI (referred
to as "ground coupling" in Housner (1957)) on conventional biuldings. Researchers were able to
tackle more complex foundation configurations (like embedded foundations and foundations on
layered media) to calculate impedance functions thanks to the development of numerical tools like
the finite element and boundary element methods in the 1970s [Elsabee (1977), Kausel (1975),
etc.]. For various foundation configurations and shapes (including embedded foundations and
arbitrarily shaped foundations), Gazetas (1991) compiles the frequency dependent impedance
functions that have been determined over time using a variety of analytical and numerical methods.

1.2. Outline of Report

The report explores numerous techniques for combining wave motion analysis with
dynamic structure analysis in complex media, which aids in the examination of dynamic
SSI using the most recent structural analysis software. These programmes take into account
the amplitude effect and also provide information on the phase response of the structures.
It also takes into account the scattered wave's absorption phenomenon.
Additionally, we provide a seismic wave input method that accurately depicts wave motion
while maintaining the accuracy and precision of waves that are regulated by man-made
bounds. This is accomplished by integrating outside programmes rather than by altering
the software.
Analysis of SSI using Boundary Element Method begins with a fundamental analysis of
the theoretical underpinnings of the formulation of the direct boundary integral equation in
three-dimensional elastic dynamics.
Upon establishing the conventional boundary integral equation format in terms of Cauchy
principal values of surface integrals, an alternative form of the direct method is explored
that only uses weakly singular integrals, which are crucial for a proper understanding of
the method but are frequently left out in previous treatments.
 Chapter 2

BACKGROUND STUDY AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR DYNAMIC SSI

