Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp 1092–1106 | Cite as

A flexible various-scale approach for soil-structure interaction and its application in seismic damage analysis of the underground structure of nuclear power plants

  • YongQian Qu
  • DeGao Zou
  • XianJing Kong
  • Bin Xu
  • Xiang Yu


In simulations of geotechnical engineering, interface elements are versatile tools and are widely used in the modeling of the relative displacements between soils and structures. To consider the case of a local failure adjacent to a soil-structure interaction region, a partial mesh refinement should be performed. In this study, a three-dimensional (3D) interface element with an arbitrary number of nodes is developed as a new technique to reduce the complexity and difficulty of managing the various scales between soil and structure. An asymmetric number of nodes is permissible on the two sliding surfaces. In this manner, soil and structure can be discretized independently, and the various-scale model is established conveniently and rapidly. The accuracy of the proposed method is demonstrated through numerical examples. The various-scale approach is employed in an elasto-plastic seismic damage analysis of a buried concrete drainage culvert of a nuclear power plant. The results indicate that by applying the proposed method, the number of elements decreased by 72.5%, and the computational efficiency improved by 59% with little influence on accuracy. The proposed method is powerful for local damage evolution analyses of both soil and structure and possesses great practical significance and the potential for further application, especially for nonlinear analysis of large-scale geotechnical engineering.


