Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 88 (2016) 207–214

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Finite element simulations of wave propagation in soils

using a Viscoelastic model
Z. Cheng, E.C. Leong n
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Wave propagation in soil is dependent on both the stiffness and the material damping of the soil. While
Received 28 May 2014 some researchers have performed finite element modelling of resonant column tests and wave propa-
Received in revised form gation in soil, most do not describe the methodology in detail and there is little or no verification of the
31 May 2016
correctness of the model. Viscoelastic model has been used to model wave propagation in soil. However,
Accepted 14 June 2016
Available online 28 June 2016
the determination of the parameters in the viscoelastic model is complicated and the parameters may
not be related to the soil properties. This paper presents a simplified viscoelastic model with soil
Keywords: parameters obtainable from advanced geotechnical testing to simulate wave propagation in soil medium
Viscoelastic taking into account of material damping. The viscoelastic material model was first calibrated by re-
Resonant column
plicating torsional, longitudinal and flexural modes resonant column tests. The relationships between the
Stiffness
parameters of the simplified viscoelastic model and their corresponding stiffness and damping proper-
Material damping
Finite element ties were investigated. An equation was proposed to correlate the decay constant used in the simplified
viscoelastic model and the material damping ratio obtained through the application of the logarithmic
decrement method on the modelled resonant column test results. The simplified viscoelastic model was
then evaluated by modelling wave propagation in a semi-infinite medium. Results indicated that the
viscoelastic model with parameters as proposed in this paper is able to model wave propagation in soils.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Dynamic testing of soil in the laboratory to obtain small-strain
soil modulus and damping ratio has been facilitated by the ad-
vancement of test methods and the increasing need to design for
more challenging situations such as earthquake, wave and impact
loading. In such design situations, strength is not the only con-
sideration as one would also have to consider the effects of the
propagating wave. However, numerical modelling of dynamic be-
havior of soil is not as extensive as experimental tests. Karl et al.
[1,2] determined numerically the natural frequency of soil speci-
men in resonant column test under different modes of vibration
using ABAQUS. The numerical study, however, did not address the
issue of material damping and did not describe the type of ma-
terial model used. Arroyo et al. [3–5] and Rio [6] employed a mass
proportional damping model in FLAC3D to model wave propaga-
tion in soil during bender element tests but did not provide any
validation. Finally, Hardy et al. [7] modelled bender element tests
in a triaxial specimen using Fourier Series Aided Finite Element
n
Correspondence to: School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological University, Blk N1, 50 Nanyang Avenue, 639798 Singapore, Singapore.
E-mail address: cecleong@ntu.edu.sg (E.C. Leong).
Method but no mention was made if damping was used in the
model.
In other cases, the viscoelastic model has been employed to
investigate dynamic response and wave propagation in soil [8–12].
While the formulation of the viscoelastic model is well docu-
mented in the literature, they contain lengthy and complicated
differential equations with parameters which prove challenging to
obtain and apply.
Hayner [13], Spanos and Tsavachidis [14] and Lee et al. [15]
used viscoelastic models with complicated configurations of
rheological elements (springs and dashpots) to simulate wave
propagation in soil. However, usage of such elements meant that
numerous input parameters corresponding to the rheological
elements have to be obtained either experimentally or numerically
by using Monte Carlo simulations. To obtain the parameters for the
rheological elements experimentally requires specialized appara-
tus and techniques (e.g. Dynamic Mechanical Analysis) to obtain
the strain response of the soil to an applied sinusoidal loading. To
obtain the parameters for the rheological elements numerically
requires considerable effort to calibrate the numerous unknown
input parameters with known response of the soil. However,
treating the viscoelastic model as a “black box” fails to promote
understanding of the viscoelastic model. In some cases, the values
of the parameters derived from such “curve-fitting” methods

