EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS. VOL.

16, 1115 1128 (1988)

A PLANE STRAIN SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

MODEL

P.DANGLA
Service de mecanique, jeune equipe CNRS, Lahoratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussdes, La Courtine, 93/67 Noisy-le-Grand cedex, France

SUMMARY
A plane strain model for dynamic soil-structure interaction problems under harmonic state is presented. The boundary
element method is used to study the response of a homogeneous isotropic linear elastic soil. The far field displacement at
the free surface is approximated by an outgoing Rayleigh wave. The finite element method is used to describe the response
of the building, of the foundation and possibly of a finite part of the inhomogeneous non-linear soil. Two coupling
procedures are described. The model is applied to a problem previously studied in the antiplane case. Incident P, SV and
Rayleigh waves are considered. The results show an amplification and an attenuation of the structure motion with
frequency when incident Rayleigh waves and P, SV body waves are respectively considered.

INTRODUCTION
Soil-structure interaction during earthquakes is of great interest to engineers who have to design buildings
able to sustain seismic waves.'*2 To better understand soil-structure interaction phenomena, several simple
models have been proposed. In 1969, Luco3 studied the dynamic interaction problem of an infinitely long
homogeneous elastic shear wall of height H and thickness h founded on a rigid semi-cylindrical foundation of
radius r bonded on a homogeneous elastic half-space. Luco's solution was derived only for vertically incident
SH waves. In 1972 Trifunac4 generalized the results for any angle of incidence. In the present paper, a
formulation for general plane strain soil-structure interaction problems is described. The procedure used
involves a coupling of the boundary element method with the finite element method. The system is composed
of two subdomains. The first one, including the structure, the foundation and possibly a finite part of the non-
linear inhomogeneous soil is handled with the finite element method. The second subdomain formed by the
elastic homogeneous part of the half-space is treated by the boundary element method. The procedure is
applied to the problem defined by Luco where incident P and SV waves are considered. Trifunac' noted that
shallow and surface faults can generate surface waves in alluvial valleys; thus incident Rayleigh waves are
also considered.

GROUND MOTION EQUATIONS

Let R, be the half-space domain treated with the boundary element method and R, the complementary part of
R, in the half-space (Figure 1). Let dR, and 80,be the respective boundaries of R, and R,. We define r, r, and
To as follows:
r =dQ,n8R0; a,=
r ur,; an, = r ur,
The inner integral representution
Let u f ( x )be the sum of the incident and of the reflected displacement fields on the free surface rsuToof the
homogeneous elastic half-space. uf ( x ) is called the free displacement field. Let u s ( x )be the displacement field
scattered by the surface r. us(x)is defined by the relation
u(x)=uf(x)+u"x)
0098-8847/88/091115-14$07.00 Received 24 December 1987
<$> 1988 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 16 Muy 1988
1116 P. DANGLA

Figure I . Definition of the subdomains

where u(x) is the total displacement field. u'(x) satisfies the dynamic equilibrium equation in the domain R,.
Therefore, we can derive the inner integral representation of u'(x):

In,(xo)u'(xo)= - (CG"(x, xo)lTtf(~)-CTT(x,

xo, n(x))lTuf(x))ds(x)
Ir
r

where ZD(xo)is the indicator function of the domain D:I,(x,)= 1 for X ~ E and D I,(x,)=O for x,#D. [G"(x,
x,)] is the 2 x 2 displacement Green's function matrix. The term GG(x, x,) is the displacement at the point x in
thejth direction due to a unit harmonic force of circular frequency w at the point xo in the ith direction.'
Similarly [ T"(X, xo, n(x))] is the 2 x 2 traction Green's function matrix. The term T;(x, xo, n(x)) is the jth
traction component at the point x on a plane with normal n(x), due to a unit harmonic force of circular
frequency w at the point xo in the ith direction. CG(x, xo) and T;(x, x,, n(x)) are given in Appendix I. t'(x) is
the traction vector at the point x on the surface r, corresponding to the displacement field u'(x). [ -1' stands
for transpose matrix. The sign before the first integral in equation (1) comes from the definition of the normal
n(x) on I'oriented from R, to 0,. The scattered displacement field us@) satisfies the dynamic equilibrium
equation in the domain 0,; thus the inner integral representation of us(x) can be derived as follows:

Ine(x0)uS(xo)= (CG"(x, xO)lT~s(x)-C w(& xo, n(x))lTuS(x))

Wx)
Ir

where ts(x)is the traction vector at the point x on the surface r,corresponding to the displacement field us(x).
After subtracting equation (1) from equation (2) we obtain the inner integral representation of the total field
u (x):
 A SOIL-STRUCTURE I N T E R A C T I O N MODEL 1117

where t(x)=t'(x)+t'(x), the total traction vector at the point x on the surface r, corresponding to the total
displacement field u(x).

Boundary integral representation

Let u ( x ) be the displacement field defined, on dR,, by
V(X) = ~ (x) for x E r
(4)
U(X) = uS(x) for x E I-,
The integral equation satisfied by the boundary field u(x) and t(x) is derived from equation (3) for xo E aR, and
for the domains R, and R, from which half a sphere B(xo, E ) of centre xo and radius E is removed. When we take
the limit 8 4 0 , the equation becomes
r

where

and

i
1 for X ~ E ~

P(X,)= 0 forx,Er,
1/2 for xo E l- nI-,
[C(x,)] is a matrix which depends on the local geometry of the surface 130,in the vicinity of xo and on the
singular expression of the Green's function matrix [ T w ( x x,,
, n(x))]. The complete expression for [C(x,)] is
8
given in Appendix 11.. The symbol in equation ( 5 ) means that the integral is taken in the sense of the Cauchy
principal value.

Boundary element approximation

Two types of elements are used:
(i) on and on a finite part of r, around the structure, u(x) and t(x) are approximated by linear elements;
(ii) the first order expression of the asymptotic development of us(x), far away from the scattering source,
describes a Rayleigh wave. Therefore, on the infinite part of rs,us(x) can be approximated by
U(X)~u(Xl)exp(ikR
IIx-xl 11)
+
for 11 x 1 /I < 11 x [I < 00 on the free surface and where kR is the Rayleigh wave number.
The validity of this last approximation was checked in a very simple problem (uniform strip stress over the
elastic half-space). When this approximation was introduced at one or two wavelengths away from the strip
loading, the displacements of the extreme nodes of the free surface discretization are found to be close to the
exact solution. However, it was found that when we are interested in the displacements and stresses just under
the structure (for example: computation of foundation impedance), because the energy transmission consists
mainly in body waves, the influence of the discretization length is weak, the estimation of the surface integral
with the above approximation being very acceptable, particularly for low frequency, even if the discretization
length is taken equal to zero. Therefore it was concluded from this test problem that the discretization length
can be taken independently of the frequency.
A collocation point method is used at the nodes of the surface discretization to solve equation (5). Finally,
writing uy and t, as the nodal displacement vector and the nodal traction vector of the surface r respectively,
1118 P. DANGLA

and writing us as the nodal displacement vector of the surface r,,the following linear system can be written:

SOIL-STRUCTURE COUPLING
The general matrix equation resulting from the dynamic equilibrium of the finite element domain is

where the matrix is a function of the unknown ( u b , u,) depending on the constitutive model considered in the
finite element domain, ub andf, are the nodal displacement vector and the nodal force vector respectively for
nodes that do not belong to the surface r. Owing to traction continuity through the surface r, the nodal forces
j ; can be expressed in terms of the nodal stresses t, from the finite element formulation, as follows:

f ,= -
6- ds(x)= - P t ,
N T(x)N(x)ty

where N ( x ) are the linear shape functions on the surface r. P is a transformation matrix from the nodal
(8)

stresses vector to the nodal forces vector. The soil-structure coupling problem consists in solving equations
(6) and (7) with the help of equation (8). Two procedures are described. In the first procedure, equation (7) is
used to cancel out the ub parameters, and in the second one, equation (6) is used to cancel out the us
parameters.

First procedure
If equation (7) corresponds to a linear problem, i.e. if the matrix does not depend on the unknown (Uh, uY),it
is possible to cancel out the vector uh and then to form the condensed matrix equation
K*v,=f,+f* (9)
where
K * = K , , - K,, K,' Khy
f*= -K,,K,'f,
Then equations (6), (9) and (8) yield the final linear system

This procedure has some drawbacks as follows:

(i) the behaviour of the finite element domain must be linear in order to achieve the matrix conLdnsation;
(ii) the system obtained [equation (lo)] is not symmetric;
(iii) to compute the total response of the structure, equation (7) must be solved with the help of the
parameters uY or with f , both previously determined;
(iv) the matrix K * is singular for the eigenfrequencies of the finite element domain with a fixed boundary r.
To achieve the coupling procedure, for these frequency values, the number of condensation parameters needs
to be increased in order to shift the eigenvalues of matrix K *.
 A SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL 1119

Second procedure
Elimination of us from the linear system (6) yields
H*v, =t , + b*
where
H * = cc,, - H,sH, G,,1 - CH,,- H , , H , %,I
b* = [G,,- H,,Hs< G,,]- [b, - H,,H& b,]
Premultiplying equation (1 1) by P and using equation (8), we can derive the finite superelement equation
governing the domain R,:
P H *vY= -f , + Pb* (12)
Then, the addition of equation (12) to the second of equations (7) yields the general non-linear matrix
equation of unknowns ( u b , u,):

[ Khh(u)
K,b(u)
Khy(v)
Ky,(v)+PH*
]{ ::} = {$b*} (13)

The elementary impedance matrix P H * is complex. Its imaginary part comes from the radiation damping in
the infinite domain R,. The vector Pb* comes from the incident wave. Owing to the Betti-Rayleigh reciprocal
theorem the matrix P H * should be symmett'ic. However, because of boundary element approximation and
errors computation, the matrix P H * is not exactly symmetric. Nevertheless, it is convenient for P H * to
substitute its symmetric part.'
Furthermore it should be noted that:
(i) all the displacements and stresses of the structure are directly computed using the finite element method;
(ii) the linearity of the finite element domain is not assumed;
(iii) a constant impedance matrix P H * can be assumed over a small frequency range;
(iv) extension to transient study is possible with a Fourier series decomposition in the time domain and the
impedance matrices P H * computed at the corresponding Fourier frequencies.
This procedure is more powerful than the first one but requires a larger CPU time,

APPLICATION
This calculation method is applied to the model defined by L U C OThe
. ~ finite element domain is the elastic wall
and the rigid foundation (Figure 2). We consider P, SV and Rayleigh incident waves. For P and SV plane

-- Rayieigh
wave
1' H

f.

Figure 2. Soil-structure system submitted to incident waves

1120 P. DANGLA

waves, incidence angles of 3 4 6 0 and 90 degrees are considered. The corresponding free field expressions u‘(x)
are given in Appendix III.8q9The free field displacement amplitudes at a point of the half-space surface, versus
the incidence angle, are plotted in Figures 3 and 4. In the case of incident SV waves (Figure 4),the critical
angle, corresponding to a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3, is 57.7 degrees. At this angle we note that the horizontal
displacement amplitude is maximum and the vertical displacement amplitude vanishes. In the range [0,57.7]
the reflected waves are composed of an SV plane wave and an inhomogeneous surface wave, providing the
horizontal displacement values are small compared with the other displacement values. The incidence angle
of 30 degrees treated here falls into the critical range and will provide particular results, as we shall see.
The dimensionless parameters of the problem and their physical meanings are:
a, = ksr dimensionless excitation frequency
Mo /Ms =P OlPs relative mass of the foundation
Mb/‘s=(hHph)/( 1/2zr2ps ) relative mass of the wall
Pbh/(PsH) relative stiffness of the wall
hlH slenderness
Hlr geometric parameter
vs, ‘b Poisson’s ratios of the soil and the wall
where pi, pi and ki represent the mass density, the shear modulus and the S wave number of medium i(i = s, b,
0). Indexes s, b, 0 relate to the soil, the wall and the foundation. We use the following dimensionless numerical
values (the numerical values actually used are in parenthesis):
M o / M , =1.0 (po=I.O; p,=l.O)
M b / M s = 1.0 ( h= 0.4; H = 1 .O; r = 1.0; pb= 3.92)
pbh/(psH)=0.I538 (pb=0.3846;p s = 1.0)
hlH = 0.4
Hlr = 1.0
v,, vb =0.3
Figure 5 shows the element discretization used (the dots represent the nodes of the boundary element
discretization).
Because of CPU time requirements the first coupling procedure is preferred; however, it was confirmed that
the second procedure provided the same results.

hi
N
21
P
a
B 18 26 36 46 58 66 70 BB 90
angle of incidence
Figure 3. Total displacement amplitudes at the surface of an elastic half-space, with a Poisson’s ratio of 0 3 , resulting from the reflection
of a P plane wave, versus incidence angle
 A SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL 1121

8 18 28 36 48 58 6 8 78 88 98
angle of incidence
Figure 4. Total displacement amplitudes at the surface of an elastic half-space, with a Poisson's ratio of 0.3, resulting from the reflection
of an SV plane wave, versus incidence angle

Figure 5. Element discretization of the soil-structure system

Table I. Modes of the fixed base wall

a0 Modal description

0.2 first bending mode

0.84 first compression mode
0.845 second bending mode
1.815 third bending mode
2.467 second compression mode
2.646 fourth bending mode
3.302 fifth bending mode
3.686 sixth bending mode
3.823 third compression mode

The accuracy of the method was verified in the antiplane case. In order to satisfy the free boundary
condition at the half-space surface we used the antiplane Green function of the half-space obtained by adding
the two classical Green functions GZ3(x, x,,) (given in Appendix I) applied respectively at the node of the
element discretization and at the symmetric point with respect to the horizontal axis. So only the
discretization of the foundation excavation is considered. The results are compared with the analytical
solution obtained by T r i f ~ n a cFigure
.~ 6 shows the displacement amplitude of the foundation for a vertical
incident SH wave.
1122 P. DANGLA

t1111 - : T r i f u n a c (1972)

SH wave 0 : BEM-FEM
1.

a,
Figure 6 . Normalized horizontal amplitude of the foundation due to a vertical incident SH wave

'1
2
v
3
- - 7
6-38

1 - 4 -

i
0 , . . . . , .I.. . , . . . . , . . . . 1

3 4
0 1 2 4 1

Figure 7. Horizontal amplitudes of the foundation mass centre normalized by incident P wave amplitude

In the plane strain case, the horizontal and vertical displacements uG and uG of the foundation mass centre
G and the rotation cp of the foundation are computed from the displacements (uA, uA) and (uB, u") of points A
and B (see Figure 2) as follows:
uG= +
1/2(u,4+ u s ) (2/3n)(u,-uA)
uG= 1/2(uA+u,)-(2/3x)(~"-uA)
tan cp = (u, - uA)/(2r + uB- uA)* cp x ( u , - uA)/(2r) (in small displacements)
 A SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL 1123

Horizontal displacement amplitudes of the foundation mass centre versus dimensionless frequency u o , when
incident P, SV and Rayleigh waves are considered, are plotted in Figures 7,8 and 9. The minima observed on
the three figures correspond to the bending natural frequencies of the fixed base wall. A t these frequencies the
horizontal displacement amplitudes of the wall top are maximum. In Figure 8 the curve obtained for 0 = 30"
has a particular behaviour since maxima are observed at the bending natural frequencies. The non-zero values
of the horizontal displacement at the bending natural frequencies of the fixed base wall are rather surprising,
but since the values of the displacement anywhere else remain very small, no comment will be provided about
this numerical result. The corresponding vertical displacement amplitudes are plotted in Figures 10, 1 I and
12. The minima observed on these last three figures correspond now to thecornpression natural frequencies of
the fixed base wall. A t these frequencies the vertical displacement amplitudes of the wall top are maximum.
The dimensionless natural frequencies corresponding to the natural frequencies mentioned above are given in
the Table I.
The displacement amplitudes of figures 7, 8 and 10, 1 1 (concerning incident P and SV waves respectively)

a 1 2 a J 3 4

Figure 8. Horizontal amplitudes of the foundation mass centre normalized by incident SV wave amplitude

