Computational Mechanics (1986) 1,259-268

Computational
Mechanics
© Springer-Verlag 1986

Boundary element solution for half-space elasticity

or Stokes problem with a no-slip boundary
T. Tran-Cong and N. Phan-Thien
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Sydney 2006, Australia

Abstract. We report an implementation of the Boundary Element Method (BEM) for half-space elasticity or Stokes problems
with a plane interface (the boundary of the half space). With a proper choice of the singularity solution this plane interface, on
which the displacement or velocity vector is zero, does not need to be discretized. For a large class of problems involving
translating or rotating bodies a simplificationof the boundary element formulation is possible, with a resulting improvement in
the accuracy of the numerical results. The three-dimensional boundary element program was tested with the moving sphere
problem and was found to be satisfactory in all cases.

1 Introduction
The Boundary Element Method (BEM) has recently evolved into an efficient and powerful numerical
technique for solving boundary-value problems in many branches of engineering science. Since its
introduction to continuum mechanics by Fichera (1961), Rizzo (1967), Hess and Smith (1967), the
method has become popular and there are a number of good texts dealing with the subject (f. e.,
Banerjee and Butterfield 1981; Brebbia, Telles and Wrobel 1984).
In this paper, we are concerned with the development and implementation of a BEM dealing with
a semi-infinite region, or a half space, in which the 'free' surface, or the boundary of the half space, is
displacement-free (or velocity-free). With a properly chosen singular solution, this boundary need not
be discretized at all and therefore the BEM is the natural choice for this type of problem. Another
work that is quite related to ours is that of Telles and Brebbia (1981), who were also concerned with
the half-space problem, but with a traction-free boundary. The appropriate singular solution for this
latter type of problem is Mindlin's kernel (Mindlin 1936), which was derived by superposing various
Galerkin vectors. For our type of problem a different kernel is needed, and has been derived for the
Stokes problems by Blake (1971), Hasimoto and Sano (1980), and for the elastostatic problem by
Ejike (1970) and Phan-Thien (1983). Of course, the half-space problems can also be solved by
standard BEM which uses the Kelvin singularity solution; to be numerically efficient one must then
use the so-called infinite elements, which are elements over a large but finite surface. The known
asymptotic solution at infinity can then be used to model these infinite elements (Watson 1979). Tile
trade-off is that one has to deal with a larger system of equations or that the shape function of the
infinite elements must be of higher order to model the asymptotic state correctly.
After describing a direct boundary element implementation for a general three-dimensional
elastostatic, or Stokes problem in a half-space with a no-displacement (or velocity) boundary, we
present the numerical solution for a sphere translating or rotating either parallel or perpendicular to a
wall. In these cases, a simplification of the direct boundary element formulation is possible with a
resulting improvement in the accuracy of the BEM. The translating sphere problem near a wall is of
particular interest to Rheologists, since it formes the basis of a simple viscosity measurement (the
falling ball viscometer). It is therefore important to know the wall correction. In this regard, the
problem is thoroughly understood following the series solution of Brenner (1964), using reflection
method, and the exact solution given by Lee and Leal (1980), using a bipolar co-ordinate system. The
main result of our work is therefore the creation of a three dimensional boundary element program for
elasticity or Stokes problems in a half-space with a rigid boundary.
260 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)

2 Boundary element formulation

2.1 Problem statement

We consider the elastostatic or the Stokes creeping flow problem in a semi-infinite domain as shown in
Fig. 1. The field equations are

Va=O , x~D , (1)

tT= 2 V u l + I/(Vu + Vu T) , (2)

where u is the displacement vector for the elasticity problem (or the velocity vector for the Stokes
problem), ~ is the stress tensor, 1 is a unit tensor and 2, r/are the Lam6 coefficients for the medium.
For the Stokes problem, one needs to augment the system (1-2) with the incompressibility constraint
Vu= 0, in which case the first term on the righthand side of (2) is replaced by - P 1 , where P is the
hydrostatic pressure which arises from the incompressibility constraint. Henceforth, we will consider
the elasticity problem explicitly; the passage to the Stokes problem can be made by setting the
Poisson's ratio v = 2/2(t/+ 2) to 0.5 - the pressure field can then be recovered as a post-processing
operation.
In (1-2), D is an open domain with boundary OD which consists of the infinite plane
S~ = {x" x3 = 0, x 2 + x 2 < ~, ~--, oe }, the surface $2 of a hemisphere of radius ~-~ 0% and the smooth
surface S of an embedded body. The relevant boundary conditions are:

- on $1 and S2 , u= 0 (no displacement) , (3)

and on S either the traction, or the displacement is given or both; that is, t is prescribed on a part of S
and n is prescribed on the remaining part. Note that u is an outward normal unit vector to ~D.
The direct boundary element formulation of (1-2) is quite standard and need not be repeated
(Banerjee and Butterfield 1981; Brebbia, Telles and Wrobel 1984). It is sufficient to start with
Somigliana's identity

uj(X) = y G~j(x, X) ti(x) dr(x) - S H~j(x, X)u~(x) dr(x) (4)

~D ~D

where u*(x, X ) = Gij(x, J0 is a singularity solution and t*(x, X ) = Hij(x, X) is its associated traction
on the boundary ~D. That is, u*(x, X) satisfies

(4 + ~) Ux~
u*(x, x)+~ ~ e2 u~(x, x ) = - ~ij~ (x - x ) (5)

Fig. 1. Definition of semi-infinite domain with embedded body

T. Tran-Cong and N. Phan-Thien: Half-space elasticity or Stokes problem with a no-slip boundary 261

with boundary conditions

U/~(X, X) ~--~-0 on X~Slk_)S 2 . (6)

Since the singularity solution satisfies the no-displacement boundary condition on $1 w $2 exactly,
the boundary integrals on the righthand side of (4) need only be taken over the boundary S of
the embedded body. This is the main advantage of BEM over traditional numerical methods.

2.2 Singularity solution

The solution of (5-6) for the Stokes problem has been reported by Blake (1971), Hasimoto and Sano
(1980), and Ejike (1970) for the axisymmetric case. The full solution for the elasticity problem was
reported by Phan-Thien (1983), and we summarize his findings here.
With x being the position vector of the field point and X the load point, we define

r=x-X , R=x-X* , (7)

where X* is the image of X (refer to Fig. 2). Then the singularity solution to (5-6) is simply

u*(x, Jf)-16rc~(l_v) (3-4v) 7 - R 8'~+ r a ~ +-~- 8~3R,+8,3R~-28~38j3R3

+3~v 2 8 ~ 3 8 j 3 - g ~ J + ~ - (Rj-28j3R3) ' (8)

where 8~j is the Kronecker delta and r = Irl, R --IN[. We note that (8) consists of two Kelvin solutions,
one at X a n d the other at X*, plus an extra term (inside the square brackets in (8)). After some lengthy
algebra, the associated stress tensor and traction can be derived; they are recorded in the Appendix.
It is worth noting here that the extra terms in (8) do not have any singularity in the domain x3 > 0
and therefore do not represent any special problem in the implementation of the BEM. Furthermore,
the surface integral of the traction ti* (x, X) = Hij (x, X) over any surface enclosing the point force must
be equal to -8~j. In particular,

Hij(x, X) dF(x) = -Sij • (9)

$1 +$2

d]j
r

/2

x I R

\ r/ Fig. 2. Co-ordinate system for semi-infinite domain boundary by plane X,,X2 and
"~ )£3>0
262 C o m p u t a t i o n a l M e c h a n i c s I (1986)

