Computational Mechanics 33 (2004) 274–281 Ó Springer-Verlag 2003
DOI 10.1007/s00466-003-0528-y
Dynamic analysis of dam–reservoir-foundation interaction
in time domain
S. Küçükarslan
274
Abstract In this paper, a time domain dynamic analysis of
the dam–reservoir-foundation interaction problem is
developed by coupling the dual reciprocity boundary
element method (DRBEM) for the infinite reservoir and
foundation domain and the finite element method for the
finite dam domain. An efficient coupling procedure is
formulated by using the substructuring method. Sharan’s
boundary condition at the far end of the infinite fluid
domain is implemented. To verify the proposed scheme,
numerical examples are carried out and compared with
available exact solutions and finite–finite element coupling
results for the problem of the dam–reservoir interaction.
Finally, a complete dam–reservoir-foundation interaction
problem is solved and its solution is compared with
previously published results.
Keywords Dam–reservoir-foundation interaction, Dual
reciprocity boundary element method, Finite element
method, Transient response of dam, Infinite domains
1 and Antes (1991) used the BEM–FEM coupling for fluid–
Introduction
Dynamic response of dams interacting both with reservoir
and foundation is a complex problem in time domain. To
study the effects of reservoir and foundation on the
response of dams under two-dimensional (2D) conditions,
several numerical methods have been developed in the
past few decades such as finite element method and the
boundary element method.
An outstanding work on dam–reservoir-foundation
interaction by using the finite element method in the
frequency domain or the indirect time domain has been
carried out by Chopra and his colleagues (Chopra and
Chakrabarti 1981; Hall and Chopra 1982; Fenves and
Chopra 1984, 1985; Lotfi et al. 1987). The boundary
element method has also been successfully applied to the
dam dynamics (Humar and Jablonski 1988; Medina and
Received: 5 May 2003 / Accepted: 31 October 2003
Published online: 1 December 2003
S. Küçükarslan
Civil Engineering Department, Celal Bayar University,
PK 44, Manisa, 45000, Turkey
e-mail: semih.kucukarslan@bayar.edu.tr
The author is thankful to the anonymous reviewer of this
paper for his suggestions and comments, which improved
considerably the present paper.
Dominguez 1989; Wept et al. 1988; Antes and von Estorff
1987; von Estorff and Antes 1991; Touhei and Ohmachi
1993).
The boundary element method is a powerful numerical
tool for the successful solution of a variety of elastody-
namic engineering problems (Beskos 1987, 1997). Besides,
it is attractive for dynamic soil-structure interaction
problems because it can easily simulate the unbounded
exterior of the soil involved in the problem. However, most
of the studies have been done in the frequency domain
or in the indirect time domain, in which the transient
solution is obtained from the frequency domain results by
using Fourier transformations. Moreover, indirect time
domain solutions are applicable only to linear material
behavior.
The coupled boundary and finite element methods
(BEM–FEM) in time domain have been employed for
interaction problems first by Spyrakos and Beskos (1986)
and Karabalis and Beskos (1984) to investigate two and
three dimensional flexible foundations. Later, von Estorff
structure interaction problems in the time domain. A
weighted residual procedure for the dam–reservoir-foun-
dation interaction was introduced by coupling the BEM
and FEM in Touhei and Ohmachi (1993).
The dual reciprocity boundary element method
(DRBEM) was introduced by Nardini and Brebbia (1982)
for elastodynamic problems and extended to time domain
problems by Wrobel and Brebbia (1986) and scalar wave
propagation problems by Dai (1992). Time domain anal-
yses have been performed in 2D structures by Loeffler and
Mansur (1987, 1989) and Agnantiaris et al. (1996), in 3D
structures by Agnantiaris et al. (1998) and in non-axi-
symmetric and axisymmetric structures by Agnantiaris
et al. (2001).
By considering the advantages and the disadvantages of