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.06.005
0267-7261/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
208 Z. Cheng, E.C. Leong / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 88 (2016) 207–214
Fig. 1. Graphical representation of (a) Kelvin–Voigt model, (b) Maxwell model, (c) Biot hysteretic model, and (d) Standard Linear Solid or Zener model.
might not be unique leading to unreasonable soil parameters used
for modelling.
Thus, the objective of this study aims to provide better un-
derstanding of the viscoelastic model which is frequently used to
model wave propagation in soil. As such, the viscoelastic model
was reviewed. A simplified viscoelastic model calibrated with soil
parameters obtained from advanced geotechnical testing was in-
troduced. Calibration was conducted by modelling the resonant
column test as both small-strain stiffness and material damping
ratio are commonly obtained from the test. These two parameters
govern the response of wave propagation. Natural frequencies for
different vibration modes (torsional, flexural and longitudinal)
were validated with those derived from well-established analytical
solutions. Material damping ratio derived from the application of
the logarithmic decrement method [16] was compared with the
input parameters of the simplified viscoelastic model. The study
will also investigate the relationship between the parameters of
the simplified viscoelastic model and the stiffness and the
damping responses. Correlations with strong theoretical basis
were proposed so that the viscoelastic model can be easily em-
ployed. Further verification was conducted by modelling wave
propagation in a semi-infinite medium with different damping
ratios.
2. Viscoelastic model
The difference between elastic and viscoelastic materials cen-
ters on their behavior when subjected to vibratory motion. As-
suming that a sinusoidal deformation is applied to a specimen, the
corresponding strain (γ) can be described using Eq. (1a). If the
material is elastic, the strain and stress will be in phase. However,
a viscoelastic material will experience a phase lag in its resulting
stress (τ) as described in Eq. (1b).
γ = γo eiωt
τ = τo ei (ωt + φ)
where γo is the amplitude of the sinusoidal strain, τo is the am-
plitude of the sinusoidal stress, ϕ is the phase difference between
them, ω is the circular frequency and t is the time.
The corresponding shear stiffness can be expressed in terms of
the dynamic complex shear modulus as shown in Eq. (2):
τo
G* = ( cos φ + i cos φ) = G′ + iG′′
γo (2)
where G* is the complex shear modulus, G′ is the elastic (or sto-
rage) modulus which measures the ability of the material to store
energy and G′′ is the loss (or viscous) modulus which measures the
ability of the material to dissipate energy and i is the imaginary
number ( ¼ −1 ).
Ratio of the loss modulus and elastic modulus gives the loss
factor η which is related to the damping ratio ξ as given below:
G′′
η= = tan φ = 2ξ
G′ (3)
Viscoelastic material exhibits volume change due to loading
(elasticity) and time (viscosity) i.e., deformation is time depen-
dent. Phenomenon of viscoelastic materials includes creep (or
retardation) and relaxation, which is described mathematically
with the help of constitutive models. These models are described
figuratively using different combinations of springs and dashpots.
Examples of these models include the Kelvin–Voigt, Maxwell and
Standard Linear Solid models which will be illustrated in greater
detail subsequently.
The Kelvin–Voigt model shown in Fig. 1(a) is used to describe
the creep effect. The dashpot which is connected in parallel with
the spring prevents the spring from reacting immediately to the
applied force [17]. Simply explained, the dashpot provides the
delay in deformation upon application of stress [18]. The de-
formation in the Kelvin–Voigt model is represented by [19]:
τt
γt = (1 − e−t / Tc )
G (4)
(1a)
where τt and γt are the shear stress and strain at the time t, G is
the shear modulus and Tc is the retardation time.
The Maxwell model shown in Fig. 1(b) is used to describe the
(1b) relaxation effect. Relaxation is characteristised by the gradual
 Z. Cheng, E.C. Leong / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 88 (2016) 207–214
decrease in stress when the material is subjected to deformation
[18]. In this case, the dashpot can be seen to be gradually relaxed
upon the application of a sudden deformation. The stress invoked
in the spring will therefore decrease slowly, hence the term re-
laxation. The change in stress with time in the Maxwell model is
represented by [19]:
(
τt = Gγo e−t / Tr ) (5)
where γo is the initial shear strain and Tr is the relaxation time.
Expression for retardation and relaxation time is shown in Eq.
(6). While both Tr and Tc is represented by the same equation, they
differ in physical meaning and value [18] through the viscosity
coefficient η̂ :
ηˆ
T=
G (6)
where T can be either retardation or relaxation time and η̂ is the
viscosity coefficient of the dashpot.
Compared to the Kelvin–Voigt model which models the creep
effect, the Maxwell model is more suited to model damping in soil
[15,20]. In most cases, the Biot hysteretic model (Fig. 1(c)) is em-
ployed to handle more complex dynamic soil behavior [21]. The
Biot hysteretic model consists of a spring element in parallel with