Figure 9. Horizontal amplitudes of the foundation mass centre normalized by horizontal amplitude, on the free surface, of incident
Rayleigh wave
1I24 P. DANGLA

3 4
0 1 2 a ,
Figure 10. Vertical amplitudes of the foundation mass centre normalized by incident P wave amplitude

Figure 11. Vertical amplitudes of the foundation mass centre normalized by incident SV wave amplitude

are always lower than the value at a, = 0 (static value or value when interaction phenomena are neglected)
except for the initial part of the curve between a,=O and the first bending natural value of a,, where the
displacement can slightly exceed the static value. Furthermore, an attenuation of the displacement amplitude
with a, over dimensionless frequency ranges defined by two consecutive dimensionless natural values should
be observed. The displacement amplitudes of Figures 9, 12 (concerning Rayleigh waves) are often higher than
the static value and, unlike the previous figures, an amplification of displacement amplitudes with a, over
dimensionless frequency ranges defined by two consecutive dimensionless natural values should be observed.
This important result means that the structure response can be underestimated, over a wide frequency range,
when soil-structure interaction phenomena during incident Rayleigh waves are not taken into account. The
dimensionless frequency range [ l , 21 of Figure 12 over which an amplification of vertical displacement
amplitudes after the first compression natural frequency is observed, corresponds, for typical seismic waves (S
wave velocity Vs=600 m/s and frequencyf= 3 Hz), to the radius range [33 m, 66 m]. Rotation amplitudes of
the foundation versus dimensionless frequency a, are plotted in Figures 13, 14,15 for respectively P, SV and
Rayleigh waves. The maxima observed on the three figures correspond to the bending natural frequencies of
 A SOIL-STRUCTURE I N T E R A C T I O N M O D E L 1125

Figure 12. Vertical amplitudes of the foundation mass centre normalized by horizontal amplitude, on the free surface, of incident
Rayleigh wave

0 1 2 3 4
a,
Figure 13. Rotation amplitudes of the foundation normalized by incident P wave amplitude

the fixed base wall. Further, a steep variation of the rotation behaviour for incident P, SV waves (Figures 13,
14) is observed in the vicinity of the bending natural frequencies, while a regular variation of the rotation
behaviour for Rayleigh waves (Figure 15) is noted at the same frequencies.

CONCLUSION
In this paper a numerical model using a finite element and boundary element coupling method for general
dynamic plane strain soil-structure interaction problems has been presented. The application of the model to
the soil-structure interaction problem of an infinitely long homogeneous elastic wall founded on a rigid semi-
cylindrical foundation bonded on a homogeneous elastic half-space shows that the frequency variation of the
foundation displacements depends on the types of incident waves considered. Attenuation and amplification
with frequency of the foundation displacements over certain frequency ranges are observed when incident P,
SV and Rayleigh waves are considered respectively. The computed horizontal and vertical displacements of
1126 P.DANGLA

3 4
0 1 2 ; b

Figure 14. Rotation amplitudes of the foundation normalized by incident SV wave amplitude

i o
-5
K

0
0 1 2 3 4
a,
Figure 15. Rotation amplitudes of the foundation normalized by horizontal amplitude, on the free surface, of incident Rayleigh wave

the foundation mass centre are found to be close to zero at the bending and compression natural frequencies
of the fixed base wall respectively. The rotation amplitudes of the foundation are maximum at the bending
natural frequencies of the fixed base wall.

APPENDIX I
The displacement and traction Green’s functions are given by the following expressions.

Plane strain case

+
CE(x, x,)= (i/4p) ((l/k#2[H$,”(ksr) - H b 1 ) ( k p r ) ] / ( d x i d x j ) 6 j j H g ) ( k , r ) }
T ;(x, x o , n ( x ) )=(i/4) { (2/ki)nkd3[Hb”(ksr)- Hb”(k,r)]/(dxiaxjdx,)
+ nj d H b’)(ksr)/(dxi)+ (1 - 2q2)n, dH bl)( kpr)/(dxj)+ hijn,dHg ’(ksr)/(dxk)
3
 A SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL 1127

where
r = II x -xo II
p is the shear modulus
Hb”(z) is the Hankel function of order 0 and first kind
= k,/k, = (( 1 - 2v2)/(2- 2~’))”’
v is the Poisson’s ratio of the medium,
k , and k, are the P and S wave numbers respectively.