For the seismic execution assessment of structures it is vital to consider the impacts of soil-structure
interaction. A few numerical strategies of changing complexity and precision have been utilized to
assess these impacts in practice, counting the numerical programs, SHAKE and SASSI, which
perform ground reaction examination utilizing an comparable direct strategy, and soil-structure
interaction investigation employing a frequency-domain substructuring strategy, respectively. A few
analytical and numerical strategies have been developed and examined to analyse the SSI issues by
the well-known creators Wolf and Tune , Wolf , Luco and Barros , Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer ,
Gazetas , etc. It is known that analytical strategies are pertinent as it were for straightforward
structures that rest on direct and uniform soil media. For a complex or subjective shaped body
subjected to energetic loads requires the utilize of discrete numerical strategies such as the finite
component strategy (FEM) or the boundary component strategy (BEM). These two strategies can be
formulated in time or recurrence spaces, and each has relative advantages and drawbacks. The
properties of the framework to be analysed, such as geometry, fabric properties, boundary
conditions, and sort of stacking are the prevailing impacts to form a decision of which strategies
ought to be utilized. The FEM is well-suited for straight and non-linear conduct of complex or self-
assertive molded structures with non-homogeneous and anisotropic fabric proper ties. For
frameworks with infinite or semi-infinite expansion, be that as it may, the utilize of the BEM is
more successful than FEM. The scaled boundary- finite element method (SBFEM) is an elective
and viable method for displaying frameworks with finite and unbounded expansion having non-
homogeneous and incompressible fabric properties many creators have created combined details for
SSI issues which are composed of limited and unbounded media.
Numerical strategies created for soil-structure interaction investigation can be broadly classified
into three sorts: 1) spring-based (or continuum) methods, 2) direct methods and 3) substructure
methods.
1) spring-based (or continuum) methods:
Spring-based methods are executed in design codes [e.g., ATC-40 (1996), FEMA 450 (2004)] to
empower streamlined soil-structure interaction analysis. These strategies are best suited to surface
foundations and shallow embedded foundations. Numerical models utilized in spring-based
methods idealize the soil medium as a set of springs with a foreordained solidness and damping
properties.
2) Direct methods:
In a direct method of analysis the soil-structure system is modeled and analyzed as a single
system, with the ground motion specified at the boundaries. In order to perform numerical
analysis using this method, numerical techniques such as the finite element, finite difference or
boundary element methods are employed. The direct method is most commonly used for fully
nonlinear analyses, and is carried out in the time domain or Frequency domain One of the major
challenges in the direct method of analysis using finite elements is modeling the infinite soil
domain. Current practice of finite element modeling by the direct method involves building a
very large soil domain using transmitting boundaries, which enable passage of the radiating waves
leaving the system. Direct method using the finite element procedure provides a distinct advantage
of dealing with nonlinearities and complex geometries in the foundation and the halfspace.
However it suffers major drawbacks due to the inherent difficulty in modeling the radiation
condition (infinite halfspace). In spite of the availability of various transmitting boundaries, the
radiation condition simulated using this method is approximate. he boundary element procedure is a
numerical technique based on analytical equations for the halfspace and only requires discretization
at the boundaries of the system (unlike the finite element method which requires discretization of
the complete volume of the system). This method is especially suitable for problems such as the
soil-structure interaction problem, since it can directly account for the infinite soil domain .However
its application is restricted to linear soil materials.
3) Substructure Methods:
Within the substructure strategy of examination, the soil-structure framework is partitioned into
diverse components (or substructures) and the reaction of each substructure is calculated freely.
These substructures are ‘connected’ by applying break even with and inverse interaction strengths
to each of the substructure models.
2.1. FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
2.1.1. General
Dynamic SSI plays important role on structure subjected to earthquake. In recent decades an
appreciable advancement in the field of soil structure interaction has taken place. Various methods
and models have been developed and improved over time.The past history data of earthquake and
data of large-scale model experiments have been collected on timely basis. However it is important
to develop accurate and compatible methods that best simulates the soil interaction and wave motion
problems. The dynamic interaction of soil-structure in earthquakes has become a significant study
topic in the field of earthquake engineering due to the construction of towering structures, big nuclear
power plants, and massive dams.
Earthquake Engineering involves two primary problems. First one is structural response upon
excitation and the second one is wave motion input method due to seismicity. Advancements in the
this field has taken place which includes developments in theories and analytical softwares. With
availability of manforce, finance and material various geotechnical softwares have been developed
that includes Super SAP, ANSYS and NASTRAN. These softwares determine structural response
of a tedious system subjected to a dynamic excitation. It helps to solve complex problems associated
with project. In addition to that due to its compatibility of expanding functions it can satisfy research
needs to a great extent. Research work in analysing Wave propogation problems in a heterogeneous
medium, radiation modelling and input methods involving wave motion helped analysing complex
field with great efficiency. Numerous analytical methods have been developed to study SSI. Finite
Element Method is considered. FEM is a numerical method for solving initial and boundary value
problems in soil mechanics. It can determine complex, real valued geometry that includes layered
bounded or unbounded isotropic/anisotropic materials with linear/nonlinear or viscous properties.
Furthermore mixed boundary conditions and constructional sequences in earth building operations
can be analysed using FEM.
Following are the types of FEM:-
1.Classical finite element method (FEM)- It makes use of interface or contact elements which are
used to solve combine hydro-mechanical problems. In addition to that the local plastic energy
dispersion adds to well known global damping.
2.Distinct element method (DEM): This method adopts the local interaction laws which describes
the zones of contact between structure and soil.
3.Finite difference method (FDM):- This method uses clear cut algorithm which has interface
points of contact,also method uses direct approach to solve open hydrodynamic nonlinear high
strain and dynamic problems

2.1.2. Importance
Eventhough a great advancement have been made and significant research work in field of
structural engineering has been made,in sesmic analysis not much attention is given to the dynamic
soil-structure interaction. A very high negligence such as tower construction on deep soft soil is
done.
There are lot of variables that lead to a serious problem, complexity can be consider as an important
reason. However the primary reason is that the progress of the two research fields; the dynamic
structural response and input method of seismic wave motion are not combined well. The input of
seismic wave motion rarely taken into account in heavy softwares, because of which it cannot
completely replicate phase characterstics of input seismic wave motion and represent the scattering
wave absorption. So they are inadequate to treat dynamic SSI. However the soil medium can well
explained in some numerical methods for seismic wave and equivalent software but due it’s coarser
nature it cannot be adopted in analyzing structures
The report discusses on various methods that unites dynamic structure and wave motion analysis in
complex medium,this helps to examine dynamic SSI using newest version of structural analysis
software.These softwares considers the amplitude effect and also gives an idea of phase response of
structures.It also considers the absorption phenomenon of a scattering wave.In addition to that we
give input seismic wave method to exactly represent the wave motion input method that does not
alter accuracy and precision of wave controlled by artificial boundaries. This is done by
incorporating exterior programs and not by making changes in the software.