3D interface element soil-structure interaction various-scale underground structure elasto-plastic analysis seismic damage 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Liu H, Song E, Ling H I. Constitutive modeling of soil-structure interface through the concept of critical state soil mechanics. Mech Res Commun, 2006, 33: 515–531CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu H, Ling H I. Constitutive description of interface behavior including cyclic loading and particle breakage within the framework of critical state soil mechanics. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech, 2008, 32: 1495–1514CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu H, Martinez J. Creep behaviour of sand-geomembrane interfaces. GeoSynths Int, 2014, 21: 83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang G, Zhang J. State of the art: Mechanical behavior of soilstructure interface. Prog Nat Sci, 2009, 19: 1187–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zeghal M, Edil T B. Soil structure interaction analysis: Modeling the interface. Can Geotech J, 2002, 39: 620–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xiao Y, Stuedlein A M, Chen Q, et al. Stress-strain-strength response and ductility of gravels improved by polyurethane foam adhesive. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, 2018, 144: 0417108Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Day R A, Potts D M. Zero thickness interface elements-numerical stability and application. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech, 1994, 18: 689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kong X J, Liu J M, Zou D G. Numerical simulation of the separation between concrete face slabs and cushion layer of Zipingpu dam during the Wenchuan earthquake. Sci China Technol Sci, 2016, 59: 531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zou D, Xu B, Kong X, et al. Numerical simulation of the seismic response of the Zipingpu concrete face rockfill dam during the Wenchuan earthquake based on a generalized plasticity model. Comput Geotech, 2013, 49: 111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu J M, Kong X J, Zou D. G. Effects of interface models on deformation of interface between slab and cushion layer and slab stress of concrete faced rock fill dam (in Chinese). Chin J Geotechn Eng, 2015, 37: 700–710Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coutinho A L G A, Martins M A D, Sydenstricker R M, et al. Simple zero thickness kinematically consistent interface elements. Comput Geotech, 2003, 30: 347–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu Y, Bathurst R J. Influence of selection of soil and interface properties on numerical results of two soil-geosynthetic interaction problems. Int J Geomech, 2016, 17: 04016136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karabatakis D A, Hatzigogos T N. Analysis of creep behaviour using interface elements. Comput Geotech, 2002, 29: 257–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Griffiths D V. Numerical modeling of interfaces using conventional finite elements. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics. Nagoya, 1985Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pande G N, Sharma K G. On joint/interface elements and associated problems of numerical ill-conditioning. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech, 1979, 3: 293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zienkiewicz O C, Best B, Dullage C, et al. Analysis of nonlinear problems in rock mechanics with particular reference to jointed rock systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Society of Rock Mechanics. Belgrade, 1970Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carol I, Alonso E E. A new joint element, for the analysis of fractured rock. In: Proceedings of the 5th ISRM Congress. International Society for Rock Mechanics, 1983Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilson E L, Yuan M W, Dickens J M. Dynamic analysis by direct superposition of Ritz vectors. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn, 1982, 10: 813–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frank R, Guenot A, Humbert P. Numerical analysis of contacts in geomechanics. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference On Numerical Methods in Geomechanics. Rotterdam, 1982. 37–42Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herrmann L R. Finite element analysis of contact problems. J Soil Mechs Foundations Div, 1978, 104: 1043–1057Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghaboussi J, Wilson E L, Isenberg J. Finite element for rock joints and interfaces. J Soil Mechs Foundat Div, 1973, 99: 833–848Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilson E L. Finite elements for foundations, joints and fluids. In: Finite Elements in Geomechanics. Chichester: Wiley, 1977. 319–350Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goodman R E, Taylor R L, Brekke T L. A model for the mechanics of jointed rocks. J Soil Mechs Foundations Div, 1968, 94: 637–660Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clough G W, and Duncan, J. M. Finite element analyses of retaining wall behavior. J Soil Mech Found Div, 1971, 97: 1657–1673Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hu L, Pu J L. Application of damage model for soil-structure interface. Comput Geotech, 2003, 30: 165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu J, Zou D, Kong X. A three-dimensional state-dependent model of soil-structure interface for monotonic and cyclic loadings. Comput Geotechnics, 2014, 61: 166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xue X, Yang X, Liu E. Application of the modified goodman model in soil nailing. Int J Geomech, 2011, 13: 41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fairbairn E M R, Paz C N M, Ebecken N F F, et al. Use of neural networks for fitting of FE probabilistic scaling model parameters. Int J Fract, 1999, 95: 315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wisnom M R. Modelling discrete failures in composites with interface elements. Composites Part A-Appl Sci Manufacturing, 2010, 41: 795–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karabatakis D A. Study of the Creeping Response of the Interface Elements. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Thessaloninki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2000Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Samadhiya N K, Viladkar M N, Al-Obaydi M A. Three-dimensional joint/interface element for rough undulating major discontinuities in rock masses. Int J Geomech, 2008, 8: 327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang X C. Finite Element Method (in Chinese). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2003Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen K, Zou D, Kong X, et al. A novel nonlinear solution for the polygon scaled boundary finite element method and its application to geotechnical structures. Comput Geotechnics, 2017, 82: 201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen K, Zou D, Kong X. A nonlinear approach for the three-dimensional polyhedron scaled boundary finite element method and its verification using Koyna gravity dam. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng, 2017, 96: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chen K, Zou D, Kong X, et al. An efficient nonlinear octree SBFEM and its application to complicated geotechnical structures. Comput Geotechnics, 2018, 96: 226–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zou D, Chen K, Kong X, et al. An enhanced octree polyhedral scaled boundary finite element method and its applications in structure analysis. Eng Anal Bound Elem, 2017, 84: 87–107MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Qu Y, Zou D, Kong X, et al. A novel interface element with asymmetric nodes and its application on concrete-faced rockfill dam. Comput Geotechnics, 2017, 85: 103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhu Y W, Li W, Cai Y Q. An efficient inverse isoparametric mapping in FEM based on analytical character (in Chinese). J Wuhan Univ Hydraulic Electric Eng, 2002, 2: 62–65Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lian H, Kerfriden P, Bordas S P A. Shape optimization directly from CAD: An isogeometric boundary element approach using T-splines. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, 2017, 317: 1–41MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xu B, Zou D, Kong X, et al. Dynamic damage evaluation on the slabs of the concrete faced rockfill dam with the plastic-damage model. Comput Geotechnics, 2015, 65: 258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yu X, Kong X, Zou D, et al. Linear elastic and plastic-damage analyses of a concrete cut-off wall constructed in deep overburden. Comput Geotechnics, 2015, 69: 462–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang G, Zhang J M. unified modeling of monotonic and cyclic behavior of interface between structure and gravelly soil. Soils Foundat, 2008, 48: 231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lou M L, Pan D G, Fan L C. Effect of vertical artificial boundary on seismic response of soil layer (in Chinese). J Tongji Univ, 2003, 31: 757–761Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Guo S S, Chen H Q, Li D Y, et al. Study of element-size effect on dynamic plastic-damage analysis of concrete (in Chinese). J Hydroelectr Eng, 2011, 30: 52–56Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pastor M, Zienkiewicz O C. A generalized plasticity, hierarchical model for sand under monotonic and cyclic loading. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics. Ghent, 1986Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pastor M, Zienkiewicz O C, Leung K H. Simple model for transient soil loading in earthquake analysis. II. Non-associative models for sands. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech, 1985, 9: 477–498CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xu B, Zou D, Liu H. Three-dimensional simulation of the construction process of the Zipingpu concrete face rockfill dam based on a generalized plasticity model. Comput Geotechnics, 2012, 43: 143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lee J, Fenves G L. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J Eng Mech, 1998, 124: 892–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hudson M B, Idriss I M, Beikae M. QUAD4M, A computer program for evaluating the seismic response of soil structure by variable damping finite element procedures. Report of Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, 1993Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yoshida N, Kobayashi S, Suetomi I, et al. Equivalent linear method considering frequency dependent characteristics of stiffness and damping. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng, 2002, 22: 205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bayraktar A, Kartal M E. Linear and nonlinear response of concrete slab on CFR dam during earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng, 2010, 30: 990–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zuo X, Yang S C, Chen G X. Analysis on evolution of nonlinear seismic damage of subway station structure (in Chinese). Earthquake Resist Eng Retrof, 2010, 32: 110–116Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Liu H, Song E. Seismic response of large underground structures in liquefiable soils subjected to horizontal and vertical earthquake excitations. Comput Geotechnics, 2005, 32: 223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sweet J. Los angeles metro red line project: seismic analysis of the little Tokyo subway station. Report No CAI-097-100. Engineering Management Consultants, 1997Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    An X, Shawky A A, Maekawa K. The collapse mechanism of a subway station during the Great Hanshin earthquake. Cement Concrete Composites, 1997, 19: 241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Matsui J, Ohtomo K, Kanaya K. Development and validation of nonlinear dynamic analysis in seismic performance verification of underground rc structures. ACT, 2004, 2: 25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • YongQian Qu
    • 1
    • 2
  • DeGao Zou
    • 1
    • 2
  • XianJing Kong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bin Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiang Yu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.School of Hydraulic EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations