Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis via coupled

finite-element–boundary-element method
M. Yazdchi, N. Khalili*, S. Valliappan
School of Civil Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
Received 13 July 1998; received in revised form 27 May 1999; accepted 27 May 1999

Abstract
In this paper, a study on the transient response of an elastic structure embedded in a homogeneous, isotropic and linearly elastic half-plane
is presented. Transient dynamic and seismic forces are considered in the analysis. The numerical method employed is the coupled Finite-
Element–Boundary-Element technique (FE–BE). The finite element method (FEM) is used for discretization of the near field and the
boundary element method (BEM) is employed to model the semi-infinite far field. These two methods are coupled through equilibrium and
compatibility conditions at the soil–structure interface. Effects of non-zero initial conditions due to the pre-dynamic loads and/or self-weight
of the structure are included in the transient boundary element formulation. Hence, it is possible to analyse practical cases (such as dam–
foundation systems) involving initial conditions due to the pre-seismic loads such as water pressure and self-weight of the dam. As an
application of the proposed formulation, a gravity dam has been analysed and the results for different foundation stiffness are presented. The
results of the analysis indicate the importance of including the foundation stiffness and thus the dam–foundation interaction. q 1999 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Soil–structure interaction; Coupled finite-element–boundary-element method; Absorbing boundary; Infinite domain; Concrete gravity dam;
Earthquake analysis

1. Introduction The application of the domain type techniques to the

The numerical simulation of soil–structure systems
subjected to dynamic loads should include not only the
structure but also the foundation. By including the charac-
teristics of the soil into the calculation, energy dissipation
through the soil medium that is often treated as radiation
damping is possible. Particularly, in considering the dam–
foundation interaction, the semi-infinite medium of the
foundation must be modelled accurately. Typical examples
of the methods used for soil–structure interaction analysis
are:
1. Domain type methods, such as Finite Element Method
(FEM) and Finite Difference Method (FDM).
2. Boundary type methods, such as Boundary Integral Equa-
tion Method (BIEM) or Boundary Element Method
(BEM).
3. Coupled type methods, which combine the effective char-
acteristics of two or more methods, such as coupled
Finite-element–Boundary-element (FE–BE) method.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 61-2-9385-5074; fax: 1 61-2-9385-
6139.
E-mail address: n.khalili@unsw.edu.au (N. Khalili)
0267-7261/99/$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0267-726 1(99)00019-6
solution of the soil–structure system will involve the reflec-
tion of waves from the truncated boundaries to the domain
of interest, which is, in fact, contrary to the actual situation.
In the past, a number of approaches have been proposed to
remedy this as outlined below:
1. Special boundary conditions to absorb the wave energy
such as transmitting, nonreflecting and silent boundaries.
Among these, notably, the nonreflecting viscous bound-
aries developed by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer [1] and
White et al. [2] have been widely used for various
wave propagation problems. Their application can
reduce the size of the mesh, but the number of finite
elements required can still be large, as such boundaries
are usually capable of transmitting plane or cylindrical
waves only, and therefore they must be placed far from
the initially disturbed region.
2. FE cloning or consistent infinitesimal FE cell method,
which was originally proposed by Dasgupta [3] and
then applied by Wolf and Song [4] to soil–structure inter-
action problems. In contrast to the BEM, this method is a
stand alone FE approach which is an advantage.
However, the major disadvantage in using this method
for non-linear dynamic problems is that it involves the
500 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517
Fig. 1. Coupled system of finite and boundary elements.
inverse of Fast Fourier Transform to obtain the time
domain results. Hence, for the solution of practical engi-
neering problems that may involve strong non-linearity
of the geological material, this method has limited appli-
cation.
3. Infinite elements, which may be regarded as the natural
extension of finite elements to treat unbounded domains,
were first proposed by Bettess [5] to obtain solutions to
static and steady-state dynamic problems. Since then,
many investigators including Medina and Penzien [6],
Valliappan and Zhao [7], Zhao and Valliappan [8] and
Khalili et al. [9] have successfully extended the infinite
element formulation to model wave propagation
problems in an infinite medium. In this approach, the
near field is modelled by FE and the far field is modelled
by infinite elements. The shape function for the infinite
element is obtained from the special form of fundamental
solution. This form of fundamental solution may not be
available for all kinds of problems. Hence, even though
the development of the infinite element has been receiv-
ing increased attention, only frequency domain elements
have been developed for solving dynamic problems.
The boundary type methods such as the BEM [10]
perform well in the case of isotropic and homogeneous
materials for both bounded and unbounded domains, and
do not require domain discretization which can be an advan-
tage in many practical applications. These methods allow a
reduction in the spatial dimensionality, and automatically
satisfy the Sommerfeld radiation conditions at infinity.
Hence, when they are applied to problems involving infinite
or semi-infinite domain, there is no need to model the far
field. There are two obvious disadvantages in using these
methods. One is that although the system matrix is much
smaller than those of the domain type methods; the matrix is
non-symmetric, non-positive definite and fully populated
for single domains and block banded for multi-domains.
Another disadvantage is that these methods are not suitable
for anisotropic domains, material and geometrical non-
linearities and complex geometries. Cruse [11] and Cruse
and Rizzo [12] presented a direct formulation of the bound-
ary integral method applied to the general elastodynamics
problems. Manolis and Beskos [13] applied the Laplace
transform with respect to time to the governing equations
of motion. Research in time domain transient analysis has
been limited.
In the two-dimensional BEM, the earlier work in time
domain transient analysis is credited to Cole et al. [14]
who studied anti-plane problems. Niwa et al. [15] solved
two-dimensional problems using three-dimensional transi-
ent kernels with the third spatial coordinates playing the role
of a time related variable. Mansur [10] was the first to
formulate a time-stepping algorithm using two-dimensional
transient kernels. Later, Antes [16] extended this approach
to include non-zero initial conditions. Israil and Banerjee
[17] provided some improvements on these, and used a
simple and explicit form of kernel in their formulations.
Coupled methods provide the advantages of both the
methods that are combined together. Various coupled FE–
BE approaches have been suggested in the literature. The
earlier contributions include those of Zienkiewicz et al. [18]
and Brebbia and Georgious [19] for elastostatic problems
and Beer and Meek [20] for elastoplasticity. For the coupled
time domain techniques, only a few papers have been
 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517
published. Beskos and coworkers [21,22] were among the
first to investigate two- and three-dimensional flexible foun-
dations, which were modelled by finite elements and
coupled with half space represented by boundary elements.
Later von Estorff and coworkers [23,24] developed a
general coupled FE–BE for soil–structure interaction
problems in the time domain. Also von Estorff and Antes
[25] presented a coupling methodology for fluid–structure
interaction analysis. In the application to dams, almost all
previous works are in the frequency domain. Among them,
Dominguez and Maeso [26] and Chopra and Tan [27] have
presented arch dam–canyon interaction models to study the
effects of foundation inertia and radiation damping on the
structure’s response. Recently, Touhei and Ohmachi [28]
used coupled FE–BE approach for linear dynamic analysis
of dam–foundation–reservoir systems in the time domain.
Also Chuhan et al. [29] studied linear seismic interaction of
arch dam–canyon system by the coupled FE, BE and infinite
BE methods.
In this paper, a coupled FE–BE technique is proposed for
time domain analysis of soil–structure interaction problems
under dynamic loading. The system is divided into the near
field which includes geometric irregularity as well as nonho-
mogeneity of the foundation and the far field that extends to
infinity. The near field is modelled using the finite elements
and the far field is modelled by the boundary elements. Non-
zero initial conditions due to pre-dynamic loading have
been considered for the first time in the coupled FE–BE
method.
The formulation has been applied to analyse two exam-
ples, one being a practical application involving a concrete
dam–foundation system under a real earthquake record. The
accuracy, efficiency, stability and versatility of the proposed
coupled FE–BE approach have been verified and demon-
strated through the numerical results.
2. Formulation of coupled FE–BE method for non-linear
dynamic problems
Let us consider the dynamic response of a two-dimen-
sional structure (such as the dam) embedded in a half-plane
as shown in Fig. 1. Two regions (structure and soil) are to be
analysed by FEM and BEM, respectively. Hence two sets of
equations have to be formulated and combined together
using compatibility and equilibrium conditions. These two
sets are FE equations for the structure and a part of the
foundation and BE equations for the surrounding semi-infi-
nite medium.
2.1. FE formulation
The governing dynamic equilibrium equations describing
the motion of the near field (structure) subjected to an
501
arbitrary transient external load can be rewritten as
‰M F Š{U F } 1 ‰CF Š{U_ F } 1 ‰K F Š{U F }
…1†
ˆ {Fdyn
F
} 1 {FstF } ˆ {RFext }
where [M F], [C F], [K F] are characteristic matrices for consis-
tent mass, damping and stiffness of a system for the FE
discretization. {FstF } is the static (pre-dynamic) load vector
F
including self-weight of the structure, and {Fdyn } is the
F
dynamic load vector. Also {U } is the vector of nodal
displacements and a superdot indicates the time derivative.
Eq. (1) can be integrated using the single-step time
marching scheme of Newmark, after the system of FE equa-
tions have been coupled with the BE equations.
2.2. BE formulation
Using the dynamic version of Betti’s reciprocal theorem
[30], the governing dynamic equilibrium equation for a
homogeneous, isotropic and linear elastic body can be trans-
formed into the Boundary Integral Equation (BIE). In doing
so, the displacement at position point Q at time t is
expressed as
Z Zt
cij …Q†ui …Q; t† ˆ ‰Uij …P; t; Q; t†si …P; t†
G 0
2 Sij …P; t; Q; t†ui …P; t†Š dt dG
Z Zt
1r Uij …P; t; Q; t†bi …P† dt dV
V 0
Z
1r ‰u_ i0 …P; 0†Uij0 …P; t; Q; 0†
V
2 u i0 …P; 0†U_ ij0 …P; t; Q; 0†Š dV …2†
The coefficient tensor cij is the discontinuity or jump term
and its value is equal to d ij for Q within the domain and
0:5dij for Q along the smooth boundary, where d ij is
Kronecker delta. For the general case, cij is obtained using
the rigid body motion concept. ui and si are the displacement
and traction vectors, respectively, P is the field point
whereas Q is the source point. bi is the body force vector
per unit mass. V denotes the domain and G denotes the
boundary of the system. Also Uij and Sij are the so-called
Stokes fundamental solutions [30]. They represent the
displacement and traction vector component in ith direction
at position point P and at time t due to a unit pulse acting at
position point Q in direction j and at a preceding time t . The
displacement fundamental solution can be written in an
explicit form as ([17,30]:
X
Uij …P; t; Q; t† ˆ Uija …P; t; Q; t† …3†
aˆp;s
502 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517

where following form:

cij …Q†ui …Q; t†
1 1
Uijp …P; t; Q; t† ˆ H…cp t 0 2 1† Z
2pr cp ˆ ‰Uij …P; t; Q; t†·si …P; t† 2 Sij …P; t; Q; t† p ui …P; t†Š dG
G
"   #
2ap 2 1 r;i r;j dij q Z
 p 2 ap 2 1 1r Uij …P; t; Q; t† p bi …P† dV
ap 2 1 r r V
…4† 0 2
c t
a
1 1 Z B X 6
Uijs …P; t; Q; t† ˆ2 H…as t 0 2 1† 1r Bu_i0 …Uij0 † 2 6u i0  r  …ca Uij0a a
2 fij0 †
2pr cs V
@ 4 ca t
aˆp;s r 11
    r
2as 2 1 r;i r;j dij as 31
 p 2 p
as 2 1 r r as 2 1 Z X
2u a 7 C
7C dV 2 r u i0 a
2 i0 ca Uij0 5 A …ca Uij0 †r;k nk dG
2r G aˆp;s
where
…6†
!
0 2
ca t where
aa ˆ ; a ˆ p; s …5†
r 1 2 r;i r;j
p
fij0 ˆ H…cp t 2 r† v!2
2pr …cp t†2 u
u
t1 2 r
and t 0 ˆ t 2 t is the retarded time. Also r ˆ Pp2
Q; ri ˆ cp t
Pi 2 Qi and H( ) is the Heaviside function. c ˆ l 1 2m=6 …7†
p p
and cs ˆ m=r are ‘P’ and ‘S’ waves velocities, respec- 1 2 …dij 2 r;i r;j †
s
fij0 ˆ H…cs t 2 r† s
 
tively. l and m are Lamé constants and r is the mass 2pr …cs t†2 r 2
density. Also r;i ˆ 2r=2xi and x is the position vector. The 12
cs t
traction fundamental solution can be derived from the
constitutive equation through differentiation on the dis- and nk is the outward normal vector. Also, Uijp si , Spij ui and
placement fundamental solution [17]. In Eq. (2), Uij0 Uijp bi are Reimann convolution integrals. Domain integral
represents the value of Uij at time t ˆ 0:0 and contributions due to initial conditions are carried out by
dividing the domain into some cells and by usual Gauss
quadrature scheme, these integrals are evaluated [10].
2Uij
U_ ij0 ˆ u : Numerical implementation of the above BIE requires
2t tˆ0:0 approximations in both temporal and spatial variations of
The third term in Eq. (2) represents the effect of initial the field variables. Hence, both the spatial and the time
conditions in the formulation. It is noted that by including domains are discretized. The boundary G B of the considered
initial conditions and body forces in the formulation, half-plane V B (Fig. 1) is subdivided into some line
volume integrations appear in the above equation as well elements, the whole observation period is discretized into
as boundary integrations. From Eq. (2), it is easily seen that N equal intervals Dt. Both traction and displacement vari-
if the body force is ignored and at rest initial conditions are ables are assumed to vary linearly within each time interval.
assumed, the volume integral parts disappear in the expres- With respect to space, both traction and displacement fields
sion and all unknown vectors are related to the boundary of are assumed to vary quadratically within each element, such
the problem only. But in some practical problems, before that more complicated geometry and boundary conditions
analysing the system under dynamic loading, solution for can be considered.
the static (pre-dynamic) state is necessary. A typical exam- After carrying out time integrations (analytically), the
ple is the seismic analysis of dams. In this case, the self- following convoluted BEM equation for linear temporal
weight of the dam and the hydrostatic pressure acting as the variation is obtained:
pre-seismic loadings and initial conditions should be taken N Z
X
into account before seismic analysis can be carried out. cij …Q†uiB…N† …Q† ˆ …‰UijN2n11
1
1 UijN2n
2
ŠsB…n†
i …P†
G
Including the initial conditions in the FE formulation is an nˆ1 …8†
easy task, but the BE formulation should be modified to 2 ‰SijN2n11 1 SijN2n ŠuB…n† …P†† dG…P† 1 BB…N†
1 2 i i
include the effects of initial conditions as well. Following
the methodology proposed by Antes [16] and after some where UijN2n11
1
, UijN2n
2
etc. are two set of convoluted kernels,
manipulations, the BIE (Eq. (2)) is transformed to the one corresponding to each local time node. Also Bi(P,t) is
 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517 503

the outcome of the volume and boundary integrations due to and

the body forces and initial conditions. The above convoluted
2r
kernels involve the product of the fundamental solutions and A1 ˆ …l=m†ni rj 1 2r;i r;j
the temporal shape functions [17]. UijN2n11 1 UijN2n is called
2n
1 2
the combined convoluted displacement kernel and according 2r
A2 ˆ ni r;j 1 nj r;i 1 …d 2 4r;i r;j † …12†
to the time translation property of the fundamental solution, it 2n ij
needs to be evaluated only for n ˆ 1 and is expressed as
2r
A3 ˆ …2r r 2 dij † 2 nj r;i
UijN1 1 UijN21 2n ;i ;j
"
2

1 X 1 dij 1 It should be noted that the above convoluted kernels will

ˆ g 1 …21†m …dij 2 2r;i r;j † reduce to the corresponding elastostatic kernels at very large
2pr mˆp;s c2m 2 m1 2
!2 !2 time steps.
cm Dt m1 cm Dt By evaluation of the integral terms over each boundary
 gm2 2 …21† …dij 2 2r;i r;j † gm3 element (numerically, using Gaussian quadrature), the final
r 3 r
# expression of BE discretization is obtained as follows:
2 …21†m …dij d2m 2 r;i r;j †gm4 …9† cij …Q†uB…N† …Q†
i

N X
X nel X
3 Z1
and similarly, the combined convoluted traction kernel is ˆ { snia ‰UijN2n11 1 UijN2n Šca …h†uJudh
"( ) aˆ1 0
1 2
…13†
m X
nˆ1 mˆ1
2A1 d1m 1 A3 d2m
Sij1 1 Sij2 ˆ
N N21
gm4 X Z1
2prr mˆp;s c2m 3
2 unia ‰SijN2n11 1 SijN2n Šca …h†uJudh} 1 BiB…N†
!2 # aˆ1 0
1 2

