Space–time finite element method with domain reduction techniques for dynamic soil–structure interaction problems

Abstract

Design of earth structures, such as dams, tunnels, and embankments, against the vibrational loading caused by high-speed trains, road traffic, underground explosions, and, more importantly, earthquake motion, demands solutions of the dynamic soil–structure Interaction (SSI) problem. This paper presents a velocity-based space–time finite element procedure, v-ST/finite element method (FEM), to solve dynamic SSI problems. The main goal of this study is to present the computation details of implementing viscous boundary conditions of Lysmer–Kuhlemeyer to truncate the unbounded soil domain. Furthermore, additional time-dependent boundary conditions, in terms of the free-field response, are included to facilitate energy flow from the far field to the computation domain at the vertical truncated boundaries. In the FEM, seismic input motion is applied to an effective nodal force vector, which can be obtained explicitly in the numerical simulations. Finally, the response of a concrete gravity dam resting on an elastic half-space to the horizontal component of earthquake motion is computed and successfully compared with the results of semidiscrete FEM using the Newmark-β method.

Keywords

absorbing boundary / domain reduction / FEM / soil–structure interactions / space–time

References

[1] Fiamingo A, Bosco M, Massimino MR. The role of soil in structure response of a building damaged by the 26 December 2018 earthquake in Italy. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2023;15(4):937-953.

[2] Abate G, Fiamingo A, Massimino MR. An eco-sustainable innovative geotechnical technology for the structures seismic isolation, investigated by FEM parametric analyses. Bull Earthquake Eng. 2023;21(10):4851-4875.

[3] Pistolas G, Pitilakis K, Anastasiadis A. A numerical investigation on the seismic isolation potential of rubber/soil mixtures. Earthquake Eng Eng Vib. 2020;19(3):683-704.

[4] Abate G, Bramante S, Massimino MR. Innovative seismic microzonation maps of urban areas for the management of building heritage: a catania case study. Geosciences. 2020;10(12):480.

[5] Wolf JP, Song C. Finite-Element Modelling of Unbounded Media. Wiley;1996.

[6] Burman A, Nayak P, Agrawal P, Maity D. Coupled gravity damfoundation analysis using a simplified direct method of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 2012;34(1):62-68.

[7] Kausel E. Early history of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 2010;30(9):822-832.

[8] Arnold R, Bycroft G, Warburton G. Forced vibrations of a body on an infinite elastic solid. ASME J Appl Mech. 1955;77:391-401.

[9] Bycroft G. Forced vibrations of a rigid circular plate on a semi-infinite elastic space and on an elastic stratum. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A. 1956;248(948):327-368.

[10] Richardson J, Webster J, Warburton G. The response on the surface of an elastic half-space near to a harmonically excited mass. J Sound Vib. 1971;14(3):307-316.

[11] Warburton G, Richardson J, Webster J. Forced vibrations of two masses on an elastic half space. J Appl Mech. 1971;38(1):148-156.

[12] Luco JE, Contesse L. Dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1973;63(4):1289-1303.

[13] Trifunac M. Interaction of a shear wall with the soil for incident plane SH waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1972;62(1):63-83.

[14] Wong H, Trifunac M. Interaction of a shear wall with the soil for incident plane SH waves: elliptical rigid foundation. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1974;64(6):1825-1842.

[15] Saito H, Wada H. Forced vibrations of a mass connected to an elastic half-space by an elastic rod or a spring. J Sound Vib. 1977;50(4):519-532.

[16] Touhei T, Ohmachi T. A FE–BE method for dynamic analysis of dam–foundation–reservoir systems in the time domain. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1993;22(3):195-209.

[17] Yazdchi M, Khalili N, Valliappan S. Dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis via coupled finite-element-boundary-element method. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 1999;18(7):499-517.

[18] Chuhan Z, Feng J, Pekau O. Time domain procedure of FE-BE-IBE coupling for seismic interaction of arch dams and canyons. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1995;24(12):1651-1666.

