Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ultrasonics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ultras

A Stiffness Reduction Method for efficient absorption

of waves at boundaries for use in commercial Finite Element codes
J.R. Pettit a,b,⇑, A. Walker a, P. Cawley b, M.J.S. Lowe b
a
Rolls-Royce Nuclear, PO BOX 2000, Derby DE21 7XX, UK
b
UK Research Centre for NDE, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Commercially available Finite Element packages are being used increasingly for modelling elastic wave
Received 21 August 2013 propagation problems. Demand for improved capability has resulted in a drive to maximise the efficiency
Received in revised form 25 November 2013 of the solver whilst maintaining a reliable solution. Modelling waves in unbound elastic media to high
Accepted 29 November 2013
levels of accuracy presents a challenge for commercial packages, requiring the removal of unwanted
Available online 12 December 2013
reflections from model boundaries. For time domain explicit solvers, Absorbing Layers by Increasing
Damping (ALID) have proven successful because they offer flexible application to modellers and, unlike
Keywords:
the Perfectly Matched Layers (PMLs) approach, they are readily implemented in most commercial Finite
Absorbing boundaries
Stiffness Reduction Method
Element software without requiring access to the source code. However, despite good overall perfor-
Finite Elements mance, this technique requires the spatial model to extend significantly outside the domain of interest.
Numerical simulations Here, a Stiffness Reduction Method (SRM) has been developed that operates within a significantly
reduced spatial domain. The technique is applied by altering the damping and stiffness matrices of the
system, inducing decay of any incident wave. Absorbing region variables are expressed as a function of
known model constants, helping to apply the technique to generic elastodynamic problems. The SRM
has been shown to perform significantly better than ALID, with results confirmed by both numerical
and analytical means.
Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction spatial domain can consist of tens of millions of degrees of freedom

Within recent years commercial Finite Element (FE) packages
have been used increasingly to simulate elastic wave propagation
and scattering problems. Analytical solutions to these interactions
are often impossible or impractical to solve, whereas numerical
techniques offer solutions that extend to any desired level of
complexity.
Two advances have led to the success of the numerical
approach. Firstly, low cost computing capability is now readily
available and secondly, the FE approach is well established in its
ability and confidence of users to model ultrasonic response [1–6].
An attractive approach to efficient FE modelling techniques
makes use of domain linking algorithms that allow modellers to
only consider a small area immediately surrounding a defect or
feature of interest [6–8]. By using this method, computational re-
source can be focused on a highly accurate representation of com-
plex scatters. This is particularly advantageous when considering
three-dimensional problems where even a significantly reduced
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: IMRS, Sinfin D, Rolls-Royce, Derby DE21 7XX,
UK, Tel.: +44 (0)1332 240239.
E-mail address: James.Pettit@Rolls-Royce.com (J.R. Pettit).
to be solved.
In such instances the greatest limitation is unwanted reflections
from model boundaries manifesting themselves as additional rem-
nants in ultrasonic signals. The removal of unwanted reflections
has proven to be a challenging problem, becoming a research topic
in its own right [9–25]. The simplest technique has been to in-
crease the geometric size of models, isolating unwanted reflections
in time from those of the desired response. This approach has unre-
alistic implications requiring unnecessarily large simulations and
reducing computational efficiency. More innovative techniques
have been developed which can be collated into the three catego-
ries: infinite element methods, non-reflecting boundary conditions
and absorbing layer methods.
Infinite element methods use a type of element with properties
that simulate infinite space [9]. A single row of these elements can
be positioned outside the Area of Study, absorbing incident waves.
Although this method dramatically reduces the geometric size and
is available in some commercial packages, application is focused
towards electromagnetic and acoustic problems. When applied to
elastic scattering, with both the compression and shear wave
modes present, discrepancies arise at element boundaries resulting
in a poor performance [10,11]. This is not suitable for the high
accuracy removal of unwanted signals.

0041-624X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2013.11.013
 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879
Non-reflecting boundary conditions simulate an unbound med-
ium within the same geometric size since they possess no area or
volume. To simulate infinite material surrounding the system, the
boundary conditions introduce extra variables into the governing
equations that aim to prevent reflections occurring. Many different
methods have been developed specific to their respective fields
[12–17]. The first example of a successful implementation is pro-
vided by Givoli and Keller [14]. This provides a frequency domain
solution for a perfect Non-reflecting boundary. This approach has
recently been extended by Velichko and Wilcox [15], for NDE
applications where a frequency domain Finite Element model is
used to calculate the complete scattering behaviour of the defect,
also with boundaries that are perfectly non-reflecting. The use of
these perfect non-reflecting boundary conditions allows for only
a single layer of elements surrounding the defect to be used, mak-
ing the model spatially computationally efficient. However these
methods require modification of the standard solving procedures,
with non-sparse matrices solved only in the frequency domain.
Thus, development of specialist FE code is required beyond what
is possible using commercial packages.
Absorbing layer techniques append a number of finite sized lay-
ers to the boundary of the spatial domain. The layers are made of
the same elements as the model but with gradually varying prop-
erties that absorb incident waves. This technique generates the
largest relative increase in geometric size, however, it can be di-
rectly implemented into commercial FE packages. Layer properties
are optimised such that reflected waves are of a magnitude that
can be considered negligible. The ease of implementation makes
this approach appealing to modellers, provided the additional size
of the spatial domain can be minimised.
For modelling elastodynamic wave problems two successful
absorbing layer techniques are Perfectly Matched Layers (PMLs)
[18–20] and Absorbing Layers by Increasing Damping (ALID) [21–
24]. Both techniques append layers to the model boundary with
absorbing properties that gradually increase, thereby attenuating
incident waves. For PML the impedance of the absorbing elements
perfectly matches that of the parent material, thus waves enter the
absorbing material without reflection. However for ALID progres-
sion through the absorbing material is accompanied by impedance
mismatches between successive layers, but with the advantage of
easier implementation. A comparative study between the two car-
ried out by Rajagopal et al. [11], concluded that PML generally
achieves a smaller model size than ALID for comparable perfor-
mance. However, PML is more suited to frequency domain simula-
tions and requires specific programming and functionality;
currently this is only available in a minority of commercial FE
packages. Therefore, ALID is a more accessible tool for practical
use, being directly compatible with explicit time domain solvers
in commercial FE programs.
A recent development to the ALID approach has been made by
Semblat et al. [25] based on a Rayleigh/Caughey damping formula-
tion. Rayleigh/Caughey damping is available in most commercial
FE packages and the technique developed is thus called Caughey
Absorbing Layer Method or CALM. Spatial variation of damping is
controlled by varying the mass and stiffness proportional damping
coefficients to give a diagonal damping matrix. Considering the
contribution of stiffness to wave attenuation is comparable to the
approach taken here; however the variation proposed in is this pa-
per, does not exploit stiffness proportional damping, but rather
reduction of the coefficients of the stiffness matrix itself.
The motivation of the work presented in this paper is to develop
an absorbing layer technique that can improve on the efficiency of
the ALID technique, whilst remaining accessible to implementation
using commercial FE programs. The method, which will be pre-
sented in the following sections, exploits benefits that can be
gained by making gradual changes to the material stiffness, as well
1869
as increasing the damping, and is thus an extension of the ALID
concept. Very significant improvements in efficiency have been
found to be possible. The paper presents the derivation of the
method, followed by an analytical assessment of its performance,
from which its parameters may be optimised. Finally its perfor-
mance is illustrated and compared to that of the other methods al-
ready discussed.
2. Stiffness Reduction Method
We start by reviewing the underlying workings of the ALID
method, from which we will be able to identify the role of the stiff-
ness term and thus develop the new stiffness reduction approach.
2.1. Absorbing layer theory
The absorbing layer concept changes the physical properties of
the elements within successive layers such that they absorb inci-
dent wave energy. The physical properties must be changed grad-
ually, but at an optimum rate because of two competing
mechanisms. The first is that reflections are caused by impedance
mismatches between successive absorbing layers. Thus, alterations
in the physical properties of adjacent elements cause reflections
that return energy back into the Area of Study (AoS) at each inter-
face. The second is that the incident wave may not be fully
absorbed within the total thickness of the absorbing region and
so may reflect from the model boundary back into the AoS. An effi-
cient ALID allows for compensation between these two mecha-
nisms by minimising impedance mismatches between successive
layers in a minimal thickness to produce a net reflection below a
pre-defined threshold [11].
The equation of dynamic equilibrium that forms the basis of the
FE discretisation of the wave propagation problem is:
€ þ ½Cu_ þ ½Ku ¼ ½F
½Mu ð1Þ
where ½M; ½C and ½K are the respective mass, damping and stiffness
matrices and ½F represents external force [26]. Eq. (1) has a har-
monic solution expressed in the form uðx; tÞ ¼ eiðkxwtÞ for the one
dimensional case where k is the wavenumber and x is the angular
€ , and velocity, u,
_ in terms of
frequency. By expressing acceleration, u
displacement, u , Eq. (1) becomes:
½Mx2 u  ½Cixu þ ½Ku ¼ ½F ð2Þ
The damping matrix can be expressed most simply as two separate
components proportional to the mass and stiffness matrices, consis-
tent with options available in most commercial FE packages:
½C ¼ C M ½M þ C K ½K ð3Þ
Combining Eqs. (2) and (3) produces a new equation for dynamic
equilibrium where damping is expressed solely as a function of
coefficients C M , mass proportional damping and C K , stiffness pro-
portional damping:
 