2 Dt
2 …21† A2 m
gm3 …10† where nel is the total number of boundary elements and uJu is
3 r
the Jacobian of transformation as
where
! 2ca …h†
21 cm NDt Ji ˆ Xia ; i ˆ 1; 2 uJu ˆ ‰J12 1 J22 Š1=2 …14†
gm1 ˆ Ncosh 2h
r
! and ca …h† are the spatial shape functions in the intrinsic
21 cm …N 2 1†Dt coordinates h of the element.
22…N 2 1†cosh
r There are two distinct kinds of integrations involved in
!
the numerical implementation of the BEM analysis, i.e. the
21 cm …N 2 2†Dt
1…N 2 2†cosh singular and the normal (non-singular) integrals. Studies on
r
v
!2
the fundamental solutions reveal that singularity will arise
u
u when the reference point P and the field point Q are located
gm2 ˆ N 2 tN 2 2
r
in the same element. Therefore, two numerical quadrature
cm Dt
v schemes are employed to cope with these two kinds of inte-
u !2 grations with distinct integrand behaviours. Apart from the
u
2t r
22…N 2 1† …N 2 1† 2 2 singular integrations, the other cases can be evaluated by
cm Dt standard numerical quadrature formulation. If …N 2 n† ˆ 0;
v !2 …11†
u the corresponding fundamental solutions have certain
u
2t r values other than zero even when the distance r approaches
1…N 2 2† …N 2 2† 2 2
cm Dt to zero. Therefore, the singularities only exist during the
( !2 )3=2 ( first time step. It should be noted that the singularities of
r
gm3 ˆ N 2 2 22 …N 2 1†2 displacement kernel and traction kernel are of the type
cm Dt O…1=r† and O…1=r 2 † respectively, where O is the order of
!2 )3=2 ( !2 )3=2 magnitude. The singularity of the transient displacement
r r
2 1 …N 2 2† 2 2
kernel is a relatively mild one and it can be evaluated with-
cm Dt cm Dt
v v out special treatment using standard integration scheme but
u ! u !2 with more number of integration points, even though some
u 2 u
t
gm4 ˆ N 2 2
r t
2 2 …N 2 1†2 2
r
other techniques such as domain transformation approach
cm Dt cm Dt [31] can handle the problem. However, the singularity of
v!2
u traction kernel is very strong. So the corresponding integra-
u
t
1 …N 2 2† 2 2 r tion exists only in the Cauchy Principal Value (CPV) [32].
cm Dt As a result, necessary measures have to be taken to
504 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517
eliminate the singularity in the quadrature process. There
are a number of approaches to deal with such strong singu-
larity in integration, among which the most effective one is
the so-called ‘rigid body movement’ technique [33]. This
technique was first proposed for elastostatic problems. If the
object is subjected to a prescribed rigid body movement in
one direction, the corresponding tractions should be zero.
Then, for static problems we have
Z
Dsij ˆ cij 1 Sstatic c1 …h† dG …15†
ij
G1
where c1 is the shape function at the singular node and G1 is
the length of the singular element.
The significance of Eq. (15) lies in the fact that the trou-
blesome diagonal singularity and the term cij can be
expressed by the sum of the off-diagonal blocks multiplied
by 21. Since those off-diagonal blocks contain no singular-
ity they can be integrated by the standard numerical
approach. The unit rigid body movement is then applied
to x and y directions and at last the whole diagonal blocks
are expressed accordingly. This indirect technique can be
used in dynamic problems as
Z
Dij ˆ cij 1 ij1 c1 …h† dG
Strans …16†
G1
From Eqs. (15) and (16), one can write
Z
Dij ˆ Dsij 1 …Strans
ij1 2 Sij
static
† c1 … h† d G
G1
In the above equation, the coefficients of the traction matrix
for a static problem of the same geometry can be evaluated
using the rigid body motion as
3 Z 3 Z
X X
Q X
Dsij ˆ 2‰ Fijstatic ca dG 1 Fijstatic ca dGŠ
G1 Gq
aˆ2 qˆ2 aˆ1
In Eq. (17), the integral involving the difference
Sijstatic † in non-singular and its numerical treatment does not
pose any special difficulty and hence Dij can be determined
from that equation without much difficulty.
In general, the spatial variation of the kernels are not
smooth an hence an integration scheme using a number of
segments and an optimum number of Gauss points per
segment is to be employed for accurate evaluation of both
the singular and non-singular integrals [34]. This may be
accomplished by specifying a maximum upper bound to the
error in the numerical integration. In simple terms, this
implies that the order of the integration should be varied
depending on the ratio of the distance between the ‘loaded’
boundary element and the field point to a characteristic
dimension of the ‘loaded’ element and the strength of the
singularity. A comprehensive discussion of approximate
formulae can be found in Ref. [32].
Finally, by collocation at each boundary node and at all
time steps tN ˆ NDt the following discretized equation
analogous of Eq. (2) is obtained:
X
N
…‰U1N2n11 1 U2N2n Š{sB…n† }
nˆ1 …19†
2 ‰S1N2n11 1 S2N2n Š{uB…N† }† ˆ {0}
where ‰U1N2n11 Š; ‰U2N2n Š and ‰SN2n11
1 Š; ‰SN2n
2 Š are influ-
ence displacement and traction matrices corresponding to
time nodes 1 and 2 at times t ˆ …N 2 n 1 1†Dt and t ˆ
…N 2 n†Dt; respectively. Also uB…n† and sB…n† are displace-
ment and traction vectors, respectively, at the boundary
nodes at time nDt: The above equation describes the
dynamic response of an elastic medium that can be solved
by the time stepping algorithm. These system of equations
can be rewritten for the first time step as
‰U11 1 U20 {sN }
NX
21
ˆ ‰S11 1 S02 Š{uN } 1 …‰S1N2n11 1 SN2n
2 Š{un } …20†
nˆ1
2 ‰U1N2n11 1 U2N2n Š{sn }†
NX
21
‰U 1 Š{sB…N† } ˆ ‰S1 Š{uB…N† } 1 {‰SN2n11 Š{uB…n† }
nˆ1
…17† 2 ‰U N2n11 Š{sB…n† }} …21†
where the following symbols have been used:
‰U1N2n11 1 U2N2n Š ˆ ‰U N2n11 Š
…22†
‰S1N2n11 1 S2N2n Š ˆ ‰SN2n11 Š
Eq. (21) can be rewritten in compact form as
…18† ‰U 1 Š{sB…N† } ˆ ‰S1 Š{uB…N† } 1 {rN21 } …23†
2 …Strans
ij1 where vector {rN21 } physically represents the influence of
all previous time steps …n , N† on the current time node, N.
Also U n and S n are the so-called combined influence
matrices of the nth time step. Since it is desired to couple
the boundary element (Eq. (23)) with the finite element (Eq.
(1)), the displacement as well as the nodal forces should be
continuous along the interface boundary elements. Thus, at
least, linear shape functions should be employed for spatial
BE discretizations. In addition, the simplest time interpola-
tion of u and s appropriate to the integro-differential of Eq.
(6) is a stepwise linear or constant. For spatial discretization,
isoparametric quadratic elements are used, and for time
interpolation, linear time variation is used.
2.3. FE–BE coupling procedure
Generally, a domain can be divided into a number of FE
and BE sub-regions for the purpose of coupled FE–BE
analysis. However, in this study, the formulation has been
 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517 505

Fig. 2. Elastic block on half-plane: (a) geometry; (b) time history of loading.

developed considering only one FE sub-region and one BE that

sub-region as shown in Fig. 1.
{sBi } ˆ ‰TŠ{FiB } …25†

2.3.1. FE system The matrix [T] is an assemblage of all interface element

transformation matrices ‰TŠ  which is obtained from the FE
By discretizing the time domain into equal time incre-
ments Dt and separating the nodal points at the interface of methodology. For a quadratic boundary element with the
FE–BE from outer nodes, Eq. (1) can be rewritten for the length of l, it is expressed as
2 3
Nth time step as 3
6 9 0 2 0 3 0 7
" F #8
F <  F…N† =
9 " #8
F < _ F…N† =
9 6 2 7
Moo Moi Uo F
Coo Coi Uo 6 7
1 6 3 7
6 0 2 7
MiiF : U iF…N† ; CiiF : U_ iF…N† ;
F F 6 9 0 0 3 7
Mio Cio 6 2 7
6 7
" F #8 9 6 3 9 3 7
62 2 7
Koo KoiF < UoF…N† = 1 6 2
6
0
4
0
2
0 7
7
1  ˆ 6
‰TŠ 7 …26†
K F K F : U F…N† ; l66 0 3 9 3 7
io ii i
6 2 0 0 2 7 7
8 F…N† 9 6 2 4 2 7
6 7
< Fdyno = 6 7
6 3 2
3
0 7
ˆ …24† 6 0 0 9 7
: FF…N† ; 6 2 7
6 7
dyni 4 3 5
0 3 0 2 0 9
where the superscript N is the current time t…N† ˆ NDt: The 2
subscript i stands for the interface nodes and subscript o In the case of a mixed boundary value problem, e.g. when
stands for the nodes in the outer domain. {sBo1 } ˆ {sB1 } is known along Go1 B
; and {uBo2 } ˆ {uB2 } is
prescribed along Go2 ; separation of boundary values [24]
B

