Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417

www.elsevier.com/locate/!nel

A non-re#ecting boundary for analyzing wave propagation

using the !nite element method
G.R. Liu ∗ , S.S. Quek Jerry
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, National University of Singapore,
10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore
Received 6 July 2001; accepted 18 December 2001

Abstract

A !nite element approach for the analysis of the wave propagation in an in!nitely long plate is presented
in this paper. The method of achieving a non-re#ecting boundary condition such that there will be no spurious
re#ections generated by the !nite boundary of the !nite element model will be introduced. The method is
used to study the steady-state wave propagation characteristics across a plate structure with and without #aws.
The proposed method compared very well with the strip element method, which is a semi-exact method for
wave propagation analysis. ? 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Non-re#ecting boundary; Finite element; Wave propagation; Wave scattering

1. Introduction

Every !nite element model must be terminated at some !nite boundary. The analyst usually selects
this boundary and at this boundary, plausible assumptions about the conditions to be applied must be
made. However, for wave propagation analysis, the usual !nite boundary of the !nite element model
will cause the elastic waves to be re#ected and superimpose with the progressing waves. Hence, the
wave !eld analyzed will be very complex. This warrants a need for arti!cial boundary conditions
to simulate a model without any !nite boundary. In this case, some numerical treatment is needed
to introduce arti!cial boundary so as to simulate the unbounded domain and yet maintain a !nite
computational domain. Such an arti!cial boundary represents a non-re#ecting boundary condition
such that there will be no spurious re#ections caused by the !nite domain. The focus here is on the
appropriate arti!cial boundary to be used on a two-dimensional !nite element model of a plate or
beam so as to solve for wave propagation problems using a general !nite element method (FEM).
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-874-6481; fax: +65-779-1459.
E-mail address: mpeliugr@nus.edu.sg (G.R. Liu).

0168-874X/03/$ - see front matter ? 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 8 - 8 7 4 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 1 - 1
404 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417

qoexp(iω t)

I II
b1 b2 x
III

Junctions

Fig. 1. Division of a plate with a horizontal #aw into domains in which SEM can be applied.

Many other studies have been carried out previously on the problem of solving wave problems
in an unbounded domain. Liu and Achenbach [2,5] had introduced the strip element method (SEM)
for the analysis of anisotropic laminated plates. They had also shown that their method compared
well with the semi-numerical method (SNM) proposed by Waas [8] and Kausel [1]. The SEM was
also used in various other studies of #aws characterization and wave scattering [2–7]. The SEM
discretizes a two-dimensional domain into strip elements in one direction and by using the principle
of virtual work, approximate governing diIerential equations are derived for the !eld dependence
in the second direction. Fig. 1 shows an example of how a plate with #aw can be divided into
three domains for the application of the SEM. Domain I is bounded by the boundary b1 and the
upper and lower surfaces of the plate. Domain II is bounded by the boundary b2 and the upper and
lower surfaces of the plate. Domain III is bounded by b1 ; b2 , and the upper and lower surfaces of
the plate. In each domain, sets of equations, which give the relationship between the displacements
and stresses at the nodal points on the vertical boundaries, are derived. The equations for all three
domains are then assembled and solved analytically. This method retains many advantages of the
FEM and it requires much less data storage. However, because of the discretization into strips,
it poses a problem when the geometry is too complex. As shown by Liu and Achenbach, the
SEM can be very eIective for solving wave scattering problems by horizontal cracks, transverse
cracks or surface cracks. Nevertheless, there will be some diKculties when analysis of problems
with geometrically more complex #aws is required. For example, #aws in the form of circular or
elliptical voids. Using the FEM to model such #aws is usually not much of a problem, especially
with the many commercial !nite element packages available. Therefore a method of simulating an
unbounded domain using the FEM is highly desirable though it may not be as eKcient in some
ways as the SEM or some other numerical techniques.
Others who proposed arti!cial boundaries for the purpose of wave propagation in an in!nite domain
include Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer [9] who were probably the !rst ones to propose a non-re#ecting
boundary for elastic waves. They suggested that introducing damping at the plane of the !nite
boundary and by choosing appropriate damping constants, minimize the re#ected wave energy. The
 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417 405