CM
½M 1 þ i x2 u þ ½Kð1  ixC K Þu ¼ ½F ð4Þ
x
From the inspection of the coefficients of Eq. (4) it can be shown
that Eq. (2) can be re-written without the ½Cu_ term, but instead
with complex values of the density, q, and Young’s modulus, E:
 
CM
q!q 1þi ð5Þ
x
and
E ! Eð1  ixC K Þ ð6Þ
1870 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879

Inside the AoS where damping is normally zero (C M ¼ 0 and C K ¼ 0), was set to be three times the size of the largest wavelength travel-
Eqs. (5) and (6) default to their original form as shown in Eq. (2). In- ling through the system.
side the absorbing region, damping is nonzero, meaning that inci- The development made with SRM is to notice that under these
dent wave energy is absorbed by the imaginary parts of the conditions the wavenumber can be incrementally increased by
complex terms introduced into the solution via q and E. This can using C M ðxÞ but also by decreasing the value of the Young’s modu-
be illustrated by noticing that the wavenumber is related to the lus, E. Therefore within the absorbing region E becomes a function
density and stiffness such that: of x, decreasing gradually across the absorbing region, avoiding any
rffiffiffiffi dramatic changes in material properties.
q
k/ ð7Þ
E 2.2. Explicit Finite Element solution
Inside the absorbing layers k ¼ kreal þ ikimag . Substituting this back
into the original harmonic solution of the one-dimensional problem To understand how best to apply SRM, it is necessary to evalu-
gives: ate the behaviour of the matrices in the explicit time domain FE
solver [26].
uðx; tÞ ¼ eiðkreal xwtÞ ekimag x ð8Þ Starting from the equation of equilibrium, Eq. (1), solution in
the time domain can be expressed by the central difference finite
kimag x
It is the term e which induces the decay of the waves inside difference equations:
the absorbing region and therefore that must be exploited. Com-
mercial FE packages do not offer a means to alter the wavenumber 1  tDt 
€t ¼
u 2
u  2ut þ utþDt ð11Þ
directly. This must be achieved indirectly, by altering values of the Dt
stiffness, damping and mass matrices, to increase the value of kimag
1  tþDt 
inside the absorbing region. Consequently, this will also increase u_ t ¼ u  utDt ð12Þ
the value of kreal which must be managed carefully in order to min- 2 Dt
imise the reflection between adjacent elements. Substituting Eqs. (3), (11) and (12) into (1) gives:
From Eqs. (5) and (7) it can be shown that the complex wave-  
½a0 ½M þ a1 C M ½MutþDt ¼ F t  ½½K  2a0 ½Mut
number can be expressed as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  ½a0 ½M  a1 C M ½MutDt ð13Þ
qð1 þ iCwM Þ where a0 ¼ D1t2 and a1 ¼ 21Dt. The next observation to be made is that
kðkreal ; kimag Þ / ð9Þ  
E the dynamic load to the system, F t , is a function
 tapplied
  of the
The optimal outcome would be a means of increasing the value of stiffness matrix K which can be expressed as F t ð K t Þ . If stability
kimag without increasing kreal . To date such capability for time do- is assumed, utþDt can be solved using an explicit integration method,
main commercial FE packages has not been established, therefore given by Eq. (14).
 t  t 
layer properties must be carefully selected such that successive val- F K ½½K  2a0 ½M
tþDt
ues of kreal result in impedance mismatches that generate reflections u ¼  ut
½a0 ½M þ a1 C M ½M ½a0 ½M þ a1 C M ½M
which can be considered negligible.
½a0 ½M  a1 C M ½M tDt
To define an effective absorbing region it is necessary to opti-  u ð14Þ
mise variables that the user has control over. Progress made in ½a0 ½M þ a1 C M ½M
ALID by Rajagopal et al. [11], gives a good indication of how best Eq. (14) is thus composed of three terms, each of which is inversely
to optimise initial parameters and forms the basis of the Stiffness affected by the damping coefficient C M . Within the absorbing layer,
Reduction Method (SRM) technique. increasing the value of C M decreases the magnitude of each term,
Firstly, it is noted that introducing damping into the model can resulting in the decay of the incident wave.
decrease the value of the stable time increment within explicit
schemes, thereby reducing computational efficiency by increasing 2.3. SRM mechanisms
computation time. However, a high value of C M causes only a small
decrease in the stable increment as compared to that of C K [11,27]. Eqs. (9), (10) and (14) reveal how best to decay the wave within
It is therefore preferable to avoid using C K to define an absorbing the absorbing region. It is necessary to increase the imaginary com-
boundary within an explicit scheme. Setting C K to zero eliminates ponent of the wavenumber which can be done by increasing the
this issue and allows damping to be controlled solely by C M in Rayleigh damping term C M and decreasing the value of Young’s
which case it is found that the stability is not compromised. modulus, E.
Secondly, damping is defined as an increasing power law set by Changing the variables in this manner also complements
the power p, to gradually alter the value across successive layers. Eq. (14). As well as the decay associated with increasing damping,
the
 t  first
  term is also reduced since the loading component
C M ðxÞ ¼ C Mmax XðxÞp ð10Þ
F ð K t Þ is directly proportional to the Young’s modulus. It is this
C Mmax is a positive real number, XðxÞ ranges from 0 at the AoS mechanism that gives SRM the advantage over conventional ALID.
boundary to 1 at the end of the absorbing region with layer thick- Finally, as in Eq. (10), the thickness of successive layers is equal
ness equal to the element width. Therefore, for a spatial discretised to the element width where x takes discrete values corresponding
FE model, x takes discrete values corresponding to an integer num- to an integer number of element widths. The loading term (and
ber of element widths that increases while moving away from the therefore Young’s modulus) is reduced using an exponential decay
AoS-absorbing layer boundary. function containing an attenuation factor a such that:
There is no established method for directly calculating the ideal
EðxÞ ¼ E0 eaðxÞkinc x ð15Þ
values for the variables in Eq. (10), however there is literature that
suggests how best to begin optimising the technique [11]. The va- where E0 is the Youngs modulus inside the AoS and kinc is the inci-
lue of C Mmax is found using a trial and error method until the dent wavenumber. However, the attenuation factor aðxÞ cannot be a
acceptability criterion of reflection for all modes in the model is constant for each layer since this will induce impedance mis-
validated. In those studies, the thickness of the absorbing region matches between adjacent layers. Therefore it is necessary to
 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879 1871

gradually increase this value across the absorbing region as shown
in Eq. (16).
aðxÞ ¼ amax XðxÞp ð16Þ
The application of exponential decay to the stiffness matrix has a di-
rect impact on the dynamic load ½F in the first term of Eq. (14).
Effectively, ½F has been replaced by ½Feakinc x reducing the magni-
tude of the contribution of this term to the nodal displacements
within the layer, utþDt , thus decaying the wave.
minimise impedance mismatches between successive layers. The
larger impedance mismatches that do occur happen deep within
the absorbing region where the incident wave has already been
diminished.
The SRM and ALID are directly compared for the one dimen-
sional case, with their respective layer properties optimised for
maximum absorption. All variables between the two models re-
main constant except for the Young’s modulus in the absorbing re-
gion of the SRM. Fig. 1a and b show the performance of the two
techniques. The time history of a single excited node is recorded

3. SRM performance

Having established that reducing the stiffness and increasing

(a) 1.00 ALID
0.75 SRM
the damping will absorb incident waves, it is now necessary to
optimise performance. A one-dimensional explicit FE model has
0.50
← Incident Wave

Displacement (m)
been used to optimise and compare model variables. Following
this, the concept is applied to test models set up using the com- 0.25
mercial FE package ABAQUS/Explicit [28] in order to obtain quan-
titative values for the reflection coefficients as functions of incident 0
angle for two-dimensional analysis. Numerical results from these ↑
−0.25 Reflected
simulations are then compared to an analytical model using the Response
Global Matrix method, reported in detail by Lowe [29].
−0.50

3.1. One dimensional Finite Element simulations −0.75

To understand the behaviour of the system, an explicit one −1.00

0 5 10 15 20
dimensional FE model has been created that is governed by Eq. Time (s)
(14). The system is composed of a string of 2-node rod or Truss ele-
ments each containing two nodes with a single degree of freedom
being the displacement parallel to the direction of propagation. A
(b) 0.02 ALID
SRM
length of undamped elements forming the AoS is terminated by
an absorbing region. A short pulse is generated in the AoS and is
0.01
Displacement (m)

incident at the absorbing region. The performance of the absorbing

region is assessed by examining the unwanted reflection returning
from it. The FE model is non-dimensional with material properties
that produce a propagation wavelength of 1 unit, Young’s modulus 0
1 unit and density 1 unit. The total length of the absorbing region is
1.5 units (1.5kinc of the system) and the model is discretised using
20 nodes per wavelength with a Courant or CFL number of 1
−0.01
[30,31].
SRM variables that need to be optimised are the maximum Ray-
leigh damping C Mmax , the power to which successive layer proper-
ties are raised, p, and the maximum attenuation factor in the final −0.02
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
absorbing layer, amax . To achieve this an optimisation function is
Time (s)
used which calculates the optimal values for input variables that
will render the lowest possible reflection coefficient for the absorb- (C) 0.02 CALM
ing boundary [32]. SRM
For the algorithm to work successfully, initial values for the in-
put variables must be specified. From inspection of Eq. (5), it can be
0.01
Displacement (m)