an infinite number of Maxwell models in parallel connection. The
model can be expressed mathematically using Eq. (7).
N
G (t ) = G∞ + ∑ Gi e−t / Tri
i=1
where G(t) is the shear modulus at time t, G1 is the long term or
infinite shear modulus, Gi and Tri are the shear modulus and the
relaxation time of the ith Maxwell model placed in parallel
connection.
The second term of Eq. (7) is known as the Prony series [17,22]
and shares a similar expression as the Maxwell model shown by
Eq. (5). The Prony series dictates the decrease in shear modulus
with time. Upon total relaxation, the Biot hysteretic model will be
left with the long term shear modulus (G1). However, the large
number of rheological elements present will mean that consider-
able effort have to be undertaken to calibrate the model. This can
be done experimentally using a Dynamic Mechanical Analyzer
(DMA) or by calibrating with known data.
The DMA is used to characterize viscoelastic behavior in ma-
terial by recording the response of the material subjected to si-
nusoidal stress so that the complex modulus can be determined
[23]. However, the apparatus is not readily available in most
geotechnical testing laboratories. Calibration of the parameters
with Monte Carlo simulation and other optimization algorithm
will also take significant effort and time [13–15]. Hence, there is a
need for a simplified model where parameters can be obtained
from accessible laboratory tests.
Biesen [24], Hu et al. [25] and Smith and Duris [26] used a
model simplified from the Biot hysteretic model as shown in Fig. 1
(d) otherwise known as the Standard Linear Solid or Zener model.
This model is available in the finite element program LS-DYNA.
The time dependent shear modulus [27] is given by:
G (t ) = G∞ + ( Go − G∞ ) e−βt
where Go is the instantaneous or short term shear modulus and β
is the decay constant corresponding to the inverse of the relaxa-
tion time.
The input parameters for the viscoelastic material model are
bulk modulus (K), bulk density (ρ), Go, G1 and β. Small-strain bulk
and shear moduli (Kmax and Gmax) can be obtained from advanced
geotechnical laboratory tests like the bender element, cyclic
209
triaxial and resonant column tests. However, neither the combi-
nation of Go and G1 with Gmax nor the correlation of β with
damping ratio were mentioned in the literature [24–26]. The paper
therefore aims to fill this gap in knowledge by investigating the
relationship between the above-mentioned parameters and pro-
vides correlations that can be used for the viscoelastic model.
3. Input Parameters for LS-DYNA
In this paper, the finite element program LS-DYNA [27] was
used to model the resonant column test on a soil specimen under
different excitation modes. LS-DYNA was chosen as it is able to
perform highly non-linear, transient dynamic analysis using ex-
plicit and implicit time integration. The explicit approach involves
using the central difference method to march forward in time to
solve transient dynamic problem. The implicit approach, on the
other hand, is used to solve static, low strain rate problems and to
extract the corresponding eigenvalue (resonant frequency) and
eigenvector (mode shape). The implicit approach, however, uses
much more memory compared to the explicit approach. The si-
mulations were run on a 64 bit CPU equipped with Intel Processor
of i7-3610QM and 8GB of RAM. The implicit and explicit ap-
proaches take about 15 and 60 min, respectively.
Implicit eigenvalue analysis was used to obtain the funda-
mental frequencies for the various vibration modes (flexural, tor-
sional and longitudinal). The fundamental frequency for each vi-
bration mode was then used to derive the decay constant (β) for
(7)
use in the explicit time integration. Explicit time integration was
used to obtain the amplitude decay in the time domain upon
reaching steady state so that material damping ratio can be de-
rived from the logarithmic decrement method.
Before damping can be studied using the Zener model, the
input parameters (K, ρ, Go, G1 and β) need to be correlated to the
actual parameters (Kmax, ρ, Gmax and ξ). Due to the mismatch in
the number of parameters available, Gmax is assumed to be Go and
G1 ¼0, thereby reducing the Zener model to a Maxwell model.
From which, the correlation between parameters can be obtained
by reconciling the constitutive model to resemble Eq. (2):
In the Maxwell model, the stress in both the spring and
dashpot is similar. Total deformation is therefore the summation of
strains which is given as:
dγ 1 dτ τ
= +
dt G dt ηˆ (9)
Substituting Eqs. (1a) and (1b) into Eq. (9),
1 1
(iω) γo ei (ωt ) = (iω) τo ei (ωt + φ) + τo ei (ωt + φ)
G ηˆ (10)
Dividing by γo ei (ωt ) throughout gives
iω 1 ⎡ iωηˆ + G ⎤
iω = G* + G* = G* ⎢ ⎥
G ηˆ ⎣ Gηˆ ⎦
⎡ iωGηˆ ⎤
G* = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ iωηˆ + G ⎦ (11)
(8) ⎡ iωηˆ −G ⎤
Multiplying by ⎣ iωηˆ −G ⎦ on both sides of Eq. (11) results in
ω2Gηˆ2 ωG2ηˆ
G* = G′ + iG" = +i 2 2
ω2ηˆ2 +G 2 ω ηˆ + G2 (12)
The above equations allowed the dynamic complex shear
modulus to be expressed in terms of the constitutive model
parameters. By substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (3) and simplifying
with the help of Eq. (6), the correlation between β and ξ was
210 Z. Cheng, E.C. Leong / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 88 (2016) 207–214

