Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

The internal substructure method for seismic wave input in 3D dynamic soil- T
structure interaction analysis
Jingbo Liua, Xin Baoa,∗, Dongyang Wanga, Hui Tanb, Shutao Lia
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
b
Energy Saving & Environmental Protection & Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, China Academy of Railway Sciences, Beijing, 100081, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: An internal substructure method for seismic wave input in 3D soil-structure systems is proposed in this paper. In
Seismic wave input this method, we convert seismic waves into equivalent input seismic loads through a dynamic analysis of the
Dynamic soil-structure interaction internal substructure intercepted from the original soil-structure model. Compared to the wave method and the
Internal substructure boundary substructure method for seismic wave input, this newly proposed method has a smaller substructure
Artificial boundary
size and requires less data management. Moreover, it avoids the participation of the artificial boundaries in the
Equivalent input seismic load
process of inputting seismic waves and thus overcomes the limitations of traditional methods on artificial
boundaries. We provide a detailed description of the steps required to implement the proposed method. Wave
propagation in homogeneous and layered half-space sites and the scattered wave problem of a hemispherical
cavity under incident plane waves are adopted as numerical examples to validate this new method.

1. Introduction and the seismic wave input.

The interactions between foundations and large-scale constructions,
such as dams, bridges and nuclear power plants, and underground
structures, such as tunnels and subway stations, significantly impact the
seismic responses of the structures themselves, resulting in the dynamic
soil-structure interaction (SSI) problem [1–6]. Due to increasing in-
terest in performance-based seismic design, which is a technique for
evaluating and designing seismic safety and risk assessments via per-
formance-level prediction, there is a greater awareness of the im-
portance of dynamic SSI in the overall seismic capacity of the system,
since it can significantly affect lateral displacements and inter-story
drifts [7,8]. Research approaches for SSI problems mainly include
theoretical analysis, model test and numerical simulation. Among these
methods, numerical simulation has the natural advantage of dealing
with complex structural forms, geological characteristics and boundary
conditions; therefore, this method has become the main practical re-
search scheme for the dynamic analysis of soil-structure systems.
Considerable efforts have been made in recent years regarding the
development of numerical procedures for determining the seismic re-
sponses of structures under the influence of SSI. Successful application
of these methods is fundamentally dependent on three key issues: the
numerical simulation of the soils and the structures as well as their
interactions, the wave radiation effect of the semi-infinite foundation
According to the properties of the soil considered in the calculation,
dynamic SSI analysis can be generally classified into two categories:
equivalent linear analysis and fully nonlinear analysis. The equivalent
linear methods have been extensively used in geotechnical engineering
due to their simplicity and practicability [9–11]. With the rapid pro-
gress of computers and the enhanced understanding of the mechanical
behavior of soils, the fully nonlinear analysis of SSI problems has re-
ceived increasing attention over recent years. For example, Hashemi
et al. [12] studied the effects of structural nonlinearity and foundation
sliding on probabilistic response of a nuclear structure. Huang et al.
[13] comprehensively considered the nonlinearity of the rock medium
and the tunnel structure and studied the seismic response of the long
lined tunnels under different incident angles of seismic waves. Lokke
and Chopra [14] presented nonlinear seismic analysis of interacting
dam-water-foundation rock system. Tabatabaiefar et al. [7,15–17] and
Fatahi et al. [8] reported a series of shaking table tests and corre-
sponding numerical simulations, comprehensively compared the
equivalent linear method and the fully nonlinear method with the ex-
perimental results and suggested the use of the nonlinear analysis
method in practical engineering. Tomeo et al. [18] performed the
nonlinear seismic analysis of two-dimensional reinforced concrete
moment resisting frames by the substructures approach and the direct
approach. Abate and Massimino [19,] and Massimino et al. [20] studied