seen that C M ðxÞ is intrinsically linked to the angular frequency of

the incident wavelength, x. From trial and error methods carried
out by Rajagopal et al. [11], it has been observed that the optimal
value selected for C Mmax is of the same order as x. Similarly, for an 0
absorbing region of thickness L the initial value of amax is of the or-
der unity. This makes the application of the absorbing regions to
different inspection scenarios more straightforward, since now
−0.01
both variables can be expressed as a function of the frequency of
the incident wave rather than resulting to trial and error optimisa-
tion in each case. Ultimately, this enables another variable of the
system to be expressed in terms of the single fundamental unit −0.02
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
of the model, kinc .
The power to which successive layers are raised, p, is best ex- Time (s)
pressed as a cubic function so that the interface between layers Fig. 1. One-dimensional model: Reflected signals from absorbing layer regions for
is continuous to the 1st and 2nd order. This is consistent with find- (a) ALID and SRM showing full time record, (b) zoom of ALID and SRM reflected
ings from Rajagopal et al. [11], who stated that this is sufficient to response and (c) zoom of CALM and SRM reflected response.
1872 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879
showing the incident 5 cycle tone burst and the observed reflection
from the absorbing region later in time.
Fig. 1a and b show that the SRM behaves significantly better
than ALID in this example. The maximum amplitude of the re-
flected signal for the ALID is 35.2 dB where as the SRM gives
45.0 dB.
Due to the likened approach to a Rayleigh/Caughey damping
formulation proposed by Semblat et al. [25], a further comparison
is made between SRM and CALM. To incorporate Rayleigh/Caughey
damping, the damping matrix is defined by Eq. (3), where C M and
C K are nonzero. Again C M and C K are varied gradually across the
absorbing layer, as in Eq. (10), but with the introduction of an addi-
tional variable C Kmax , the maximum stiffness proportional damping
coefficient. The definition of SRM remains unchanged.
For a fair comparison to be made with SRM, an optimisation
function is used which calculates the optimal values for C Mmax
and C Kmax that will render the lowest possible reflection coefficient
for the CALM absorbing boundary [32]. The SRM and CALM are di-
rectly compared for the one dimensional case, with their respective
layer properties optimised for maximum absorption. All variables
between the two models remain constant except for the Young’s
modulus in the absorbing region of the SRM. Like the comparison
made with ALID and SRM in Fig. 1b and c shows the time history
of the observed reflection from the absorbing regions.
CALM absorbing boundaries have outperformed the ALID in this
example, with a maximum amplitude of the reflected signal being
36.2 dB. This increase in performance over conventional ALID has
been achieved by the inclusion of stiffness proportional damping to
the damping matrix, with the same ease of implementation as
mass proportional damping. However, the increase in performance
has come at the expense of a decrease in the stable time increment
that is associated with having a nonzero C K term. Despite this
improvement Rayleigh/Caughey damping does not offer the same
performance that has been achieved with SRM.
Fig. 2 shows how the change of matrix variables changes the
value of the wavenumber. Both the real and imaginary components
have been plotted. The first observation is that within the SRM,
kimag increases dramatically in the SRM in comparison to the ALID.
This is as expected and is in agreement with the predictions made
using Eq. (9). It is the increase in this value that produces such suc-
cessful decay of any incident waves whilst inside each layer. The
desired increase in kimag is also accompanied by the undesired
increase in kreal . Again the increase observed inside the SRM is con-
siderably greater than that in the ALID, which should suggest
25
ALID kreal
ALID kimag
20 SRM kreal
SRM kimag
Wavenumber (1/m)
15
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Distance across absorbing region (m)
Fig. 2. One-dimensional model: Increase of real and imaginary components of the
wavenumber with distance.
sizable reflections at successive layer boundaries. However, dra-
matic changes only occur once the wave has propagated a signifi-
cant distance into the absorbing region.
Here, the thickness of each layer remains constant and is fixed
to a value of one-element-thickness. Work carried out by Rajagopal
et al. [11], has stated that it is preferable to minimise the change in
any material properties between adjacent layers so that impedance
changes are gradual and thus the thinner each layer is the better.
However, for one-dimensional FE models, increasing element
thickness could potentially offset impedance mismatches. The
stiffness of a single Truss element is the product of the Young’s
modulus multiplied by the element thickness, thereby allowing
for another window from which to control material properties.
This is not however suitable for two and three-dimensional FE
models. In this instance a variation in element size must be per-
formed across a rectangular or quadrilateral element, greatly dis-
torting the structured arrangement of the mesh. Furthermore,
variation of the mesh density will result in scattering from the
mesh itself, producing an additional mechanism whereby un-
wanted reflections are radiated back into the AoS.
3.2. Two-dimensional Finite Element simulations
Having established a mechanism to generate a successful
absorbing region, it is now necessary to assess behaviour for the
two-dimensional case in a commercial FE package. The package
ABAQUS/Explicit [28], has been chosen for the study, as it is widely
available, developed and supported for wave propagation simula-
tions. To assess the validity of the numerical model, results are
compared to an analytical approach based upon the Global Matrix
method [29].
3.2.1. Numerical model
A harmonic bulk wave is incident on the absorbing region, as
shown in Fig. 3, across a range of angles hI . For each incident angle,
the model is re-run by adjusting the inclination of the excitation
plane. The amplitudes of the incident and reflected wave modes
are monitored along their predicted lines of propagation and the
reflection coefficient deduced. Again the FE models are non-dimen-
sional and the material properties are defined such that the longi-
tudinal and shear wavelengths are 1 and 2, respectively; each
incident wave mode is considered separately. The length of the
absorbing region is equal to 1.5 times the incident wavelength.
The attenuation parameters are defined such that the Young’s
modulus in the final absorbing layer is 1% of the value in the
AoS, C Mmax ¼ x and p ¼ 3.
1.0
Fig. 3. FE model used to assess performance of SRM in bulk elastic wave
propagation.
 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879 1873

Since the requirement is to only assess the performance of the

SRM, reflections from the other model boundaries must be re-
(a) 0
Lwave − Analytical Reflection
Swave − Analytical Reflection
moved. This is achieved by the use of an ’ultra ALID’ which has Lwave − Numerical Reflection
thickness that is sufficiently large as to only generate reflections

Reflection coefficient (dB)

−20 Swave − Numerical Reflection
that can be considered extremely low (120 dB). The figure illus-
trates the mode conversion of the incident waves whereby the an-
gles are calculated using Eq. (17):
−40
sinðhS Þ ¼ csinðhP Þ ð17Þ
where c ¼ kkPS .
−60
3.2.2. Analytical model
The Global Matrix method [29], establishes a matrix relation-
ship which describes plane wave propagation across all the layers −80
of a multi-layered body. Each layer contains a local description of
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
the wave, where adjacent layers are coupled by applying Snell’s
law for continuity of stress and displacement. Rajagopal et al. Longitudinal wave incidence angle (degrees)
[11], successfully applied this technique to analyse the perfor-
mance of the ALID by gradually implementing damping using the (b) 0 Lwave − Analytical Reflection
complex expression for density discussed in Section 2. The exten- Swave − Analytical Reflection
sion made here, is to include the reduction in Young’s modulus Lwave − Numerical Reflection

Reflection coefficient (dB)

defined by SRM along with the complex density used by ALID. −20 Swave − Numerical Reflection
The complete Global Matrix for waves propagating in the
absorbing region is defined by Eq. (18):
2  3
neg ½1 −40
2 36" # 7 2h i
½Mb½1  ½Mf½2  0 ... 0 6 pos½2 7 3
6 7 b
6 76 neg 7 6 Mpos½1 pos½1 7
60 b f 76 7
7 6 7
½2
6 ½M½2  ½M½3  . . . 0 76 . . . 60 7
6 76 " #7
6... ... ... ... 0 76 pos 7¼6
6...
7
7 −60
6 76 ½end1 7
6 76 7 6 7
60 0 0 ½M½end1  ½M½end  76 neg ½end1 7 6
b f 7
4 56 7 40 5
6 " # 7
0 0 0 0 ½Mb½end  6 pos
4 ½end
7
5
0
neg ½end −80
ð18Þ 0 15 30 45 60 75 90

where MfðnÞ and M bðnÞ are the coefficients defined by the material
properties of each layer, n, governed by Hooke’s law and the Helm-
holtz decomposition linking displacement, u, with the wave poten-
tials, / and w, at the front boundary, f, and back, b boundary in the
positive, pos, and negative, neg, propagation directions, with the
subscript end denoting the final absorbing layer.
For a given model of known material properties the left hand
matrix is known. Similarly, for a specified incident wave the initial
h i
amplitude propagating into the absorbing region pos½1 is also
known. Matrix inversion is used to calculate the value of the wave
amplitudes within each layer, thereby deducing the amplitude of
h i
the wave returning into the AoS, neg ½1 . Since the amplitude of
the incident wave mode is known, this gives the reflection coeffi-
cient of both reflected wave modes and for angles of incidence
within the range 0 to 90 .
3.2.3. Results
Results for the analytical and numerical models are shown in
Fig. 4a for an incident longitudinal wave and in Fig. 4b for an inci-
dent shear wave.
There is excellent agreement between the numerical and ana-
lytical solutions, confirming the reliability of the analyses. Perfor-
mance at low angles of incidence is significantly better than at
higher glancing angles; consistent with other absorbing layer tech-
niques. This confirms that the angle of incidence plays a critical
role in the selection of SRM variables. Performance at high angles
will always render a less acceptable solution (however it is often
the case that these angles are not of concern in simulations). The
presence of critical angles generates evanescent waves propagating
parallel to the back boundary of the SRM. The angle at which this
occurs is not necessarily obvious since it is due to a net effect from
Shear wave incidence angle (degrees)
Fig. 4. Analytical and numerical reflection coefficients for a non-dimensional SRM
for (a) incident longitudinal and (b) incident shear bulk wave.
all the layers combined. This is illustrated in Fig. 4b, whereby after
the critical angle for an incident shear wave, the reflected longitu-
dinal component is not radiated back into the AoS. Finally, for time
domain simulation the incident wave packet is composed of waves
with energy over a range of frequencies. The performance of the
absorbing region is a function of the frequency, meaning that indi-
vidual frequency components of the incident wave packet will all
perform differently.
A noticeable trade off for reduction in the spatial domain is
the increase in the critical time step. Optimising the material
properties of the absorbing region results in the desired increase
in wavenumber coinciding with a reduction in wave speed. If
element size remains constant this must result in an increase
in the critical time step across successive layers. Since the time
step must be constant for the entire model and must be stable
across all elements within the model, the CFL number is re-
duced, see Fig. 5.
The effect of having a low CFL has been studied by Drozdz [27].
The findings show that a low CFL number causes an increase in the
error of propagation velocity. However this effect can be nullified
by using a high mesh density to define the system. For this reason
such effects are not of concern, as accurate modelling of elastic
wave scattering problems requires mesh refinement, for example
to use a minimum of 15 nodes per wavelength, for which errors
in propagation velocity are low (less than 1%). Furthermore, inac-
curacies with propagation velocity within the SRM are not of con-
cern. This is only an issue if spurious reflections return into the
AoS, which has not been observed.
1874 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879

1.0
will range from 0–1 with 0 being complete absorption of all inci-
ALID
SRM dent energy and 1 being complete reflection.

0.8 3.3.1. Selecting C Mmax and amax

The optimisation function looks to reduce the TRE by optimal
CFL (no unit)

selection of C Mmax and amax . Initial values for these variables are
0.6 required as a starting point for the optimisation function. C Mmax
can be expressed as a multiple of x and has an approximate start-
ing value of C Mmax ¼ w. Similarly, the starting value of amax should
0.4
be selected to give a Young’s modulus that is 1% of that the AoS.
The advantage to such an approach means that layer characteris-
0.2 tics are a function of the known material properties and the inci-
dent wavelength. This process also prevents the optimisation
function focusing on local minima.
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
3.3.2. Selecting SRM thickness
Distance across absorbing region (m)
Performance of absorbing layer techniques will always improve
Fig. 5. Reduction in CFL number due to increase in critical time step across with increased thickness. This is due to there being a greater
successive layers. amount of attenuative material within which the wave can decay.
Here the goal is to achieve a tolerable level of reflection from the
layer within a minimal thickness, thereby offering the maximum
3.3. Optimised SRM variables efficiency possible to the FE solver.
The addition of absorbing layers will inevitably increase the
For a given model, the two-dimensional analytical model number of degrees of freedom of the system. A generic expression
should be used to calculate values of C Mmax and amax that will min- for the percentage increase in this value can be expressed for rect-
imise reflections across all incident angles within the smallest angular domains containing structured quadrilateral elements.
absorbing region thickness possible. Each variable has a combined Fig. 6 shows such a system with length, a, height, b, absorbing layer
contribution to the overall performance of the layers, therefore, in thickness, nk containing structured rectangular elements of size, d.
order to have a simple scalar value to assess performance the opti- Eq. (25) provides an expression for the number of degrees of
misation function described in Section 3.1 is used to minimise the freedom that are to be solved inside the AoS, DoF 2DAoS .
Total Reflected Energy (TRE) from the SRM:
ab
RE DoF 2D
AoS ¼ ð25Þ
TRE ¼ ð19Þ d
2
IE
The addition of absorbing layers with thickness nk increases the
where RE is the reflected energy and IE is the incident energy.
number of degrees of freedom, DoF 2D
total , as given by Eq. (26).
RE can be expressed as a sum over all incident angles for both
the longitudinal, RLE and shear, RSE , reflected wave modes.
ab þ 2nkða þ bÞ þ ð2nkÞ2
Z 2p Z 2p DoF 2D
total ¼ 2
ð26Þ
RE ¼ RLE ðhÞdh þ RSE ðhÞdh ð20Þ d
0 0
From Eqs. (25) and (26), the percentage increase in degrees of free-
where RLE ðhÞ and RSE ðhÞ are proportional to the amplitudes of the dom, DoF 2D% , due to the addition of absorbing layers can be calcu-
measured mode displacements squared, such that lated, Eq. (27).

RLE ðhÞ / jAL ðhÞj2 ð21Þ DoF 2D 2D

total  DoF AoS
DoF 2D
% ¼  100 ð27Þ
S 2
DoF 2D
AoS
RSE ðhÞ / jA ðhÞj ð22Þ
By substituting Eqs. (21) and (22) into Eq. (20) and replacing the
proportionality with a normalising factor 2K
p , where K is a constant,
Eq. (20) becomes
 Z 2p Z 2p 
2K
RE ¼ jAL ðhÞj2 dh þ jAS ðhÞj2 dh ð23Þ
p 0 0

The integration is performed from 0 to p=2 and AðhÞ is calculated

using the two-dimensional analytical model. Due to the discretisa-
tion of the numerical model, this is not a continuous function, so in-
stead the integration is replaced by a summation in the limit of
dh ! 0, where dh becomes the increment.
p=2 p=2
!
2K X X
RE ¼ jALi j2 dh þ jASi j2 dh ð24Þ
p i¼1;dh i¼1;dh