derived and is shown in Eq. (13): Table 1

Soil parameters used for simulation.

Density, ρ 1783 kg/m3

G Bulk Modulus, K 80.88 MPa
β= = 2ξω Instantaneous shear modulus, Go 39.499 MPa
ηˆ (13) Long term shear modulus, G1 0 MPa

The Zener model will be investigated subsequently by allowing

G1 to be a fixed proportion of Gmax while keeping the other
parameters (Go, K, ρ and β) constant. Its effect on the damping
3EI
ratio was monitored so as to develop proper correlations. ω=
L3 ⎡⎣ 140 m + ∑i = 1 mi h (h0i , h1i ) ⎤⎦
33 N
(14a)

4. Verification of finite element model of resonant column test

(h0i + h1i ) 9
h (h0i , h1i ) = 1 + 3 + (h0i2 + 2h0i h1i + h1i2)
Resonant column tests with specimens of diameter 50 mm and 2L 16L2 (14b)
length to diameter (L/D) ratios of 2 and 3 were modelled. The finite where I is the area moment of inertia, m is the mass of the specimen,
element model of a typical resonant column is shown in Fig. 2. It mi is the total mass of the ith attached mass, h0 and h1 are the height
consists of 152600 solid elements. The bottom boundary was of the bottom and top of the attached mass measured from the top of
fixed. Soil properties used are tabulated in Table 1. The dimensions specimen and L is the height of the specimen. The attached masses
and masses of the platen and driving mechanisms (Table 2) used are assumed to have uniform cross section and density.
were from Kumar and Madhusudhan [28]. The top cap was mod- Natural frequency for longitudinal mode vibration is shown in
elled as a rigid body (MAT_RIGID in LS-DYNA) while the soil Eq. (15) [30]:
specimen was modelled using a viscoelastic material (MAT_VIS-
COELASTIC in LS-DYNA). AE
ω=
Resonant frequencies at different vibrational modes were used ⎡
L ⎣ m1 +
m⎤
3⎦ (15)
to calculate the corresponding material stiffness for verification
purposes. where A is the cross-sectional area.
Young's modulus was verified by comparing the resonant fre- The shear modulus was verified by comparing the natural fre-
quency of the cylindrical soil model in both flexural and long- quency in torsional mode with the analytical solution Eq. (16)
itudinal vibrational modes with analytical solutions. Analytical obtained from Harris and Piersol [30]:
solutions for flexural modes were derived from Cascante et al. [29] KT
in Eq. (14): ω= N
∑i = 1 Jr, i + Jr, s /3 (16a)

πGD4
KT =
32L (16b)

where Jr,i is the polar moment of inertia of the ith attached units,
1
Jr,s is the polar moment of inertia of the specimen given by 2 mr 2, D
is the diameter of the specimen and r is the radius of the
specimen.
The damping ratio ξ was computed from decaying amplitudes
using the logarithmic decrement method (LDM) described in
ASTM 4015-07 [16]:

δ2
ξ=
4π 2 + δ 2 (17a)