the finite element and the boundary element methods in
the dam–reservoir-foundation interaction problem, it is
convenient to couple the dual reciprocity boundary
element method used to model the reservoir and the
foundation domains with the finite element method used
to model the dam domain and subsequently to solve for
the responses of the dam structure.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed pro-
cedure, numerical results for three numerical examples are
presented and compared with available exact or other
numerical solutions. These examples involve a rigid dam, a
flexible (elastic) dam and a dam with water reservoir and
foundation.
 i) At the fluid–solid interface (S1),
op
¼ qan ð4Þ
on
where n is the unit normal vector, an is the normal
acceleration on the interface and q is the mass density
of the fluid.
ii) At the bottom of the fluid domain (S2),
op
¼ qan ð5Þ
on
275
iii) At the far end (S3), Sharan’s radiation boundary
Fig. 1. Dam–reservoir-foundation system
condition (Sharan 1987) can be implemented as
op p_ p
¼  p ð6Þ
2 on c 2h
Analytical formulations where h is the height of the reservoir.
The geometry of the dam–reservoir-foundation system is iv) At the free surface (S4),
shown in Fig. 1. For the formulation of the dam–reservoir-
foundation interaction problem, the substructure method p¼0 ð7Þ
is used. The uncoupled structural and fluid responses are The application of the dual reciprocity boundary element
presented separately. The coupling is done by taking into formulation to this wave propagation problem can be
account continuity of displacements and the dynamic written in a matrix form after a standard boundary
equilibrium of the forces interacting between the element discretization process as
dam–reservoir and the dam-foundation interfaces.
1
½HR
fpg  ½GR
fqg ¼ 2
^  ½GR
f^
ð½HR
fpg qgÞfag ð8Þ
2.1 c
Structural responses where ½HR
and ½GR
are the coefficient matrices resulting
The solid dam is discretized by using finite elements and from the boundary integrals and calculated by
its equations of seismic motion including the effects of the Z
reservoir and the foundation are written as HRij ¼ qi dS ð9aÞ
½M
f€ ug þ ½C
fug
_ þ ½K
fug ¼ ½M
f€ ug g  fEðtÞg ð1Þ Sj
Z
where [M] is the mass matrix, [C] is the structural
damping matrix, [K] is the structural stiffness matrix, fug
GRij ¼ pi dS ð9bÞ
is the vector of the nodal displacements relative to the Sj
ground, f€ug g is the vector of the ground acceleration, op
fEðtÞg is the vector of the nodal point forces associated q¼ ð9cÞ
with the hydrodynamic pressures produced by the reser- on
voir and the foundation and overdots define differentia- where p^ and q^ are particular solutions to p and q,
tion with respect to time. The structural damping in the respectively.
system is assumed to be of the Rayleigh type of the form The vector fag is related to the vector of accelerations
by
½C
¼ b1 ½M
þ b2 ½K
ð2Þ
where b1 and b2 are constants adjusted to obtain fag ¼ ½F
1 fpg
€ ð10Þ
a desirable damping in the system, usually on the basis where matrix [F] is constructed by using a radial
of given modal damping ratios (Chopra 2000). basis function, f. The importance of selecting appro-
priate radial basis functions of the form f ðrÞ, where r is
2.2 the distance between source and receiver points, was
Reservoir responses studied in Partridge (2000) in which a set of radial basis
For a compressible and inviscid fluid, the hydrodynamic functions was presented. Among powers of r more than
pressure p resulting from the ground motion of the rigid 1 can cause instability in the computation or even
dam (Fig. 1) satisfies the wave equation in the form produce no results, since the vector fag of Eq. (10) is
2 constructed by taking the inverse of [F] which includes
1op
r2 p ¼ 2 2 ð3Þ powers of the large distance r between the dam bottom
c ot and the truncated boundary and hence its inverse
where c is the velocity of sound in water and r2 is the results in very small values. This can cause loss of
Laplacian operator in two dimensions. accuracy in the computations. Due to this effect, the
The following boundary conditions are defined by selected radial basis function for the water reservoir is
assuming that the effects of surface waves and the viscosity chosen as a linear variation of the radial distance, i.e.
of the fluid are neglected: f ¼ 1 þ r.
 By substituting Eq. (10) in Eq. (8), one can obtain where qf is the mass density of the foundation and bk are
€ þ ½HR
fpg ¼ ½GR
fqg the body forces. This equation can also be expressed in
½MR
fpg ð11Þ
terms of the displacement field as
where matrix ½MR
is defined as G
1 Guk;jj þ uj;jk þ bk ¼ qf u€k ð17Þ
½MR
¼  2 ð½HR
fp^g  ½GR
f^qgÞ½F
1 ð12Þ 1  2t
c The application of the DRBEM to this dynamic problem
After partitioning, Eq. (11) takes the form initially requires a boundary integral equation which is
2 3 8 9 obtained by using the static fundamental solutions for the
M11 M12 M13 M14 > > p€1 >
> displacements and the tractions.
6M 7 >
< p€ >=
6 21 M 22 M 23 M 24 7 2 The elastostatic fundamental solution for the plane
276 6 7 strain problem in an infinite elastic medium is known as
4 M31 M32 M33 M34 5 > > p€3 >
>
>
: > ; Kelvin’s solution. In the absence of body forces, Eq. (17)
M41 M42 M43 M44 R p€4 can be discretized with the help of the DRBEM as
2 3 8 9
H11 H12 H13 H14 > > p1 >
> ^
>
< > ½Hf
fug  ½Gf
fpg ¼ qf ð½Hf
f^ ug  ½Gf
fpgÞfag
6H
6 21 H22 H23 H24 7
7 p2 =
þ6 7 ð18Þ
4 H31 H32 H 33 H34 5 > > p3 >
>
>
: > ; where ½Hf
and ½Gf
are the coefficient matrices resulting
H41 H42 H43 H44 R p4 from the boundary integrals and p^ and u^ are particular
2 3 8 9
G11 G12 G13 G14 > > qð€ u g þ €d1 Þ >
u > solutions to p and u, respectively.
6G 7 > < qð€ >
ug þ u€f 2 Þ = Loffler and Mansur (1988, 1989) were the first to try the
6 21 G22 G23 G24 7
¼6 7 application of the DRBEM to infinite domain potential
4 G31 G32 G33 G34 5 > >  1 p_  p p3 > > problems and transient elastic wave propagation problems
>
: c 3 2h > ;
G41 G42 G43 G44 R 0 by using a special class of radial basis function to guar-
antee the decaying at infinity. Due to its complexity for
ð13Þ elasticity problems, Rashed (2002) used compact sup-
where subscripts ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’ and ‘4’ represent the dam– ported radial basis functions for infinite elasticity prob-
reservoir interface, the dam-foundation interface, the far lems and proved the applicability of four different classes
truncating end and the free surface, respectively. In the of compact supported radial basis functions. In this study,
right hand side of Eq. (13), u€g is the vector of the ground the simplest class was chosen, because it is the most stable
acceleration and subscripts d1 and f2 are nodes on the face and gives convergent results regardless of the value of the
S1 of the dam and S2 of the foundation, respectively. radius of the support. It is given by
Equation (13) can also be written in the form (
2
_ þ ½H
R
fpg ¼ fbR g
€ þ ½CR
fpg f ¼ 1  br ; r<b ð19Þ
½MR
fpg ð14Þ
0; otherwise
where
2 3 where b denotes the radius of compact support.
0 0 G13 =c 0 By substituting Eq. (10) in Eq. (18), one can obtain
6 0 0 G23 =c 0 7
½CR
¼ 4 5 ð15aÞ ½Mf
f€
ug þ ½Hf
fug ¼ ½Gf
fpg ð20Þ
0 0 G33 =c 0
0 0 G43 =c 0 R
2 3 where matrix ½Mf
is defined as
p
H11 H12 H13 þ 2h G13 H14 1
6H p 7 ½Mf
¼ qf ð½Hf
f^ ^
ug  ½Gf
fpgÞ½F
ð21Þ
6 21 H22 H23 þ 2h G23 H24 7
½H
R
¼ 6 p 7 ð15bÞ After partitioning, Eq. (20) takes the form
4 H31 H32 H33 þ 2h G33 H34 5
p 2 38 9
H41 H42 H43 þ 2h G43 H44 R M22 M25 M26 > u€2 >
8 9 6 7< =
>
> G11 ð€
ug þ u€d1 Þ þ G12 ð€
ug þ u€f 2 Þ >
> 6 M52 M55 M56 7 u€5
>
< G ð€ > 4 5> >
21 ug þ u ug þ u€f 2 Þ =
€d1 Þ þ G22 ð€ : ;
fbR g ¼ q M62 M65 M66 f u€6
>
> G31 ð€ ug þ u€f 2 Þ >
ug þ u€d1 Þ þ G32 ð€ > 2 38 9
>
: G ð€ >
;
41 gu þ u€d1 Þ þ G ð€
u
42 g þ u€f2 Þ H22 H25 H26 > u2 >
R 6 7< =
ð15cÞ þ6 H
4 52 H 55 H 7 u5
56 5
>
: > ;
H62 H65 H66 f u6
2.3 2 38 9
Foundation responses G22 G25 G26 > p2 >
The conditions of dynamic equilibrium of an elastic 6 7< =
foundation are expressed by the equation ¼6 G
4 52 G 55 G 7 p5
56 5 ð22Þ
>
: > ;
rkj;j þ bk ¼ qf u€k ð16Þ G62 G65 G66 f p6


By rewriting Eq. (22), one can obtain uif 2 g ¼ a0 fuif 2 g  fui1
f€ _ i1 ui1
f 2 g  a2 fu f 2 g  a3 f€f2 g
½Mf
f€
ug þ ½Hf
fug ¼ fbf g ð23Þ
ð32bÞ
where
8 9 Let
< p2 = 2 3 2 3
h1 h11 h12 h13 h14
fbf g ¼ ½Gf
p5 ð24Þ 6h 7 6h
: ;
p6 6 27 6 21 h22 h23 h24 7
7
½hR
¼ ½H^R
1 ¼6 7 ¼6 7
4 h3 5 4 h31 h32 h33 h34 5
h4 R h41 h42 h43 h44 R
3 ð33Þ 277
Coupling of dam–reservoir-foundation equations
The substructuring technique is used to couple the finite By substituting (33) in (29), one obtains
element used to discretize the dam domain and the dual fpi g ¼ ½hR
fb^iR g ð34Þ
reciprocity boundary element used to discretize the res- 8 i9
ervoir and foundation domains. This coupling is accom- >
> p >
< 1i > =
plished by enforcing the pressure and the displacement p2
fpi g ¼ i ð35Þ
boundary conditions at the common interfaces. By >
> p >
applying the Newmark time integration method to Eq. (1), : 3i > ;
p4
one has
fpi1 g ¼ ½h1
R fb^iR g ð36Þ

i g ¼ fRi g
½K
fu ð25Þ
Since the pressures on the surface S1 of the dam contribute
in which superscript ‘i’ represents the ith time step. to the structure equation equivalent forces fE1 ðtÞg, one

¼ ½K
þ ao ½M
þ a1 ½C

½K
ð26Þ can write for the ith step
i
fR g ¼ ½M
f€ ug g  fE g i fEi1 g ¼ ½T1
fpi1 g ð37Þ
 
þ ½M
a0 fui1 g þ a2 fu_ i1 g þ a3 f€
ui1 g where ½T1
is the transformation matrix which transforms
  the pressures to the nodal forces for a given surface.
þ ½C
a1 fui1 g þ a4 fu_ i1 g þ a5 f€
ui1 g ð27Þ Similarly, by applying the Newmark time integration
with method to Eq. (23), one can obtain
 
1 1 1 d ½H^f
fui g  ½Mf
a0 fui1 g þ a2 fu_ i1 g þ a3 f€
ui1 g
a0 ¼ ; a2 ¼ ; a3 ¼  1; a4 ¼  1;
aDt2  Dt 2a a ¼ fb^if g ð38Þ
Dt d
a5 ¼  2 ; a6 ¼ Dtð1  dÞ; a7 ¼ Dtd; ð28Þ ½H^f
¼ ½Hf
þ ao ½Mf
ð39Þ
2 a 8 i9
d ¼ 0:5; and a ¼ 0:25 : < p2 =
fb^if g ¼ ½Gf
pi5 ð40Þ
By applying the Newmark integration method to Eq. (14), : i;
p6 f
one has
½H^R
fpi g ¼ fb^iR g ð29Þ Let 2 3 2 3
^
g2 g22 g25 g26
½HR
¼ ½HR
þ ao ½MR
þ a1 ½CR
ð30Þ
8 9 ½gf
¼ ½Gf
1 ¼ 4 g5 5 ¼ 4 g52 g55 g56 5 ð41Þ
i i
>
> G 11 ð€
u g þ €
u d1 Þ þ G 12 ð€
u g þ €
uf2 >Þ > g 6 f g 62 g65 g66 f
>
> >
>
>
< G21 ð€ i i >
=
u g þ €
u d1 Þ þ G ð€
22 gu þ €
uf2 Þ By substituting (41) in (38), one receives
fb^iR g ¼ q
> G31 ð€
>
i
ug þ u€d1 Þ þ G32 ð€ i >
ug þ u€f 2 Þ >
>
> >
> fpi g ¼ ½gf
fb^if g ð42Þ
>
: G ð€ i i >
;
41 ug þ ud1 Þ þ G42 ð€
€ ug þ uf 2 Þ
€ and one can write the pressures on the dam-foundation
R
  surface as
þ ½MR
a0 fp g þ a2 fp_ g þ a3 fp€i1 g
i1 i1
  i i i1
þ ½CR
a1 fpi1 g þ a4 fp_i1 g þ a5 fp€i1 g ð31Þ fp5 g ¼ ½g5
f f½H^f
fu g  ½Mf
ða0 fu g
i1 i1
where u€id1 and u€if 2 are the vectors of the nodal accelerations þ a2 fu_ g þ a3 f€ u gÞg ð43Þ
on the dam–reservoir interface and the reservoir-founda- Since the pressures on the surface S5 of the foundation
tion interfaces given by contribute to the dam equation equivalent forces fE5 ðtÞg;
 
f€uid1 g ¼ a0 fuid1 g  fui1d1 g  a 2 fu_ i1
d1 g  a 3 f€
u i1
d1 g one can write for the ith step
ð32aÞ fEi5 g ¼ ½T5
fpi5 g ð44Þ
 where ½T5
is the transformation matrix which transforms
pressures to nodal forces for a given surface. By substi-
tuting (37) and (44) in (25) there results the final equation
to be solved for the ith step:


i g ¼ ½M
f€
½K
fu ug g þ ½M
a0 fui1 g

þ a2 fu_ i1 g þ a3 f€
ui1 g

þ ½C
a1 fui1 g þ a4 fu_ i1 g

ui1 g  fEi1 g  fEi5 g
þ a5 f€ ð45Þ Fig. 2. Ramp type seismic acceleration
278
4
Numerical examples
In this section, first a rigid dam example is studied under a
ramp type seismic acceleration to examine the validity of
the chosen Sharan’s boundary condition for the infinite
reservoir domain. Secondly, a vertical elastic dam example
interacting with the reservoir under seismic motion is
carried out to compare its results with the exact and the
finite-finite element coupling results. Finally, a fill dam
interacting both with reservoir and foundation is analyzed
and its results are compared with known numerical ones.
Fig. 3. Comparison of bottom hydrodynamic pressure for rigid dam
4.1
Rigid dam example
A rigid dam (Fig. 1) with a constant reservoir height of
180 m extending to infinity under ramp acceleration (Fig. 2)
is studied by using the dual reciprocity boundary element
method (DRBEM). In the analysis, the wave speed c is used
as 1439 m/s and the water is assumed to be compressible
and inviscid with a mass density of q ¼ 1000 kg/m3 .
The DRBEM is applied by using linear boundary
elements. In the analysis, 40 elements in the horizontal
direction and 20 elements in the vertical direction are
used, while the number of total internal nodes is 10.
Results for the vertical face of the dam are compared with Fig. 4. Vertically faced elastic dam
the exact solution (Tsai et al. 1990) in Fig. 3. In this figure,
the dimensionless hydrodynamic pressure is given by
p
ð46Þ
ahq
where a is the maximum value of the ramp acceleration
and h is the height of the reservoir. It can be seen that
calculated values of the hydrodynamic pressures at the
bottom of the dam are in reasonable agreement with those
obtained by the exact solution.

4.2
Elastic dam example
A reservoir of 180 m in height, 15 m in width and a con-
stant depth extending to infinity (Fig. 4) is analyzed under a
seismic motion (Fig. 5). The dam has an elasticity modulus
of 3.43  1011 N/m2 , Poisson’s ratio of 0.0 and mass den-
sity of 2400 kg/m3 . The reservoir and the dam bottoms are
assumed to be rigid. Similar to previous example, the wave
speed c is 1439 m/s and the water is assumed to be com-
pressible and inviscid with a mass density of q ¼
1000 kg/m3 . For the truncated surface at the far end, Sha-
ran’s boundary condition is used and the truncation is
done at a distance of 900 m from the dam face.
Fig. 5. North–south component of El centro (1940) Ground motion
In the FEM–FEM coupling, the dynamic analysis is
performed with linear 4-noded rectangular elements. For
the dam structure, 3 elements in the horizontal direction
and 12 elements in the vertical directions are used. For the
reservoir domain, 30 elements in the horizontal direction
and 12 elements in the vertical directions are used in the
analysis.
 279