2.3 Boundary element formulation and implementation

The Somigliana identity now can be written as

uj (X) = ~ Gij (x, X) ti (x) d r (x) - ~ Hi~(x, X) ui(x) d r (x) . (1 o)
S S

When X is specialized to the surface S of the body, the integrals involving Hij are singular (due to the
Kelvin part). This singularity can be treated exactly and one obtains
CijU i (X) + ~ Hij (x, X) ui (x) d r (x) = S G~j(x, X) t~(x) d r ( x ) . (11)
S S

where c~j= 16i i if X belongs to the smooth surface S. If X is a domain point then c~ = 6zj. The integral
on the left hand side of (11) is understood to be the Cauchy principal value integral. This boundary
element formulation can be generalized to multi-connected regions without much difficulty (Rizzo
1967).
The present numerical implementation of (11) uses constant triangular surface elements on which
both the traction and the velocity fields are assumed piecewise constant. The integrals of the singular
solution over an element are carried out exactly for the Kelvin part, and numerically using standard
Gaussian quadrature for the remaining part. Equation (11) then leads to the system
Hn = Gt , (12)

which is rearranged and solved by a Gaussian elimination technique. A number of features of the
program worth mentioning follow:
- the program can treat up to 10 different surfaces;
- it can recognize up to four planes of symmetry;
- for small-size problems, the system (12) can be solved entirely within the computer memory; for
larger-size problems ( > 200 surface elements), a disk-based block partition method was used (Das
1978). In essence, the system matrix is partitioned into blocks of size [IBL, IBL], where IBL is an input
number. The Gaussian elimination method is used, but with matrix operations replacing scalar ones.
In this way, only 2 (IBL) rows of the system matrix need to be resident in memory at any given time.
The implementation was done on a VAX/780 and on two microcomputers (8086/8087 Apricot and a
32 bit CPU Cromemco).

3 T r a n s l a t i n g or r o t a t i n g b o d i e s

For a translating body, a simplification of (11) is possible and is recorded below as a theorem (Eq. 14).
We start with the boundary element statement (10) and assume first that X is a domain point.
Furthermore, on the surface S, u is given by
u=v , a constant .
Thus
u~(X) = S Gij(x, X)ti(x) d r ( x ) - ~ ~ nij(x, X ) d r ( x ) , ~V~D . (13)
S S

As noted before, the surface integral of Hij over any region containing the point force must be - 6ij.
This is, in particular, true for the integral of Hi~ over the surfaces $1 u Se w S and SI w Sz.
Consequently, the surface integral of Hij over S is zero identically from which
uj(X) = ~ Gij(x, X)Ii(X) dF(x) , Xe O . (14)
s
We now specialize X to the surface S in (13). We write S = S - S ' , + S, in the limit of e--,0. Here the
integral of Hfj over S - S'~ is the principal part and the integral of H~j over S, is the singular part. The
condition of equilibrium in the domain D again shows that the integral of Hfj over the surface S is
identically zero provided that the singular part exists, which it does (and is equal to -½ 8ij). In sum,
whether or not X belongs to S, the direct boundary element formulation for a body translating
T. Tran-Cong and N. Phan-Thien: Half-space elasticity or Stokes problem with a no-slip boundary 263

simplifies to (14). This result is also valid for a rotating body, since in this case n = wx on the surface of
the body and
ek,, ~ x,Itu(x, X) d E ( x ) = 0 . (15)
s
The result (14) for the two classes of problems just mentioned (or a mixture of both) permits
considerable simplification to a numerical scheme described in the previous section. Not only that,
but it will be seen that (14) improves the accuracy of the numerical results markedly when the body is
very near the no-slip boundary.

4 Translating and rotating spheres

The moving sphere near a plane wall has been completely understood, following the series solution of
Brenner (1964), using the reflection method, and the exact solution of Lee and Leal (1980), using a
bipolar co-ordinate system. The main results of interest to the experimentalist are the normalized drag
and torque coefficients, which are defined by
drag _ torque
C~-6~tlaV , Cr-8~
~ , (16)

as functions of d/a, where dis the distance from the sphere centre to the wall and a is the sphere radius,
V is the velocity of translation and ~2 is angular velocity.
Our numerical results using both the standard boundary element formulation, Eq. (11), and its
simplification, Eq. (14), are presented in Figs. 3-6 and in tabular form (Tables 1-4).
Exact results due to Lee and Leal (1980) are also reported for comparison. A typical mesh size on
the sphere for the case where d/a = 1.1 is shown in Fig. 7. In this quite extreme case, the traction varies

12 3.0

+ BEM,N= 8/~, S=2 ?.5 + BEM,A/=IO8,.S"=1

BEM, N = 84, S= 3 × BEM,N=216,S=I

o std. BEM, N= 84, S=3

8 2.0 +~

\
t 1.5

1.0
o\

0.5

r L I I 0 l [ I I
? 4 6 8 10 0 ? 4 6 8

3 4

Figs. 3 and 4. Normalized drag coefficient of 3 a sphere translating perpendicularly towards a solid plane wall and 4 of a
sphere translating parallel to a solid plane wall; exact solution of Lee and Leal
264 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)

2.0 2.0

+ BEf'4,fl=180, 5:1 + BEN, N=176, S=1

* BEN,/Y= 84, S= 3 × BEN, N=208, S=1

1.5 1.5
!
,-Z
1.0 I1.0
\,.__.
0.5 0.5

I I I I I i P I

2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
d/o ~ d/o -'-

5 6

Figs. 5 and 6. Normalized torque coefficient 5 of a sphere rotating about axis perpendicular to a solid plane wall and 6 of a
sphere rotating about an axis parallel to a solid plane wall; exact solution of Lee and Leal

Fig. 7 a - c . A typical mesh size : a side view; b view from the rigid wall ; c top view

quickly in the polar region nearest to the plane wall and consequently a finer mesh is needed there.
It should be noted that the standard BEM gives quite inaccurate results when the sphere is very
near to the plane wall; at d/a = 1.1 and with the mesh size of Fig. 7, an error of 79.3 %was obtained. In
contrast, the simplified BEM, Eq. (14), gives vastly superior results: an error of just 3.3 % was
obtained for the same case just mentioned. The poor results of the standard BEM is mainly due to the
inaccuracy in evaluating the matrix H, especially when the sphere is very near to the plane wall. The
introduction of a higher-order element may improve the solution of standard BEM in this case.
In conclusion we have developed a three-dimensional boundary element program dealing with
half-space problems with a no-slip boundary condition. An elegant simplification of the boundary
element formulation was obtained for a large class of problems involving translating and/or rotating
bodies. In these cases, the simplified boundary element formulation is similar, but not identical to the
indirect boundary element formulation.
T. Tran-Cong and N. Phan-Thien: Half-space elasticity or Stokes problem with a no-slip boundary 265

Table 1. Normalized drag coefficient of a sphere translating perpendicularly towards a solid plane wall

d
- C* N=84, S=2 N=84, S=3 N=84, S=3
a

Co Co C~
- - - - C * *
(2° CO* CO C*

l0 1.12619 1.12962 1.003 1.12682 1.000 1.12632 1.000

5 1.28509 1.28526 1.000 1.28411 0.999 1.27915 0.995
3 1.56921 1.56205 0.995 1.56410 0.997 1.53552 0.976
2 2.12554 2.09922 0.988 2.11030 0.993 1.97130 0.927
1.8 2.39877 2.36092 0.984 2.37795 0.991 2.15443 0.898
1.6 2.84891 2.78908 0.979 2.81820 0.989 2.41492 0.848
1.4 3.73562 3.62233 0.970 3.68301 0.986 2.79663 0.749
1.2 6.34088 6.00053 0.946 6.20462 0.979 3.20208 0.505
1.1 11.45916 10.71460 0.935 11.08553 0.967 2.36791 0.207