conditions are applied by considering an incident longitudinal wave, an incident transverse wave
and a surface wave separately. Therefore, a general propagation problem with a combination of
waves will require an approximation. This approximation may not prove eIective for a plate or
beam whereby the wave propagates in a more complex manner in the form of dispersive lamb
waves. Smith [10] also showed that the re#ections from a !nite boundary could be eliminated by
adding together numerical solutions of several problems, in each of which a certain combination of
Dirichlet and Neuman boundary conditions was used on the boundary. This method can be easily
implemented for the FEM, which suits our purpose, however, for the case of lamb wave propagation
in a plate, the wave propagation involves multiple encounters with the top and bottom boundary
face and therefore the re#ections of these waves will not be eliminated.
The analysis presented in this paper is carried out using the software, Abaqus=Standard. Since a
method of solving for problems with unbounded domain called “in!nite elements” is available in
the software package, an attempt to use this to solve our problem is !rst carried out. This “in!-
nite element” for dynamic response is actually based on the work of the earlier mentioned Lysmer
and Kuhlemeyer. Hence, by de!ning such elements, distributed damping is eIectively applied on
the plane of the !nite boundary. The method by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer is thus tested in this
case to see if it works well for the case of lamb wave propagation in plates. It is shown, how-
ever, that there is a great deal of discrepancies in the results obtained when compared with the
SEM.
In the new method proposed, progressive damping is introduced to a section of elements before
the !nite boundary of the !nite element model such that re#ections of the waves are minimized if not
damped down completely. The damping near the boundary is applied by following an exponentially
increasing function to achieve just the required amount. After which the problem is solved for a time
harmonic load to obtain the steady state dynamic response. This method can be applied using most of
the available !nite element packages and hence its versatility regarding the geometry of the model is
tremendous. Though it may be computationally more expensive than other numerical methods like the
SEM, it is, as to the authors’ knowledge, the only successful way to analyze lamb wave propagation
of an unbounded plate or beam using the FEM. Comparison with SEM results will be carried out
to show that the proposed method is eIective in analyzing the steady-state wave propagation in an
in!nitely long plate. Analysis will be carried out on a #awless isotropic material and one with a
horizontal crack. It has been well established that cracks in structures serves as a source of elastic
wave scattering. The studies of such wave scattering characteristics are important as the scattered
wave !eld carries a great deal of information on the characteristics of the crack. The understanding
of such characteristics is motivated by the need for quantitative ultrasonic non-destructive evaluation
(NDE) techniques. Discussion on the wave scattering of a horizontal crack will thus be presented
by looking at the steady-state wave pro!le.

2. Finite element model and formulation

Consider an in!nitely long, isotropic plate with Young’s modulus E, Poisson’s ratio  and thickness
denoted by h as shown in Fig. 2. Generally, two-dimensional, plane strain problems are considered
in this paper. It is noted here that the proposed method also works for plane stress problems. Sym-
metrical boundary conditions are applied on the nodes of one side of the model. Let the displacement
406 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417

y
{f}exp(iω t)
Symmetrical
boundary
condition h
x

Fig. 2. Two-dimensional plane strain model of plate.

of each element be interpolated by


ux
= [N]{u}e ; (1)
uy
where
 
N1 0 N2 0 N3 0 N4 0
[N] = (2)
0 N1 0 N2 0 N3 0 N4
is the shape function matrix and
{u}Te = {ux1 uy1 ux2 uy2 ux3 uy3 ux4 uy4 } (3)
are the nodal displacements assuming that bi-linear, quadrilateral elements are used. The shape
functions, Ni , take on the usual form in terms of the element local coordinates,  and , as
Nj = 14 (1 + j )(1 + j ): (4)
Structural damping is considered in the formulation to represent the internal damping of the material
as well as in the arti!cial boundary so as to damp down the wave oscillations. The energy dissipated
in one cycle of oscillation by a viscous damping force is directly proportional to the frequency of
the oscillation and the square of the amplitude of vibration given by
Wd = c!|u|2 ; (5)
where c is the damping coeKcient and ! is the angular frequency. However, the energy dissipated per
cycle is independent of frequency over a wide frequency range for most structural metals. Therefore,
we can let
H
c(!) = ; (6)
!
where H is a damping function. Hence, taking into account the usual strain–displacement relation
with the constitutive equation and applying Lagrange’s equation to the equilibrium equation, a set
of diIerential equations can be obtained for each element. Assembling all the equations, a global
equation of motion for the plate can be obtained as
T + [c]{u̇} + [k]{u} = {f} exp(i!t);
[m]{u} (7)
where [m] is the global mass matrix, [c] is the global matrix of damping coeKcients, [k] is the
global stiIness matrix and {f} exp(i!t) is the force vector in the form of a time harmonic load.
 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417 407

To obtain the displacements of Eq. (7), either a modal analysis method or direct analysis method
can be used. However, using the modal analysis method will pose some problems as the number
of eigenvalues and eigenvectors needed for accurate results would be ambiguous. Hence, the direct
method whereby the matrix equation is solved by the usual Gaussian elimination method is employed
throughout this paper.

3. “Solid innite elements” in Abaqus

As an attempt to model the plate as an in!nitely long one, the !nite element package Abaqus
provides what is termed as “in!nite elements” based on the work of Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer for
dynamic response. It is noted here that though it is termed as “in!nite elements”, it is not truly an
element as in the !nite element sense. It is really a boundary condition whereby the damping is
introduced at the !nite boundary so as to minimize the re#ected wave energy.
This method is based on the consideration of plane waves traveling orthogonally to the !nite
boundary. That is, longitudinal and transverse waves. A few assumptions are required before formu-
lating the boundary condition:
1. The response adjacent to the boundary is of small enough amplitude so that the medium responds
in a linear elastic fashion.
2. The material is homogeneous and isotropic.
Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer suggested that the non-re#ective boundary condition has the form
@u1
acL = T1 ;
@t
@u2
bcT = T2 ; (8)
@t
where u1 and u2 are the displacements normal and tangent to the boundary, respectively and T1 and
T2 are the tractions (damping) in these directions. Here  is the mass density, cL is the longitudinal
wave speed, cT is the transverse wave speed, and a and b are dimensionless parameters. The values
of a and b are chosen to minimize the re#ected energy for an incident plane wave hitting the
boundary. The choice of a and b is considered separately for an incident longitudinal wave, for an
incident transverse wave, and for a surface wave. It was suggested that a = b = 1 is a good choice, in
general, and this value is also being employed in Abaqus. Therefore, by attaching “in!nite elements”
to the boundary of the !nite element model at the two ends, the above boundary damping is being
de!ned. “In!nite elements” in Abaqus are de!ned like any other ordinary !nite elements. A schematic
diagram of how the “in!nite elements” can be de!ned is shown in Fig. 3. The Abaqus code for a
linear, two-dimensional, solid “in!nite element” is CINPS4 or CINPE4 for plane stress and plane
strain, respectively.

4. Gradually damped articial boundary

Instead of simply applying a damping at the plane of the boundary as suggested by Lysmer and
Kuhlemeyer, it is proposed here to apply a gradual increase in damping towards the ends of the
408 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417

Bi-linear,
quadrilateral Abaqus linear “infinite
elements elements”

Finite boundary of the

FE model

Fig. 3. Abaqus in!nite elements attached to the !nite boundary of the model.

Section of elements divided into damping element sets

Gradual increase in damping from one set to the next

Finite boundary of
FE.model

Fig. 4. Arti!cial damping boundary section.

model. To create an arti!cial boundary in order to damp down the oscillations, section of elements
near the !nite boundary is !rst being divided into n element sets as shown in Fig. 4. The damping
coeKcient and hence the damping force de!ned for each of these sets are gradually increased from
the inner most set to the set next to the !nite boundary. For a harmonic force,
H
damping force = − u̇
!
= −iHu: (9)
Therefore, Eq. (7) can be rewritten as
T = {f} exp(i!t):
[k + iH]{u} + [m]{u} (10)
 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417 409

ξ = 2 .0 ξ = 2 .2

80
α o = 0.03
70
60
Loss Factor

50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Element Set, k

Fig. 5. Exponential increase of the material loss factor of the kth element set following the function k = 0 k .

The complex matrix [k + iH] is known as the complex stiKness and can be obtained by replacing
Young’s modulus E by a complex one, E(1 + i), where  is the material loss factor. By doing so,
the complex stiIness matrix can be expressed as
[k + iH] = [k + ik]: (11)
Hence, from Eqs. (6) and (11), the damping force can be written as