IE can also be calculated using Eq. (20) by setting the incident

amplitude of the displacements to be 1 across all angles and using
the same normalisation constant to give IE ¼ K.
A quantitative assessment of the absorbing layers can now be
performed across all angles of incidence. The TRE value of the layer Fig. 6. Rectangular FE model of length a, height b and absorbing layer thickness nk.
 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879 1875

which gives wider bandwidths would need to consider the performance of the
SRM across a frequency range rather than a central maximum. This
2nk½ða þ bÞ þ 2nk
DoF 2D
% ¼  100 ð28Þ property partly explains the good performance of PML, since it is
ab normally used in the frequency domain and therefore only has to
Eq. (28) can be readily extended to a three-dimensional problem by be optimised for the single frequency of excitation.
the inclusion of breadth, c, containing structured quadrilateral ele- From the observations made in this study, a suitable SRM thick-
ments. In this case the percentage increase in degrees of freedom, ness of 1:5kinc is capable of achieving the tolerable levels of reflec-
DoF 3D
% is given by Eq. (29).
tions required for all possible incident angles across a sufficiently
h i broad frequency spectrum.
2nk ð2nkÞða þ b þ cÞ þ ðab þ ac þ bcÞ þ ð2nkÞ2
DoF 3D
% ¼  100
abc 3.4. Comparison of SRM, ALID and PML
ð29Þ
Comparison of SRM, ALID and PML absorbing layer techniques
For absorbing regions operating within significantly reduced spatial
can be made by examining results published by Rajagopal et al.
domains, performance is more susceptible to changes in the fre-
[11], with those in this study. Reflection coefficients for the three
quency of the incident wave. This point is illustrated in Fig. 7a
methods are calculated using analytical models applied to the
and b. Here, the one-dimensional model described in Section 3.1
same non-dimensional case. The layer thickness for all three cases
is used to evaluate the performance of the SRM in the frequency do-
is the same as the wavelength of the incident wave, and the opti-
main for increasing layer thickness expressed as a function of the
misation function is used to select the model variables that will
wavelength of the incident wave. The frequency spectrum of the
produce the lowest TRE value for each case.
incident 5 cycle tone burst is compared with the frequency spec-
The results for the incident compression wave are shown in
trum of the reflected signals.
Fig. 8a and b and for an incident shear wave in Fig. 9a and b.
Fig. 7a and b show that thicker absorbing layers are less suscep-
The results show that PML generally outperforms both ALID and
tible to wider bandwidth signals. If the optimisation function is
SRM for almost all angles of incidence across both modes. How-
used to minimise layer thickness, it should be done with care, since
ever, SRM shows a significant improvement over the ALID. The
the high performance of the absorbing region may only be achiev-
presence of critical angles is also evident, maintaining that the
able within a narrow frequency range. For this reason, sources with

(a) (a) 0
Lwave Reflection SRM
1 Incident Wave Lwave Reflection ALID
SRM Thickness = λ/4 Lwave Reflection PML
0.9
SRM Thickness = λ/2
Reflection coefficient (dB)

−20
0.8 SRM Thickness = 3λ/4
SRM Thickness = λ
Amplitude (no unit)

0.7

0.6 −40
0.5

0.4
−60
0.3

0.2

0.1 −80

0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Longitudinal wave incidence (degrees)
Frequency (Hz)

(b) 0 (b) 0
Swave Reflection SRM
Swave Reflection ALID
−10 Swave Reflection PML
Reflection coefficient (dB)
Reflection coefficient (dB)

−20
−20

−30 −40

−40

−60
−50
SRM Thickness = λ/4
SRM Thickness = λ/2
−60
SRM Thickness = 3λ/4
SRM Thickness = λ −80
−70 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Frequency (Hz) Longitudinal wave incidence (degrees)

Fig. 7. Figure showing (a) the frequency response from the incident and reflected Fig. 8. Reflection coefficients for SRM, ALID and PML for incident longitudinal bulk
signals for increasing layer thickness and (b) the reflection coefficient as a function wave: (a) longitudinal analytical reflection coefficients and (b) shear analytical
of frequency for each layer. reflection coefficients [11].
1876
(a) 0 effect further, since the wave speed reduction is even more
Reflection coefficient (dB)
−20
−40
−60
−80
0 15 30 45
Shear wave incidence (degrees)
(b) 0
Reflection coefficient (dB)
−20
−40
−60
−80
0 15 30 45
Shear wave incidence (degrees)
Fig. 9. Reflection coefficients for SRM, ALID and PML for incident longitudinal bulk
wave: (a) longitudinal analytical reflection coefficients and (b) shear analytical
reflection coefficients [11].
same underlying mechanisms are present with all three tech-
niques. SRM maintains an advantage since its accessibility is equal
to that of ALID and does not require specific programming of func-
tionality. Furthermore, like ALID, SRM is defined using standard
material properties that do not limit it to isotropic media. The
application of PML to anisotropic material would again require
specific implementation; an undesirable quality for commercial
packages.
Fig. 8b shows a reduction in the reflection coefficient of a mode
converted shear wave with SRM when using an incident compres-
sion wave approaching 40 . This relative reduction in reflection
coefficient is not observed with ALID or PML. The relationship be-
tween variables that contribute to the wave attenuation is com-
plex, however a possible explanation can be provided. The partial
success of SRM results from a dramatic reduction in wave speed
as the wave propagates through successive absorbing layers. A
similar effect is observed with ALID but to less of an extent. For
PML this effect is not observed due to impedance matching be-
tween absorbing layers, meaning that the wave speed remains
constant. A reduction in the wave speed increases the total time
taken for the wave to propagate through the absorbing boundary,
ultimately aiding in attenuation. As the angle of incidence
increases, the path length through the absorbing region also in-
creases. This increase in path length and reduction in wave speed
results in an increase in the wave attenuation. The fact that the
signal in question is a mode converted shear wave enhances the
J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879
pronounced.
The reducing wave speed and increasing path length effect is not
apparent across all incident angles. As is consistent with all other
absorbing boundary methods, high incident angles produce high
reflection coefficients due to glancing effects. As a result, a trade
off is observed between the two. For incident angles approaching
40 the increase in path length and reduction in wave speed is dom-
inating wave attenuation since the incident angle is not so large as
to introduce reflections from the higher glancing angles.
It is important to note that the PML analytical solution can have
a further improved performance. PML variables have been capped
Lwave Reflection SRM to give a 60 dB reflection coefficient at 0 since it is observed that
Lwave Reflection ALID beyond this point the analytical model breaks down and does not
Lwave Reflection PML coincide with what is observed in numerical models. Work by
60 75 90 Rajagopal et al. [11], discusses the effects of numerical reflections
caused by element boundaries as a cause for this disagreement.
As a result it is recommended that optimal values of 3kinc and kinc
be used for ALID and PML thickness respectively. From the obser-
vations made thus far and the discussion that follow, proposed
optimal SRM thickness is 1:5kinc .
4. Application
To illustrate the performance of the SRM, the absorbing layer
technique is applied to an example realistic simulation. According
to the interest of the authors, a Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE)
inspection problem is chosen. An embedded rough defect is acting
as a scatterer of incident ultrasonic waves. The system is sur-
Swave Reflection SRM rounded by infinite elastic space and the scattered signal is moni-
Swave Reflection ALID tored. Both the SRM and ALID absorbing region methods are
Swave Reflection PML
compared for increasing thickness of absorbing region.
60 75 90 The material is defined by a Young’s modulus of 70 GPa, Pois-
son’s ratio of 0.31 and density of 2700 kg m3 . The longitudinal
wavelength of the incident wave, kP , is 3.00 mm and the system
is spatially discretised at 30 nodes per longitudinal wavelength.
A 2 MHz, 5 cycle incident wave is applied to a single excitation
node which is excited in a direction that is inclined at 45 to the
U1 axis. Exciting the node in this manner generates a spherically
propagating compression wave and a perpendicular spherically
propagating shear wave. Excitation in this manner ensures that
both wave modes interact with the complex multifaceted scatter
fully testing the performance of the absorbing layers.
The defect of choice is a two-dimensional rough surface with a
root-mean-square (rms) height deviation of kP =10 away from the
mean plane [4]. The depth and width of the defect is 5kP and the
distance separating the excitation node/defect from the absorbing
region boundary is kP . Again this ensures a complex scattering pat-
tern that thoroughly tests the performance of the layers, see
Fig. 10.
The scattering pattern is monitored along a line parallel to the
rough surface at the same separating distance as the excitation
node/defect of 5kP . Again the extremities of the monitoring line
are separated from the absorbing layer by kP . The line consists of
a series of nodes that monitor displacements in the U1 and U2
directions. The response is monitored using two techniques. Firstly
displacement in the U1 direction is averaged along the monitoring
line for all time producing a single time history response from the
defect. The second method measures displacement at a single node
(denoted by a cross) within the monitoring line to ensure that aver-
aging time histories has not eliminated any scattering behaviour.
The performance of the SRM and ALID are assessed. C Mmax is set
to x for both cases and the Young’s modulus within the final layer
for the SRM is 1% of the AoS. Layer thickness is varied in incre-
ments of 0:2kP to a value of 4:0kP .
 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879 1877