N = number of elements; S = number of symmetry planes

* exact solution of Lee and Leal
** standard BEM results

Table 2. Normalized drag coefficient of a sphere translating parallel to a solid

plane wall

d
- C* N=108, S=l N=216, S=I
a

Co Co
CD -- Co --
c~ c~
10 1.05948 1.07121 1.011 1.06743 1.007
5 1.12586 1.13587 1.009 1.13285 1.006
3 1.22716 1.23261 1.004 1.23115 1.003
2 1.38275 1.37305 0.993 1.37478 0.994
1.8 1.44521 1.42581 0.937 1.42920 0.990
1.6 1.53438 1.49735 0.976 1.50347 0.980
1.4 1.67553 1.60287 0.957 1.61416 0.963
1.2 1.95271 1.79108 0.917 1.81803 0.931
l.l 2.26430 1.98657 0.877 2.04170 0.902

N = number of elements; S = number of symmetry planes

* exact solution of Lee and Leal

Table 3. Normalized torque coefficient of a sphere rotating about an axis

perpendicular to a solid plane wall

d
- C* N=180, S=I N=84, S=3
a

CT CT
CT CT
c~ c*

10 1.00013 0.95751 0.957 0.97859 0.978

5 1.00100 0.95829 0.957 0.97942 0.978
3 1.00465 0.96256 0.958 0.98288 0.978
2 1.01593 0.97168 0.956 0.99359 0.978
1.8 1.02203 0.97818 0.957 0.99940 0.978
1.6 1.03184 0.98603 0.956 1.00875 0.978
1.4 1.04893 1.00249 0.956 1.02506 0.977
1.2 1.08322 1.03242 0.953 1.05786 0.977
1.1 1.11707 1.06276 0.951 1.09025 0.976

N = number of elements ; S = number of symmetry planes

* exact solution of Lee and Leal
 266 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)

Table 4. Normalized torque coefficient of a sphere rotating about an axis parallel to

a solid plane wall

d
- C~r N = 176, S= 1 N = 208, S=1
a

CT CT
CT CT
c* c*
10 1.00031 0.96527 0.965 0.96812 0.968
5 1.00251 0.96831 0.966 0.97119 0.969
3 1.01180 0.98056 0.969 0.98355 0.972
2 1.04178 1.01716 0.976 1.02043 0.980
1.8 1.05892 1.03683 0.979 1.04023 0.982
1.6 1.08785 1.06884 0.982 1.07240 0.986
1.4 1.14295 1.12715 0.986 1.13090 0.989
1.2 1.27664 1.25911 0.986 1.26356 0.989
1.1 1.45485 1.42303 0.978 1.42832 0.982

N = number of elements; S = number of symmetry planes

* exact solution of Lee and Leal

Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Australian Research G r a n t Scheme (ARGS). We t h a n k Professor Roger Tanner for his helpful
suggestions.

Appendix

F r o m Eq. (8), we found that the stress tensor and the traction are given by, respectively

(~u~ , 6u'~'~ 2rlV 6u~ 5ij , (A1)

Ui'~k=rl ~Xj *-~X~ ) -t 1--2V aX,
and
Tik = Uijkn j . (A2)
Since u* could be written as:
u ~ = ( u , 3 ) ~ - ( u ~ ).j" * + ( . ~ ) ~

where
, ,'~K
-ijJ = Kelvin solution at X ,

(u*)K*- Kelvin solution at X*

(u*.)~ = extra term .

(AI) and (A2) could be written as:

uijk = (u~jk) K - (u,j0 ~* + (u~jk) ~

and

r,k = (T,0/' - ( T , 0 ~* + (T,0 ~ •

The expressions for (Uijk) K and (Tik)~ are available in literature (see for example [4, 5]) and are
reproduced below :
T. Tran-Congand N. Phan-Thien: Half-space elasticity or Stokes problem with a no-slip boundary 267

(uiS'= 8 (l -v)r 2 (1-2v) GT+ jkT- +3

1 ri
~-ni --ZV)Oik+-~--J •
The expressions for (Uijk)K*and (T/k)* are similarly derived:

(Uijk)K*--8rC(1_v)R 2 (1 --2v) ~3ik~+ jk--~--r3ij +3 R3 _] ,

--1 { ( R~ Rk) [ 3RiRkTR~}
-v)R2 -2v) nk x - n i X + .
The expressions for (Ui~k)~ and (T/k)E are given b y

(U~jk)E-- 4re(1 -- V)R3 ~\3 --4v / 3 ~)k3~ij "-t--~i3~)kj"t- ~j3~ki --4~i3~)j3~k 3

+3 ~3
Rj
X+6j3 26k3 R
R3 --36ka ~RiRj
--t
6v
(3-4v) R
R3 (~ij 26k3 R

3X 3 I6ki Rj ~ Ri (~i3 Rj ~).

+(3-4v)R L ~- ~-+ j3 R '
X3 ,~{'i - 2 v ~ [
(r kT-4 0- R a
( )( R3 ~ ) ) -38ka R~Rmn
RZ m ~(3-4v~
6v R3R ni ( R2gka
3Rk)
+3 ~i3 -R,,,n,.
~ R ~ q - RRi- n3 2~k3 R R -

-+ (3-4v)R 6ki ~ + ~ nk--25k3 8i3 --~---+~ n3

+ R ni 26k3 R R- "

References

Banerjee, P.K.; Butterfield, R. (1981): Boundary element methods in engineering science. London: McGraw-Hill
Blake, J.R. (1971): A note on the image system for a Stokeslet in a no-slip boundary. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 70, 303-310
Brebbia, C.A. ; Telles, J.C.F. ; Wrobel, L.C. (1984): Boundary element techniques theory and applications in engineering.
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer
Brenner, H. (1964): Effect of finite boundaries on the Stokes resistance of an arbitrary particle, part 2: Asymmetrical
orientations. J. Fluid Mech. 18, 144-158
Das, P.C. (1978) : A disc based.block elimination technique used for the solution of non-symmetrical fully populated matrix
system encountered in the boundary element method. In: Brebbia, C.A. (Ed): Recent advances in boundary element
methods. London: Pentech Press 391-404
Ejike, U.B.C.O. (1970) : Boundary effects due to body forces and body couples in the interior of a semi infinite elastic solid. Int.
J. Eng. Sci. 8, 909-924
Fichera, G. (1961): Linear elliptic equations of higher order in two independent variables and singular integral equations, with
applications to anisotropic inhomogeneous elasticity. In: Langer, R.E. (Ed.): Proc. Conf. P.D.E. and Continuum
Mechanics, pp 55-80. Madison, WI, Univ. Wisconsin Press
Hasimoto, H.; Sano, O. (1980): Stokeslets and eddies in creeping flow. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 12, 335-363
Hess, J.L. ; Smith, A.M.O. (/967): Calculation of potential flow about arbitrary bodies. In: Kucheman, D. (Ed.) : Progress in
aeronautical sciences, pp. 1-138. London: Pergamon Press
Lee, S.H. ; Leal, L.G. (1980): Motion of a sphere in the presence of a plane interface, part 2: An exact solution in bipolar
coordinates. J. Fluid Mech. 98, 193-224
Mindlin, R.D. (1936): Force at a point in the interior of a semi-infinite solid. Physics 7, 195-202
Phan-Thien, N. (1983): On the image system for the Kelvin-state. J. Elasticity 13, 231-235
268 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)

Rizzo, F.J. (1967): An integral equation approach to boundary value problems of classical elastostatics. J. Appl. Math. 25,
83-95
Telles, J.C.F. ; Brebbia, C.A. (1981): Boundary element solution for half-plane problems. Int. J. Solids Struct. 17, 1149-1158
Watson, J.O. (1975) : Advanced implementation of the boundary element method for two- and three-dimensional elastostatics.
In: Banerjee, P.K. ; Butterfield, R. (Eds.): Developments in boundary element methods-I, pp. 31-63. London: Applied
Science

Communicated by R. I. Tanner and S. N. Atluri, November 1, 1985