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bx15@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (X. Bao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105847
Received 15 March 2019; Received in revised form 7 August 2019; Accepted 3 September 2019
0267-7261/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Liu, et al.
the dynamic SSI effect through experimental and numerical methods
and investigated the effects of soil nonlinearity on the dynamic re-
sponse of the soil-structure system. In addition, structure-soil-structure
interaction (SSSI), also known as site-city interaction (SCI), which
means the interaction effects among the multistructure system through
the soil [21], has been recognized as important for structural seismic
response and site ground motion, especially for densely populated cities
where a large number of buildings are closely constructed. Many re-
lated studies can be found in the recent literature [22–25].
To study the dynamic response of a semi-infinite soil-structure
system, a finite near-field domain, including the structures and the
surrounding soil, should be used to establish the numerical model, and
the cutoff boundaries should be manipulated to simulate the wave ra-
diation effect of the semi-infinite foundation. At present, the most
practically applied method for the simulation of wave energy radiation
toward infinity is to set artificial boundaries (i.e., nonreflecting
boundaries or absorbing boundaries) at the cutoff boundaries.
According to the underlying mathematical or physical techniques, the
representative work on artificial boundaries can be classified into the
following general categories: (i) the infinite element method (IEM)
[26,27], which is an infinite domain simulation method based on the
finite element method (FEM) that utilizes the attenuation solutions of
outgoing waves as shape functions but is mainly applied to frequency
domain analysis; (ii) the boundary element method (BEM) [28,29],
which has the advantage of dimensionality reduction but relies on the
basic solutions (Green's functions) satisfying the initial and boundary
conditions and is thus is difficult to apply to large-scale SSI systems
with complex boundary conditions; (iii) the perfectly matched layer
(PML) [30,31], which is an energy-consuming buffer (damping layer)
outside the calculation domain with strong adaptability for the shape of
cutoff boundaries and is sensitive to changes in the buffer thickness and
the parameters of the damping functions; (iv) the transmitting
boundary [32,33], which directly simulates the wave propagation on
the cutoff boundaries through the recursion of nodal displacements but
whose high-frequency stability needs to be further studied; and (v) the
viscous boundary [34] and viscoelastic boundary [35–37], which con-
vert the partial differential equations of unilateral wave motion into
stress boundary conditions, can be simulated by a series of basic me-
chanical components and are thus collectively referred to as stress-type
artificial boundaries. Viscous boundaries are composed of dampers, and
viscoelastic boundaries are simulated by spring-mass-damper systems.
Due to their high precision, spatial decoupling and ease of assembling
into general finite element software, stress-type artificial boundaries
have been widely used and rapidly developed in recent years.
According to the relative positions of the excitation source and the
region of interest, dynamic SSI problems can be divided into internal
and external source problems. For the former, which includes problems
related to structural vibrations and near-field explosions, the excitation
sources are within or very close to the region of interest; thus, the whole
analysis model can be established. No extra energy is input through the
cutoff boundaries; therefore, all the artificial boundaries mentioned
above can work efficiently in such an analysis. For external source
problems, such as problems related to earthquakes and far-field ex-
plosions, the problem becomes exceedingly large if the entire domain,
from the excitation source to the region of interest, is simulated; thus,
only the local site model without excitation sources is generally es-
tablished. However, difficulties occur when inputting external excita-
tions into the near-field domain without affecting the absorption of
outgoing waves by artificial boundaries. Many studies have been con-
ducted on this research topic [6,38–42], and two typical approaches are
the domain reduction method (DRM) proposed by Bielak et al. [43,44]
and the wave method proposed by Liu and Lu [45]. The DRM is a two-
step method that converts the free field motions of unaltered soil cal-
culated by the large-scale global model into the equivalent seismic
loads of the small-scale local model. The wave method is derived based
on viscoelastic artificial boundaries. Using this method, the equivalent
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847
input seismic loads on the artificial boundaries can be obtained and are
then applied to the soil-structure model to simulate the input of
earthquake energy. These two methods are clear in theory and have
been proven to be accurate in application. However, the computational
processes are complicated since the directions and the values of the
equivalent input seismic loads on each boundary node are specific and
need to be determined. Recently, based on the theory of the wave
method, we proposed a seismic wave input method based on the sub-
structure of artificial boundaries, called the boundary substructure
method (BSM) [46]. This method converts the calculation of equivalent
input seismic loads into a dynamic analysis of the substructure of ar-
tificial boundaries and is thus convenient for implementation. Similar
to the wave method, the BSM is essentially a boundary source technique
that brings the excitation sources to the boundary nodes to input the
seismic waves. However, a common defect in these two methods is the
participation of artificial boundaries in the calculation of equivalent
input seismic loads. The applied artificial boundaries are limited to
stress-type artificial boundaries, whereas displacement-differential ar-
tificial boundaries (such as the transmission boundary) and PML tech-
niques, which have been widely applied in various branches of en-
gineering in recent years, are no longer applicable for these two
methods. Moreover, in these two methods, the equivalent input seismic
loads should be calculated according to different artificial boundary
conditions and applied to all artificial boundary nodes. Since artificial
boundaries are usually approximately accurate for most practical cases,
to reduce the calculation error caused by artificial boundaries, it is
necessary to set boundaries far from the region of interest. In addition,
credible simulation of the dynamic SSI problem requires the con-
sideration of a certain range of surrounding soil in the calculation.
Therefore, soil-structure models are usually large and utilize many
elements, especially for three-dimensional problems. Due to the tra-
versal calculation and application of equivalent input seismic loads on
all boundary nodes, the processing techniques of current methods are
complicated, and the computational burdens are exceedingly heavy.
To further simplify the process and improve the efficiency of seismic
wave input while overcoming the restrictions of traditional methods
regarding the types of artificial boundaries, an internal substructure
method (ISM) for seismic wave input in three-dimensional dynamic
soil-structure analysis is proposed in this study. In this method, seismic
waves with arbitrary incident angles are transformed into equivalent
seismic loads and input only within the region of interest. In addition,
these equivalent input seismic loads are directly obtained through dy-
namic analysis of the internal substructure, which is composed only of
two-layer elements and can be intercepted from the original soil-
structure model. The size of the substructure model in the ISM is re-
duced compared with those in the wave method and BSM, and the
computational efficiency is increased. Moreover, this new method
avoids the participation of artificial boundaries in the process of in-
putting seismic waves. Therefore, the limitations on the artificial
boundaries are completely overcome, and the universality of this new
method is improved. We provide the detailed implementation steps of
the proposed method. Wave propagation in homogeneous and layered
half-space sites and the scattered wave problem of a hemispherical
cavity under incident plane waves are adopted as numerical examples
to validate this new method.
2. Internal substructure method
2.1. Theoretical derivation
Fig. 1 shows a typical schematic of the three-dimensional soil-
structure system. A near-field calculation domain is intercepted to es-
tablish the analysis model (see the dashed box in Fig. 1), and the arti-
ficial boundaries need to be set on the cutoff boundaries to absorb the
outgoing waves. The corresponding finite element model is illustrated
in Fig. 2. For demonstration purposes, the quarter on the viewer's side is
J. Liu, et al.
Fig. 1. Three-dimensional soil-structure system.
excised from all the displayed models in this article.
Under seismic excitation, the wave propagation process in the nu-
merical model shown in Fig. 2 can be decomposed into the following
steps: (i) the seismic wave input from the artificial boundaries; (ii) the
propagation of the incident wave through the soil to the vicinity of the
structures; (iii) the interactions between the structures and the soil, as
well as the generation of scattered waves with the structures as the
sources; and (iv) the wave radiation through the soil and the wave
absorption by the artificial boundaries. For common dynamic SSI pro-
blems caused by earthquake excitation, the interactions between the
structures and the surrounding soil, as described in steps (iii) and (iv),
are the key issues of concern. The calculation domain where these in-
teractions take place, as shown by the region within the red node box in
Fig. 2, is designated as the region of interest. The domain between the
region of interest and the artificial boundaries is denoted as the external
region. As mentioned above, to ensure the accuracy of the simulation,
the artificial boundaries are usually set far from the region of interest.
Thus, the seismic wave input from the artificial boundaries and the
simulation of wave propagation in the external region are computa-
tionally expensive. A feasible way to overcome this difficulty is to move
Fig. 2. Finite element model of the soil-structure system.
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847
the excitations closer to the region of interest. By simplifying steps (i)
and (ii), the seismic waves can be directly input around the region of
interest, thereby reducing the amount of calculations.
According to the theory of the wave method, the incident seismic
waves can be transformed into equivalent input seismic loads, which
are determined only by the free wave field and are unaffected by the
internal structures. In addition, these equivalent input seismic loads
should ensure that the motions and stresses of the input boundaries are
consistent with those of the free wave field. The three-dimensional free
field finite element model corresponding to the soil-structure system is
shown in Fig. 3. The nodes in this model are classified into five types
according to their positions: internal nodes (denoted as I), external
nodes (denoted as E) and three-layer internal substructure nodes (re-
presented by red circles , green circles and blue circles respec-
tively, and denoted as A, B and C from the outside to the inside). The
domain within the box formed by the A nodes is the region of interest
where we wish the seismic waves to be input. It is important to em-
phasize that the mechanical behavior of the soils and the structures as
well as their interactions within the region of interest can be linear or
nonlinear, but the soils outside this region should be linear elastic to
J. Liu, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847

Fig. 3. Finite element model of the free field.

satisfy the superposition principle. This hypothesis is reasonable be- namely:

cause of the amplitude decay of the scattered wave radiation [47].
Although the method proposed in this study is applicable to linear and uB = uB0, uC = uC0, uI = u0I , FC = 0, FI = 0 (3)
nonlinear problems, only the linear elastic case is considered during the
where the superscript 0 denotes the free wave field.
derivation for clarity of presentation.
By substituting Eqs. (2) and (3) into Eq. (1), the equivalent input
Notably, to realize the locational correspondences of the equivalent
seismic loads can be obtained:
input seismic loads between the free field model and the soil-structure
model, the mesh generation connected to the internal substructure
⎧ FE = 0
nodes A, B, and C, and the material properties in the region of the in- ¨ B0 + KAB⋅uB0
FA = MAB⋅u
ternal substructure should be identical in these two models. ⎨
¨ B0 + MBC⋅u
⎩ FB = MBB⋅u ¨ C0 + KBB⋅uB0 + KBC⋅uC0 (4)
Based on the above node classification, the motion equation of the
free field model shown in Fig. 3 can be expressed in the following form: The above derivation provides a direct method for determining the
equivalent input seismic loads based on the free field model. However,
⎡ ΜEE MEA 0 0 0 ⎤⎧u ¨E ⎫
MAB 0 0 ⎥⎪ u
¨ until now, this scheme offers little advantage over the wave method and
⎢ MAE MAA ⎪ A⎪ ⎪ DRM because the scheme requires to conduct a dynamic analysis of an
⎢ MBA MBB MBC 0 ⎥ u ¨B
⎢0 MCC MCI ⎥ ⎨ ⎬ additional free field finite element model, leading to tremendous
⎢0 0 MCB ⎥⎪u ¨ C⎪
MIC MII ⎥ ⎪ u ⎪ computational effort, especially for three-dimensional problems.
⎣0
⎢ 0 0 ⎦⎩ ¨I ⎭
Therefore, more manipulations should be taken to further simplify this
⎡ KEE KEA 0 0 0 ⎤ uE FE ⎫
KAB 0 0 ⎥⎧ ⎫ ⎧ F
method.
⎢ KAE KAA uA ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ A⎪ ⎪ Eqs. (3) and (4) show that the equivalent input seismic loads vanish
+ ⎢0 KBA KBB KBC 0 ⎥ uB = FB
⎢ K CC K CI ⎥ ⎨ uC ⎬ ⎨ FC ⎬ everywhere except on the A and B nodes. Moreover, their values in-
⎢0 0 K CB ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
KIC KII ⎥ ⎩ uI ⎭ ⎪ FI ⎪ volve only the free-wave-field motions of the B and C nodes. Therefore,
⎣0
⎢ 0 0 ⎦ ⎩ ⎭ (1)
we establish an internal substructure model that consists only of the
where M and K are the mass and stiffness matrices of the free field three-layer nodes A, B, C and the two-layer elements lying between
model, respectively, u and ü are the vectors of nodal displacement and them, as shown in Fig. 4.
acceleration, respectively, F is the nodal force vector, and the subscripts The motion equation of the internal substructure model can be ex-
E, A, B, C and I refer to the above nodal classification. pressed as follows:
The free field model is divided into the internal region (the region of
sub sub
interest) and the external region by the A nodes, as shown in Fig. 3. For ⎡ MAA MAB 0 ⎤⎧u ¨ Asub ⎫ ⎡ KAA
sub sub
KAB 0 ⎤ ⎧ uAsub ⎫ ⎧ F Asub ⎫
⎢ Msub Msub Msub ⎥ ⎪ u ⎪
sub + ⎢ sub sub sub ⎥
⎪ sub ⎪ ⎪ sub ⎪
=
the external region, since the seismic waves are not input in this area, ⎢ BA BB BC ⎥ ¨ B K KBB KBC ⎥ ⎨ uB ⎬ ⎨ F B ⎬
⎨ ⎬ ⎢ BA
and there is no scattered wave generated in the free field model, the A ⎢ 0 sub sub ⎥ ⎪ sub ⎪
MCB MCC ⎦ ⎩ u ⎢ sub sub ⎥ ⎪ sub ⎪
¨ C ⎭ ⎣ 0 K CB K CC ⎦ ⎩ uC ⎭ ⎪ sub ⎪
⎣ ⎩ FC ⎭
and E nodes are assumed to remain stationary during the calculation,
(5)
namely:
where the superscript sub denotes the internal substructure model.
uA = 0, uE = 0 (2)
According to the concept of finite element discretization, if the mesh
On that basis, according to the concept of the isolation body, the generation and the material properties of the internal substructure
motions in the internal region can be identical to those of the free wave model are consistent with those of the corresponding positions of the
field by applying only the appropriate nodal loads FB on the B nodes, free field model, the following equations can be obtained:

4
J. Liu, et al.
Fig. 4. Finite element model of the internal substructure.
MΦsub = MΦ , K Φsub = K Φ
where the subscript Φ can denote “AB”, “BA”, “BB”, “BC” or “CB”.
By substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (5), fixing the A nodes (uAsub
= 0 ),
and applying the free field motions on the B and C nodes (uBsub = uB0 and
uCsub = uC0 ), the following equations can be obtained:
sub
¨ B0 + KAB⋅uB0
⎧ F A = MAB⋅u
⎨ F Bsub = MBB⋅u
⎩ ¨ B0 + MBC⋅u
¨ C0 + KBB⋅uB0 + KBC⋅uC0
A comparison of Eq. (4) and Eq. (7) shows that the nodal forces on
the A and B nodes calculated by the free field model are identical to
those of the internal substructure model. Therefore, the equivalent
input seismic loads can be obtained through the dynamic analysis of the
internal substructure model, which is much smaller than the original
free field model.
Then, we apply the equivalent input seismic loads FA and FB on the
corresponding nodes of the soil-structure model shown in Fig. 2,
thereby inputting the incident seismic waves u0 into the region of in-
terest through the internal substructure. The incident waves propagate
forward and interact with the structures, generating the scattered waves
uS. According to the concept of wave field decomposition, the wave
field inside the internal region consisting of the incident free wave field
and the scattered wave field caused by the soil-structure interaction is
the total wave field, namely:
uT = u0 + uS
T
When the outgoing waves u from the internal region reach the
boundary consisting of the A nodes, the free field motions u0 are offset
by the nodal forces FA, while the scattered waves uS pass through and
propagate outward until they are absorbed by the artificial boundaries.
Because of this “filtering” effect of the internal substructure on the
outgoing free field waves, the wave field outside the internal sub-
structure contains only the scattered wave field uS. The above process
of wave propagation in the soil-structure model is shown in Fig. 5.
According to the above derivation, the seismic wave input problem
of the soil-structure system can be transformed into the internal source
problem by applying the appropriate equivalent input seismic loads
around the region of interest. These equivalent input seismic waves can
be obtained through dynamic analysis of the internal substructure,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847
(6) which is much smaller than the original soil-structure model. Therefore,
a new seismic wave input method based on the internal substructure for
three-dimensional SSI problems is proposed in this study, and this
method is called the internal substructure method (ISM). In addition,
the derivation process of ISM does not involve the artificial boundaries,
and the input of seismic waves and the absorption of scattered waves
are spatially separated. The artificial boundaries do not participate in
the calculation of equivalent seismic loads, and thus the restrictions on
(7) the applied artificial boundaries are completely released. The common
artificial boundaries supported by the finite element programs, such as
the transmitting boundary, the viscoelastic boundary and the PML, can
all be applied in this new seismic wave input method. Notably, we give
the “structures” here a broad definition including general super-
structures and underground structures, the nonlinear subsystem formed
by the structures and the surrounding nonlinear soils, and even the
local topographies, as shown in Fig. 6. It is obvious that the sizes of the
substructures used in ISM are much smaller than those of the boundary
substructure method (BSM). This feature of size reduction effectively
reduces the computational effort, especially the tremendous amounts of
data storage and transmission on the input boundaries.
2.2. Implementation steps
The implementation steps of the internal substructure method are
provided as follows:
(8)
(1) The three-dimensional near-field soil-structure finite element model
is established, as shown in Fig. 2. The spatial range of the internal
region where the seismic waves are input can be determined ac-
cording to the position of the structures (see the red node box in
Fig. 2). Then, by deleting the external E nodes and the internal I
nodes as well as all the elements connected to them, the corre-
sponding internal substructure model can be established (see
Fig. 6(a)), which consists of only the three-layer nodes (A, B, and C)
and the two-layer elements between them.
(2) According to the incident seismic waves, the free wave field can be
obtained by the one-dimensional method or the one-dimensional
time domain algorithm [48,49]. Then, by fixing the A nodes, im-
posing the free field motions on the B and C nodes, as shown in
5
J. Liu, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847

Fig. 5. Wave propagation in the soil-structure model.