2.3.2. BE system and transformation of boundary tractions to equivalent

For distinguishing between the collocation and nodal nodal loads yield
points on the outer boundaries …GoB and GoF subscript ‘o’) 2 38 B…N† 9
U111
2S112 U1i1 p T > > s1 > >
and on the interface …GiB ˆ GiF subscript ‘i’), the BE system 6 7>< >
=
of Eq. (23), encompassing the sub-region VB ; has to be 6 1 7
6 U21 2S22 U2i p T 7 u 2
1 1 B…N†
4 5>> >
>
rearranged. Moreover, the reordering should separate not > >
only the ‘interface’ from the ‘outer’ boundary values, but U 1 2S1 U 1 p T : F B…N† ;
i1 i2 ii i
also ‘outer’ BE nodes where displacements are given from 2 38 B…N† 9 8 9
the others where tractions are prescribed [24]. Also, to S1 2U12
1
S11i > >
> u1 > >
> >
> r1N21 >
>
6 11 7 < = < =
obtain consistency between the FE and BE formulations, 6 7 B…N†
ˆ 6 S121 2U22
1
S12i 7 s 1 r N21
…27†
the interface traction {sBi } has to be transformed to resultant 4 5>> 2 > > > > 2 >
>
: B…N† >
; : N21 > ;
nodal forces {FiB }; by the transformation matrix [T], such S1i1 2Ui21 S 1
ii u i
r
i
506 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517

Fig. 3. Boundary element mesh for elastic block on half-plane.

or where ‰QŠ ˆ ‰FŠ21 ‰GŠ and {R} ˆ ‰FŠ21 {r}: It should be

8 9 8 9 8 noted that the ‘updating’ of the above BE system for
9
>
> 
sB…N† >
> >
> 
u B…N† >
> > r1N21 > each new time step NDt takes place only in {RN21 } :
>
< 1 >
= >
< 1 > >
= < >
= besides the matrix–vector multiplication, it consists of
‰FŠ u 2B…N† ˆ ‰GŠ s2B…N† 1 r2N21 …28†
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> the evaluation of the convolution integrals for two new
>
: F B…N† >
; >
: uB…N† >; : rN21 ; matrices ‰U N2n11 Š and ‰SN2n11 Š: Thus, the computational
i i i
effort increases linearly with the number of time steps
where the subscripts indicate the position of the collocation approximately.
and nodal points, respectively. Eq. (28) can be rewritten as In order to generate the dynamic interaction between
the structure VF and the half-plane VB ; Eqs. (24) and
8 9 2 38 9 8 9
> B…N† > >  B…N† > (29) have to be combined by imposing the interface condi-
>
> s1 >
> Q 11 Q 12 Q 1i >
> u 1 >
> >
> RN21 >
>
< = 6 7< B…N† = < N21 =
1
tion as:
6 Q21 Q22 Q2i 7 s
 ˆ 5> 2 > > 2 > …29†
1
B…N†
> u 2 > 4 R Compatibility condition:
>
> >
> >
> > > >
: F B…N† ; Q Q Q : uB…N† >; : RN21 ;
i i1 i2 ii i i {UiF…N† } ˆ {uiB…N† } ˆ {UiN } …30†

Fig. 4. Finite element mesh using absorbing boundaries.

 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517 507

Fig. 5. Finite element mesh for elastic block on half-plane.

Equilibrium condition: and

{FiF…N† } ˆ 2{FiB…N† } ˆ {FiN } …31†
" #( ) " #8 9
First, the equilibrium condition is used to reduce the 0 Q1i UoF…N† Q11 Q12 < u1B…N† =
number of unknowns by eliminating the unknown nodal 1
0 Q2i UiN Q21 Q : sB…N† ;
forces along Gi : By separating {Fdyn F…N†
} from the FE system 22 2
8 9
i
B…N†
(Eq. (24)), and {Fi } from the BE relation (Eq. (29)), this
< sB…N† 2 RN21
1
=
interface condition can be expressed as ˆ
1
…34†
8 9 8 9 : uB…N† 2 RN21 ;
< U F…N† = < U_ F…N† = 2 2
i i
‰ MiiF Mio F
Š 1 ‰ CiiF CioF
Š 1 ‰ KiiF KioF Š
: U F…N† ; : U_ F…N† ;
i i
8 9 It is noted that the submatrix ‰Qii Š physically denotes the
< U F…N† =
i elastic resistance of BE domain and the inertia forces devel-

: U F…N† ; oped in this domain are contained in the vector {RiN21 }. The
i
above coupled system of equations can be decoupled and
8 9
>
> u B…N† >
> solved separately one after another as follows.
>
< 1 >
= Some manipulations of Eq. (34) give the following
ˆ 2‰ Qi1 Qi2 Qii Š s2 B…N†
2 {RN21 } …32† system of equations:
>
> >
>
i
>
: uB…N† ; >
i
" F
#8
F <  F…m† =
9 "
F
#8
F < _ F…m† =
9
in which the unknown nodal forces along Gi could be elimi- Moo Moi Uo Coo Coi Uo
1
nated. Finally, by incorporating the compatibility condition, F
Mio M F : U F…m† ;
ii CF
i io C F : U_ F…m† ;
ii i
the following coupled system of equations are obtained:
" F #8 9 " #8 9 " #8 F…N† 9
F <  F…N† = F F < _ F…N† = F
Koo KoiF < Uo =
Moo Moi Uo Coo Coi Uo 1
1
MioF
MiiF : U i…N† ; F
Cio CiiF : U_ …N† ; KioF KiiF 1 K B : UiF…N† ;
i
" F #8 F…N† 9 8 9 8 9
Koo KoiF < Uo = < F…N†
Fdyn = < F…N†
Fdyn =
1 ˆ
o
…33† ˆ …35†
o

KioF KiiF 1 Qii : Ui…N† ; : Fdyn F…N†

i
2 R N21 ;
i
: F F…N† 1 F B…N† ;
dyni
508 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517

Fig. 6. Vertical displacement at point A due to a vertical impulse load for different ratios of Ef =Eb : (a) comparison of FE–BE method to Estorff and Prabucki
method; (b) comparison of FE–BE method to the BE scheme and the large FE mesh.

Fig. 7. Horizontal displacement at point A due to a horizontal impulse load for different ratios of Ef =Eb :
 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517 509

Fig. 8. Vertical displacement at point A due to a vertical impulse load under different mesh sizes.

Fig. 9. Horizontal displacement at point A due to a horizontal impulse load under different mesh sizes.

Fig. 10. Vertical displacement at point A due to a vertical impulse load with different methods.
510 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517

Fig. 11. Horizontal displacement at point A due to a horizontal impulse load with different methods.

where degrees of freedom to the problem. The solution of this

" #21 ( ) equation can be found using the Newmark scheme.
Q11 Q12 Q1i It is noted that in this case, the stiffness matrix in Eq. (35)
‰K B Š ˆ ‰Qii Š 2 ‰ Qi1 Qi2 Š …36†
Q21 Q22 Q2i loses its symmetrical nature. Hence, special care should be
taken for solving the system of equations. After solving the
above equations for FE unknowns, one can obtain {uB…N† } and
{F B…N† } ˆ 2{RN21
i } 2 ‰ Qi1 Qi2 Š 1
{sN21
2 } at the current time step. Finally, the interface force
" # 8 9
Q11 Q12 21 < s1B…N† 2 R1N21 = vector {FiB…N† } is calculated from the following equation:
 …37† 8 9
Q21 Q : u B…N† 2 RN21 ; >
> uB…N† >
>
22 2 2 >
< 1 >
=
{Fi } ˆ ‰ Qi1 Qi2 Qii Š s2
B…N† B…N†
1 {RN21 } …39†
Eq. (35) can be shortened as >
> >
>
i
>
: uB…N† ;>
 F 1 ‰CŠF {U}
‰MŠF {U} _ F 1 ‰K FB Š{U}F ˆ {F FB } …38† i

where the only unknowns are the displacements of the FE and its corresponding traction vector {sB…N†
i } is obtained from
sub-region and BE sub-region which do not add any further Eq. (25).

Fig. 12. Discretization of coupled dam–foundation system with finite and boundary elements.
 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517 511

Fig. 13. (a) Time history of horizontal displacement of crest for Ef =Ed ˆ 1:0; (b) time history of horizontal displacement of crest for Ef =Ed ˆ ∞:

3. Numerical results density are the same as that for the block; however its modu-
lus of elasticity is varied in order to study the effect of soil–
The formulation presented in the previous sections has structure interaction. The block is discretized by 8-node
been implemented into a computer code and is validated isoparametric elements of size 2:0 × 2:0 m. The soil
through the following examples. The accuracy and the effi- medium is discretized by isoparametric quadratic line
ciency of the time domain FE–BE approach for two repre- elements with a length of 2.0 m. It is assumed that the
sentative soil–structure interaction problems have been block and the half-plane are rigidly connected together.
investigated. Sine theoretical solutions are limited only to The loading consists of two cases: (a) a uniformly distrib-
simple geometries; a problem which has been solved uted vertical load and (b) a uniformly distributed horizontal
previously by others has been chosen for the purpose of load applied to a FE region as shown in Fig. 2. Two types of
comparison. time histories as shown in Fig. 2 are considered:
Type I (impulse loading)
8
3.1. Example 1: elastic block resting on half-plane > 0 for t ˆ 0
>
>
>
>
The purpose of this example is to compare the results < …F0 =t1 †t for 0 , t , t1
F…t† ˆ : …40†
from the coupled FE–BE approach with (a) the correspond- >
> F0 for t1 # t # t2
ing solutions from Ref. [23], and (b) the solutions obtained >
>
>
:
using the BEM and the FEM with and without the absorbing 0 for t . t2
boundaries [2]. Fig. 2 shows the geometry of the problem,
Type II (single ramp loading)
the BE discretization, the FE mesh as well as the time
8
history of applied loads. The elastic block consists of a >
> 0 for t ˆ 0
homogeneous material (EF ˆ 2:66 kN/m 2, rF ˆ 2000:0 kg/ <
F…t† ˆ …F0 =t1 †t for 0 , t , t1 : …41†
m 3, n ˆ 0:33) and rests on a linear elastic half-plane. For >
>
:
the underlying soil medium, the Poisson’s ratio and the F0 for t $ t1
512 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517
Fig. 14. (a) Time history of horizontal acceleration of crest for Ef =Ed ˆ 1:0: (b) Time history of horizontal acceleration of crest for Ef =Ed ˆ ∞:
For coupled FE–BE scheme, the number of elements in the
FE region is 16 and the number or boundary elements is 12,
while the number of elements in the BE scheme is 20 (Fig.
3). For finite elements with absorbing boundaries, two
different meshes are used as shown in Fig. 4. The large
mesh is truncated at sections A1–A1 and B1–B1 and the
small mesh is truncated by sections A2–A2 and B2–B2. As
shown in Fig. 5, two different meshes are considered for the
FE scheme without absorbing the boundaries. The number
of finite elements is 176 for the medium mesh (mesh
between sections A2–A2 and B2–B2) and 352 for the
large mesh (the entire mesh in Fig. 5). Depending on the
extent of the FE boundary considered, the error in both
displacements and stresses may vary, compared to the BE
solution or coupled FE–BE.
The transient displacement at station A due to two differ-
ent loads are plotted in Figs. 6–18. In order to verify the
coupled FE–BE approach, the vertical displacement of
point A due to the vertical impulse loading is compared to
that obtained by von Estorff and Prabucki [23] (Fig. 6(a)),
the BE scheme and the large FE mesh (Fig. 6(b)). An excel-
lent agreement between coupled FE–BE and BEM is
obvious. Also a good agreement is obtained between the
present FE–BE results and those of Ref. [23] and also
from the large FE mesh. In Figs. 6(b)–11 the displacement
of strain A due to single horizontal and vertical impulse
loadings have been shown. Chopra and Tan [27] show
how the displacement at A is affected by the half-plane for
different values of foundation stiffness. As can be observed
with increasing stiffness of the supporting soil, the effect of
waves reflected at the block–soil interface is significant, and
it takes the block motion more time to decrease. Also, the
block on a rigid base represents an undamped system, which
means that its vibration does continue. For the first few time
steps, t , 0:03 s, the response at A is not affected by the
half-plane, because during this period the wave reflections
from the interface could not have reached the point A. Only
when t . 0:03 s one can observe differences between the
systems with different foundation stiffness. Obviously,
some parts of the generated elastic waves are absorbed by
the half-plane due to radiation from infinity. This energy
loss leads to a significant decrease of the displacement at
point A during later time steps (radiation damping).
3.1.1. Effect of domain size
In this part, the effects of the domain size used to model
 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517
Fig. 15. Time history of principal stresses in element (1) for Ef =Ed ˆ 1:0 : (a) major principal stress; (b) minor principal stress.
the half-plane by the FEM are studied. The objective of this
study is to determine how much of the half-plane must be
considered in the FEM to obtain reasonable results. For this
purpose, the half-plane was approximated using three
different foundation size namely: (1) rigid foundation; (2)
a medium mesh of 88:0 × 40:0 m with 160 elements (mesh
A2-B2 in Fig. 5); and (3) a large mesh of 152:0 × 72:0 m
with 336 elements in the foundation (mesh A3-B3 in Fig. 5).
Figs. 8 and 9 show the transient response at point A due to
the impulse loading. It can be seen that only large mesh with
336 elements in the foundation gives reasonable results
when compared with BE or FE–BE methods. Hence, in
order to minimize the error, the finite element mesh used
should include a very large domain and hence a very large
number of elements have to be employed. Naturally, this
large number of elements in FEM will increase the
computational cost, especially in non-linear analysis in
which coefficient matrices have to be evaluated at every
time step.
3.1.2. Use of absorbing boundaries
As shown in Fig. 4, absorbing boundaries have been
incorporated along two different sections (sections A1-B1
513
and A2-B2) to absorb energy of the ongoing waves. The
results of the analysis for horizontal and vertical loadings
are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. It is seen that the mesh inside
sections A1-A1 and B1-B1 (in Fig. 4) gives good agreement,
when compared to the results of the coupled FE–BE. On the
other hand, the mesh truncated by sections A2-A2 and B2-
B2 that includes less elements in the foundation does not
give reasonable results. This indicates that even though
absorbing boundaries are efficient in absorbing the energy,
the accuracy of the results is dependent on the extent of the
mesh used. From these results, it cane be observed that the
mixed FE–BE produces excellent results compared to FE
for this class of problems only. Always good agreement
exists between coupled FE–BE method and BEM.
3.2. Example 2: dam–foundation interaction under
earthquake loading
A dam of height 15.0 m, crest-width 2.0 m and base-
width 10.0 m discretized with 200 isoparametric linear
quadrilateral elements, while the half-space modelled with
quadratic boundary elements (Fig. 12) has been considered
in this section. The dam and the foundation are assumed to
514 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517

