IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Study on thermal fracture modeling by the
A high performance scaled boundary finite Scaled boundary finite element polygons
Zhou Wen, Hong Zhong, Jin Tu et al.
element method - Dynamic response of foundations on
three-dimensional layered soil using the
scaled boundary finite element method
To cite this article: B Radmanović and C Katz 2010 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 10 012214 Carolin Birk and Ronny Behnke

- A definition and evaluation procedure of

generalized stress intensity factors at
cracks and multi-material wedges
Chongmin Song
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 219.79.48.146 on 02/11/2023 at 11:55

WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

A High Performance Scaled Boundary Finite Element Method

B Radmanović and C Katz

SOFiSTiK AG, Bruckmannring 38, 85764 Oberschleissheim,Germany

E-mail: bojan.radmanovic@sofistik.de, casimir.katz@sofistik.de

Abstract. Dynamic soil-structure interaction in the time domain may be described by the
scaled boundary finite element method (SBFEM). Unfortunately the non locality in time and
space implies significant numerical effort. Two essential improvements are demonstrated,
boosting the performance of this method. The original discretisation scheme assuming a
constant change of the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix within each time step is only
conditionally stable, requiring a rather small minimum step size. Here a new scheme assuming
the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix to vary linearly within each time step and an
extrapolation parameter provide more stability to the solution. For large problems the
linearization of the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix for late times is employed. Then,
based on integration by parts, a new and very efficient recursive integration scheme for the
evaluation of the soil-structure interaction vector described by convolution integral is
developed, regaining a strong locality in time. The combination of the two enhancements leads
to a very significant reduction of computational effort and linear dependency with respect to
the number of time steps, and allows also the use of larger time steps. Examples analyzed by
authors did not show instability of the solution for a wide range of parameters.

1. Introduction
There are two general approaches to model soil-structure interaction - direct and substructure method.
In the first, direct approach finite part of the unbounded soil is modeled together with the structure,
most commonly with finite elements (figure 1a). The waves propagating into the infinite medium are
not returning back, and the significant portion of the energy is taken away from the soil-structure
system. In the direct method, these waves are reflected from the artificially induced boundaries,
causing the energy to return into the system. To compensate for this fact, some form of boundary
condition that is able either to absorb or to transmit incoming waves must to be applied. To increase
the efficiency of these boundaries, usually a large portion of the soil is modeled. For three-dimensional
problems, the number of degrees of freedom of the soil can significantly surpass the number of the
degrees of freedom of the structure.
In the second approach bounded and unbounded parts are modeled as two substructures separated
by the generalized soil-structure interface. Bounded substructure consists of the actual structure and a
portion of the adjacent soil with irregular boundaries, which can exhibit non-linear behavior (in further
referenced as structure). The unbounded substructure consists of the remaining part of the soil
stretching to infinity (in further referenced as soil) [1] [2]. Unbounded soil is generally assumed as
linear elastic, which is justified if the generalized soil-structure interface is chosen far enough so that
the waves reaching it have lost most of their energy due to the material and radiation damping of the
soil (figure 2b).


c 2010 Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

(a) (b)

Figure 1. (a) Direct method. (b) Substructure method.

The connection between the two substructures is assured by the soil-structure interaction forces
rb ( t ) acting in opposite directions on the soil and on the structure (figure 2b). The interacting force-
acceleration relationship for the soil in the time domain can be represented by the convolution integral
t
rb ( t ) = ∫ M b∞ ( t )u
&& ( t − τ ) dτ , (1)
0

where M b∞ ( t ) denotes the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix. The subscript b denotes the
nodes that lay in the soil-structure interface, which belong to both, the structure and the soil.
The equation of motion of the structure in the time domain can now be written as
 M ss M sb  u&& s (t )   Css Csb  u& s (t )   K ss K sb  u s (t )  p s (t )   0 
   +  +  = −  , (2)
M bs M bb  u&&b (t )  Cbs Cbb  u& b (t )  K bs K bb  ub (t )  pb (t )  rb (t ) 