Fig. 7(a), and conducting a dynamic analysis of the internal sub-
structure, the reaction forces on the A and B nodes can be obtained;
these forces are exactly equal to the equivalent input seismic loads
FA and FB.
(3) The equivalent input seismic loads FA and FB are applied to the
corresponding nodes of the soil-structure finite element model, as
shown in Fig. 7(b). Then, the seismic response of the soil-structure
model can be obtained through dynamic analysis.
It is important to note that although Eq. (4) involves two sets of
variables, i.e., displacement u and acceleration ü , only one of them is
required to be input in implementation, and the other set of variables
can be automatically obtained through the dynamic analysis of the
internal substructure model.
The ISM is convenient in application and can be easily integrated in
general finite element software. Furthermore, there are few restrictions
on the spatial range of the internal substructure in this new method. In
an extreme case, the internal substructures can be adjacently inter-
cepted outside the structures, and these substructures are far smaller
than the artificial boundary substructures in the BSM. This feature ef-
fectively reduces the computational effort, especially the tremendous
amounts of data storage and transmission on the input boundaries. In
addition, the internal substructure is adopted only to determine the
equivalent input seismic loads, on the only requirement that the ma-
terial properties of the internal substructure be the linear elastic. The
materials inside the internal region, however, can be arbitrary, noticing
that their properties do not participate in the calculation of equivalent
loads FA and FB. Therefore, the nonlinear SSI effect can be considered

Fig. 6. Application prospects of the ISM in earthquake engineering. a. Nuclear power plant. b. Bridge. c. Local topography. d. Underground structure.

6
J. Liu, et al.
Fig. 7. The implementation steps of the internal substructure method. a. Nodal
load calculation in the internal substructure model. b. Seismic wave input in the
soil-structure model.
inside the internal region.
3. Numerical examples
As mentioned above, the process of seismic wave input through ISM
is independent of the SSI effect and the wave absorption effect of the
artificial boundaries; it is related only to the site condition, the incident
wave and the incident angle. To validate the effectiveness and accuracy
Fig. 8. Homogeneous half-space model.
7
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847
of the ISM without the impact of the SSI effect, in this section, the
seismic waves are input into the engineering sites without structures,
and the numerical results are compared to the corresponding theore-
tical solutions. Without loss of generality, we consider the three types of
engineering sites, i.e., the homogeneous half-space site, the layered
half-space site and the homogeneous half-space site with a hemi-
spherical cavity, and three types of incident seismic waves, i.e., the
plane P, SH and SV waves, incident at different angles.
3.1. Homogeneous half-space site
First, we consider the seismic wave input in the flat homogeneous
half-space site. The computational model is shown in Fig. 8. L, W and H
are the length, width and height of the model, respectively, θ is the
angle between the wave propagation direction and z-axis, and ϕ is the
angle between the projection of the wave propagation direction in the
horizontal plane and the x-axis. The green and red boxes in Fig. 8
correspond to the two internal substructures used in this example,
which are denoted as IS1 and IS2, respectively. In addition, the three-
dimensional viscoelastic artificial boundaries are applied on all cutoff
boundaries [50].
The material properties of the homogenous half-space site are as
follows: mass density ρ = 2000 kg/m3, velocity of shear wave
cS = 200 m/s and Poisson's ratio ν = 0.25. The dimensions of the nu-
merical model are L = W = 100 m, H = 50 m. The dimensions of the
internal substructures IS1 and IS2 are L1 = W1 = 40 m, H1 = 20 m and
L2 = W2 = 60 m, H2 = 30 m, respectively. The coordinates of observa-
tion points A and B are (50, 50, 50) and (50, 50, 34), respectively. A
Dirac-δ pulse wave with a pulse duration of 0.2 s is selected as the in-
cident plane P wave, whose displacement time history and Fourier
amplitude spectrum are plotted in Fig. 9. The incident angles are
θ = 30° and ϕ = 45°.
The incident wave is input by three means: the internal substructure
method based on substructures IS1 and IS2, which are denoted as ISM-
IS1 and ISM-IS2, respectively, and the BSM. The displacements of ob-
servation points A and B calculated by the above numerical approaches
are plotted in Fig. 10. The results show that the dynamic response
calculated by the ISM is consistent with the theoretical solution [13],
indicating that the present method can effectively input seismic waves
into the homogeneous half-space model. In addition, the size of the
internal substructure has no effect on the calculation accuracy.
J. Liu, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847

Fig. 9. Time history and Fourier amplitude spectrum of the displacement of the incident pulse wave.

Fig. 10. The displacements of observation points on the homogeneous half-space model under an incident plane P wave. a. Observation point A. b. Observation point
B.

Table 1 Table 1 gives the numbers of elements and nodes in different sub-
Case 1: The numbers of elements and nodes in different substructures. structures when using the ISM and the BSM. Obviously, the model of
Quantity Internal substructure method Boundary substructure method
the internal substructure is much smaller than the artificial boundary
substructure. To be specific, the quantities of elements and nodes in the
IS1 IS2 ISM-IS1 and ISM-IS2 are reduced by 84% and 64%, respectively,
compared to those in the artificial boundary substructure. Since one of
Element 2408 5408 15008
Node 3747 8307 22827
the most time-consuming procedures in seismic wave input is the data
storage and transfer of nodal displacements and forces, which is pro-
portional to the number of nodes in the substructure model, this size
reduction feature of the ISM significantly reduces the number of nodes,
thus increasing the computational efficiency.

Fig. 11. Snapshots of the homogeneous half-space model under an incident P wave. a. t = 0.224 s. b. t = 0.332 s. c. t = 0.440 s.

8
J. Liu, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847

dotted box calculated by the ISM are consistent with those of the BSM,
indicating that the proposed method can efficiently input the seismic
waves into the internal region. In addition, due to the “filtering” effect
of the ISM on the outgoing free field waves, only the scattered waves
can pass through the internal substructures and propagate outward. For
the homogeneous half-space model with no structures inside, no scat-
tered waves are generated, and thus, the wave field vanishes in the
external region.