Fig. 16. Time history of principal stresses in element (1) for Ef =Ed ˆ ∞ : (a) major principal stress; (b) minor principal stress.

be linear elastic with the following material proper- damping in the foundation is important. As can be seen
ties. Poisson’s ratio n ˆ 0:2; modulus of elasticity from Table 1 and Fig. 13, the maximum crest displacement
Ed ˆ 30:0 × 106 kN/m 2 and mass density rd ˆ 2600:0 kg/ for the case Ef =Ed ˆ ∞ is 3.64 mm, while for cases Ef =Ed ˆ
m 3. The modulus of the foundation was varied from 0.5 to 1:0 and Ef =Ed ˆ 0:5 is 4.41 and 7.53 mm, respectively. This
4.0 times the modulus of dam to study the influence of the indicates that there is about 22% and 106% increase in the
foundation stiffness on the response of the dam. The Pois- magnitude of the crest displacement. The time history of
son’s ratio and the mass density of the foundation were major and minor principal stresses for elements (1) and
assumed to be the same as those of the dam. The Koyna (120) for Ef =Ed ˆ 1 and ∞ have been shown in Figs. 15–
earthquake record has been used for the analysis with a 18 and the extreme values for all cases are presented in
scaling factor of 2.5. The viscous damping has been used Table 2. For Ef =Ed ˆ ∞, the maximum stress in element
in the FE model with damping ratio of 0.05 to determine the (1) which is at the base of the dam is 2.82 MPa, while for
Rayleigh damping parameters. For including the hydrody- cases Ef =Ed ˆ 1:0 and Ef =Ed ˆ 0:5 it is 4.81 and 6.12 MPa,
namic effect of water during an earthquake, and added mass respectively. On the other hand, maximum stress in element
concept due to Westergaard has been used. The dam with its (120) which is at the neck of the dam for case Ef =Ed ˆ ∞ is
foundation was first analysed under static (pre-seismic)
loadings (hydrostatic pressure as well as self-weight of the Table 1
dam). The results of this analysis produce initial displace- Extreme values of crest displacement and acceleration for different ratios of
ments both in FE nodes and BE nodes. The horizontal Ef =Ed
displacement and the acceleration at the crest for Ef =Ed ˆ
Ef =Ed 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 ∞
1 and ∞ are shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. The
extreme values of displacement and acceleration for all the Displacement (mm) 6.89 4.38 4.27 4.11 5.82
cases are tabulated in Table 1. With increasing foundation 2 7.53 2 4.41 2 3.85 2 3.70 2 3.64
Acceleration …a=g† 3.99 3.48 3.89 5.08 5.72
stiffness, the displacements and the vibration periods of the
2 3.41 2 3.18 2 3.48 2 4.19 2 4.25
system decrease significantly indicating that the radiation
 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517 515

Fig. 17. Time history of principal stresses in element (120) for Ef =Ed ˆ 1:0 : (a) major principal stress; (b) minor principal stress.

4.22 MPa, while for cases Ef =Ed ˆ 1:0 and Ef =Ed ˆ 0:5 this in the combined convoluted kernels. Also an efficient and
value is 3.15 and 3.99 MPa, respectively. This indicates that accurate Gaussian integration scheme based on intelligent
assumption of a rigid base of the dam can underestimate the segmentation was used with more segmentation and less
stresses at the base and overestimate within the dam. Of Gauss points per segment.
course, these effects are important in a non-linear analysis. The formulation has been applied to analyse an elas-
In general, it can be said that by including the effects of tic block on semi-infinite soil medium subjected to
foundation in the analysis, the stress distribution in the dynamic loading as well as a concrete gravity dam rest-
body of the dam and the response of the system will be ing on deformable rock foundation under seismic load-
significantly different. Therefore, the foundation stiffness ing. In the analysis, the structure is modelled by FEM
should always be included in the response analysis of dams. and the half space is represented by the BEM. Effects
of non-zero initial conditions due to the pre-dynamic
loads and/or self-weight of the structure are included
4. Conclusions in the transient BE formulation and hence, it is possible
to analyse practical cases (such as dam–foundation
A computational method is presented for the transient
soil–structure interaction analysis using the coupled FE– Table 2
BE method. The results show the importance of including Extreme values of major and minor principal stresses in some elements for
the foundation on the response of the structure. This method different ratios of Ef =Ed
has the advantage over frequency domain techniques in that Ef =Ed 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 ∞
it provides a natural and direct way of obtaining the time
history of the response that can form the basis for extension Element 1 (MPa) 4.62 3.79 3.60 3.74 2.89
to non-linear behaviour. In the BE formulation, the higher 2 6.12 2 4.81 2 3.86 2 3.53 2 2.82
Element 120 (MPa) 3.99 3.15 3.44 3.51 4.22
order apparent singularity at the wave front has been elimi-
2 3.59 2 3.11 2 3.56 2 3.87 2 4.20
nated via convenient condensation of the time-related terms
516 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517
Fig. 18. Time history of principal stresses in element (120) for Ef =Ed ˆ ∞ : (a) major principal stress; (b) minor principal stress.
systems) where initial conditions due to the pre-seismic
loads (water pressure) and self-weight of the dam should
be considered in the calculation. Comparison has been
made among different approaches (large finite element
mesh, finite elements with absorbing boundaries, BEM
and coupled FE–BE method) and it has been shown
that the coupled FE–BE method is efficient, accurate and
versatile.
References
[1] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL. Finite dynamic model for infinite media.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 1969;95(EM4):859–877.
[2] White W, Valliappan S, Lee IK. Unified boundary for finite dynamic
models. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 1977;
103(5):949–964.
[3] Dasgupta G. A finite element formulation for unbounded homogeneous
continua. Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME 1982;49:136–140.
[4] Wolf JP, Song C. Dynamic stiffness matrix of unbounded soil by finite
element multi-cell cloning. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1994;23:233–250.
[5] Bettess P. Infinite elements. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 1977;11:53–64.
[6] Medina F, Penzien J. Infinite elements for elastodynamics. Earth-
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1982;10:699–709.
[7] Valliappan S, Zhao C. Dynamic response of concrete gravity dams
including dam–water–foundation interaction. International Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
1992;16:79–99.
[8] Zhao C, Valliappan S. A numerical model for wave scattering
problems in infinite media due to P- and SV-wave incidences. Inter-
national Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
1992;33:1661–1682.
[9] Khalili N, Valliappan S, Tabatabaie Yazdi J, Yazdchi M. 1D infinite
element for dynamic problems in saturated porous media. Commu-
nications in Numerical methods in Engineering 1997;13:727–738.
[10] Mansur WJ. A time stepping technique to solve wave propagation
problems using the boundary element method. PhD thesis, Southamp-
ton University, England, 1983.
[11] Cruse TA. A direct formulation and numerical solution of the general
transient elastodynamic problem II. Journal of Mathematical Analysis
and Applications 1968;22:341–355.
[12] Cruse TA, Rizzo FJ. A direct formulation and numerical solution of
the general transient elastodynamic problem I. Journal of Mathema-
tical Analysis and Applications 1968;22:244–259.
[13] Manolis GD, Beskos DE. Dynamic stress concentration studies by
boundary integrals and Laplace transform. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 1981;17:573–599.
[14] Cole DL, Kosloff DD, Minster JB. A numerical boundary integral
equation method for elastodynamics I. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1978;68:1331–1357.
[15] Niwa Y, Fukui T, Kato S, Fujiki K. An application of the integral
equation method to two-dimensional elastodynamics, Theoretical and
 M. Yazdchi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18 (1999) 499–517
applied mechanics, 28. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1980.
p. 281–290.
[16] Antes H. A boundary element procedure for transient wave propaga-
tion in two dimensional isotropic elastic media. Finite Element Analy-
sis and Design 1985;1:313–322.
[17] Israil ASM, Banerjee PK. Two-dimensional transient wave propaga-
tion problems by time domain BEM. International Journal of Solids
and Structures 1990;26(8):851–864.
[18] Zienkiewicz OC, Kelly DW, Bettess P. The coupling of finite element
and boundary solution procedures. International Journal for Numer-
ical Methods in Engineering 1977;11:276–355.
[19] Brebbia CA, Georgious P. Combination of boundary and finite
elements for elastostatics. Applied Mathematical Modelling
1979;3:121–220.
[20] Beer G, Meek JL. The coupling of the boundary and finite element
methods for infinite domain problems in elastoplasticity. In: Brebbia
CA, editor. Boundary element methods, Berlin: Springer, 1981.
p. 575–591.
[21] Spyrakos CC, Beskos DE. Dynamic response of flexible strip founda-
tion by boundary and finite elements. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 1986;5(2):84–96.
[22] Karabalis DL, Beskos DE. Dynamic response of three-dimensional
flexible foundations by time domain BEM and FEM. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 1985;24(2):91–101.
[23] von Estorff O, Prabucki MJ. Dynamic response in the time domain by
coupled boundary and finite elements. Computational Mechanics
1990;6:35–46.
[24] von Estorff O. Dynamic response of elastic blocks by time domain
BEM and FEM. Computers and Structures 1991;38(3):289–300.
[25] von Estorff O, Antes H. On FEM–BEM coupling for fluid structure
interaction analyses in the time domain. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 1991;31:1151–1168.
517
[26] Dominguez J, Maeso O. Model for the seismic analysis for arch
dams including interaction effects. Proceedings of the 10th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, 1992, vol. 8,
p. 4601–4606.
[27] Chopra AK, Tan H. Modelling of dam–foundation interaction in
analysis of arch dams. Proceedings of the 10th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, 1992, vol. 8, p. 4623–4626.
[28] Touhei T, Ohmachi T. A FE–BE method for dynamic analysis of
dam–foundation–reservoir systems in the time domain. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22:195–209.
[29] Chuhan Z, Feng J, Pekau OA. Time domain procedure of FE–BE–
IBE coupling for seismic interaction of arch dams and canyons. Earth-
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1995;24:1651–1666.
[30] Banerjee PK, Israil ASM, Wang HC. Time domain formulations of
BEM for two-dimensional, axisymmetric and three-dimensional tran-
sient elastodynamics. In: Banerjee PK, et al., editors. Developments
in boundary element methods, 7. London: Elsevier Applied Science,
1992. p. 115–154.
[31] Manolis GD, Beskos DE. Boundary element methods in elastody-
namics, London: Unwin Hyman, 1988.
[32] Lachat JC, Watson JO. Effective numerical treatment to boundary
integral equations: a formulation for three-dimensional elastostatics.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
1976;10:991–1005.
[33] Rizzo FJ, Shippy DJ. An advanced boundary integral equation
method for three dimensional thermoelasticity. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1977;11:1753–1768.
[34] Watson JO. Advanced implementation of the boundary element
method for two and three dimensional elastostatics. In: Banerjee
PK, editor. Developments in boundary element methods, London:
Elsevier Applied Science, 1979. p. 31–63.