Use and comparison of different types of boundary elements for 2D

soilstructure interaction problems

I.O. Deneme
a,
*
, H.R. Yerli
b
, M.H. Severcan
c
, A.H. Tanrikulu
b
, A.K. Tanrikulu
b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Aksaray University, 68100 Merkez, Aksaray, Turkey
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Cukurova University, 01330 Balcali, Adana, Turkey
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Nigde University, 51100 Merkez, Nigde, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 November 2008
Received in revised form 6 January 2009
Accepted 24 January 2009
Available online 24 February 2009
Keywords:
Boundary element method
Elastodynamics
Fourier transform space
Dynamic soilstructure interaction
Discontinuous boundary element
a b s t r a c t
In this study, the usage and the comparison of some discontinuous boundary elements (constant, linear
and quadratic) are investigated for 2D soilstructure interaction (SSI) problems. Based on the formula-
tions presented in this study, some general purpose computer programs coded in FORTRAN77 are devel-
oped for each type of discontinuous boundary elements for elastic or visco-elastic 2D SSI problems. The
programs perform the analysis in Fourier transform space. The results of 2D dynamic SSI problems are
compared with those in the literature. Examples studied here indicate that present formulations have
sufcient computational accuracy for analyzing 2D SSI problems. As a result of this study, the use of con-
stant element is more sufcient than the other type of elements.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Problems, which have innite geometry, are encountered in a
wide variety of engineering applications. The simulation of the un-
bounded domains in numerical methods is a very important topic
in dynamic soilstructure interaction problems. In this type of
problems discrete formulations such as Finite Element Method
(FEM) and Boundary Element Method (BEM) are mostly used.
The soilstructure interaction problems are normally of very large
size. This is partly because the soil region is of a semi-innite ex-
tent; as a result, its discretization contributes a large number of de-
grees of freedom if the FEM is used to model the soil region. A
proper modeling of the soil region to minimize the number of de-
grees of freedom in association with a suitable transformation is
required to reduce the size of the problem. When the FEM is used,
the soil model must be truncated along appropriately dened
boundaries to limit the size of the nite element mesh. Suitable
boundary conditions are applied at the truncated boundaries to
prevent the reection of the waves from such boundaries. The
BEM automatically accounts for propagation towards innity and
articial boundaries are not necessary. Then, the use of dynamic
innite elements has been introduced as an alternative tool to
transmitting boundaries for unbounded domain problems [1,2].
More recently, BEM is used for the analysis of soilstructure inter-
action problems. In contrast to the FEM, BEM requires in general
only a discretization of the boundary. Hence a smaller amount of
data is needed.
BEM reduces the solution of a boundary value problem to that
of some integral equations which involve integrals over the bound-
ary of the solution region [36]. In BEM, the governing equations of
a problem are transformed from differential to integral equations.
These integral equations involve surface integrals over the bound-
ary of solution region, as well as, volume integral if internal excita-
tion exists. However, the volume integrals can be carried to the
boundary by using Dual Reciprocity Method [7]. The kernels
appearing in integral equations are called fundamental solutions,
which may be determined analytically by applying unit excitation
to a xed source point in innite medium [8]. The second step of
BEM involves the discretization of the boundary and the numerical
solution of the unknown boundary quantities which are boundary
tractions or displacements in elastodynamics. Having determined
unknown boundary quantities, if desired, the response quantities
at interior points are computed numerically.
When a node is located at a point where the boundary is not
smooth, i.e. has a corner point, a discontinuity in traction will occur
at that node. This type of problems can be solved either duplicating
the corner node or introducing the concept of discontinuous ele-
ments [3]. To eliminate the discontinuity in this study, discontinu-
ous boundary elements are used. On the other hand, by using the
discontinuous element, there is no need to satisfy continuity con-
dition between the adjacent elements. Although the uses of discon-
tinuous boundary elements (linear and quadratic) are present in
the literature, majority of them are concerned with fracture
0965-9978/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.01.006
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 382 2150953; fax: +90 382 2150592.
E-mail address: ideneme@gmail.com (I.O. Deneme).
Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 847855
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Advances in Engineering Software
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ advengsof t
mechanics and/or crack problems. Therefore, in this study,
discontinuous boundary elements (constant, linear and quadratic)
are investigated especially for 2D soilstructure interaction
problems.
Elastodynamic soilstructure interaction problems based on
substructure method is usually carried out in the frequency do-
main. This is because frequency domain analysis is most effective
in treating the problem of wave propagation in a semi-innite reg-
ular soil region. Also, with the use of fast Fourier transform (FFT)
[9], frequency domain analysis becomes computationally very ef-
cient. Finally, when the BEM is used in the analysis, the fundamen-
tal solution for the soil region is much simpler in the frequency
domain than in the time domain. Because of this, all the formula-
tions are performed in Fourier transform space. Based on the for-
mulation, some general purpose computer programs are
developed for elastic or visco-elastic medium. The programs have
been validated through the analysis of sample problems.
2. Boundary element equation in elastodynamics
The dynamic response of a linear elastic body V bounded by the
surface S and referred to an x
i
coordinate system (Fig. 1) is gov-
erned in Fourier transform space by the equation
@
j
s
ij
f
i
qx
2
u
i
0: 1
In Eq. (1), s
ij
, u
i
and f
i
are stress, displacement and body force com-
ponents, respectively. In addition, @
j
represents the derivative with
respect to x
j
(@
j
= @/@x
j
).
Boundary integral equation of elastodynamics is well estab-
lished in literature [3,6,10]. It is in indicial notation and in Fourier
transform space,
c
k
u
k
P
_
S
G
k
P; Qt
k
QdS
_
S
H
k
P; Qu
k
QdS

_
V
G
k
P; Qf
k
QdV: 2
Here, G
k
and H
k
represent rst and second fundamental solutions;
u
k
, t
k
and f
k
are displacement, traction and body force components,
respectively, in Fourier transform space. P and Q are xed (source)
and varied (integration) points, respectively. c
k
is a constant
depending on the location of P. The indicial notation is used for
writing Eqs. (1) and (2) and it is assumed that the indices appearing
in these equations have the range from 1 to 2 for two-dimensional
analysis. Repeated index implies summation over the range of that
index.
Boundary integral equation, Eq. (2), can be rewritten in matrix
form as
cuP
_
S
GP; QtQdS
_
S
HP; QuQdS

_
V
GP; Qf QdV: 3
In Eq. (3), c is a matrix which is
c
I if P is an interior point;
0 if P is outside of V;
1
2
I if P is on the boundary S;
_

_
4
where I is identity matrix. It may be noted that the last expression
above does not hold when P is a corner point [3]. The fundamental
solutions G and H of elastodynamics have been presented in the lit-
erature by taking the auxiliary system as innite [8].
3. Numerical solution of boundary element equation
Solving boundary element equation using boundary conditions,
the unknown displacement and traction components (i.e., bound-
ary quantities) on the boundary S can be determined.
The boundary element equation can be solved numerically by
discretizing the boundary S into small elements (boundary ele-
ments). In this analysis, the distribution of boundary quantities
over the elements is approximated using some shape functions.
In the present study, discontinuous boundary element (constant,
linear and quadratic) formulations are used. Constant element
contains one node, linear element contains two nodes and
quadratic element contains three nodes located on the element
(Fig. 2).
For the numerical solution, the boundary S is discretized into N
boundary elements (Fig. 3). When boundary integral equation, Eq.
(3), is written at the node P
m
(m = 1, . . . , N) of the mth boundary ele-
ment the following equation can be obtained (in the absence of
body force),
1
2
u
m

N
n1
G
mn
t
n

N
n1
H
mn
u
n
m 1; . . . ; N; 5
where
x
1
x
2
P
r
r
r
r
n
n
Q (x
i
)
Q (x
i
)
S
V
Fig. 1. Typical body.
+1 0 -1

=0.00
a) Constant
+1 0 -1

1
1

2
= 0.67
b) Linear
+1 0 -1

2
= 0.75
= 0.00
c) Quadratic
1

1
1

3
Fig. 2. Interpolation functions and position of nodes.
848 I.O. Deneme et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 847855
G
mn

_
Sn
GP
k
m
; QdS; H
mn

_
Sn
HP
k
m
; QdS; 6
in which S
n
is the boundary of the nth element (Fig. 3). In Eq. (5), u
n
and t
n
are associated with the nth boundary element. It should be
noted that the node P
k
m
is not a corner point. Thus, c = I is used.
According to the boundary element formulation; coordinates,
displacement and traction components of a point can be dened as
x
i

q
k1
/
k
nx
k
i
; 7
u
i

q
k1
/
k
nu
k
i
; 8
t
i

q
k1
/
k
nt
k
i
; 9
where x
k
i
is vector position of the end nodes; u
k
i
and t
k
i
are nodal dis-
placements and stresses; n is parametric variable coordinate and /
k
is shape function (k = 1, . . . , q).
The shape function for constant element (q = 1) is given as
/
1
1: 10
The shape functions for linear element (q = 2) are given as
/
1
n
n
2
n
n
2
n
1
_ _
; /
2
n
n n
1
n
2
n
1
_ _
1 n
1
< 0 and 0 < n
2
1; 11
where n
1
and n
2
denote local coordinate of rst and second node of
elements, respectively.
The quadratic shape functions for discontinuous element (q = 3)
are given as
/
1
n
1
2
n
a
n
a
1
_ _
; /
2
n 1
n
a
_ _
2
;
/
3
n
1
2
n
a
n
a
1
_ _
12
where 1 6 n 6 1 and a is a parameter (0 < a < 1) which denes the
ratio of the distance between boundary nodes to the length of the
element. The nodes 1 and 3 are allowed to vary symmetrically by
a. If a = 1, then the shape functions will reduce to the standard qua-
dratic shape functions, thus the element becomes a continuous
element.
By using Eqs. (8) and (9), Eq. (5) can be rewritten as
c
k
m
uP
k
m

N
n1

q
s1
G
mn
ks
tQ
s
n

N
n1

q
s1
H
mn
ks
uQ
s
n
13
where tQ
s
n
and uQ
s
n
are the traction and displacement vectors at
sth node of nth element, respectively. In addition
G
mn
ks

_
1
1
JnGP
k
m
; Q/
s
dn; H
mn
ks

_
1
1
JnHP
k
m
; Q/
s
dn; 14
where J is Jacobian and /
s
is shape function matrix and dened as
/
s

/
s
0
0 /
s
_ _
s 1; . . . q: 15
By writing Eq. (13) for the xed points P
k
m
with k = 1, . . . , q
(which are the nodes of S
m
) and combining them, the following
equation can be obtained:
c
m
u
m

N
n1
G
mn
t
n

N
n1
H
mn
u
n
: 16
When Eq. (16) is written for all boundary elements (m = 1, . . . , N)
and combined, the system equations of BEM can be obtained in
matrix form as,

H~ u

G
~
t; 17
where

G G
mn
;

H H
mn

1
2
Id
mn
;
~ u u
n
;
~
t t
n
m; n 1; . . . ; N
18
with d
mn
is Kroneckers delta. The elements G
mn
and H
mn
may be
computed numerically by using Gaussian quadrature formula.
The solution of Eq. (17), together with the prescribed boundary
conditions, determines numerically the unknown boundary quan-
tities. Having determined unknown boundary quantities, if desired,
the interior displacements and stresses can be computed numeri-
cally using the boundary quantities.
4. Calculation of singular integrals
The singular integrals will occur when xed point P and varied
point Q are on the same element. Therefore, diagonal matrices in
Eq. (17) will be singular. These singular matrices G
mm
ks
and H
mm
ks
can be written as,
G
mm
ks

_
Sm
GP
k
m
; Q/
s
dS; H
mm
ks

_
Sm
HP
k
m
; Q/
s
dS; 19
where k is xed point number and s is shape function number. The
integrals in Eq. (19) are to be understood in the sense of Cauchy
principal value, i.e., they do not contain the contributions when var-
ied point Q coincides with the xed point P
k
m
[8]. But the fundamen-
tal solutions involve the distance r between the xed and varied
points, and become singular when r = 0. In Eq. (14) (written for
m = n) the varied point Q is on the element S
m
and the distance r
is smaller compared to case in which mn. So that, care should
be given for the evaluation of the integrals in Eq. (19) and they
should be computed by using some special numerical integration
techniques [3].
The diagonal matrices G
mm
ks
and H
mm
ks
(for the xed point P and
the varied point Q) can be rewritten as
G
PQ

_
G
k
r
P
n/
Q
nJndn; 20
H
PQ

_
H
k
r
P
n/
Q
nJndn: 21
x
2
x
1
S
m
Q(x
i
)
S
n
S
k
n
Q
r
r
k
m
P
Fig. 3. Boundary element discretization of the body.
I.O. Deneme et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 847855 849
Here = 1, 2 and k = 1, 2 for two-dimensional problems, G
k
and H
k
are, the rst and the second fundamental solution for two-dimen-
sional elastostatics, given in Eqs. (22) and (23). The number of shape
functions should be the same with varied point number
G
k

1
8pl1 m
3 4m ln
1
r
_ _
d
k

r

r
r
k
r
_ _
; 22
H
k

1
4p1 mr
@r
@n
1 2md
k
2
r

r
r
k
r
_ _
_
1 2m
r
k
r
n

r
n
k
_ __
; 23
where d
k
, m, l, n
k
and n

denote Kronecker delta, Poissons ratio,

shear modulus and outer unit normal vector components,
respectively.
In this study, singularity subtraction technique has been used
for all types of discontinuous elements (constant, linear and qua-
dratic) therefore; singularity in static case will be mentioned
rstly.
4.1. Singular integrals for constant element in static case
As stated previously, it may be noted that the integrals in Eq.
(19) are dened in the sense of Cauchy principal value and exclude
the point n = 0 which corresponds to the xed point P. After some
analytical calculations were done [8], the rst fundamental solu-
tion components (G
mm
k
) are obtained as,
G
mm
k

R
4pl1 m
3 4m1 lnRd
k
s

s
k
; 24
where R denotes half of the length of the element. s

and s
k
are unit
tangential vector components.
The second fundamental solution can be integrated using
standard Gaussian quadrature for determining H
mn
matrices. When
the xed point P and the varied point Q at the same element the
terms H
mm
can be determined using rigid-body motion as follows
[3]:
H
mm

N
n1
H
mn
mn 25
4.2. Singular integrals for linear element in static case
The rst fundamental solution G (when P and Q on the same
element) includes ln(1/r) and (1/r) singularity cases. The integral,
that contains rst fundamental solution, will be considered in
two parts. The rst part includes ln(1/r) and the second part con-
tains (1/r) singularity case. The ln(1/r) term can be calculated ana-
lytically and converting the integral limits (1, +1) to (0, +1) [11]. In
addition the second part, that includes (1/r) singularity, can be
integrated using standard Gaussian quadrature. Therefore the rst
fundamental solution can be integrated [11].
The second fundamental solution, in Eq. (23), can be integrated
using standard Gaussian quadrature for determining H
mn
matrices.
When the xed point P and the varied point Q at the same element
the terms H
mm
can be determined using rigid-body motion, as
shown in Eq. (25).
4.3. Singular integrals for quadratic element in static case
For calculating the rst fundamental solution G (when P and Q
on the same element) there is need for special techniques. For this
purpose, the integral that contains rst fundamental solution in
two parts will be considered. The rst part includes ln(1/r) and
the second part contains (1/r) singularity case.
If the fundamental solution is written, which was given at Eq.
(22), into Eq. (20), G
PQ
will contain a weak singularity in the form
of natural logarithm. After all G
PQ
can be rewritten as
G
PQ