where K, C and M represent the stiffness, damping and mass matrices of the structure, u(t ) , u& (t ) and
&&(t ) displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors, while p(t ) force vector that acts directly on the
u
structure. Subscript s denotes the nodes that belong only to the structure. In order to solve this
equation, soil-structure interaction force vector rb ( t ) must be know. In other words, we need to
determine the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix M b∞ ( t ) .
In this paper scaled boundary finite element method (SBFEM) in time domain is used for the
computation of M b∞ ( t ) . This method was first developed by Wolf and Song [3]. Bazyar and Song [4]
[5] have extended it for modeling the non-homogeneous medium, where the non-homogeneity was
described by material properties varying as power function of Cartesian coordinates and radial
coordinate [6]. Fundamental equation of SBFEM in time domain [5] is given as

( ) H (t)
t t
−1 −1 T
∫ Mb (t − τ ) E  M b (τ ) dτ + (1 − 0.5α + 0.5β ) t ∫ M b (τ )dτ − t / 6 E − E E  E 
∞ 0 ∞ ∞ 3 2 1 0 1

0 0
t τ
0 −1
()
+ E1 E  − 0.5 ( s + 1 − 0.5α + 1.5β ) I  ∫ ∫ M b∞ τ dτ dτ − tM 0 H (t )
 
00

2
WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

t τ

()
−1
+ ∫ ∫ M b∞ τ dτ dτ ⋅  E0  E1  − 0.5 ( s + 1 − 0.5α + 1.5β ) I  = 0 ,
T
(3)
00
 

where E0 , E1 , E2 and M 0 represent SBFE matrices which are independent of time. α and β are
parameters of the non-homogeneity, with s representing the spatial dimension of the domain (= 3 for
3D, = 2 for 2D), H (t ) is Heaviside function, while I represents the unity matrix. This integration
scheme has no analytical solution, and in order to be solved, discretization in time must be applied.
Original discretization scheme assumes constant change of M b∞ ( t ) within the time step [3] [5], and it
is only conditionally stable, with a relatively small critical time step size. Convolution integral in
M b∞ ( t ) must be evaluated and at each time station Lyapunov matrix equation must be solved. In
addition, finite element meshing of the soil-structure interface must be fine enough in order to capture
main characteristics of the wave propagation. All these things combined lead to enormous
computational effort for large systems.
In this paper new integration schemes for the solution of the acceleration unit impulse response
matrix and the evaluation of the soil-structure interaction vector are developed. Scaled boundary finite
element method is used for the modeling of the unbounded soil. First discretization scheme assumes
piece-wise linear change of the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix M b∞ ( t ) within time interval,
while the extrapolation parameter θ increases the stability of the solution, allowing a larger time step
size to be used. In order to further increase the efficiency of the scheme, truncation time, after which
acceleration unit-impulse response matrix is linearized, is introduced. Soil-structure interaction vector
rb ( t ) is evaluated using a new and a very efficient scheme based on the integration by parts. Both
schemes lead to a very significant reduction of computational effort.

2. Discretization Schemes
Very convenient property of the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix is that for late times it tends
asymptotically toward linear curve (figure 2). In other words it can be decomposed into three parts –
constant Cb H (t ) , linear K b tH (t ) and a part which tends to zero for late times M b, f ( t → ∞ ) = 0 [3]

M b∞ ( t ) = Cb H (t ) + K b tH (t ) + M b, f ( t ) . (4)

M b∞ ( t )
M b∞ ( t )
M ∞M
M ∞M −1

Kb M ∞m
M ∞m −1

M1∞
M ∞0
C∞

Cb M b, f (t ) 1 ... m ... M
t
t
0 t1′ tm′ −1 tm′ ′ −1
tM ′
tM

Figure 2. Decomposition of M b∞ ( t ) . Figure 3. Linear discretization of M b∞ ( t ) .

3
WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

Soil-structure interaction vector rb ( t ) is computed at times tn = n∆t , while acceleration impulse-

response matrix M b∞ ( t ) is computed at times tm′ = m∆t ′ , where m ∈ [1, M ] and ∆t ′ = N ∆t (figure 3).
′ = tMN = MN ∆t linearization is applied, and M b∞ ( t ) is approximated with only one
After time tM
linear segment using extrapolation from the last time segment [tM ′ ] . Therefore time interval
′ −1 , tM
[0, tn ] is divided into m intervals with size ∆t ′ and K = n − mN intervals with size ∆t .
At t = 0 acceleration impulse-response matrix M b∞ ( t ) is equal to dashpot matrix C∞ which can
be determined from the high frequency expansion of the dynamic stiffness matrix [3] [7].

2.1. Integration of the SBFE Equation in Time Domain1

In this subsection new numerical integration scheme for the computation of the acceleration unit-
impulse response matrix M b∞ ( t ) is derived. As described before M b∞ ( t ) is assumed to be piece-wise
linear over time step size, and the extrapolation parameter θ ≥ 1 is introduced to provide more
′ is used, after which M b∞ ( t ) is linearized.
stability. Truncation time tM
We start from SBFEM equation in time domain in transformed form
t t t τ t τ

() () ( )
T
∫ mb (t − τ )mb (τ ) dτ + α1t ∫ mb (τ )dτ + e ∫ ∫ mb τ dτ dτ + ∫ ∫ mb τ dτ dτ ⋅ e
∞ ∞ ∞ 1 ∞ ∞ 1

0 0 00 00

−t / 6e H (t ) − tm H (t ) = 0 ,
3 2 0
(5)

where α1 = (1 − 0.5α + 0.5β ) . m b∞ (t ) represents the transformed unit impulse response matrix, while
e1 , e 2 and m 0 are the transformed SBFE matrices [4] [5]. We assume that mb∞ (t ) matrix changes
linearly within time step and for each new time step we first evaluate mb∞ ( tm ) = m b∞,m matrix at time
tm = tm′ −1 + ∆ t = tm′ −1 + θ∆t ′ . After m b∞,m is computed, we determine m b∞,m = m b∞ (tm′ ) as follows
(subscript b is dropped):

m ∞m = (θ − 1)θ −1m ∞m −1 + θ −1m ∞m . (6)

Numerical approximation for the evaluation of m b∞,n for θ ∈ [1, 2] is given by the following three
integration schemes, depending on the current time interval:

1) For interval m = 1 we have an algebraic Riccati matrix equation in the following form

m1∞ ⋅ I ⋅ m1∞ + B1 ⋅ m1∞ + m1∞ ⋅ B T1 +C1 = 0 , (7)

with coefficient matrices

B1 = 2m 0∞ + θ∆t ′e1 + 1.5θ∆t ′α1I , (8a)

( ) ( )
2 T
C1 = m ∞0 + 3θ∆t ′α1m 0∞ + 2θ∆t ′e1m 0∞ + 2θ∆t ′m 0∞ e1 − θ 2 ∆t ′2e 2 − 6m 0 ; (8b)

2) For interval m = 2 we again have an algebraic Riccati equation in m ∞2

m ∞2 ⋅ (θ − 1) I  ⋅ m ∞2 + B 2 ⋅ m ∞2 + m ∞2 ⋅ B T2 +C2 = 0 ,
3
(9)
 

Numerical integration scheme for θ ∈ [ 2, 3] if available upon request

1

4
WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

where

( ) ( )
B 2 = 3θ 2 − θ m 0∞ + 2θ 3 − 2θ + 1 m1∞ + θ 4 ∆t ′e1 + 1.5θ 3 (θ + 1) ∆t ′α1I , (10a)

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
T
C2 = e1  3θ 3 + 2θ 2 m 0∞ + 2θ 4 + 3θ 3 + θ 2 m1∞  ∆t ′ + ∆t ′  3θ 3 + 2θ 2 m 0∞ + 2θ 4 + 3θ 3 + θ 2 m1∞  e1
   
