0
DISCUSSION

Discussion: “Boundary Element Analysis of Multiple Scattering Waves in High Performance Concretes” (, , and , 2005, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 72, pp. 165–171) OPEN ACCESS

[+] Author and Article Information
Jin-Yeon Kim

George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering,  Georgia Institute of Technology, 801 Ferst Dr., Altanta, GA 30332

J. Appl. Mech 72(6), 982 (Nov 01, 2005) (1 page) doi:10.1115/1.2040453 History:
FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE

This discussion intends to make comments on the recent article of Sato et al. (1) regarding their descriptions of self-consistency conditions for the effective medium in the multiple scattering theory. Equations (13) and (14) in Ref. 1 were obtained originally by Yang and Mal (2) by extending the static generalized self-consistent method (GSCM) with recourse to Waterman and Truell’s theory (3). Recently, the dynamic GSCM was recast (4) based on a simple consideration of wave energy in the model applying the energy theorem for the scattering in absorbing media (5), and also the equivalence between Eqs. (13) and (14) and

A1*(Kp,e1)=B1*(Ksv,e1)=0
was shown. In the dynamic GSCM, the self-consistency condition of the effective medium (or the dispersion relation) reduces to vanishing of the wave energy extinction in the model. It should be noted that this can be further generalized to different self-consistent-type formulations of the multiple scattering problem. A simple but fairly general way to show this might be to express the Ewald formula (3) in the self-consistent form
K=K+(2πnoK)F(e1)
or therefore
F(e1)=0
where no is the scatter number density and F(e1) denotes the forward scattering amplitude defined in the effective medium with consideration of multiple scattering effect. Note that subscript denoting the wave mode is suppressed for brevity.

In the article by Sato et al. (1), several logical and conceptual problems are found (Eqs. (16)–(19)). For example, it is obvious that Eq. (16) is just a sufficient condition to Eqs. (13) and (14), thus the equivalence cannot be so asserted. So it is again with Eq. (19) to Eqs. (17) and (18). Moreover, Eq. (19)

Aα*(Kp,x̂)=Bα*(Ksv,x̂)=0forx̂±e1
can be brought up more reasonably from the known physical fact, “the absence of coherence in non-propagation directions,” than from Eqs. (17) and (18) which appear to be rather trivial when reminding that the Waterman and Truell formula is meaningful only in the propagation direction. All this awkwardness seems to arise because the dynamic GSCM was formulated in the framework of the Waterman and Truell theory, which is not necessary at all. Even though the paper (4) provides a theoretically simple proof for a physically conceivable fact, the result takes away all those problems in the above caused in the constraint of Waterman and Truell formalism.

References

Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
View article in PDF format.

References

Figures

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In