_
1
8pl1 m
3 4m ln
1
r
P
_ _
d
k

r

r
P
r
k
r
P
_ _
/
Q
nJndn:
26
The ln(1/r
p
) term can be manipulated by conversion into a form,
where the logarithmic quadrature can apply. This conversion can
accomplish by using change of variables [12]. The second part of
Eq. (26) can be integrated using standard Gaussian quadrature.
The second fundamental solution, in Eq. (23), can be integrated
using standard Gaussian quadrature for determining H
mn
matrices.
When the xed point P and the varied point Q at the same element
the terms H
mm
can be determined using rigid-body motion, as
shown in Eq. (25).
4.4. Singular integrals in dynamic case
The orders of singularity in the dynamic fundamental solutions
are the same as in the static fundamental solutions and can be
dealt with in the following manner:
_

Dynamic
dS
_

Static
dS
_

Dynamic

Static
dS; 27
where the second integral on the right-hand side of Eq. (27) is non-
singular and can be evaluated using standard Gaussian quadrature.
The rst integral on the right-hand side of Eq. (27) can be evaluated
using the method described in static case. Eq. (27) can be rewritten
for both of the fundamental solutions in concise form as:
G
D
G
S
G
D
G
S
; 28
H
D
H
S
H
D
H
S
; 29
where G
D
and H
D
are dynamic fundamental solutions, G
S
and H
S
are
static fundamental solutions. The fundamental solutions G
D
and H
D
for two-dimensional elastodynamics are given in Eqs. (30) and (31)
G
D

1
2pl
Wd
k
vr

r
k
; 30
H
D

1
2p
dW
dr

v
r
_ _
d
k
@r
@n
r
k
n

_ _

2
r
v n
k
r

2r

r
k
@r
@n
_ _ _
2
dv
dr
r

r
k
@r
@n

c
2
p
c
2
s
2
_ _
dW
dr

dv
dr

v
r
_ _
r

n
k
_
; 31
where
W K
0
a
s

1
a
s
K
1
a
s

c
s
c
p
K
1
a
p

_ _
; 32
v K
2
a
s

c
2
s
c
2
p
K
2
a
p
; 33
where
a
s

ixr
c
s
; a
p

ixr
c
p
:
Here i is imaginary number, c
p
and c
s
are dilatational and shear
wave velocities. K
i
s are modied Bessel functions of second kind.
The singularity in H
D
can be manipulated using Eq. (29) instead
of the rigid-body motion mentioned in static case.
5. Computer programs
Based on the formulations, presented in this study, three gen-
eral purpose computer programs are developed by using FOR-
850 I.O. Deneme et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 847855
TRAN77 codes for analyzing elastic or visco-elastic 2D elastody-
namic soilstructure interaction problems. The structures of the
three programs are basically the same and the ow chart is shown
in Fig. 4. The programs perform the analysis in Fourier transform
space. If desired, the obtained results can be transformed to time
space with the use of FFT algorithm [9].
6. Numerical examples
In this section, some numerical examples are solved for the
comparison of the various discontinuous boundary element formu-
lations. To this end, based on the above mentioned formulations,
some general purpose computer programs have been developed
for each type of discontinuous boundary elements. All the pro-
grams perform the analysis in Fourier transform space. Although
the programs are developed for dynamic analysis, it can also be
used for static analysis by assigning a very small value close to zero
for the frequency.
Two examples are handled to demonstrate the suitability and
accuracy of the present formulation comparing with the results ob-
tained by independent numerical methods and/or exact solutions
available in the literature. In the example problems, mesh trunca-
tion is used for the analysis of unbounded domains and the funda-
mental solutions are integrated with 10 point quadrature rule for
both standard and logarithmic Gaussian quadrature formulas.
Boundary element model have been represented with the parame-
ters of n
1
= 0.67 and n
2
= 0.67 (for linear element) also n
1
= 0.75,
n
2
= 0, n
3
= 0.75 and a = 0.75 (for quadratic element).
In the formulation hysteretic damping ratio is used for damp-
ing. The hysteretic damping in the material can be included into
Compute terms of G
mm
and H
mm
matrices
Compute the resultants of boundary tractions
Determine the displacements
and stresses at interior points
START
Read input data and perform data generations
Form the system matrices for defined boundary in problems
Singular element (m = n)?
Compute G
mn
matrices
Interior points?
Compute the unknown boundary quantities by solving Eq.17
Write the results
STOP
No
No
Yes
Compute H
mn
matrices
Yes
Fig. 4. Flow chart of computer programs.
I.O. Deneme et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 847855 851
a system by replacing, in Fourier transform space, the shear mod-
ulus l of a material by l(1 + 2iz). Here, i is imaginary number and z
is the hysteretic damping ratio of the material, and all the param-
eters involving the elastic constant l are determined by this com-
plex valued shear modulus [13].
6.1. Rigid strip foundation
In this example, a rigid strip foundation on half-space shown in
Fig. 5 is considered. Here, compliances of rigid strip foundation are
investigated.
This problem has been solved, as a plane strain problem. The
top surface of the problem is discretized into 80 equal elements
for all types of discontinuous boundary elements.
The analysis is carried out in nondimensional space. The nondi-
mensional variables are dened as:

b 1 nondimensional half-width of footing

x
xb
c
S
nondimensional frequency
C
11
; C
22
plC
11
; C
22
nondimensional vertical and horizontal
compliances, respectively
C
33
plb
2
C
33
nondimensional rocking compliance
where x is the Fourier transform parameter, c
S
and l are the shear
wave velocity and shear modulus. In the analysis, Poissons ratio,
nondimensional mass density and nondimensional shear modulus
are taken as m 0:25; q 1; l 1.
The results, which were obtained using boundary element for-
mulations, are presented and compared with exact ones in Figs.
611. The exact results are taken from Luco and Westman [14].
As seen in the gures, the results are in good agreement.
6.2. Visco-elastic soil under harmonic strip load
In this problem, the compliances have been investigated for vis-
co-elastic soil under harmonic strip load shown in Fig. 12. The
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Nondimensional frequency
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Exact
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 8. Variation of real part of vertical compliance with frequency.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Nondimensional frequency
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Exact
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 6. Variation of real part of horizontal compliance with frequency.
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Nondimensional frequency
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Exact
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 7. Variation of imaginary part of horizontal compliance with frequency.
Rigid strip foundation
b
B A
b
Half-space
, , ,
x2
x1
Fig. 5. Rigid strip foundation over half-space.
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Nondimensional frequency
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Exact
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 9. Variation of imaginary part of vertical compliance with frequency.
852 I.O. Deneme et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 847855
material properties of half-space are given as; Poissons ratio
m = 0.25, nondimensional mass density q 1, nondimensional
shear modulus l 1 and hysteretic damping ratio z = 0.125. The
effect of strip load on half-space can be dened with a nondimen-
sional width

b 1 and nondimensional amplitude q
0
1. In the
problem, horizontal and vertical compliances, at eight points
(Fig. 12) are calculated for nondimensional frequency a
0
= 0.5.
The exact solutions for horizontal and vertical compliances
are taken from Gutierrez and Chopra [15] and they can be dened
as:
F
xx
m

1
G
f
xx
m
a
0
ig
xx
m
a
0
; 34
F
yy
m

1
G
f
yy
m
a
0
ig
yy
m
a
0
: 35
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Nondimensional frequency
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

r
o
c
k
i
n
g

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

Exact
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 10. Variation of real part of rocking compliance with frequency.
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Nondimensional frequency
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