2.1.3. Viscous Boundary Condition

It is important consider a finite computational area of interest from the semi infinite soil medium to
analyse the dynamic SSI by finite element method.Setting up of artificial boundary is important to
replicate the absorption phenomenon of the continuum to the scatter of wave on boundary of the
considered computational area, this makes sure that the scattering wave has least reflection while
passing through the boundary TM. Artificial boundaries are generally formed by following
methods:precise boundary and local boundary.
Precise boundary:
The artificial boundary is said to be precise if it satisfies field condition radiation condition and
boundary condition of semi-infinite media. This artificial boundary can be placed on construction
surface which has non uniform arrangement. This boundary is fruitiful in many cases but it had some
shortcomings. The first and foremost shortcoming is integrating nodes motion on artificially
boundary,it leads to high cost of 263 computer memory and also increases the computational time
Local boundary:
local boundary method is not precise however eat use good accuracy in required frequency band if it
is arranged in suitable manner. The noteworthy character of local boundary is that on the boundary
nodal displacement are incoherent with others but not for the nodes which are close to eachother
resize boundary is applicable for low memory but is time consuming.
Many types of artificial boundaries like viscous boundary, the consistent boundary , the superposition
boundary , the paraxial boundary, the transmitting boundary, the dynamic infinite element boundary
etc. Out of all types mentioned above the viscous boundary,transmitting boundary and paraxial
boundary belong to time domain artificial boundaries,out of which transmitting boundary and paraxial
boundary have greater accuracies In references these boundaries are compared. For a real-time
problem accuracy of two second order is generally taken into account because the complexities are
greater for higher orders.we know the accuracy of viscous boundary is first order,this makes it easy
to use widely. The shortcoming of viscous boundary is that it only considers energy absorption of
wave scattering phenomena and does not replicate elastic recovery capacity for a given soil medium.It
Means that the mechanical model upon the viscous boundary is exerted can be consider as body that
floats in air seperately and can drift completely when subjected to a low frequency load.It is called as
low-frequency stability. In this report an artificial boundary is considered which can replicate
scattering wave absorption and elastic recovery phenomenon of infinite medium simultaneously.

2.1.4. Methodology:
Formulation of Artificial Boundary
The artificial boundary introduced in the analysis of the dynamic interaction of soil-structure is
derived under the assumption of non-reflecting energy such as the viscous boundary. In the following,
the artificial boundary condition is derived based on exterior wave propogation .In a real project
problem it is more appropriate to consider cylindrical wavefront(2D) or spherical wavefront (3D) to
replicate scattering waves because geometric diffusion exists in scattering waves caused by non-
regular area or foundation of structure.In this report 2D problem is considered, which means that
cylindrical wavefront is adopted to replicate the scattering waves emitting in infinite medium.
Considering polar coordinate system the equation of motion for planar cylindrical waves is given by;

(2.1)

Where;

w :- anti-plane displacement of medium,Antiplane displcement

Cs :-shear wave velocity, cs=√𝐺/𝜌,

G :- shear modulus and 𝞺:-mass density.

The solution form of a cylindrical wave ejaculated from the source point can be written as [13]

(2.2)

The shear stress at any point in the medium using Eq.(2.2) and formulation of shear stress is
𝜕𝜔
given by; 𝜏(𝑟, 𝑡) = 𝐺 𝜕𝑟

(2.3)

Where f ‘ denotes the derivative of f with respect to the variable in the bracket.

Velocity at any point is given as;

(2.4)

Substituting Eq.(2.2), (2.4) into Eq.(2.3),the relationship between the stress on a element at any
radius rb ,having normal vector 𝑟̅𝑏 , and velocity along with displacement at the same point.

(2.5)
At extent of radius rb the medium is curtailed.At this point the distributive physical components are
employed,a linear spring Kb and a viscous damper Cb.

(2.6)

From the above equation we know that the artificial boundary condition where r=rb is same as
Eq.(2.5). To obtain physical component coefficient employed on boundary we need to accurately
calculate the distance rb from source of wave generation to artificial boundary by using Eq.(2.6). By
employing this we will be able to eliminate the reflection taking place on artificial boundary due to
scattering wave.This helps to accurately replicate wave propogation from finite boumdary to infinite
one . In this FEM based approach where the artificial boundary is incorporated with viscous
damper and linear spring is termed as viscous-spring. If spring element is not taken into account, the
boundary retrogress to Lysmer's viscous boundary. Implementing viscous-spring boundary into
large software like super SAP is easier.

Reflective Coefficient of Viscous-Spring Boundary

As we have assumed the wavefront to be cylindrical in formulation of artificial boundary we can

stipulate that greater accuracy and precision will be obtained if the artificial boundary arc is
practically implemented.But it is more easy to use linear artificial boundary in FEM analysis of
dynamic soil structure interaction however it would lose accuracy to some degree.In this analysis
using FEM we study only coefficient of linear artificial boundary.
Equation of incident waves can be written according to Eq.(2.2) as follows;

(2.7.1)

If an incident wave w1(r,t) having an angle θ approaches a linear artificial boundary, it will generate
reflection wave wR(r,t) .Using mirror image law we get;

(2.7.2)

Where;

ω :- Frequency of wave.
A & B:- Coefficient of amplitude of incident wave and reflective wave respectively due to artificial
boundary.

For better understanding we use different coordinates r for incident wave and r’ for reflective.
Source point of r and r’ distributed symmetrically across the artificial boundary(see Fig. 2.1). and
hence the incident wave and reflective wave have same form.

Total wave field is given as summation of reflective wave and incident wave and can be written
as;

(2.8)

At the artificial boundarywe have, r=r'=rb,

To obtain artificial boundary condition we substitute equation (2.8) in equation (2.5)

(2.9)

on the artificial boundary the shear stress due to incident wave and reflective wave is given as;

(2.10.1)

(2.10.2)

At artificial boundary,this shear stress obtained in the above equation satisfies the boundary condition

𝜏𝑏1 + 𝜏𝑅 = 𝜏𝐵
Substituting Eq.(2.9), (2.10) into Eq.(2.11) we get,

R=(1-cos𝜃)/(1+cos𝜃) (2.12)

Where, R=[B/A] , is artificial boundary reflective coefficient.

Equation (2.12) is similar to that of Lysmer's viscous boundary.From this equation we can say that
relative coefficient of viscous-spring boundary will increase with an increase in angle of incidence
θ. By carrying out numerical analysis we can prove that viscous-spring boundary has higher
accuracy as compared to the viscous boundary.

Accuracy of Viscous-Spring Boundary

Artificial boundary is being set up.We know that the viscous damper coefficients does not vary
with distance rb from the source of scattering wave to the boundar,however the stiffness do vary
with distance rb.This is because in real problem we do not come across point source,the source is
either distributed linearly or over a surface in space.The radius of boundary rb is taken as average. In
this report radius rb has same value on linear artificial boundary at any point.
Generally in a continumm wave problems considers two aspects.First one is source problem and
second is scattering problem.In source problem frequency components are higher which tends to
produce errors.In order to test efficiency and accuracy of spring-viscous boundary we have
considered example of source problem.

Consider a source problem in homogeneous elastic half-space through which SH wave is

propagating .The model is shown in Fig. 2.2.Consider density of medium 𝞺=1,Shear wave velocity
Cs=1 and shear modulus=1. Consider loading of wave source as distributive acting in z-direction on
half space surface given by equation
F(t, x)=T(t)S(x),
where T(t):- Triangular pulse having duration of 1, S(x):-Focus of spatially distributed function
which is well-distributed over a finite region, It can be written as follows,

(2.13)
 (2.14)
The region where computation is employed is given as |x|≤ X b and 0 ≤ y ≤ Yb, Xb = Yb = 2, and
this region is defined by square elements.The length and width of element is Δx = Δy = 0.05.The
problem is computed using central difference method,step-by-step integration is done in time
domain with step-size taken as as Δt = 0.025.