[19] Bettess P. Infinite elements. Int J Num Methods Eng. 1977;11(1):53-64.

[20] Medina F, Penzien J. Infinite elements for elastodynamics. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1982;10(5):699-709.

[21] Valliappan S, Zhao C. Dynamic response of concrete gravity dams including dam-water-foundation interaction. Int J Num Anal Methods Geomech. 1992;16(2):79-99.

[22] Zhao C, Valliappan S, Wang Y. A numerical model for wave scattering problems in infinite media due to p-and sv-wave incidences. Int J Num Methods Eng. 1992;33(8):1661-1682.

[23] Sharma V, Fujisawa K, Murakami A. Velocity-based time-discontinuous galerkin space-time finite element method for elastodynamics. Soils Foundations. 2018;58(2):491-510.

[24] Sharma V, Fujisawa K, Murakami A. Space-time finite element procedure with block-iterative algorithm for dam-reservoir-soil interaction during earthquake loading. Int J Num Method Eng. 2019;120(3):263-282.

[25] Sharma V, Fujisawa K, Murakami A. Space–time FEM with block-iterative algorithm for nonlinear dynamic fracture analysis of concrete gravity dam. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 2020;131:105995.

[26] Hughes TJ. Analysis of transient algorithms with particular reference to stability behavior. Computational Methods for Transient Analysis (A 84-29160 12-64). North-Holland;1983:67-155.

[27] Newmark NM. A method of computation for structural dynamics. J Eng Mech Div. 1959;85(3):67-94.

[28] Hilber HM, Hughes TJ, Taylor RL. Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1977;5(3):283-292.

[29] Houbolt JC. A recurrence matrix solution for the dynamic response of elastic aircraft. J Aeronaut Sci. 1950;17(9):540-550.

[30] Bathe KJ, Wilson EL. Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis. Prentice-Hall;1976.

[31] Hughes TJ, Hulbert GM. Space-time finite element methods for elastodynamics: formulations and error estimates. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 1988;66(3):339-363.

[32] Hulbert GM. Time finite element methods for structural dynamics. Int J Num Methods Eng. 1992;33(2):307-331.

[33] Bonelli A, Bursi O, Mancuso M. Explicit predictor-multicorrector time discontinuous galerkin methods for linear dynamics. J Sound Vib. 2001;246(4):625-652.

[34] Bonelli A, Bursi O, Mancuso M. Explicit predictor-multicorrector time discontinuous galerkin methods for non-linear dynamics. J Sound Vib. 2002;256(4):695-724.

[35] Li X, Wiberg NE. Implementation and adaptivity of a space-time finite element method for structural dynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 1998;156(1-4):211-229.

[36] Wiberg NE, Li X. Adaptive finite element procedures for linear and nonlinear dynamics. Int J Num Methods Eng. 1999;46(10):1781-1802.

[37] Bursi OS, Mancuso M. Analysis and performance of a predictormulticorrector time discontinuous galerkin method in non-linear elastodynamics. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2002;31(10):1793-1814.

[38] Mancuso M, Ubertini F. An efficient integration procedure for linear dynamics based on a time discontinuous Galerkin formulation. Computat Mech. 2003;32(3):154-168.

[39] Chien CC, Wu TY. An improved predictor/multi-corrector algorithm for a time-discontinuous galerkin finite element method in structural dynamics. Computat Mech. 2000;25(5):430-437.

[40] Mancuso M, Ubertini F. An efficient time discontinuous galerkin procedure for non-linear structural dynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2006;195(44-47):6391-6406.

[41] Chen Z, Steeb H, Diebels S. A new hybrid velocity integration method applied to elastic wave propagation. Int J Num Methods Eng. 2008;74(1):56-79.

[42] Chen Z, Steeb H, Diebels S. A EVI-space-time galerkin method for dynamics at finite deformation in porous media. Computat Mech. 2009;43(5):585-601.

[43] Løkke A, Chopra AK. Direct finite element method for nonlinear analysis of semi-unbounded dam-water-foundation rock systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2017;46(8):1267-1285.

