The u‐p approximation versus the exact dynamic equations for anisotropic fluid‐saturated solids. I. Hyperbolicity

Abstract

AbstractThe numerical solution of dynamic problems for porous fluid‐saturated solids is often performed with the use of simplified equations known as the u‐p approximation. The simplification of the equations consists in neglecting some acceleration terms, which is justified for a certain class of problems related, in particular, to geomechanics and earthquake engineering. There exist two u‐p approximations depending on how many acceleration terms are neglected. All comparative studies of the exact and u‐p formulations are focused on the question of how well the u‐p solutions approximate those obtained with the exact equations. In this paper, the equations are compared from a different point of view, addressing the question of well‐posedness of boundary value problems. The exact equations must be hyperbolic and satisfy the corresponding hyperbolicity conditions for the boundary value problems to be well posed. The u‐p equations are not of the form to which the conventional definition of hyperbolicity applies. A slight extension of the approach makes it possible to derive hyperbolicity conditions as necessary conditions for well‐posedness for the u‐p approximations. The hyperbolicity conditions derived in this paper for the u‐p approximations are formulated in terms of the acoustic tensor of the skeleton. They differ essentially from the hyperbolicity conditions for the exact equations.