Observation points are A,B and C, each having coordinates as (x, y)=(0, 0), (2, 0) and (0, 2)
respectively. In Fig. 2.3 a seismogram is shown.In this figure the the result obtained is by
FEM(Super SAP) incorporated with Viscous-spring-Boundary. By adopting viscous boundary and
fix boundary the corresponding exact solution using FEM and numerical solution is shown in
Fig.2.3, represented as E.S, R.B. and V.B. respectively.The solution of this problem obtained using
viscous spring boundary is closer to exact solution than that obtained using viscous boundary.Also
computational displacement obtained converges to zero incase of viscous spring boundary but for
viscous one it doesnot. So we can conclude that viscous spring boundary is better than the viscous
boundary but fix boundary is worst.
 Fig 2.3 The Anti-Plane wave motion with artificial boundaries, Liu Jingbo,Lu Yandong (1998)

Consider another example as an in-plane motion having model similar to first.Let elastic modulus
of medium be E=2.5 having poisson’s ratio μ =2.5 and mass density 𝞺 =1.Let SV wave velocity
Cs=1 and P wave velocity Cp = √3.Let the surface wave load be similar to first examples however
this time the load is acting in y direction on half space with duration 2. For an in plane wave motion
problem Spring and damper must be acting on boundary along tangential and normal direction.
Along the tangential direction,the components are similar to first example,but we need to derive the
components for normal direction theoritically again.In this problem we substitute E and Cp for G
and Cs respectively in Eq. (2.6).Four observation points having coordinates (x, y)=(0, 0), (1, 0), (2,
0), (0, 2) for points A , B , C & D are chosen respectively.Theoretical seismogram of these points
are shown in Fig.2.4.
 Fig 2.4 :The in-plane motion example with artificial boundaries(vertical displacement), Liu
Jingbo,Lu Yandong (1998)
From the results we can see that the viscous spring boundary is better than viscous one.
2.1.5. Results:
on comparing the results do discuss boundary seem to be more unstable as compared to viscous
spring boundary.Viscous spring boundary has good stability and hence can be applied to compute
wave motion having longer duration i.e it can be used for a seismic wave input.Considering all the
formulations using FEM and on comparing results obtained using numerical solution by adopting
viscous spring boundary with the exact solution,the viscous spring boundary seem to posses higher
accuracies than viscous boundary.

2.1.6 Conclusion:
In this report direct method for dynamic soil-structure analysis using Finite Element Method is
employed.Few conclusions obtained are as follows:-
In this report of dynamic SSI a boundary called viscous spring boundary is developed to replicate
absorption phenomenon of infinite soil medium to scattering wave.As compared to other boundaries
like fixed boundary,viscous boundary the spring viscous boundary replicates absorption of infinite
soil to scattering wave energy.In addition to that it also simulate elastic recovery capacity of
exterior media.By numerical problems we conclude that accuracy and stability of viscous spring
boundary is higher as compared to other artificial boundaries.

2.2. BOUNDARY ELEMENT METHOD

2.2.1. General
Boundary element method has picked up the acknowledgment in later a long time as the consistent
apparatus for fathoming a few essential foundation vibration problems.It generally comprises two
categories:the direct and indirect methods.Direct methods utilize the displacement and traction at
the boundary as the basic variables(e.g. Rizzo et al. 1985; Karabalis and Beskos, 1987) whereas
roundabout methods include defining the issue in terms of some subsidary source dispersions which
may be imaginary or physical in nature (e.g. Mita and Luco, 1989; Pak and Ji,1994). An outline of a
few essential theoretical and computational improvements complex to a thorough application of
direct boundary integral condition methods to common seismic soil-structure interaction
examination is displayed. Lot of the problems and resolutions are quite similar to indirect
boundary element methods..
For legitimate understanding of methods and numerical details included in fundamental
examination of the theoretical establishment of the direct boundary integral equation definition in
three-dimensional elastodynamics is displayed. Upon setting up the conventional boundary integral
condition organize in terms of Cauchy principal values of surface integrand, an auxillary
form of the direct method is investigated which includes feebly particular integrand as it were.
Designed to utilize half-space Green’s functions,the regularized format is expanded to both
scattering and wave radiation problems.
2.2.2. Importance
Upon setting up the numerical system essential for a legitimate understanding of the analytical
Theory a regularized shape of the conventional direct boundary integral condition definition for 3-
dimensional elastodynamics is displayed for a common anisotropic medium. Established on the
basis of a decomposition of the Green’s functions into regular and particular parts. The alternative
boundary integral condition format is precise,short and does not require any
numerical and scientific complexities such as Cauchy principal value function.This formulation is
extended to deal with common seismic soil-structure interaction issues in semi-infinite media.The
formulation is actualized computationally beside a thorough treatment of singular dynamic multi-
layered visco-elastic half-space Greens functions and interfacial boundary tractions emerging in
ordinary soil-structure establishment analysis.