[44] Miura F, Okinaka H. Dynamic analysis method for 3-D soil-structure interaction systems with the viscous boundary based on the principle of virtual work. Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu. 1989;1989(404):395-404.

[45] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div. 1969;95(4):859-878.

[46] Engquist B, Majda A. Absorbing boundary conditions for the numerical simulation of waves. Math Comput. 1977;31(139):629.

[47] Clayton RW, Egquist B. Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1977;67:1529-1540.

[48] Clayton RW, Engquist B. Absorbing boundary conditions for waveequation. Geophysics. 1980;45(5):895-904.

[49] Cohen M. Silent boundary methods for transient wave analysis. PhD thesis. California Institute of Technology, 1980.

[50] Cohen M, Hughes T, Jennings P. Comparison of paraxial and viscous silent boundary methods in finite element analysis. Vol 44. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Applied Mechanics Division, AMD;1981.

[51] Cohen M, Jennings PC. Silent boundary methods for transient Analysis. In: Computational Methods for Transient Analysis. Vol 1. North-Holland;1983:301-360. Computational Methods in Mechanics.

[52] Stacey R. Improved transparent boundary formulations for the elastic-wave equation. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1988;78(6):2089-2097.

[53] Higdon RL. Absorbing boundary conditions for difference approximations to the multidimensional wave equation. Math Comput. 1986;47(176):437.

[54] Higdon RL. Numerical absorbing boundary conditions for the wave equation. Math Computat. 1987;49(179):65.

[55] Higdon RL. Radiation boundary conditions for dispersive waves. SIAM J Num Anal. 1994;31(1):64-100.

[56] Higdon RL. Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic waves in stratified media. J Computat Phys. 1992;101(2):386-418.

[57] Higdon RL. Radiation boundary conditions for elastic wave propagation. SIAM J Num Anal. 1990;27(4):831-869.

[58] Higdon RL. Absorbing boundary conditions for elastic waves. Geophysics. 1991;56(2):231.

[59] Underwood P, Geers TL. Doubly asymptotic, boundary-element analysis of dynamic soil-structure interaction. Int J Solids Struct. 1981;17(7):687-697.

[60] Wolf JP, Song C. Doubly asymptotic multi-directional transmitting boundary for dynamic unbounded medium-structure-interaction analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1995;24(2):175-188.

[61] Bayliss A, Turkel E. Radiation boundary conditions for wave-like equations. Commun Pure Appl Math. 1980;33(6):707-725.

[62] Hagstrom T, Hariharan S. A formulation of asymptotic and exact boundary conditions using local operators. Appl Num Math. 1998;27(4):403-416.

[63] Givoli D. High-order nonreflecting boundary conditions without high-order derivatives. J Comput Phys. 2001;170(2):849-870.

[64] Givoli D, Neta B. High-order non-reflecting boundary scheme for time-dependent waves. J Comput Phys. 2003;186(1):24-26.

[65] Givoli D, Neta B, Patlashenko I. Finite element analysis of time-dependent semi-infinite wave-guides with high-order boundary treatment. Int J Num Methods Eng. 2003;58(13):1955-1983.

[66] Joolen VJ, Neta B, Givoli D. High-order higdon-like boundary conditions for exterior transient wave problems. Int J Num Methods Eng. 2005;63(7):1041-1068.

[67] Hagstrom T, Warburton T. A new auxiliary variable formulation of high-order local radiation boundary conditions: corner compatibility conditions and extensions to first-order systems. Wave Motion. 2004;39(4):327-338.

[68] Givoli D, Hagstrom T, Patlashenko I. Finite element formulation with high-order absorbing boundary conditions for time-dependent waves. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2006;195(29-32):3666-3690.

[69] Hagstrom T, Mar-Or A, Givoli D. High-order local absorbing conditions for the wave equation: extensions and improvements. J Comput Phys. 2008;227(6):3322-3357.