Fig. 6. Comparison of hydrodynamic pressure at the bottom of dam

Fig. 7. Comparison of displacements at the top of structure

Fig. 8. Analyzed fill dam

The dynamic analysis by using the DRBEM–FEM cou- number of elements with the same dimensions as in the
pling is performed with linear 4-noded rectangular finite FEM–FEM coupling are used. For the reservoir, a total of
elements in the dam domain and linear boundary elements 60 boundary elements are used on the boundary of the
in the reservoir domain. For the dam structure, the same fluid domain and 10 internal nodes are selected inside the
 Table 1. Material properties

Case number

1 2
Elasticity modulus of dam (kPa) 468000 1300000
Elasticity modulus of foundation (kPa) 5200000 5200000
Poisson’s ratio for dam and foundation 0.3 0.3
Mass density of dam and foundation (kg/m3) 2000 2000
Sound velocity of reservoir (m/s) 1438 1438
Mass density of reservoir (kg/m3) 1000 1000
280

Fig. 9. Time history of displacement at the crest of the dam (Case 1)

Fig. 10. Time history of displacement at the crest of the dam (Case 2)

fluid domain. The far end is truncated at a distance of 900 compared. The dimensionless hydrodynamic pressure is
meters from the dam face. defined as
Analyses are performed with a time step of 0.01 s. Re- p
sults for the applied seismic motion are plotted in Figs. 6 ð47Þ
and 7 for the dimensionless hydrodynamic pressure his-
ghq
tory at the bottom of the dam and for the displacement where g is the gravitational acceleration. It can be seen
history at the top point of the dam structure, respectively. from the Figs. 6 and 7 that the results of the proposed
In these figures, results of the FEM–FEM, DRBEM–FEM DREBEM–FEM coupling produces accurate results when
and the available exact solutions (Tsai et al. 1991) are compared to the exact solutions.
4.3
A fill dam with a reservoir and foundation
In this example, a previously analyzed fill dam (Touhei
and Ohmachi 1993) is again studied by the present
method. The geometry of the dam–reservoir-foundation
system is given in Fig. 8. Analysis is performed for two
cases in which different elasticity moduli are used for the
dam structure. Material properties are given in Table 1.
Loading to the system is applied at the dam foundation
interface as a 3200 kN uniform load in the horizontal
direction. Analyses are performed with a time step of
0.01 s. The finite dam structure is discretized by 20 finite
elements in the horizontal direction and 10 finite elements
in the vertical direction. For the reservoir, 50 linear
boundary elements and 10 internal nodes are used. For the
foundation part of the problem, 40 linear boundary ele-
ments and 30 internal nodes are used, while the selected
compact support radius is b ¼ 300.
The results are plotted in Figs. 9 and 10 in terms of the
time history of displacement at the crest of the dam for the
two cases of elastic modulus considered here. These
analyses are done when the reservoir is fully impounded.
In the analyses, the reservoir is truncated at 300 m from
the bottom dam face. From Figs. 9 and 10, it can be seen
that the present results are in a good agreement with those
published in Touhei and Ohmachi (1993) for both cases.
5 Lotfi et al (1987) A technique for the analysis of the response of
Conclusions
The dam–reservoir-foundation interaction problem in
time domain was studied by coupling the finite element
method for the dam structure and the dual reciprocity
boundary element method for the reservoir and the
foundation domains. The substructuring technique was
used to couple the numerical methods by using appro-
priate boundary conditions at the common interfaces. For
the truncated boundary at the far end of the reservoir,
Sharan’s boundary condition was used. Numerical exam-
ples were carried out to compare the proposed method. It
can be concluded that proposed DRBEM–FEM coupling
gives in an efficient manner results which compare very
well to the exact and the FEM–FEM coupling results.
References
Agnantiaris JP, Polyzos, Beskos DE (1996) Some studies on dual
reciprocity BEM for elastodynamic analysis. Comput. Mech.
17: 270–277
Agnantiaris JP, Polyzos, Beskos DE (1998) Three dimensional
structural vibration analysis by the dual reciprocity BEM.
Comput. Mech. 21: 372–381
Agnantiaris JP, Polyzos, Beskos DE (2001) Free vibration analysis
of non-axisymmetric and axisymmetric structures by the dual
reciprocity BEM. Eng. Anal. 25: 713–723
Antes H, von Estorff O (1987) Analysis of absorption effects on
the dynamic response of dam reservoir systems by boundary
element methods. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 15:
1023–1036
Beskos DE (1987) Boundary element methods in dynamic
analysis. Appl. Mech. Rev. 40: 1–23
Beskos DE (1997) Boundary element methods in dynamic
analysis Part II. Appl. Mech. Rev. 50: 149–197
Chopra AK (2000) Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall
Chopra AK, Chakrabarti P (1981) Earthquake analysis of con-
crete gravity dams including dam–fluid-foundation rock
interaction. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 9: 363–383
Dai DN (1992) An improved boundary element formulation for
wave propagation problems. Eng. Anal. 10: 277–281
Fenves G, Chopra AK (1984) Earthquake analysis of concrete
gravity dams including bottom absorption dam-water-foun-
dation rock interaction. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics
12: 663–683
Fenves G, Chopra AK (1985) Effects of reservoir bottom
absorption and dam-water-foundation rock interaction on
frequency response functions for concrete gravity dams.
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 13: 13–31 281
Hall JF, Chopra AK (1982) Two dimensional dynamic analysis of
concrete gravity and embankment dams including hydrody-
namic effects. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 10: 305–332
Humar JL, Jablonski AM (1988) Boundary element reservoir
model for seismic analysis of gravity dams. Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dynamics 16: 1129–1156
Karabalis DL, Beskos DE (1984) Dynamic response of 3D rigid
surface foundations by time domain BEM. Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dynamics 12: 73–93
Loffler CF, Mansur WJ (1987) Analysis of time integration
schemes for boundary element applications to transient wave
propagation problems. Comput. Mech. Publ. 105–122
Loffler CF, Mansur WJ (1988) Dual reciprocity boundary element
formulation for potential problems in infinite domains.
Comput. Mech. Publ. 155–163
Loffler CF, Mansur WJ (1989) Dual reciprocity boundary element
formulation for transient elastic wave propogation analysis in
infinite domains. Adv Bound Elem 2: 231–240
dams to earthquakes. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 15:
463–490
Medina F, Dominguez J (1989) Boundary elements for the
analysis of the seismic response of dams including dam-
water-foundation interaction effects. Eng. Anal. 6: 152–157
Nardini D, Brebbia CA (1982) A New Approach to Free Vibration
Analysis using Boundary Elements. Springer Verlag
Partridge PW, Brebbia CA, Wrobel LC (1992) The dual reci-
procity boundary element method. Southampton:
Computational Mechanics Publications
Partridge PW (2000) Towards criteria for selecting approxima-
tion functions in the DRM. Eng. Anal. 24: 519–529
Rashed YF (2002) BEM for dynamic analysis using compact sup-
ported radial basis function. Comput. Struct. 80: 1351–1367
Sharan SK (1987) Time domain analysis of infinite fluid
vibration. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 24: 945–958
Spyrakos CC, Beskos DE (1986) Dynamic response of rigid strip
foundations by time domain BEM. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng.
23: 1547–1565
Tsai CS, Lee GC, Ketter RL (1990) A semi-analytical method for
time domain analyses of dam–reservoir interactions. Int.
J. Numer. Meth. 29: 913–933
Tsai CS, Lee GC (1991) Time domain analyses of dam–reservoir
system. II: Substructure method. J. Eng. Mech. 117: 2007–
2026
Touhei T, Ohmachi T (1993) A FE–BE method for dynamic
analysis of dam-foundation-reservoir systems in time
domain, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 22: 195–209
von Estorff O, Antes H (1991) On FEM–BEM coupling for fluid
structure interaction in the time domain. Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Eng. 31: 1151–1168
Wept DH et al. (1988) Hydrodynamic stiffness matrix based on
boundary elements for time domain dam–reservoir-soil
analysis. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynamics 16: 417–432
Wrobel LC, Brebbia CA, Nardini D (1981) The Dual Reciprocity
Boundary Element Formulation for Transient Heat Conduc-
tion. Springer Verlag