− [c]e {u̇}e = − [k]e {u̇}e = −[k]e {u}: (12)
!
To gradually increase this damping force, Young’s modulus for the kth element set can be expressed
as
Ek = E + i0 k E; k = 0; 1; 2; : : : ; n − 1; (13)
where 0 can be regarded as the initial material loss factor for the arti!cial damping boundary and
 is a constant factor, and hence the damping, will increase as shown in Fig. 5. From Eq. (13), the
material loss factor for the kth element set is
 k = 0  k ; k = 0; 1; 2; : : : ; n − 1: (14)
This exponential function ensures that the rate of increase in damping is low in the beginning and
becomes higher as k increases. This will prevent a sudden increase in the damping that will itself
cause re#ection of the propagating wave. In order to determine the value of , which is required
to provide the suKcient damping, an iterative procedure of increasing  is used till the responses
obtained for two (or more) cases of diIerent boundary conditions at the ends show no signi!cant
diIerences. This is based on the concept that the damping has done its job such that the eIects of
the boundary are no longer signi!cant. Hence, the two criteria for achieving the required damping
are:
1. SuKcient damping such that the eIect of the boundary is negligible.
2. Damping is gradual enough such that there is no re#ection cause by a sudden damped condition.
A detailed procedure to achieve the above criteria is discussed in the next section.
410 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417

ABAQUS “infinite
elements”
qoexp(iω t)
L

Finite boundary of
Symmetrical
FE model
boundary
conditions

Fig. 6. Geometry of !nite element model using the Abaqus “in!nite elements”.

5. Numerical simulations and discussions

In this paper, a homogeneous, isotropic beam is used for the analyses. A common engineering
metal (Aluminum) is chosen for the analysis with Young’s modulus, E = 69:0 GPa, Poisson’s ratio,
 = 0:33, and density,  = 2700 kg m−3 . Plane strain condition is used throughout but the same also
applies to a plane stress case.

5.1. Abaqus “in:nite elements”

The geometrical layout of the !nite element model of the isotropic, #awless beam is shown in
Fig. 6. L is taken to be 250 mm and h is taken to be 25 mm. A symmetrical model is de!ned
so that we only need to be concerned with the boundary at one end. Abaqus “in!nite elements”
are being de!ned at the end of the !nite element model and a symmetrical boundary condition
is applied at the plane of the load. No additional boundary conditions are de!ned as the in!nite
elements automatically de!ne the distributed damping on the boundary. SEM results are also obtained
and used for comparison by running a FORTRAN 77 code. The results, in terms of dimensionless
displacements for a #awless, isotropic beam is shown in Fig. 7. The dimensionless frequency is being
de!ned as !h=cT where ! is the angular frequency in rad s−1 and cT is the shear or transverse wave
velocity. cT is de!ned as G= where G is the shear modulus and  is the density of the material
used. The comparison shows that using the Abaqus “in!nite elements” did not show satisfactory
results. This can be attributed to the fact that the approximation of the parameters a = b = 1 may not
be suitable for the complex lamb wave propagation in the beam. The wave propagation in a plate is
that of a lamb wave whereby there are high-order re#ections with the upper and lower surface of the
beam. Research has actually been carried out before which shows that this non-re#ective boundary
condition actually yield large spurious re#ections in certain situations. This is evident in this case,
whereby Fig. 7 shows an increase in oscillations in the response caused by the superimposition of
the transmitted and re#ected wave. Without showing any !gures, further investigations are carried
out by increasing L but does not yield any satisfactory results as well.
 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417 411

0.8
ω h/cT = 3.14 FEM (ABAQUS
0.7 “infinite elements”)
0.6
. SEM

Abs(Guy / qo)
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
x/h

Fig. 7. Comparison of steady-state response using Abaqus “in!nite elements” with that obtained using SEM.

qoexp(iω t)
L
LD

Symmetrical Finite boundary of

boundary Elastic region FE model
without damping Damping sets
conditions

Fig. 8. Geometry of !nite element model using the gradually damped arti!cial boundary.

5.2. Gradually damped arti:cial boundary

Similar to the model using the “in!nite elements” method, a symmetrical model for a #awless
beam is also used here as shown in Fig. 8. To comply with the earlier model, (L−LD ) is taken to be
250 mm and h is taken to be 25 mm. It has been found that the length of the damping section, LD ,
required is highly dependent on the magnitude of the propagating wave. The bigger the magnitude,
the longer the damping section required ensuring that the damping is gradual enough. Therefore, we
must !rst have an idea of this magnitude before we can decide on the minimum damping length
required. In order to do this, an arbitrary length is !rst used and an analysis is run to estimate the
magnitude of the wave. Note that the wave response may not be accurate, as the criteria for the
required damping may not have been met. As an example, Fig. 9 shows the response of a model
with LD = 100 mm or in dimensionless term, LD =h = 4 in this case. From Fig. 9, we can see that
the damping requirement is not fully ful!lled since there are some diIerences between two diIerent
applied boundary conditions. We can estimate the maximum magnitude, Umax , to be around 0.18.
412 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417

0.8
ω h/cT = 3.14
0.7 Clamped b.c.
. Free b.c.
0.6

Abs(Guy / qo)
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x/h

Fig. 9. Steady-state response obtained using gradually damped boundary with arbitrary damping length of 100 mm.