⎛ A ⎞1
δ = ln ⎜ i ⎟
⎝ Ai + N ⎠ N (17b)

where δ is the logarithmic decrement, Ai is the peak amplitude at

Fig. 2. Finite element model of a typical resonant column test.
the ith cycle and Ai þ N is the amplitude at (i þN)th cycle.
A shorter specimen (30 mm) consisting of 14400 solid ele-
ments was used when verifying the viscoelastic model for
damping capabilities (Fig. 3). This was done to increase the fun-
damental frequency at the various modes thereby reducing the
time required for explicit time integration. Parameters for the
numerical simulations are summarized in Table 1. The flexural,
torsional and longitudinal fundamental frequencies were first
obtained using implicit time integration. The model was then
excited using ten sinusoidal pulses at the respective fundamental
frequency such that steady state was reached. Frequency of
 Z. Cheng, E.C. Leong / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 88 (2016) 207–214 211

Table 3
Comparison of natural frequency obtained from both LS-DYNA and analytical
solution.

L/D¼ 2

Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Difference (%)

LS-DYNA Analytical

Flexural 25.18 26.58 5.28

Torsional 131.71 132.19 0.36
Longitudinal 214.48 212.33  1.01

L/D ¼3

Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Difference (%)

LS-DYNA Analytical

Flexural 16.26 16.75 2.93

Torsional 104.74 105.24 0.48
Longitudinal 169.88 169.03  0.50

from the finite element simulations and analytical solutions are

Fig. 3. Finite element model with nodes examined for amplitude decay.
vibration corresponds to the natural frequency at the respective
modes. When excitation ceases, the amplitude decay was monitored
at three different points (top, middle and bottom) on the specimen
(Fig. 3). Displacements along the y-axis, xy-plane and z-axis were
monitored for the flexural, torsional and longitudinal modes of vi-
bration, respectively. Decay constant corresponding to damping ratio
of 2%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 10%, 15% and 20% were input into the viscoelastic
model using Eq. (13). The Maxwell material model was employed as
described in the previous section. The LDM was used to investigate
the extent of deviation from the input damping ratio.
The input parameters (G1 and Go) were varied to investigate its
effect on the model response. Long term shear modulus G1 is
expressed as a fraction of the instantaneous shear modulus Go and
used for further analysis. The above serves to expand the analysis
from the Maxwell model to the Zener model. Relationship of G∞ is
Go
henceforth named the shear modulus ratio (GR). G1 correspond-
ing to a GR of 0, 0.2 and 0.4 were input into the
viscoelastic model. Two cases were considered in order to study
the effects on the amplitude decay and stiffness by changing GR.
The first case involves changing the value of Go such that the
summation of Go and G1 equals to Gmax. The second case involves
keeping Go constant at Gmax which changing G1 according to the
abovementioned GR.
4.1. Stiffness
Numerical simulations showed that the natural frequency is
only a function of the stiffness parameters, Go and K, and is in-
dependent of the decay constant (β) and G1. Natural frequencies
Table 2
Properties of attached mechanisms.
Unit description Mass (g) Dimensions (mm  mm) diameter  height
Top cap attachment 25.91 50  5
Top cap 271.26 50  52.5
Drive mechanism 710.39 50  9.99
compared in Table 3. The comparison showed that the viscoelastic
model was able to model the resonant column test accurately.
Maximum discrepancy of the finite element simulations from
analytical solutions was only about 5%. The larger discrepancies
occurred in the flexural mode because the analytical solution
provided by Cascante et al. [29] did not account for the effects of
rotary motion and shearing force otherwise known as the Ti-
moshenko beam effect [31]. The Timoshenko beam effect was
more evident for stocky specimens. Therefore, the discrepancy in
the natural frequency decreases when the L/D ratio of the speci-
men increased from 2 to 3. Differences in resonant frequencies
between the finite element simulations and the analytical solu-
tions were small for both torsional and longitudinal modes.
The instantaneous shear modulus (Go) was shown to determine
the resonant frequency and hence, the stiffness of the specimen
directly. The long term shear modulus (G1) only changes the
damping ratio of the material model. Relationship of G1 with ξ is
elaborated in greater details later. The above implies that Go
should be Gmax.
4.2. Damping ratio
Material damping ratio is obtained from the amplitude decay of
three nodes situated at the top, middle and bottom portion of the
specimen. A typical nodal displacement and logarithmic decre-
ment plot is shown in Fig. 4. A comparison of the output and input
damping ratios for the three mode of vibration is shown in Fig. 5.
Both the flexural and longitudinal modes gave lower output
damping ratios compared to the input damping ratios. The tor-
sional mode was shown to best reproduce the input damping ra-
tio. This could be due to the inadequacy of the Prony series in
estimating the relationship between G′ and G″. Furthermore, the
lack of a relaxation time parameter relating to the bulk modulus
(K) may also be a contributing factor. In order to correct for such a
limitation, the simulation was re-ran at 1.1 and 1.2 times of the β
value derived from Eq. (13) and shown in Fig. 6. All results shown
in Fig. 6 were for GR¼ 0. The increases in β were shown to bring
the output damping ratio closer to input damping ratio for the
flexural and longitudinal modes. The output damping ratio in the
torsional mode was shown to be minimally affected by the in-
creased decay constant β.
While the correlation in Fig. 6 suggests that 1.2β can be used in
the finite element model, a more convenient correlation could be
derived such that β can be obtained by inputting the desired
212 Z. Cheng, E.C. Leong / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 88 (2016) 207–214