2.2.3.Governing Differential Equations

Let us consider cartession coordinate system (0;ξ1,ξ2,ξ3) over an open region Ω;
Governing differential equation in elasto-dynamics is given as:
-Balance of linear momentum (1)
- stress–strain relationship (2)

Where; Cijkl : The fourth order elasticity. A tensor quantity having that major and minor
symmetries that describes general anisotropic medium.

𝑢𝑖 (𝜉, 𝑡) ∶Displacement field ξ :Spatial coordinate

𝜏ij ( ξ , t ) :Cauchy stress tensor t :temporal coordinate

fi :Body force per unit volume

𝞺 :Mass density

Fig 2.2.1: closed boundary (interior problem), R.Y.S. Pak, B.B.Guzina (1999)
Boundary conditions:
B.C. for displacement and traction over region Γ = Γu + Γt for closed boundary Ω is given as;
 (3)

ηi: normal vector directed outward.

ui:Displacement ti:Traction

Initial conditions:

(4)

In order to formulate an For an initial-boundary value problem, a suitable method to be adopted

is Graffis reciprocal theorem in elastodynamics(Wheeler and sternberg,1968) .This theorem can
be given as;

(5)
For two arbitrary elastodynamic states (ui, τi j) and (ûi, i j) prevailing to the same medium
using initial conditions equation (5) becomes;

(6)
Equation (6) represent equation in time domain.
Converting the above equation in frequency domain to get reduced and concise quation form

(7)

Capital letters of an unknown represents fourier transform w.r.t time given as;

In view of its comfort in managing with both viscoelasticity and elasticity issues whose
formulations closely resembling in terms of Fourier transforms by correspondence principle
(Christensen, 1971).The frequency domain approach given in Eq. (7) will be used as the analytical
approach in this problem. Integral representation of elasto-dynamic state in terms of boundary
values can be obtained by updating Eq. (7) by applying the body force F̂i to be Fki .Where Fki
represents a point load of unity acting in kth direction at a point x ∈ Ω, i.e.

(9)

δik :-Kronecker delta and

δ (x−ξ) :-3-D Dirac delta function.
The Fourier transform fundamental solutions Uk i , Tki and Tkij that satisfies the field equations
are given as;

Displacement Green’s function

Tik = Tijk nj Traction Green’s function
̂ijk = Cijpq U
T ̂ p,q
k
Stress Green’s function (10)

Functional dependency of field equations described as ̅UiK (ξ, x, ω) T

̅ik (ξ, x, w; n) T
̅ijk (ξ, x, ω).It

represents response at point ξ because of a time-harmonic unit point load acting in the kth
direction at point x in Ω.
Equations (8)-(10) represents an integral form of the displacement field within the region Ω
(refer Fig 2.2.1)In terms of the boundary tractions & displacements on Г bounding Ω in the
frequency domain for an anisotropic medium can be given as;

(11)

For an unbounded area Ω which is external to Г,the formaulation of the integral representation in
eqn (11) remains true given the following,
(i) For the exterior case the outward normal vector must be directed opposite to that ofinterior
case and
(ii) the solution must satisfy the following equation;
 (12)

Fig 2.2.2 : Open boundary (Exterior problem)

Conventional direct boundary integral equation

To get the general limiting form of the fundamental integral eqn (11) as x tends to the boundary
𝑥 → (𝑦 ∈ 𝛤) the boundary Г as composed of two surfaces:A small surface region 𝛤𝑟 of radius r
concentrated at point y and the second is Гr the remaining of the boundary (see Fig 2.2.3) for
the case of a smooth surface. As a result of the foregoing decomposition eqn (11) can be
reframed as,
(13)

Fig3:Integration Range of Cik, R.Y.S. Pak, B.B.Guzina (1999)

Taking limits as 𝑥 → (𝑦 ∈ 𝛤) eqn (13) becomes:

(14)

Let us assume that boundary traction and body force distributions are uniform and displacement field is
Hӧlder continuous.The conventional boundary equation for smooth boundary can be written as;

(15)

Where,

(16)

In medium comprising of non-smooth boundary points,closed form results for cik in thre-
dimensional problems can also be determined (see Hartmann,1982).