r
o
c
k
i
n
g

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Exact
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 11. Variation of imaginary part of rocking compliance with frequency.
15b
Visco-elastic soil
, , , z
q=q
0
e
it
x
1
x
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
b 7b
Fig. 12. Visco-elastic soil under harmonic strip load.
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Nondimensional x
1
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Exact
Finite-Infinite
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 13. Real part of horizontal compliance.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Nondimensional x
1
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Exact
Finite-Infinite
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 14. Imaginary part of horizontal compliance.
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Nondimensional x
1
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Exact
Finite-Infinite
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 15. Real part of vertical compliance.
I.O. Deneme et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 847855 853
Here, F
xx
m
; F
yy
m
are horizontal and vertical compliances, G is shear
modulus for soil. f
xx
m
; g
xx
m
; f
yy
m
and g
yy
m
denote real and imaginary parts
of compliances in x
1
and x
2
direction, respectively.
The surface of the problem is discretized using 15 equal length
elements for all types of discontinuous boundary elements.
The results are presented and compared with coupling of nite
and innite element results obtained by Yerli et al. [1] and exact
ones in Figs. 1316. As seen in the gures, the results are in good
agreement.
This problem is solved again without damping. The boundary
element mesh is the same with the previous case. Since the exact
solution for this case is unavailable, the boundary element solu-
tions are presented and compared with coupling of nite and in-
nite element formulation presented by Yerli [16] in Figs. 1720. As
seen in the gures, the results are in good agreement.
7. Conclusions
In this study, various discontinuous boundary element formula-
tions (constant, linear and quadratic) are compared. Based on the
formulations, general purpose computer programs are developed,
and they are applied to 2D dynamic soilstructure interaction
problems.
The formulations proposed in this study are assessed by apply-
ing to several example problems. The results are compared with
those obtained by exact ones and/or the other methods available
in the literature. The comparisons indicate that the formulations
presented in this study can be used with a good condence in
the dynamic analysis of soilstructure interaction problems. In
addition, results obtained for constant, linear and quadratic bound-
ary elements are in good agreement to each other. Thus, it can be
said that the use of constant element (the simplest discontinuous
boundary element) formulation is sufcient for 2D elastodynamic
soilstructure interaction problems.
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Nondimensional x
1
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Exact
Finite-
Infinite
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 16. Imaginary part of vertical compliance.
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Nondimensional x
1
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Finite-Infinite
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 17. Real part of horizontal compliance (without damping).
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Nondimensional x
1
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Finite-Infinite
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 18. Imaginary part of horizontal compliance (without damping).
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Nondimensional x
1
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Finite-Infinite
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 19. Real part of vertical compliance (without damping).
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Nondimensional x
1
N
o
n
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Finite-Infinite
Constant
Linear
Quadratic
Fig. 20. Imaginary part of vertical compliance (without damping).
854 I.O. Deneme et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 847855
References
[1] Yerli HR, Temel B, Kiral E. Multi-wave transient and harmonic innite elements
for two-dimensional unbounded domain problems. Comput Geotech
1999;24(3):185206.
[2] Yerli HR, Temel B, Kiral E. Transient innite elements for 2-dimensional soil
structure interaction analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron, ASCE 1998;124(10):
97688.
[3] Brebbia CA, Dominguez J. Boundary elements an introductory
course. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications; 1989.
[4] Mackerle J, Brebbia CA. The boundary element reference
book. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications; 1988.
[5] Brebbia CA, Connor JJ. Advances in boundary elements, vol.
1. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications; 1989.
[6] Banerjee PK. The boundary element methods in
engineering. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1994.
[7] Partridge PW, Brebbia CA, Wrobel LC. The dual reciprocity boundary element
method. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications; 1992.
[8] Mengi Y, Tanrikulu AH, Tanrikulu AK. Boundary element method for elastic
media: an introduction. Ankara: METU Press; 1994.
[9] Cooley JW, Lewis PAW, Welch PD. The fast Fourier transform and its
applications. IEEE Trans Ed 1969;12:2734.
[10] Manolis GD, Beskos DE. Boundary element methods in elasto-
dynamics. London: Unwin Hyman; 1988.
[11] Severcan MH. Boundary element method formulation for dynamic soil
structure interaction problems. PhD Dissertation, University of Cukurova,
Adana, 2004 [in Turkish].
[12] Yerli HR, Deneme IO. Elastodynamic boundary element formulation
employing discontinuous curved elements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2008;28(6):48091.
[13] Wolf JP. soilstructure interaction analysis in time domain. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1988.
[14] Luco JE, Westman RA. Dynamic response of a rigid footing bounded to an
elastic half space. J Appl Mech Trans ASME 1972;39(2):52734.
[15] Gutierrez JA, Chopra AK. A substructure method for earthquake analysis of
structures including structuresoil interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
1978;6:5169.
[16] Yerli HR. Analysis of two and three dimensional dynamic soilstructure
interaction problems using nite and innite elements. PhD Dissertation,
University of Cukurova, Adana, 1998 [in Turkish].
I.O. Deneme et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 847855 855