0.1 0.25
(a)

Output Damping Ratio

Displacement (mm)

0.2
0.05

0.15
0
0.1
-0.05 Flex
0.05 Flex-1.1β-GR0
-0.1 Flex-1.2β-GR0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Time (ms) (a) Input Damping Ratio
(b) 0
0.25
-1
ln (Displacement)

Output Damping Ratio

-2 0.2
ln(A) = -0.622n - 2.4721
-3 R2 = 0.9966
0.15
-4
-5 0.1
-6 Tor
0.05 Tor-1.1β-GR0
-7
0 2 4 6 8 Tor-1.2β-GR0
0
Cycle No. (n)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Fig. 4. (a) Time domain signal when input damping ratio is 10% and (b) the cor-
(b)
Input Damping Ratio
responding logarithmic decrement plot.
0.25
0.25
Output Damping Ratio

0.2
Output Damping Ratio

0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
Long
0.1
Flex 0.05 Long-1.1β-GR0
0.05 Tor Long-1.2β-GR0
0
Long 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 (c)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Input Damping Ratio
Input Damping Ratio Fig. 6. Damping ratio obtained from LDM when excited in the (a) flexural
(b) torsional, and (c) longitudinal mode.
Fig. 5. Comparison of output and input damping ratios for flexure, torsional and
longitudinal modes of resonant column test.

damping ratio. From Eq. (13), the damping ratio was observed to
be a function of β . Results from Fig. 6 were then re-plotted to- 0.25
ω
gether to give Fig. 7. Contrary to the data presented in Fig. 6, Fig. 7 1.0β
shows that the damping ratio is independent of β . Results are 0.2 1.1β
ω
shown to have a scatter of 7 20% about the best-fit line (Eq. (18))
Damping Ratio

thereby suggesting that the following equation can be used to 0.15 1.2β
relate the damping ratios to β regardless of the vibration mode.
0.1

β 0.05
ξ = 0.4249 for GR=0
ω (18)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
β/ω
5. Wave propagation in a semi-infinite medium
Fig. 7. Variation of damping ratio with β/ω for GR ¼ 0.

Eq. (18) is only applicable to the Maxwell model. To investigate

 Z. Cheng, E.C. Leong / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 88 (2016) 207–214
Fig. 8. Variation of damping ratio with β/ω at different GR.
the applicability of the viscoelastic model for modelling wave
propagation in a semi-infinite medium, the analysis was extended
to the spring connected in parallel with the Maxwell model. As
mentioned previously, Go is equated to Gmax in order for the ma-
terial model to display the correct stiffness. As such, G1 is ex-
pressed as a ratio of Go, i.e., GR as stated previously.
It is observed that increasing G1 while keeping Go constant,
i.e., increasing GR leads to a decrease in the derived damping ratio
as shown in Fig. 8. This indirectly implies that the response of the
viscoelastic model is dependent on GR. Therefore the simpler
Maxwell model where GR ¼ 0 is sufficient to account for the ma-
terial properties (stiffness and damping) associated with wave
propagation.
The simplified viscoelastic model (GR ¼0) was used to simulate
wave propagation in a semi-infinite medium. A two-dimensional
finite element model, 300  300 mm, (Fig. 9) was created with
5625 2D axisymmetric shell elements. The node at the top was
excited using three sinusoidal pulses at 5 kHz. The axis of
symmetry was restrained against motion in the x-direction. The
bottom and right boundaries of the finite element model were
assigned a non-reflecting boundary condition. Details of a non-
Excitation
Edge placed on rollers
y
x Non-reflecting boundary condition
Fig. 9. Model used to simulate vibration in the free field.
213
reflecting boundary condition in LS-DYNA are given in Aung and
Leong [32].
The finite element model was first modelled using an elastic
material model (MAT_ELASTIC). The amplitude of the first arrival
at various distances on the top of the model were noted and curve
fitted using Eq. (19).
⎛ r ⎞χ
An = A1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ e⎡⎣ −α (rn − r1) ⎤⎦
⎝ rn ⎠ (19)
where An and A1 are amplitudes at distances rn and r1, respec-
tively, α is the attenuation coefficient due to material damping and
χ is the scaling factor for geometric damping.
Since the elastic material model does not account for material
damping, there will be no attenuation coefficient (α) and hence
the geometric damping factor (χ) could be determined. The value
of χ was determined to be 0.904. After which, the elastic material
model was replaced with the simplified viscoelastic model. A β
decay constant corresponding to 5% and 10% material damping
ratio was allocated using Eq. (18). Input frequency for Eq. (18)
should correspond to the frequency of the propagating wave
subjected to damping. Density of the material model was obtained
from Table 1. Material model's stiffness from Table 1 was increased
by 100 times in order to increase the dominant frequency of the
system thereby reducing the computation time. Numerical results
shown in Fig. 10 were curve-fitted using Eq. (19) and χ derived
from the results of the elastic material model to obtain the at-
tenuation coefficient (α). The material damping ratio can then be
obtained using the relationship shown in Eq. (20).
Vα
ξ=
2π f (20)
where V is the wave velocity and f is the frequency of the propa-
gating wave.
The back-calculated damping ratios for 5% and 10% damping
ratios were 4.81% and 10.02%, respectively. The results show that
the viscoelastic model with GR ¼0 and β as determined using Eq.
(18) is able to model wave propagation in a semi-infinite medium.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, a simplified viscoelastic model which makes use
of soil parameters obtained from advanced geotechnical testing
was obtained with the help of finite element program LS-DYNA.
The resonant column test was modelled to calibrate the simplified
viscoelastic model. The relationship between the parameters in
the material model and the response in terms of stiffness and
damping was investigated. Numerical modelling showed that the
0
FEM - Elastic
-0.5
FEM - Visco 5% Damping
-1
ln (An/A1)
FEM - Visco 10% Damping
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
0 100 200 300
Distance from excitation source (mm)
Fig. 10. Amplitude decrease with distance from excitation source.
214 Z. Cheng, E.C. Leong / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 88 (2016) 207–214
Go should be Gmax and K can be obtained from both Gmax and ν.
While the long term shear modulus, G1, does not affect the initial
stiffness of the model, inclusion of G1 in the viscoelastic model
alters the output damping ratio. It is therefore recommended to
use G1 ¼0 in the viscoelastic model. The equation proposed to
correlate the decay constant (β) in the viscoelastic model with the
damping ratio (ξ) was found to be able to produce decaying vi-
bration with the stipulated damping ratio. The simplified viscoe-
lastic model was verified to perform as expected by modelling
wave propagation in a semi-infinite medium.
Acknowledgement
The first writer acknowledges the Nanyang President Graduate
Scholarship. The support from Grant MINDEF-NTU-JPP/13/01/02
administered by the Protective Technology Research Centre, Na-