0.2

LD, min
Abs(Guy / qo)

Damped response
0.1
flattens out at the end
indicating good damping
is achieved

0
10 15 20
x/h

Fig. 10. Steady-state response at the end of the beam with LD = LD; min .

Rounding up this estimate to 0.2, the minimum value of LD can be found by the ratio
(LD =h)min
≈ 50: (15)
Umax
It must be noted that a value of above 50 is only applicable for the ratio of the dimensionless terms
in the axes of Fig. 9. Using Eq. (15), LD; min is found to be 250 mm. Therefore, by extending the
length of the model such that LD = 250 mm and running the analysis again, we can see from Fig.
10 that the response #attens out to zero at the end.
The value of  is also very important in determining whether the damping is suKcient. After
an iterative procedure whereby the value of  is increased and the results of two diIerent applied
boundary conditions (clamped and free) are compared, the value of  = 2:5 for 10 damping sets is
decided upon. Figs. 11 and 12 show the comparisons between the responses of the clamped condition
and the free end condition for a low  value of 1.2 and 2.5, respectively. It can be seen that there
 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417 413

0.8
ω h/cT = 3.14 Clamped b.c.
0.7 . Free b.c.
0.6

Abs(Guy / qo)
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20
x/h

Fig. 11. Comparison of responses of clamped and free boundary conditions using  = 1:2.

0.8
ω h/cT = 3.14 Clamped b.c.
0.7
. Free b.c.
0.6
Abs(Guy / qo)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20
x/h

Fig. 12. Comparison of responses of clamped and free boundary conditions using  = 2:5.

is very good comparison regardless of the boundary conditions applied for the case whereby  = 2:5
but not for  = 1:2. This clearly indicates that for  = 1:2, the damping is insuKcient whereas for
 = 2:5, the applied boundary condition at the end of the beam has no eIect on the propagating
wave. This value of  is for 10 damping sets at the end of the beam. A corresponding value of 
providing the same maximum damping can also be obtained for diIerent number of damping sets
according to the following equation:
1k1 = 2k2 ; (16)
where

k1 = (n1 − 1);
k2 = (n2 − 1): (17)
414 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417

Choose appropriate arbitrary

damping length

Decide arbitrary ξ value

Run analysis

Calculate minimum length of

damping section

Arbitrary damping
length less than
Compare arbitrary
minimum
damping length
with minimum
Increase damping length
Arbitrary damping to greater or equal than
length equal to or minimum
greater than minimum

Run analyses for different applied

boundaryconditions

Increase ξ value

Compare the
Significant analyses
differences
No significant
differences

Analysis completed

Fig. 13. Flow chart showing procedure to obtain necessary damping.

Here n1 and n2 are the number of damping sets. It must be noted, however, that if there were
too few damping sets, a gradual damping would not have been achieved. The above procedure is
summarized in the form of a #ow chart in Fig. 13. A comparison with SEM in Fig. 14 shows very
good comparison verifying that the non-re#ective boundary works.
An analysis is also carried out for a beam with a horizontal crack as shown in Fig. 15. For the
model with crack, a symmetrical model should not be modeled as we only want to see the eIects on
the response due to the presence of a single horizontal crack and not two (the other one on the other
side of the plane of symmetry if a symmetrical model is used). Instead, another damping section is
attached to the left of the load to damp down the waves propagating towards the left. The #aw is a
horizontal line crack without any gap. From Fig. 16, it can be seen that the results obtained using
the gradually damped arti!cial boundary compares very well with that obtained using SEM. It can
also be seen that there is a high peak at the #aw region due to the reduced thickness at the region
 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417 415

0.8
ω h/cT = 3.14 FEM (gradually damped
0.7 artificial boundary)
0.6
. SEM

Abs(Guy / qo) 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
x/h

Fig. 14. Comparison of steady-state response of #awless plate using the gradually damped arti!cial boundary with that
obtained by SEM.

qoexp(iω t) Horizontal flaw

LD LD

Fig. 15. Finite element model of plate with horizontal crack using the gradually damped arti!cially damped boundary.