3.2. Layered half-space site

The layered half-space model, which considers the local site effect,
is more practical than the homogeneous model. Wave propagation
theory denotes that the soil layers modify the amplitude and frequency
content of the input seismic waves while passing though the soil layers,
which can exert a crucial influence on the structural seismic response
and the ground motion field [51]. Due to the wave transmissions and
reflections at the interfaces of different media, the distributions of the
wave field are complicated, and seismic wave input in such engineering
sites is challenging. Here, we consider a two-layer system containing
the elastic half-space and the covering layer, as shown in Fig. 12. The
dimensions of the model are L = W]H=100 m, and the thickness of
Fig. 12. Layered half-space model. the covering layer is Hc = 50 m. The three-dimensional viscoelastic
artificial boundaries are applied on all cutoff boundaries. The green and
Table 2 red boxes in Fig. 12 correspond to the two internal substructures IS1
Case 2: The numbers of elements and nodes in different substructures. and IS2, respectively. The dimensions of IS1 and IS2 are L1 = W1]
H1=40 m and L2 = W2]H2=60 m, respectively.
Quantity Internal substructure method Boundary substructure method
The material parameters of the computational model are as follows:
IS1 IS2 mass density ρ1 = ρ2 = 2000 kg/m3, velocity of shear wave
cS1 = 200 m/s, cS2 = 100 m/s and Poisson's ratio ν1 = ν2 = 0.25, where
Element 4008 9008 25008
the subscripts 1 and 2 denote the half-space and the covering layer,
Node 6147 13707 37827
respectively. A pulse plane SH wave with amplitude shown in Fig. 9 is
inputted into the model, and the incident angles are θ = 45° and
Fig. 11 illustrates snapshots of the displacement wave field under ϕ = 60°. The coordinates of observation points A, B and C are (50, 50,
the obliquely incident plane P wave. The dotted boxes denote the in- 100), (50, 50, 90) and (50, 50, 50), respectively. Table 2 provides the
ternal substructures, of which the red one is adopted for input of the numbers of elements and nodes in different substructures. The model
seismic waves. The wave fronts of the incident P wave, the reflected P size of the internal substructure is still much smaller than that of the
wave and the reflected SV wave can be clearly observed in the snap- artificial boundary substructure, which guarantees the high computa-
shots. It is important to note that the wave field distributions in the red tional efficiency of the ISM.
Fig. 13 shows the displacements in the x and y directions calculated

Fig. 13. The displacements of observation points on the layered half-space model under an incident plane SH wave. a. Observation point A. b. Observation point B. c.
Observation point C.