Alternative direct boundary integral equation

Regardless of its conventional appeal, the direct boundary integral equation system, in terms
of,Eq. (15) and (16) , is not free from some perennial objections.As an example, the second one
integral at the right-hand aspect of Eq. (15) is described in terms of its Cauchy principal value
whose computation requires strategies beyond normal quadrature methods (see Lachat and
Watson, 1976) . For non-homogeneous media and non-smooth boundary region,direct
determination of the coefficients cik in Eq. can also have number of difficulties.In this report, it is
presented that an alternative form to the conventional boundary integral equation is derived
which is more concise and has less irrelevant complexities. Such form of compact equation is
suitable to make direct BEM convenient for both researchers and engineers.

While formulating alternative boundary equation we must consider that for both interior as well
as exterior study the integral Eq.(11) can be re-written as;
 (17)

In order to simplify further,we must consider that the point-load Green’s function can be
̅𝑖𝑘 ]1,[ Tkij]1 and regular part [𝑈
decomposed into a singular part [𝑈 ̅𝑖𝑘 ]2,[ Tkij]2 such that;
and (18)
(19)

As a result Eq.(18) takes the form as;

(20)

Using (18) ,(19) and (20) Eqn.(17) becomes;

(21)

̅𝑖 (𝑥, 𝜔) satisfies the Hӧlder continuity condition and the

Given that the displacement 𝑈
traction 𝑇𝑖 (𝑥, 𝜔; 𝑛) is not too singular on the boundary all the integranls in eqn (21)will be at
most feebly singular as x→y ∈Г in the integrations intended.

Using Green’s function decomposition;

(22)
Equation (22) gives us direct boundary integral equation formulation which is free of
1.Cauchy principal values and
2.The need of the coefficients cik.
Because of such features, its numerical execution is straightforward, requiring only a minor re-
phrasing of terms in a conventional domain. As defined in Sladek and Sladek (1991) the
generalized integral format can be applied to solve seismic wave excitation problems in
earthquake engineering . Along with its own logical simpleness, the essential eqn (22) is actually
more suitable over eqn (15) as the mathematical structure for establishing extensive procedures
of complex singular combined boundary value problems (Sternberg,1991) like those including
vigorous body system geometries as well as component discontinuities in geomechanics as well
as soil-structure contact problems.In design applications where the body-force area could be
disregarded or even integrated individually,the governing boundary integral formula in eqn (22)
further simplifies to

(23)

2.2.4 Results & conclusion

By implication of the regular boundary integral condition methodology talked about, a set of
benchmark arrangements have been produced for a few crucial soil-structure interaction issues
related with a unbending square establishment with self-assertive embedment beneath
constrained and seismic wave excitations methods. In order to portray a full response of typical
results of the foundation,soil contact tractions,dynamic impedances for surface and implanted
foundations as well as the seismic input motion capacities will be given as outlines.

As a degenerate case of the foundation configuration shown in Fig(2.2.4) the problem of a square
rigid surface foundation of dimension 2a×2a with h=0 which is fully bonded to a homogeneous
isotropic elastic half-space with a shear modulus μ,mass density 𝞺 and Poisson’s ratio ν =0.33 is
first examined.Under the fully-bonded interfacial condition, the contact traction singularity at the
foundation edges is of the square-root.
 Fig 2.2.4 :-Geometry of embedded foundation and coordinate system, R.Y.S. Pak, B.B.Guzina
(1999)

A problem on the contact shear stress distribution under the footing undergoing a time-harmonic
𝜔𝑎
pure horizontal translation Δx at a dimensionless frequency ω= = 2.5 is shown in Fig 2.2.5
√𝜇/𝜌

where the importance of the singularities at the edge and corner regions is clearly displayed. The
corresponding foundation impedance Khh is shown in Figs 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 in terms of the
normalized horizontal stiffness and damping coefficients khh and chh which are denoted by

(24)

In the figures the results obtained by the indirect boundary element methods in

1.Wong and Luco (1985) who employ a piecewise constant stress distribution (see Mita and
Luco (1989) for tabulation) and