1
ω h/cT = 0.73 FEM (graduallydamped
artificial boundary)
0.8 . SEM
Abs(Guy / qo)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x/h

Fig. 16. Comparison of steady-state response of a plate with horizontal crack using the gradually damped arti!cial boundary
with that obtained by SEM.

above the #aw region. There is a signi!cant diIerence in magnitude of the wave between the wave
before the right crack tip and that after the right crack tip. This is because crack tips act like a wave
scattering source and thus the waves before the right crack tip is a result of wave superposition of
416 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417

transmitted and re#ected waves. However, at the region after the right crack tip, all the excitation
sources are situated on the left side, and thus, if there is no spurious re#ection, we only see waves
propagating towards the right. Such a phenomenon will be interesting as a motivation for NDE as
the obvious change in the response makes it possible for identifying the location of the crack.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, the !nite element method (FEM) is used to obtain the response of the propagating
wave along a plate. The strip element method (SEM) developed by Liu and Achenbach has been
proven to give very good results; however, it has a limitation on the complexity of the geometry
used. Hence, a method of de!ning a non-re#ecting boundary using FEM is desirable as complex
models can be modeled easily using the available !nite element packages. Many researches on this
!eld have also been carried out, but as to the authors’ knowledge, none seems to be able to use
the FEM to show satisfactory results for lamb wave propagation in a plate. The method proposed
by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer, which is available in Abaqus as “in!nite elements”, is attempted for
the purpose and it is shown that the results are not satisfactory. It is thus proposed in this paper
to use a gradually damped arti!cial boundary to simulate a non-re#ecting boundary condition. The
idea is to damp down the propagating wave progressively such that very minimum or no waves will
be re#ected back by the boundary. A summary of the procedure is shown in the form of a #ow
chart in Fig. 13. It is found that the damping of the elements should be carried out gradual enough
to avoid any spurious re#ection from any sudden damping; and that the damping must also be
suKcient to fully damp down the oscillations. The !rst condition requires the length of the damping
section to be suKciently long while the second condition requires the value of the constant factor,
, to be suKciently large. The results obtained showed very good comparison with the SEM. The
method is also employed to analyze a plate with a horizontal crack and again very good comparison
is obtained with SEM. Though the method may be relatively tedious and may be computationally
expensive depending on the model being analyzed, it does, however, show good analytical result and
being able to use on most !nite element packages, its versatility to diIerent geometry is tremendous.

References

[1] E. Kausel, An explicit solution for the Green’s functions for dynamic loads in layered media, Technical Report
R81-13, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[2] G.R. Liu, J.D. Achenbach, A strip element method for stress analysis of anisotropic linearly elastic solids, J. Appl.
Mech. 61 (1994) 270–277.
[3] G.R. Liu, K.Y. Lam, Characterization of a horizontal crack in anisotropic laminated plates, Int. J. Solids Struct. 31
(21) (1994) 2965–2977.
[4] G.R. Liu, K.Y. Lam, J. Tani, Strip element method for characterization of #aws in sandwich plates, JSME Int. J.
38 (1995) 554–562.
[5] G.R. Liu, J.D. Achenbach, Strip element method to analyze wave scattering by cracks in anisotropic laminated plates,
J. Appl. Mech. 62 (1995) 607–613.
[6] G.R. Liu, K.Y. Lam, H.M. Shang, Scattering of waves by #aws in anisotropic laminated plates, Composites B 27B
(1996) 431–437.
[7] G.R. Liu, K.Y. Lam, Scattering of SH waves by #aws in sandwich plates and its use in #aw detection, Compos.
Struct. 34 (1996) 251–261.
 G.R. Liu, S.S. Quek Jerry / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39 (2003) 403 – 417 417

[8] G. Wass, Linear two-dimensional analysis of soil dynamics problems in semi-in!nite layer media, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
[9] J. Lysmer, R.L. Kuhlemeyer, Finite dynamic model for in!nite media, J. Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE 95 (1969) 859–877.
[10] W.D. Smith, A nonre#ecting plane boundary for wave propagation problems, J. Comput. Phys. 15 (1974) 492–503.