nyang Technological University, is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Karl L, Haegeman W, Degrande G, Dooms D. Measurement of material
damping with bender elements in triaxial cell. In: Proceedings of the 3rd In-
ternational Symposium on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, vol. 1.
Lyon, France; 2003. pp. 3–11.
[2] Karl L, Haegeman W, Degrande G, Dooms D. Determination of the Material
Damping Ratio with the Bender Element Test. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2008;134(12):1743–56.
[3] Arroyo M, Medina L, Wood DM. Numerical modelling of scale effects in
bender-based pulse tests. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium
Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Rome, Italy; 2002. pp. 589–594.
[4] Arroyo M, Wood DM, Greening PD. Source near-field effects and pulse tests in
soil samples. Geotechnique 2003;53(3):337–45.
[5] Arroyo M, Wood DM, Greening PD, Medina L, Rio J. Effects of sample size on
bender-based axial G(0) measurements. Geotechnique 2006;56(1):39–52.
[6] Rio JFME. Advances in laboratory geophysics using bender elements [PhD
thesis]. University College London; 2006.
[7] Hardy S, Zdravkovi´c L, Potts DM. Numerical interpretation of continuously
cycled bender element tests. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Sym-
posium Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Rome, Italy; 2002. pp. 595–600.
[8] Carcione JM, Kosloff D, Kosloff R. Wave propagation simulation in a linear
viscoacoustic medium. Geophys J 1988;93(2):393–401.
[9] Carcione JM, Kosloff D, Kosloff R. Wave propagation simulation in a linear
viscoelastic medium. Geophys J 1988;95(3):597–611.
[10] Bardet JP. A viscoelastic model for the dynamic behavior of saturated
poroelastic soils. J Appl Mech 1992;59(1):128–35.
[11] Carcione JM. Seismic modelling in viscoelastic media. Geophysics 1993;58
(1):110–20.
[12] Dwivedi JP, Singh VP, Lal RK. Dynamic response of partially sealed circular
tunnel in viscoelastic soil condition. Bull Appl Mech 2011;7(26):37–45.
[13] Hayner MA. Optimised finite difference schemes for wave propagation in high
loss viscoelastic material [PhD Thesis]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
1994.
[14] Spanos PD, Tsavachidis S. Deterministic and stochastic analyses of a nonlinear
system with a Biot visco-elastic element. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2001;30
(4):595–612.
[15] Lee KH, Szajewski BA, Hah Z, Parker KJ, Maniatty AM. Modelling shear waves
through a viscoelastic medium induced by acoustic radiation force. Int J Nu-
mer Methods Biomed Eng 2012;28(6–7):678–96.
[16] ASTM Standard D4015-07. Standard test methods for modulus and damping of
soils by resonant-column method, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, United States; 2007.
[17] Tschoegl NW. The phenomenological theory of linear viscoelastic behavior.
Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1989.
[18] Lakes R. Viscoelastic materials.New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
[19] Vyalov SS. Developments in geotechnical engineering volume 36: rheological
fundamentals of soil mechanics. New York: Elsevier; 1986.
[20] Stucky P, Lord W. Finite element modeling of transient ultrasonic waves in
linear viscoelastic media. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2001;48
(1):6–16.
[21] Muscolino G, Palmeri A, Ricciardelli F. Time-domain response of linear hys-
teretic systems to deterministic and random excitations. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2005;34(9):1129–47.
[22] Makris N, Zhang J. Time-domain viscoelastic analysis of earth structures.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29(6):745–68.
[23] Menard KP. Dynamic mechanical analysis: a practical introduction.Florida:
CRC Press; 2008.
[24] Biesen ED. Prediction of plastic deformation in aluminum softball bats using
finite element analysis [Master thesis]. Washington State University; 2006.
[25] Hu J, Jin X, Lee JB, Zhang L, Chaudhary V, Guthikonda M, et al. Intraoperative
brain shift prediction using a 3D inhomogeneous patient-specific finite ele-
ment model. J Neurosurg 2007;106(1):164–9.
[26] Smith LV, Duris JG. Progress and challenges in numerically modelling solid
sports ball with application to soft balls. J. Sports Sci 2009;27(4):353–60.
[27] LSTC. LS-DYNA User Manual R7.0. Livermore Software Technology Corpora-
tion, California, United States; 2013.
[28] Kumar J, Madhusudhan BN. On determining the elastic modulus of a cylind-
rical sample subjected to flexural excitation in a resonant column apparatus.
Can Geotech J 2010;47(11):1288–98.
[29] Cascante G, Santamarina C, Yassir N. Flexural excitation in a standard tor-
sional-resonant column device. Can Geotech J 1998;35(3):478–90.
[30] Harris CM, Piersol AG. Shock and vibration handbook Harris’. New York:
Mcgraw-Hill Professional; 2002 Fifth ed.
[31] Timoshenko S. Vibration Problems in Engineering. Second ed.. New York: D
Van Nostrand Company, Inc.; 1937.
[32] Aung AMW, Leong EC. Discussion of “Near-field effects on array-based surface
wave methods with active sources” by S Yoon and GJ Rix. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng 2010;136(5):773–5.