2.Triantafyllidis (1986) whose formulation recognizes the singularity of the contact stresses but
demands numerical computation of difficult improper double integrals.
In the example the performance of Wong and Luco (1985)is apparently better than
Triantafyllidis (1986).
 Fig 2.2.5: Contact shear traction due to horizontal translation of rigid surface, R.Y.S. Pak,
B.B.Guzina (1999)

Fig 2.2.6: Stiffness coefficient khh square surface foundation (ν=0.33), R.Y.S. Pak, B.B.Guzina
(1999)
 -

Fig 2.2.7 Damping coefficient Chh square surface foundation (ν=0.33), R.Y.S. Pak, B.B.Guzina
(1999)

The next example is the case of an embedded, massless, rigid block foundation, with dimension
2a×2a with h=a, bonded to a homogeneous viscoelastic half-space with a complex shear
modulus.

(25)

And a poisson’s ratio ν=0.33.The parameter ξ=0.002 is the hysteresis damping ratio which is
taken to be common for both compressional and shear waves.The resulting dynamic foundation
impedances khh and kmm are shown in Figs 8 and 9 with reference to the center of the foundation
base (0,0,h) in terms of the stiffness and damping coefficients in

(26)

For comparison,the result of Mita and Luco (1989) who employ an off-boundary source-
collocation scheme together with a finite element discretization for a similar viscoelastic half-
space with a slightly complex Poisson’s ratio of ν=0.33-0.0017i is also included.
 Fig 2.2.8: Dynamic impedance Khh,embedded square foundation(ν=0.33,ξ=0.002,h=a)

Fig 2.2.9: Dynamic impedance Kmm embedded square foundation (ν=0.33,ξ=0.002,h=a), R.Y.S.
Pak, B.B.Guzina (1999)
 CHAPTER 3
REVIEW
In the report while formulating viscous boundary we have considered rb as the shortest distance
from source point to the artificial boundary.
However we can improve results if we consider rb at different points of artificial boundary.This
is because stiffness of spring calculated is not accurate,due to which velocity of recovering to
zero computational displacement becomes faster.
If we somehow manage to consider accurate radius probability of improvement in results
becomes significant.
REFERENCES
Chandrakanth Bolisetti (2010). Numerical and Physical Simulations of Soil-Structure Interaction
Clayton R. and B. Engquist (1977), Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave
equations, Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 67(6), 1529-1540.
Diana Salciarini, Stephane Grange. (2021) Deterministic Numerical Modeling of Soil–Structure
Interaction, Wiley, Great Britain and U.S. ISBN No. 978-1-78630-798-9.

Gazetas G. (1983). Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: State of the art. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering;2:2–42.

Kausel E. (1989). Local transmitting boundaries, J. Engng. Mech., 114(6), 1011-1027, 1988.

Liu Jingbo,Lu Yandong (1998). A direct method for analysis of dynamic soil-structure
interaction based on interface idea. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, 83: 261-276.
Liao Zhenpeng (1984). A finite model for problems of transient scale waves in an infinite elastic
medium, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2(4), 38-53.
Luco JE, Barros CP (1994). Seismic response of a cylindrical shell embedded in a layered
viscoelastic half-space Part I and II. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1994;23:553–67.
Lysmer J. and R. L. Kulemeyer (1969), Finite dynamic model for infinite media, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics ASCE;95(EM4), 759-877.
Lysmer J. and G. Wass (1972). Shear waves in plane infinite structures, J. Engng. Mech. Div.,
ASCE, 98, 85-105.
R.Y.S. Pak, B.B.Guzina (1999). Seismic soil-structure interaction analysis by direct boundary
element methods. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 36(31-32): 4743-4766.
Smith W. D. (1974). A nonreflecting plane boundary for wave propagation problems, J. Comp.
Phys., 15(4), 492-503.
Wolf J. P. (1986). A comparison of time-domain transmitting boundaries, Earthquake
Engineering Structural Dynamics, 14, 655-673.
Wolf JP, Song C (1996). Finite-element modelling of unbounded media..
Wolf JP(2003). The scaled boundary finite element method. England: Wiley.
Zhao Chongbin, Zhang Chuhan and Zhang Guangdou, Analysis of 3-D foundation wave
problems by mapped dynamic infinite elements, Science in China, 32(4).