APPENDIX I1
The matrix [ C ( x o ) ] is computed as follows (Figure 16):

[C(x,)] =lim
6-0 sr,
+
[ T “(x, xo, n ( x ) ) ]ds(x) = (cp/2x) (1 - q2)/2n
sin(28,)
-cos(28,)
-cos(28,)
-sin(2CIl) 1
where
cp=71+81-82

APPENDIX 111
The free displacement fields, for incident P, SV, SH and Rayleigh waves, are given below. For P, SV and SH
waves, CI denotes the incidence angle between the horizontal axis and the propagation vector.

1. P plane wave

+ A\‘){ sin cp
cos cp
}exp(ik,(xcos cp - y sin cp))

where
cos cp = qcos 8
A ‘ , P ) / A ~ ~ )=($sin 2cp sin 28 - cos’ 247)/(47’ sin 2cp sin 28 + cos’ 2cp)
= - (2q sin 28cos 2cp)/(q2sin 2q sin 2%+ cos’ 240)
A‘,P’/AbP)

Figure 16. Non-regular boundary

1128 P. DANGLA

2. S V plane wave

{ {
u‘(x, y ) = A f ) - ~ ~ s ~ ) e x p ( i k , ( x c o s O + y s i n O ) ) + A f )t:s:]exp(ik,(xcos 0-ysin0))

+ { - ”)
cos exp(ik,(x cos cp -y sin cp))
sin cp
where
COS cp = (i/q)cos 0
+
A ( ; ) / A ~=)7 sin 40/(v2sin 249 sin 20 cos’ 28)
A F ) / A f )= (q2sin 2cp sin 20 - cos’ 20)/(q2sin 2cp sin 20 + cos2 20)

3 . Rayleiyh wave

u‘(x, y)= AiR’

IeXp(ikRx-(ki - k;)‘/’y)

where
= 2k2/k2
A‘iR)/AbR’ R S

k, is the Rayleigh wave number and satisfies the following equation:

(2k~-k~)2-4k~(k~-k~)”2(k~-k~)1’2=0

4.S H plane wave

uf(x, y)= 2AfH)cos(kSysinQ)exp(ik,xcos0)

REFERENCES
I . G . W. Housner, ‘Effect of foundation compliance on earthquake stresses in multistory buildings’, Bull. seism. sac. Am. 44, 551-569
( 1 954).
2. G. W. Housner, ‘Interaction of building and ground during an earthquake’, Bull. seism. sac. Am. 47, 179-186 (2957).
3. J. E. Luco, ‘Dynamic interaction of a shear wall with the soil’, J. eng. mech. diu. ASCE 95, 333-345 (1969).
4. M. D. Trifunac, ‘Interaction of a shear wall with the soil for incident plane SH waves’, Bull. seism. sac. Am. 62,63-83 (1972).
5. M. D. Trifunac, ‘Response envelope spectrum and interpretation of strong earthquake ground motion’, Bull. seism. sac. Am. 61,
343-346 (1971).
6. A. C. Eringen and E. S . Suhubi. Elastodynamics, Academic Press, New York, 1975.
7. D. W. Kelly, C. G. W. Mustoe and 0. C. Zienkiewicz, ‘Coupling boundary element methods with other numerical methods’, in
Development in Boundary Element Methods, Vol. 1 (Eds. P. K. Banerjee and R. Butterfield). Applied Science Publications, London,
1979, Chapt. 10 pp. 251-285.
8. J. D. Achenbach, Wave Propagation in Elastic Solids, North-Holland, Amsterdam-New York-Oxford, 1973.
9. W. M. Ewing, W. S. Jardetzki and F. Press, Elastic Waves in Layered Media. McCraw-Hill, New York, 1957.