[70] Rabinovich D, Givoli D, Bielak J, Hagstrom T. A finite element scheme with a high order absorbing boundary condition for elastodynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2011;200(23-24):2048-2066.

[71] Baffet D, Bielak J, Givoli D, Hagstrom T, Rabinovich D. Long-time stable high-order absorbing boundary conditions for elastodynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2012;241-244:20-37.

[72] Samii A, Lotfi V. Application of H-W boundary condition in damreservoir interaction problem. Finite Elements Anal Design. 2012;50:86-97.

[73] Samii A, Lotfi V. A high-order based boundary condition for dynamic analysis of infinite reservoirs. Comput Struct. 2013;120:65-76.

[74] Liu J, Du Y, Du X, Wang Z, Wu J. 3D viscous-spring artificial boundary in time domain. Earthquake Eng Eng Vib. 2006;5(1):93-102.

[75] Bao X, Liu JB, Li ST, Wang F. A new viscoelastic artificial boundary with improved numerical stability in explicit calculation of wave propagation problems in infinite domains. Comput Geotech. 2022;145:104698.

[76] Hastings FD, Schneider JB, Broschat SL. Application of the perfectly matched layer (PML) absorbing boundary condition to elastic wave propagation. J Acous Soc Am. 1996;100(5):3061-3069.

[77] Poul MK, Zerva A. Comparative evaluation of foundation modeling for SSI analyses using two different ABC approaches: applications to dams. Eng Struct. 2019;200:109725.

[78] Zhao C. Dynamic and Transient Infinite Elements. Advances in Geophysical and Environmental Mechanics and Mathematics. Springer;2009.

[79] Zienkiewicz O, Bicanic N, Shen F. Earthquake input definition and the trasmitting boundary conditions. In: Advances in Computational Nonlinear Mechanics. Springer;1989:109-138.

[80] Saouma V, Miura F, Lebon G, Yagome Y. A simplified 3D model for soil-structure interaction with radiation damping and free field input. Bull Earthquake Eng. 2011;9(5):1387-1402.

[81] Nielsen AH. Absorbing boundary conditions for seismic analysis in ABAQUS. 2006 ABAQUS Users’Conference;2006:359-376.

[82] Zhang Y, Yang Z, Bielak J, Conte JP, Elgamal A. Treatment of seismic input and boundary conditions in nonlinear seismic analysis of a bridge ground system. In: Proceedings of the 16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference;2003:1-11.

[83] Liu J, Tan H, Bao X, Wang D, Li S. Seismic wave input method for three-dimensional soil-structure dynamic interaction analysis based on the substructure of artificial boundaries. Earthquake Eng Eng Vib. 2019;18(4):747-758.

[84] Liu J, Bao X, Wang D, Tan H, Li S. The internal substructure method for seismic wave input in 3D dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 2019;127:105847.

[85] Kramer S. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Always Learning. Pearson;2014.

[86] Bielak J, Christiano P. On the effective seismic input for non-linear soil-structure interaction systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1984;12(1):107-119.

[87] Tomeo R, Pitilakis D, Bilotta A, Nigro E. SSI effects on seismic demand of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. Eng Struct. 2018;173:559-572.

[88] Petridis C, Pitilakis D. Fragility curve modifiers for reinforced concrete dual buildings, including nonlinear site effects and soil–structure interaction. Earthquake Spectra. 2020;36(4):1930-1951.

[89] Zhang G, Zhang JM. Numerical modeling of soil-structure interface of a concrete-faced rockfill dam. Comput Geotech. 2009;36(5):762-772.

[90] Ouzandja D, Tiliouine B. Effects of dam-foundation contact conditions on seismic performance of concrete gravity dams. Arab J Sci Eng. 2015;40:3047-3056.

[91] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The Finite Element Method for Solid and Structural Mechanics. Elsevier;2005.

[92] Zhang S. GPBi-CG: generalized product-type methods based on Bi-CG for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM J Scientific Comput. 1997;18(2):537-551.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Authors. International Journal of Mechanical System Dynamics published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Nanjing University of Science and Technology.