(a) 1.0 SRM − Thickness = 4λ

← Incident P
Wave
← Reflected P
Wave
0.5

Amplitude (no unit)

0

↑
Incident S ↑
−0.5
Wave Reflected S
Wave

−1.0
0 4 8 12 16
Time (μs)

(b)1.0 SRM − Thickness = 0.2λ

← Incident P
Wave
← Reflected P
Wave
0.5

Amplitude (no unit) 0

Fig. 10. FE model used to test performance of SRM and ALID as a function of region
thickness.
Fig. 11a and b compare two of the time histories directly for the
case where the SRM thickness is set to 0:2kP and 4:0kP , respectively
at a single node within the motoring line. Four signals can be iden-
tified corresponding to the incident and reflected waves for each
mode.
From the results it can be seen that an insufficiently thick
absorbing region of 0:2kP performs very poorly in comparison to
the 4kP case. Reflections from the smaller absorbing region pollute
the time signal almost immediately, with artifacts continuing to
reverberate within the model for the duration. The characteristic
features of the incident shear wave have been completely lost
and both reflected wave modes have been heavily distorted.
The contribution of the absorbing layers pollutants to the time
history can be quantified by calculating the convergence of the
time history to that obtained from the case where the model
boundaries have no contribution to the scattered signal. This is
achieved by using a correlation function given by Eq. (30):
PN
i¼1 ðxi  xÞðyi  yÞ
R¼h i1
PN 2 PN 2 2
i¼1 ðxi  xÞ i¼1 ðyi  yÞ
where R is the correlation function ranging between 0 and 1, i is an
increment in the discretised time series of length N; x is the re-
sponse from the classic case with mean value x and y is the response
for each simulation with mean value y. The value R ¼ 1 corresponds
to a case of perfect correlation between two compared time histo-
ries; the significance being that there is no influence of the absorb-
ing layers on the scattered response. The results are shown in
Fig. 12.
It can be seen that the SRM tends to a value of R ¼ 1 for an
absorbing layer thickness of kP , after which there are diminishing
returns in performance. The more varied response observed at a
single node can be explained by the lack of averaging, which would
filter out any spurious reflections detected. Comparing time series
suggests that there is little to gain by having an excessively large
SRM since any pollutants that add to the desired time series are
↑
Incident S ↑
−0.5
Wave Reflected S
Wave
−1.0
0 4 8 12 16
Time (μs)
Fig. 11. Comparison of time history from a single node for SRM with (a) 4k SRM
thickness and (b) 0:2k SRM thickness to show pollutants to time series from
unwanted absorbing layer reflections.
of negligible value. In comparison the ALID performance is less
effective in reduced spatial domains. Again there are diminishing
returns for excessively large thicknesses, however this trend does
not begin until thicknesses of 2:5kP .
Using Eq. (28) the percentage increase for the degrees of free-
dom for the SRM and ALID can be compared. For an SRM of thick-
ness kP ; DoF 2D% ¼ 65:3%, whereas an ALID of thickness
2:5kP ; DoF 2D
% ¼ 193:9%. This demonstrates that the SRM adds rela-
ð30Þ tively little to the AoS in comparison to ALID.
These results show that a proposed SRM thickness of 1:5k
would be sensible. This is suitably larger that the thickness k at
which convergence has occurred giving a suitable margin of safety,
but not so large as to unnecessarily increase the DoF 2D
% .
5. Selecting optimal SRM properties
Optimising the parameters of any absorbing layer technique is
firstly dependent upon the application begin considered. Here, it
has been shown that performance is a function of incident angle,
incident frequency and bandwidth. To optimise wave attenuation
the variation of maximum damping, minimum stiffness, layer
thickness and the nature of the continuous functions that alter val-
ues across successive layers can all be changed.
Despite this, generic rules can be applied that will result in a
good performing absorbing layer. Further optimisation can be
1878 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879

6. Discussion
(a) 1.00
The SRM offers a means to apply the absorbing region technique
to reduced spatial domains for use in commercial explicit FE solv-
0.95
ers. Previously, ALID had been chosen by the authors in such in-
stances over the more spatially efficient PML due the flexibility
R (no unit)

offered to modellers to apply it in commercial codes with no need

0.90 for programming. Extensions to absorbing boundary techniques,
such as CALM, have shown improvements over conventional ALID
by including Rayleigh/Caughey damping. However, despite the
0.85 improvements seen with this technique, increasing demand placed
on computational resource means that further improvements are
SRM required.
0.80 ALID Here, SRM has been shown to outperform ALID across all angles
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
of incidence within a significantly reduced spatial domain, whilst
still maintaining the requirement for there to be no implementa-
Absorbing region thickness (λ )
P tion of specific programming or functionality. All absorbing layer
variables can be controlled from the easily accessible stiffness
and damping material properties. The reduction in stiffness is de-
(b)1.00 fined as a function of the known physical properties of the model,
maximum damping values are a function of the frequency of the
incident wave and the thickness of the absorbing region is of the
0.95
order of 1:5kinc . A two dimensional analytical model based upon
the Global Matrix method was shown to have excellent agreement
R (no unit)

with numerical simulations and can be used to further optimise

0.90 SRM variables if required.
The trade off observed is a noticeable reduction in the Courant
or CFL number value in successive layers resulting in an increase in
0.85 propagation velocity errors in the absorbing region. However, this
is of little concern since sufficient decay of incident waves has al-
SRM ready occurred before the wave reaches these layers, the effects
0.80 ALID are minimised for increasingly refined meshes and these waves
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
are not radiated back into the Area of Study.

Absorbing region thickness (λ )

P
Acknowledgements
Fig. 12. Correlation function for (a) average displacement over a monitoring line
and (b) at an arbitrary chosen node, for performance of SRM and ALID as a function The author would like to acknowledge the help provided by Dr.
of region thickness. Wonjae Choi, Dr. Elizabeth A. Skelton, Prof. Richard V. Craster and
the NDE Research team at Rolls-Royce.
achieved by applying optimisation functions, as has been demon-
strated in Section 3.1.
References

1. Assign an SRM thickness of 1:5kinc . It may be necessary to [1] W.D. Smith, The application of finite element analysis to body wave
increase this thickness if narrow-band signals are being used. propagation problems, Geophys. J.R. Astron. Soc. 42 (1975) 747–768.
[2] R. Ludwig, W. Lord, A finite element formulation for the study of ultrasonic
A 1:5kinc SRM thickness has been successful for a 5 cycle Han-
NDT systems, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Contr. 35 (1988) 809–820.
ning window signal. [3] P. Rajagopal, M.J.S. Lowe, Scattering of fundamental shear horizontal guided
2. Assign layers to the SRM thickness each with a thickness of one- wave by a part-thickness crack in an isotropic plate, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124
(2008) 2895–2904.
element-width.
[4] J. Zhang, B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox, Longitudinal wave scattering from
3. Select a maximum damping value C Mmax that is equal to the rough crack-like defects, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Contr. 58
angular frequency, w, of the incident wave. (2011) 2171–2180.
4. Vary the mass proportional damping of the elements within [5] L. Moreau, A. Velichko, P.D. Wilcox, Accurate finite element modelling of
guided wave scattering from irregular defects, NDT&E Int. 45 (2012) 46–54.
each layer by C M ðxÞ ¼ C Mmax XðxÞp , see Eq. (10). [6] P. Rajagopal, E.A. Skelton, W. Choi, M.J.S. Lowe, R.V. Craster, A generic hybrid
5. Calculate amax which can be done by re-arranging Eq. (16) to model for bulk elastodynamics, with application to ultrasonic nondestructive
EðxÞ
lnð E Þ evaluation, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Contr. 59 (2012) 1239–
give amax ¼ 0
kinc x
. In the final absorbing layer at x ¼ 1:5kinc let 1252.
Eð1:5kinc Þ
[7] S. Mahaut, N. Leymarie, C. Poidevin, T. Fouquet, O. Dupond, Study of complex
E0
= 0.01. ultrasonic NDT cases using hybrid simulation method and experimental
6. Calculate the values of the function aðxÞ for each layer by validations, Insight 53 (2011) 664–667.
[8] P.D. Wilcox, A. Velichko, Efficient frequency-domain finite element modelling
aðxÞ ¼ amax XðxÞp , see Eq. (15). of two-dimensional elastodynamic scattering, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127 (2010)
7. Vary the Young’s modulus of the elements within each layer by 155–165.
EðxÞ ¼ E0 eaðxÞkinc x , see Eq. (15). [9] P. Bettess, Infinite Elements, Penshaw Press, 1992.
[10] G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry, A non-reflecting boundary for analysing wave
propagation using the finite element method, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 39 (2003)
To make small adjustments to the performance of the layers 403–417.
vary the values of C Mmax and amax (by altering Eð1:5k
E0
inc Þ
). Generally [11] P. Rajagopal, M. Drozdz, E.A. Skelton, M.J.S. Lowe, R.V. Craster, On the use of
absorbing layers to simulate the propagation of elastic waves in unbounded
speaking, performance can always be improved by increasing the isotropic media using commercially available finite element packages, NDT&E
total thickness of the absorbing boundary. Int. 51 (2012) 30–40.
 J.R. Pettit et al. / Ultrasonics 54 (2014) 1868–1879
[12] B. Engquist, A. Majda, Radiation boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic
wave calculations, Commun. Pur. Appl. Math. 32 (1979) 313–357.
[13] A. Bayliss, E. Turkel, Radiation boundary conditions for wave-like equations,
Commun. Pur. Appl. Math. 33 (1980) 707–725.
[14] D. Givoli, J.B. Keller, Non-reflecting boundary conditions for elastic waves,
Wave Motion 12 (1990) 261–279.
[15] A. Velichko, P.D. Wilcox, Efficient finite element modelling of elastodynamic
scattering with non-reflecting boundary conditions, in: Rev. Prog. QNDE,
volume 1430 of AIP Conference Proceedings, pp. 142–149.
[16] J.M. Carcione, Boundary conditions for wave propagation problems, Finite
Elem. Anal. Des. 16 (1994) 317–327.
[17] D. Givoli, High-order local non-reflecting boundary conditions: a review, Wave
Motion 39 (2004) 319–326.
[18] J.P. Berenger, A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic
waves, J. Comp. Phys. 114 (1994) 185–200.
[19] E.A. Skelton, S.M.D. Adams, R.V. Craster, Guided elastic waves and perfectly
matched layers, Wave Motion 44 (2007) 573–592.
[20] F.D. Hastings, J.B. Schneider, S.L. Broschat, Application of the perfectly matched
layer (PML) absorbing boundary conditions to elastic wave propagation, J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 100 (1996) 3061–3069.
[21] M. Israeli, S.A. Orszag, Approximation of radiation boundary conditions, J.
Comp. Phys. 41 (1981) 115–135.
[22] M. Castaings, C. Bacon, B. Hosten, M.V. Predoi, Finite element predictions for
the dynamic response of thermo-viscoelastic material structures, J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 115 (2004) 1125–1133.
1879
[23] M. Castaings, C. Bacon, B. Hosten, M.V. Predoi, Finite element modeling of
torsional wave modes along pipes with absorbing materials, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
119 (2006) 3741–3751.
[24] W. Ke, M. Castaings, C. Bacon, 3D finite element simulations of an air-coupled
ultrasonic NDT system, NDT&E Int. 42 (2009) 524–533.
[25] J.F. Semblat, L. Lenti, A. Gandomzadeh, A simple multi-directional absorbing
layer method to simulate elastic wave propagation in unbounded domains, Int.
J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 85 (2011) 1543–1563.
[26] K.J. Bathe, Finite element procedures, Prentice Hall, 1996.
[27] M. Drozdz, Efficient Finite Element Modelling of Ultrasound Waves in Elastic
Media, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology and Medicine,
2008.
[28] ABAQUS v 6.9, http://www.abaqus.cc.ic.ac.uk/v6.9/, Version Abaqus 6.9.1,
2006.
[29] M.J.S. Lowe, Matrix techniques for modelling ultrasonic waves in multilayered
media, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Contr. 42 (1995) 525–542.
[30] R. Courant, K. Friedrichs, H. Lewy, Uber die partiellen differenzengleichungen
der mathematischen physik, Math. Ann. 100 (1) (1928) 32–74.
[31] R. Courant, K. Friedrichs, H. Lewy, On the partial difference equations of
mathematical physics, IBM J. Res. Dev. 11 (2) (1967) 215–234.
[32] MATLAB R2007a, The MathWorks Inc., United Kingdom, 2012.