9
J. Liu, et al.
Fig. 14. The displacements of observation points on the layered half-space model under an incident plane SH wave. a. t = 0.44 s. b. t = 0.732 s. c. t = 0.94 s.
Fig. 15. The homogeneous half-space model with a hemispherical cavity.
by the ISM, and these displacements show very good consistency with
the theoretical solutions. Snapshots of the displacement wave field
under the obliquely incident plane SH wave are illustrated in Fig. 14.
The wave field in the layered model is composed of the incident, re-
flected and transmitted SH waves, whose wave fronts are clearly dis-
played in the snapshots. In addition, the wave field distributions within
the internal regions (see the red dotted boxes in Fig. 14) calculated by
the ISM agree well with those of the BSM, as expected. Consequently,
the accuracy and effectiveness of the present method for the seismic
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847
wave input for layered half-space sites can be verified.
3.3. Homogeneous half-space site with a hemispherical cavity
To illustrate the applicability of the ISM for analyzing topographic
effects, we examine, as a third example, the case of a homogeneous
half-space site with a hemispherical cavity. The geometry and material
parameters, as well as the internal substructures adopted in this nu-
merical model, are all identical to those of the first example, except that
there is a hemispherical cavity in the middle of the free surface, as
shown in Fig. 15. The cavity radius is R = 6 m. A pulse plane SV wave
with amplitude shown in Fig. 9 is selected as the incident wave, and the
incident angles are θ = 20° and ϕ = 45°.
The displacements of observation points A (50, 50, 44) and B (50,
50, 34) are plotted in Fig. 16 and agree well with the results of the BSM.
Fig. 17 shows snapshots of the displacement wave fields under the
obliquely incident plane SV wave. Within the internal region, free field
waves and scattered waves together compose the total wave field. When
the outgoing total waves reach the internal substructure, the free field
motions are completely absorbed, while the scattered waves pass
through and propagate outward. Namely, the ISM realizes effective
seismic wave input inside the region of interest without affecting the
generation and propagation of scattered waves. Therefore, the total
wave field within the internal region and the scattered wave field in the
entire model calculated by the present method are both consistent with
those of the BSM.
J. Liu, et al.
Fig. 16. The displacements of observation points on the homogeneous half-space model with a hemispherical cavity. a. Observation point A. b. Observation point B.
Fig. 17. Snapshots of the homogeneous half-space model with a hemispherical cavity. a. t = 0.33 s. b. t = 0.46 s. c. t = 0.65 s.
4. Summary and conclusions
Based on the theory of the wave method and the concept of the
substructure method, an internal substructure method (ISM) for seismic
wave input in three-dimensional dynamic soil-structure interaction
(SSI) analysis is proposed in this study. In this method, seismic waves
with arbitrary incident angles are converted into equivalent input
seismic loads around the region of interest in the numerical model. The
equivalent input seismic loads are obtained through dynamic analysis
of the internal substructure, without complex formula calculations. In
addition, the internal substructure model is directly intercepted from
the original soil-structure model; thus, the locational correspondences
of the loading nodes can be established, and this new method can be
conveniently implemented in general finite element software. The de-
tailed implementation steps of the ISM are provided. The accuracy and
effectiveness of this new method are verified by numerical examples of
wave propagation in homogeneous and layered half-space sites, as well
as the scattered wave problem of a hemispherical cavity.
The sizes of the substructures used in this new method are much
smaller than those of the wave method and the boundary substructure
method (BSM). For the numerical examples conducted in this study, the
quantities of elements and nodes in the ISM are reduced up to 84%
compared to those of the BSM. This feature of size reduction effectively
11
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847
reduces the computational effort, especially the tremendous amounts of
data storage and transmission on the input boundaries. In addition, the
proposed method avoids the participation of the artificial boundaries in
the process of inputting seismic waves. Therefore, the restrictions of
traditional methods on the types of artificial boundaries are completely
overcome, and this new method can be more universally adopted.
Acknowledgments
This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (no.51878384) and the National Key Research and
Development Program of China (no.2018YFC1504305). Financial sup-
port from these organizations is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Amorosi A, Boldini D. Numerical modelling of the transverse dynamic behaviour of
circular tunnels in clayey soils. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2009;29(6):1059–72https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.12.004.
[2] Chopra AK, Wang JT. Earthquake response of arch dams to spatially varying ground
motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2010;39(8):887–906https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
974.
[3] Vlado G, Mihailo DT, Nebojša O. Two-dimensional translation, rocking, and waves
in a building during soil-structure interaction excited by a plane earthquake SV-
wave pulse. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2016;88:76–91https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.
2016.05.008.
J. Liu, et al.
[4] Carbonari S, Morici M, Dezi F, Gara F, Leoni G. Soil-structure interaction effects in
single bridge piers founded on inclined pile groups. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2017;92:52–67https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.10.005.
[5] Mirzaie F, Mahsuli M, Ghannad MA. Probabilistic analysis of soil-structure inter-
action effects on the seismic performance of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2017;46:641–60https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2807.
[6] Huang JQ, Zhao M, Du XL. Non-linear seismic responses of tunnels within normal
fault ground under obliquely incident P waves. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
2017;61:26–39https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.09.006.
[7] Tabatabaiefar HR, Fatahi B, Ghabraie K, Zhou W. Evaluation of numerical proce-
dures to determine seismic response of structures under influence of soil-structure
interaction. Struct Eng Mech 2015;56(1):27–47https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.
2015.56.1.027.
[8] Fatahi B, Tabatabaiefar HR, Samali B. Performance based assessment of dynamic
soil-structure interaction effects on seismic response of building frames. Proceedings
of georisk 2011 - geotechnical risk assessment & management (geotechnical special
publication No. 224). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2011. p.
344–51https://doi.org/10.1061/41183(418)29.
[9] Yoshida N. Equivalent linear method considering frequency dependent character-
istics of stiffness and damping. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2002;22(3):205–22https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00011-8.
[10] Lin Y, Miranda E. Evaluation of equivalent linear methods for estimating target
displacements of existing structures. Eng Struct 2009;31(12):3080–9https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.009.
[11] Kontoe S, Avgerinos V, Potts DM. Numerical validation of analytical solutions and
their use for equivalent-linear seismic analysis of circular tunnels. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 2014;66:206–19https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.07.004.
[12] Hashemi A, Elkhoraibi T, Ostadan F. Effects of structural nonlinearity and foun-
dation sliding on probabilistic response of a nuclear structure. Nucl Eng Des
2015;295:887–900https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.08.028.
[13] Huang JQ, Du XL, Jin L, Zhao M. Impact of incident angles of P waves on the
dynamic responses of long lined tunnels. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2016;45(15):2435–54https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2772.
[14] Lokke A, Chopra AK. Direct finite element method for nonlinear analysis of semi-
unbounded dam-water-foundation rock systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2017;46(8):1267–85https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2855.
[15] Tabatabaifar SHR, Fatahi B, Samali B. Finite difference modelling of soil-structure
interaction for seismic design of moment resisting building frames. Aust Geomech J
2012;47(3):113–9.
[16] Tabatabaiefar HR, Fatahi B. Idealisation of soil–structure system to determine in-
elastic seismic response of mid-rise building frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2014;66:339–51https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.08.007.
[17] Tabatabaiefar HR, Mansoury B. Detail design, building and commissioning of tall
building structural models for experimental shaking table tests. Struct Des Tall
Special Build 2016;25(8):357–74https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1262.
[18] Tomeo R, Bilotta A, Pitilakis D, Nigro E. Soil-structure interaction effects on the
seismic performances of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. Procedia Eng
2017;199:230–5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.006.
[19] Abate G, Massimino MR. Dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis by experi-
mental and numerical modelling. Riv Ital Geotec 2016;50(2):44–70.
[20] Massimino MR, Abate G, Corsico S, Louarn R. Comparison between two approaches
for non-linear FEM modelling of the seismic behaviour of a coupled soil-structure
system. Geotech Geol Eng 2019;37(3):1957–75https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-
018-0737-y.
[21] Lou M, Wang H, Chen X, Zhai Y. Structure-soil-structure interaction: literature re-
view. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2011;31(12):1724–31https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.
2011.07.008.
[22] Semblat JF, Kham M, Bard PY. Seismic-wave propagation in alluvial basins and
influence of site-city interaction. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2008;98(6):2665–78https://
doi.org/10.1785/0120080093.
[23] Isbiliroglu Y, Taborda R, Bielak J. Coupled soil-structure interaction effects of
building clusters during earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 2015;31(1):463–500https://
doi.org/10.1193/102412eqs315m.
[24] Sahar D, Narayan JP, Kumar N. Study of role of basin shape in the site-city inter-
action effects on the ground motion characteristics. Nat Hazards
2015;75(2):1167–86https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1366-2.
[25] Lu X, Tian Y, Wang G, Huang D. A numerical coupling scheme for nonlinear time
history analysis of buildings on a regional scale considering site-city interaction
effects. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2018;47:2708–25https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3108.
[26] Zhao C. Applications of infinite elements to dynamic soil-structure interaction
problems. Dev Geotech Eng 1998;83:153–60https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-
1250(98)80010-2.
[27] Astley RJ. Infinite elements for wave problems: a review of current formulations
and an assessment of accuracy. Int J Numer Methods Eng
2000;49(7):951–76.https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0207(20001110)49.
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127 (2019) 105847
:7 < 951::aid-nme989 > 3.0.co;2-t.
[28] Álvarez-Rubio S, Sánchez-Sesma FJ, Benito JJ, Alarcon E. The direct boundary
element method: 2D site effects assessment on laterally varying layered media
(methodology). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2004;24(2):167–80https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2003.09.003.
[29] Karabalis DL, Beskos DE. Dynamic response of 3-D rigid surface foundations by time
domain boundary element method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2010;12(1):73–93https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290120106.
[30] Francis C, Chrysoula T. Application of the perfectly matched absorbing layer model
to the linear elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heterogeneous media. Geophys J
Int 2006;167(1):294–307https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444908.
[31] Papadopoulos M, Beeumen RV, François S, Degrande G, Lombaert G. Modal char-
acteristics of structures considering dynamic soil-structure interaction effects. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 2018;105:114–8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.11.012.
[32] Liao ZP. A transmitting boundary for the numerical simulation of elastic wave
propagation. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1984;3(4):174–83https://doi.org/10.1016/
0261-7277(84)90033-0.
[33] Du XL, Zhao M. A local time-domain transmitting boundary for simulating cy-
lindrical elastic wave propagation in infinite media. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2010;30(10):937–46https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.04.004.
[34] Georges K, Olivier V, Calogero C. Finite-dynamic model for infinite media: cor-
rected solution of viscous boundary efficiency. J Eng Mech
2011;137(7):509–11https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000250.
[35] Liu JB, Li B. A unified viscous-spring artificial boundary for 3-D static and dynamic
applications. Sci China Ser E Technol Sci 2005;48(5):570–84https://doi.org/10.
1360/04ye0362.
[36] Wang Z, Zhao C, Dong L. An approximate spring-dashpot artificial boundary for
transient wave analysis of fluid-saturated porous media. Comput Geotech
2009;36(1–2):199–210https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.01.008.
[37] Liu JB, Du YX, Du XL, Wang ZY, Wu J. 3D viscous-spring artificial boundary in time
domain. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2015;5(1):93–101https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-
006-0585-2.
[38] Wolf JP. Soil-structure-interaction analysis in time domain. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[39] Pan JW, Zhang CH, Wang JT, Xu YJ. Seismic damage-cracking analysis of arch dams
using different earthquake input mechanisms. Sci China Ser E Technol Sci
2009;52(2):518–29https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-008-0303-6.
[40] Jeremić Boris, Jie G, Preisig M, Nima Tafazzoli. Time domain simulation of soil-
foundation-structure interaction in non-uniform soils. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2010;38(5):699–718https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.896.
[41] Poursartip B, Fathi A, Kallivokas LF. Seismic wave amplification by topographic
features: a parametric study. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;92:503–27https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.10.031.
[42] Li Y, Zhao M, Xu CS, Du XL, Zheng L. Earthquake input for finite element analysis of
soil-structure interaction on rigid bedrock. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
2018;79:250–62https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.05.008.
[43] Bielak J, Loukakis K, Hisada Y, Yoshimura C. Domain reduction method for three-
dimensional earthquake modeling in localized regions, part I: theory. Bull Seismol
Soc Am 2003;93(2):817–24https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010251.
[44] Yoshimura C, Bielak J, Hisada Y, Fernández A. Domain reduction method for three-
dimensional earthquake modeling in localized regions, part II: verification and
applications. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2003;93(2):825–41https://doi.org/10.1785/
0120010252.
[45] Liu JB, Lu Y. A direct method for analysis of dynamic soil-structure interaction
based on interface idea. Dev Geotech Eng 1998;83(3):261–76https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0165-1250(98)80018-7.
[46] Liu JB, Tan H, Bao X, Wang DY, Li ST. The seismic wave input method for soil-
structure dynamic interaction analysis based on the substructure of artificial
boundaries. Chin J Theor Appl Mech 2018;50(1):32–43. [in Chinese)]. https://doi.
org/10.6052/0459-1879-17-336.
[47] Kim JM, Lee EH, Lee SH. Boundary reaction method for nonlinear analysis of soil-
structure interaction under earthquake loads. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2016;89:85–90https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.07.020.
[48] Liu JB, Wang Y. A 1D time-domain method for in-plane wave motions in a layered
half-space. Acta Mech Sin 2007;23(6):673–80https://doi.org/10.1007/s10409-
007-0114-1.
[49] Zhao M, Gao Z, Wang L, Du X, Huang J, Li Y. Obliquely incident earthquake input
for soil-structure interaction in layered half space. Earthq Struct
2017;13(6):573–88https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.6.573.
[50] Liu JB, Gu Y, Du YX. Consistent viscous-spring artificial boundaries and viscous-
spring boundary elements. Chin J Geotech Eng 2006;28(9):1070–5. [in Chinese)].
https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2006.09.004.
[51] Fatahi B, Tabatabaifar SHR, Samali B. Soil-structure interaction vs site effect for
seismic design of tall buildings on soft soil. Geomech Eng
2014;6(3):293–320https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2014.6.3.293.