+θ (θ + 1) 3∆t ′α1m 0 + 3∆t ′α1 (θ + 1)m1 − (θ + 1) ∆t ′ e − 6m 
∞ ∞
2 2 2 2 0
 
( )( )
2
+θ m1∞ m ∞0 + m ∞0 m1∞  + θ 3 + 3θ 2 + θ − 1 m1∞ ; (10b)

3) For interval m ∈ [3, M ] scheme reduces to Lyapunov matrix equation

3θ 2α1tm ⋅ m ∞m + B m ⋅ m ∞m + m ∞m ⋅ B mT +Cm = 0 , (11)

where

( )
B m = ( 3θ − 1) m ∞0 + 2 − 6θ + 6θ 2 − θ 3 m1∞ + (θ − 1) m ∞2 + θ 3 ∆t ′e1 ,
3
(12a)
m −1
Cm = θ ⋅ ∑ conv j + m ∞m − 2 ( 2 − θ ) m1∞ + (θ + 1) m ∞2  θ ( 2 − θ ) + α1θ tm 6I m −1 / ∆t ′ + 3θ m ∞m −1 
2

j =3

( )
T
+e1 6θ J m −1 / ∆t ′ + 6θ 2 I m −1 + 2θ 3 ∆t ′m ∞m −1  + 6θ J m −1 / ∆t ′ + 6θ 2 I m −1 + 2θ 3 ∆t ′m ∞m −1  e1

 ( )
+ m ∞0 + −2θ 3 + 6θ 2 − 2 m1∞ + (θ − 1) ( 2θ + 1) m ∞2  m ∞m −1 − θ tm / ∆t ′  tm 2e 2 + 6m 0 
2

( ) (
+m ∞m −1 m ∞0 + θ 4 − 3θ 3 + 8θ 2 + 4θ − 2 m1∞ + −θ 4 + 2θ 3 + 3θ 2 − 2θ + 2 m ∞2  ,
  ) (12b)

( ) (
in which I m = I m −1 + 0.5∆t ′ m ∞m −1 + m ∞m and J m = J m −1 + ∆t ′I m −1 + ∆t ′2 / 6 2m ∞m −1 + m ∞m . Convolution )
variable conv j is given as

conv j = m ∞m − j + 2 ( 4 − θ ) m ∞j −1 + (θ − 1) m ∞j  (θ − 1) + m ∞m − j +1 ( 3 − θ ) m ∞j −1 + θ m ∞j  1 + 2 ( 2 − θ )(θ − 1) 

2

m ∞m − j ( 2 − θ ) m ∞j −1 + (θ + 1) m ∞j  ( 2 − θ ) .
2
(13)

Linearization of M b∞ ( t ) for the late times was previously exploited by Zhang et al [8], Yan et al [9]
and Lehmann [10] [11]. Zhang et al [8] have based their procedure on the fact that the original
discretization scheme with piece-wise constant approximation of M b∞ ( t ) , although unstable for larger
time steps, will produce satisfactory results for at least first 5 or 6 time stations. The new scheme
requires more operations for the evaluation of the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix than the
original scheme from Wolf and Song [3], which is also used in Zhang et al [8]. However, with the
piece-wise linear approximation of M b∞ ( t ) and the introduction of extrapolation parameter θ which
provides more stability, the scheme proposed in this paper presents an alternative approach where a
larger number of time stations can be used for the solution of acceleration unit-impulse response
matrix, before the truncation time is employed. The new scheme also allows the error made by the
truncation of the solution to be controlled by using a prescribed error tolerance.
To compare the stability of the new and the original scheme, M b∞ ( t ) of the prismatic foundation
described in section 3 is calculated using two different schemes and three different time step sizes. To
make the results more comparable, rigid foundation interface was imposed at the end of calculation,
and the vertical coefficient of M b∞ ( t ) is plotted in a figure 4a.

5
WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

(a) (b)
Figure 4. (a) Comparison of the stability of the new and the original scheme (const) for determination
of acceleration unit-impulse response matrix. (b) Effect of the extrapolation parameter on the stability
of the new integration scheme.

As can be noted, the original scheme (const) is stable for relatively small time interval
∆t ′ = 0.1b / cs , but it becomes unstable for the time step ∆t ′ = 0.125b / cs . New linear scheme with
θ = 1 has smaller critical time step size than the original constant scheme. In this example it is
unstable for the time step ∆t ′ = 0.1b / cs . However, if we increase extrapolation parameter θ , scheme
becomes more stable, and for θ = 1.4 there are no more oscillations in the solution, even if we choose
larger time step size ∆t ′ = 0.2b / cs .
Figure 4b depicts the effect of the extrapolation parameter θ on the stability of the new scheme for
computation of acceleration unit-impulse response matrix. Same example as before with relatively
large time step interval ∆t ′ = 1.0b / cs is chosen. As can be expected from the previous analysis, for
θ = 1.0 scheme becomes instable after just two or three time steps. Increasing the extrapolation
parameter, stability is increased, and finally for θ ≥ 1.3 no more oscillations in the solution of M b∞ ( t )
persist during the observed time history.

2.2. Integration of the Soil-Structure Interaction Force

Soil-structure interaction force vector rb ( t ) is given by the convolution integral
t
rb ( t ) = ∫ M b∞ ( t )u
&& ( t − τ ) dτ . (14)
0

In this subsection we derive new and efficient numerical integration scheme for the evaluation of
the convolution integral in rb ( t ) based on the integration by parts. This scheme represents
improvement to the currently available approximations.
Let function f (t ) be linear in the interval [t1 , t2 ] , and let function g (t ) be two times differentiable
on the interval [t1 , t2 ] . With the help of the integration by parts, the following integral can be
transformed as:
t2 t2
t
∫ f (τ ) g&&(t − τ )dτ = − f (τ ) g& (t − τ ) t2 + ∫ f& (τ ) g& (t − τ )dτ = − f (t2 ) g& (t − t2 ) + f (t1 ) g& (t − t1 )
1
t1 t1
−1
− [ f (t2 ) − f (t1 ) ] ( t2 − t1 ) [ g (t − t2 ) − g (t − t1 )] . (15)

6
WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

It is important to notice here that the aforementioned integral depends solely on the values at the end
of the interval [t1 , t2 ] , and that the function g (t ) can be arbitrary two times differentiable function in
the interval [t1 , t2 ] .
If we now take f ( t ) = M b∞ ( t ) and g ( t ) = u ( t ) , and if we assume the Newmark- β scheme for the
integration of displacements, we can derive efficient integration scheme for evaluation of the soil-
structure interaction vector rb ( t ) as follows:

rb ( tn ) = rb ,n = ( a1 − a10 ) M 0∞ + a10 M1∞  u n + q n , (16)

where a1 = γ /( β∆t ) and a10 = 1/( N ∆t ) , with β and γ being the parameters of the Newmark-
β scheme and u n = u(tn ) = u(n∆t ) displacement vector of the nodes in the soil-structure interface.
Vector q n depends solely on the values of the time steps before time tn , and it is given by three
different schemes, depending on the time interval:
1) tn ∈ [ 0, t1′ ] , n ∈ [ 0, N ] , m = 0

q n = M 0∞ u& n + a10u 0 − (1 − n / N )u& 0  + M1∞ [ − a10u 0 − n / Nu& 0 ] ; (17)

2) tn ∈ [t1′, tM
′ ] , n ∈ [ N , MN ] , m ∈ [1, M ] , K = n − mN

q n = q1,n + M ∞m u& n − mN − (1 − K / N )u& 0 − a10 ( u n − mN − u 0 )  + M ∞m +1  a10 ( u n − mN − u 0 ) − K / Nu& 0  ; (18)

3) tn ∈ [tM
′ , tn ] , n ∈ [ MN , MN + K ] , m = M , K = n − MN

q n = q1,n + M ∞M −1  K / Nu& 0 − a10 ( u n − MN − u 0 )  + M ∞M u& n − MN − (1 + K / N )u& 0 + a10 ( u n − MN − u 0 )  . (19)

Vector q1,n is given as

m
( )
q1,n = M 0∞ u& n + a10u n − N  − M1∞ [u& n − N + a10u n − N ] + ∑ M i∞  a10 u n −(i −1) N − u n −iN − u& n −iN 
i =2
m
( )
−∑ M i∞−1  a10 u n −(i −1) N − u n −iN − u& n −(i −1) N  , (20)
i =2

&& n −1 ) , a4 = γ / β − 1 and a5 = 0.5∆t (γ / β − 2) . Vectors u& n and

where u& n = −(a1u n −1 + a4u& n −1 + a5u
u&& n are the velocity and acceleration vectors for the time tn .
We expect in a system with damping that the influence of any initial condition should diminish
over time, but the values of the acceleration unit-impulse matrix M b∞ ( t ) in equation (14) grow with
the time, not allowing any truncation and leading to severe numerical problems. Applying the
integration by parts, we switch to the derivatives of the M b∞ ( t ) which become nearly constant for
larger time values and can be extracted then from the integration. So all contributions after a selectable
time limit tM ′ = tMN will sum up in a single vector q 2,n

q 2,n = M ∞M −1  K / Nu& 0 − a10 ( u n − MN − u 0 )  + M ∞M u& n − mN − (1 + K / N )u& 0 + a10 ( u n − MN − u 0 )  . (21)

This may be understood that the integrals of every half cycle of the oscillation have opposite signed
contributions and will cancel each other over a longer time period.

7
WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

Figure 5. Comparison of CPU times required

for the calculation of the response of the
massless rigid foundation described in section
3 for original (const) and new integration
scheme.

Original discretization scheme from [3] and [5] requires n matrix-vector multiplications and 2n
vector summations at each time station. Number of operations for the evaluation of equation (16) at
each time station involves 2 M + 5 matrix-vector multiplications, 2 matrix and 6( M + 1) vector
summations. Since for the problems usually encountered in practically applications M is only a small
portion of the total number of time steps n , number of operations is significantly reduced. In addition,
a portion of the entire time-history of displacement u ( t ) and velocity u& ( t ) vectors need to be kept in
memory and a cyclic buffer of the size MN can be used in order to reduce memory storage.
Figure 5 shows the efficiency of the new procedure. CPU time was plotted versus number of time
steps n and it includes the time needed for the evaluation of acceleration unit-impulse response matrix
M b∞ ( t ) and the evaluation of soil-structure interaction vector rb ( t ) . As can be seen from the figure,
originally quadratic dependency of CPU time with respect to number of time steps is reduced to a
linear dependency after truncation time tMN = MN ∆t .

3. Numerical Example
To test the accuracy and efficiency of the new procedure, three-dimensional example of a rigid
prismatic foundation embedded in an elastic homogeneous isotropic half-space is subjected to
triangular concentrated load and analyzed.

P (t ) / P0

tcs / b
0 1.5 3

Figure 6. Triangular load applied at the centre Figure 7. SBFE mesh of rigid massless
of base of the prismatic foundation. prismatic embedded foundation.

As shown in the figure 7, the foundation has the square base with side length 2b and the
embedment depth e = 2 / 3b . Scaling center O was chosen at cross section of the free-surfaces to avoid

8
WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

discretization of these surfaces. Origin of the global coordinate system was set at the scaling centre.
Half-space is modeled without material damping. Shear modulus of the half-space Gs and mass
density ρ are constant, while Poisson's ration is ν = 0.3 . Only the foundation-soil interface was
discretized with 129 four-node quadrilateral isoparametric elements. Total number of nodes on the
interface equals 209, while the total number of degrees of freedom is 627.

Figure 8. Vertical acceleration unit-impulse response coefficient of the rigid massless

prismatic foundation. Rigid interface condition is enforced at the end of the calculation.

The acceleration unit-impulse response matrix M b∞ ( t ) is first calculated using original

discretization scheme (const) from [3] and [5] and then using a new procedure described in subsection
2.1, starting from the time t = 0 up to the time tmax = 10b / cs . For the new procedure extrapolation
parameter θ = 1.4 is taken. Time step size for the computation of the displacements is taken as
∆t = 0.05b / cs , while the time step size for the derivation of M b∞ ( t ) is ∆t ′ = N ∆t , where N = {2,3,5} .
Rigid interface condition is enforced at the end of calculation to make the results more comparable.
The results are plotted in figure 8. Even for a very crude case of M = 10 and N = 5 there is excellent
agreement with the results obtained from original constant integration scheme for the solution of the
acceleration unit-impulse response matrix M b∞ ( t ) .

Figure 9. Vertical displacement response of the rigid Figure 10. CPU time required for the
massless prismatic foundation. computation.

9
WCCM/APCOM 2010 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 10 (2010) 012214 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012214

Next, triangular load is applied at the centre of base of the foundation (figure 6). Time history of
the vertical displacement response of the loading point was recorded and plotted in figure 9. Again
excellent results are obtained which justifies the use of the new integration scheme for computation of
soil-structure interaction vector.
Figure 10 shows the total CPU time required for the computation of the displacement response as a
percentage of CPU time need for computation of the response using constant scheme. In the new
procedure the majority of the CPU time is spent on the evaluation of the acceleration unit-impulse
response matrix but for larger systems and larger time-histories the evaluation of the soil-structure
interaction vector plays bigger role in total CPU time. Effectiveness of the new schemes is apparent.

4. Conclusion
A new procedure is developed for the treatment of the three-dimensional dynamic analysis of soil-
structure interaction in time domain, where the soil is modeled using the scaled boundary finite
element method (SBFEM). Two essential improvements are employed to the original method which is
based on the piece-wise constant approximation of the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix and
evaluation of time-consuming convolution integrals: (1) Acceleration unit-impulse response matrix of
the unbounded soil is determined using a new integration scheme based on the piece-wise linear
approximation within time step size and an extrapolation parameter which increases stability of the
scheme and allows the use of the larger time steps. Efficiency of the scheme is even further increased
by employing the truncation time after which the acceleration unit-impulse response matrix is
linearized. (2) Soil-structure interaction force vector represented by the convolution integral is
evaluated using a new and very efficient scheme based on the integration by parts. The combination of
these two enhancements leads to a very significant reduction of computational effort and linear
dependency with respect to the number of time steps. Three-dimensional numerical example
demonstrates the accuracy and high computation efficiency of the proposed schemes and shows that
the method has become mature for a wide range of problems encountered in engineering practice.

References
[1] Wolf J P 1985 Dynamic Soil-Structure-Interaction Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall)
[2] Wolf J P 1988 Soil-Structure-Interaction Analysis in Time Domain (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall)
[3] Wolf J P and Song C 1996 Finite-Element Modelling of Unbounded Media (Chichester: John
Wiley and Sons)
[4] Bazyar M H and Song C 2006 Time-harmonic response of non-homogeneous elastic unbounded
domains using the scaled boundary finite-element method Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35
357-383
[5] Bazyar M H and Song C 2006 Transient analysis of wave propagation in non-homogeneous
elastic unbounded domains by using the scaled boundary-finite element method Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35 1787-1806
[6] Booker J R, Balam N P and Davis E H 1985 The behavior of an elastic nonhomogeneous half-
space Int. J. for Numer. and Anal. Methods Geomech. 9 353-381
[7] Wolf J P 2003 The Scaled Boundary Finite Element Method (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons)
[8] Zhang X, Wegner J L and Haddow J B 1999 Three-dimensional dynamic soil-structure
interaction analysis in the time domain Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28 1501-1524
[9] Yan J, Zhang C and Jin F 2004 A coupling procedure of FE and SBFE for soil-structure
interaction in the time domain Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 59 1453-1471
[10] Lehmann L 2005 An effective finite element approach for soil-structure analysis in the time
domain Struct. Eng. Mech. 21 437-450
[11] Lehmann L 2007 Wave Propagation in Infinite Domains: With Applications to Structure
Interaction (Berlin: Springer)

10