Linking physics-based regional-scale numerical seismic simulations with local finite-element analysis to evaluate soil–structure interaction of ground motions
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2025
Linking physics-based regional-scale numerical seismic simulations with local finite-element analysis to evaluate soil–structure interaction of ground motions
Source-to-site simulations form a strong basis for risk-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. With an emerging database of synthetic ground motions, there is a growing need to assess the feasibility of the application of these motions for structural analysis. This article evaluates the robustness of a numerical framework to link high-fidelity geophysics models with local finite element (FE) models to perform site response analysis (SRA) and soil–structure interaction (SSI) evaluation. The regional-scale simulations are carried out in SW4, a physics-based finite difference scheme for seismic wave propagation, from which synthetic ground motions are extracted to be applied at the base of a local FE model of a nuclear reactor building in Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC) Dynamic Analysis (LS-DYNA), an advanced multiphysics simulation software package. The seismic event chosen for simulation is an aftershock from the 2007 Niigata Chuetsu-Oki earthquake. Ground motions recorded at Kashiwazaki Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) in Japan are used to validate the numerical simulations conducted with both the finite difference and FE methods. Moreover, an inter-code comparison is made between the free-field motions generated by SW4 and LS-DYNA to assess the consistency between these two simulation codes. The simulations conducted in this study focus on horizontal ground motions resolved up to a maximum of 3 Hz. The conclusions recognize the importance of compatibility of near-surface properties when employing simulated ground motions toward SRA and SSI for a successful linking approach.
American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE/SEI 41-17 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers.
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE/SEI 4-16 (2017) Seismic analysis of safety-related nuclear structures. American Society of Civil Engineers.
3.
BielakJLoukakisKHisadaYYoshimuraC (2003) Domain reduction method for three-dimensional earthquake modeling in localized regions, Part I: Theory. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93(2): 817–824.
4.
BolisettiCWhittakerASColemanJL (2018) Linear and nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis of buildings and safety-related nuclear structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering107: 218–233.
5.
BoushehriRZoghPMotamedR (2023b) Application of simplified kinematic soil-structure interaction procedures to validate finite element models of buildings with large foundations. Geo-Congress 2023 Proceedings, 286–296. Available at: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784484654.030 (accessed 18 January 2025).
6.
BoushehriRMotamedREllisonKStantonK (2022) Estimating epistemic uncertainty in soil parameters for nonlinear site response analyses: Introducing the Latin hypercube sampling technique. Earthquake Spectra38(4): 2422–2450.
7.
BoushehriRStantonKMotamedREllisonKAlmuftiI (2023a) Nonlinear time-domain soil-structure interaction analysis of a mid-rise building benchmarked against earthquake recordings: A case study of the BRI’s annex building. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering172: 108031.
8.
BozorgniaYNiaziMCampbellKW (1995) Characteristics of free-field vertical ground motion during the northridge earthquake. Earthquake Spectra11(4): 515–525.
9.
ElgamalAHeL (2004) Vertical earthquake ground motion records: An overview. Journal of Earthquake Engineering8(5): 663–697.
10.
EstahbanatiSHBoushehriRSoroushAGhasemi-FareO (2020a) Numerical analysis of dynamic response of lifelines facilities adjacent to deep excavations. Geo- Congress 2020: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Special Topics, Reston, VA, pp. 253–265.
11.
EstahbanatiSHBoushehriRSoroushAGhasemi-FareO (2020b) Numerical study of the effects of deep excavations on dynamic performance of buried pipelines. Geo-congress 2020: Modeling, Geomaterials, and Site Characterization, Reston, VA, pp. 86–94.
12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA P-2091 (2020) A practical guide to soil-structure interaction. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.
13.
FujiwaraHKawaiSAoiSMorikawaNSennaSAzumaHOoiMHaoKXHasegawaNMaedaTIwakiAWakamatsuKImotoMOkumuraTMatsuyamaHNaritaA (2012) Some improvements of seismic hazard assessment based on the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Technical Note of the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention379: 2012.
14.
GattiFLopez-CaballeroFClouteauDPaolucciR (2018) On the effect of the 3-D regional geology on the seismic design of critical structures: The case of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant. Geophysical Journal International213(2): 1073–1092.
HayakawaTShimmuraAHikimaKUetakeT (2020) Modeling a 3-D velocity structure around the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant for evaluation of long period strong ground motions. Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering20(3): 1–20.
17.
HuangJMcCallenD (2023) Predicament of the 1D Assumption in site response analysis and implications for vertical ground motion assessment. In: 9th ECCOMAS Thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Athens, Greece, 12–14 June.
18.
KauselE (2010) Early history of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering30(9): 822–832.
19.
KayenRCollinsBDAbrahamsonNAAshfordSBrandenbergSJCluffLDickensonS (2007) Investigation of the M6.6 Niigata-Chuetsu Oki, Japan, Earthquake of July 16, 2007, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2007–1365. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1365/. Accessed 15 August 2022
20.
KikuchiRHijikataKKoyanagiTMashimoMTanakaSSuzukiAMiharaY (2012) Study on vertical motions by rocking responses of reactor buildings. Journal of Disaster Research7(5): 609–618.
21.
KimSStewartJP (2003) Kinematic soil-structure interaction from strong motion recordings. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering129(4): 323–335.
22.
KoketsuKMiyakeHSuzukiH (2012) Japan integrated structure velocity model version 1. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, 24–28 September.
KuboAFukuyamaEKawaiHNonomuraK (2002) NIED seismic moment tensor catalogue for regional earthquakes around Japan: Quality test and application. Tectonophysics356(1): 23–48.
McCallenDPeterssonNARodgersAPitarkaAMiahMPetroneFSjogreenBAbrahamsonNTangH (2021a) EQSIM—A multidisciplinary framework for fault-to-structure earthquake simulations on exascale computers, part I: Computational models and workflow. Earthquake Spectra37(2): 707–735.
27.
McCallenDPeterssonNARodgersAPitarkaAMiahMPetroneFSjogreenBAbrahamsonNTangH (2021b) EQSIM—A multidisciplinary framework for fault-to-structure earthquake simulations on exascale computers, part II: Regional simulations of building response. Earthquake Spectra37(2): 736–761.
28.
MetzAMotamedRStantonKEllisonKAlmuftiI (2018) Evaluation of site response analysis for vertical ground motions based on downhole array records: Case study of the Service Hall array in Japan. In: 5th Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V (GEESD V), Austin, TX, 10–13 June.
29.
MotamedRStantonKAlmuftiIEllisonKWillfordM (2016) Improved approach for modeling nonlinear site response of highly strained soils: Case study of the Service Hall array in Japan. Earthquake Spectra32(2): 1055–1074.
30.
MylonakisGGazetasG (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: Beneficial or detrimental?Journal of Earthquake Engineering4(3): 277–301.
31.
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (2019) NIED K-NET, KiK-net, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience. https://www.kyoshin.bosai.go.jp/. Accessed 15 August 2022.
32.
PavlenkoOVIrikuraK (2012) Nonlinear soil behaviour at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant during the Niigata Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake (July, 16, 2007). Pure and Applied Geophysics169: 1777–1800.
RodgersAJPitarkaAPankajakshanRSjögreenBPeterssonNA (2020) Regional-scale 3D ground-motion simulations of Mw 7 earthquakes on the hayward fault, Northern California resolving frequencies 0–10 Hz and including site-response corrections. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(6): 2862–2881.
35.
SaxenaNPaulDK (2012) Effects of embedment including slip and separation on seismic SSI response of a nuclear reactor building. Nuclear Engineering and Design247: 23–33.
36.
SaxenaSMotamedRRyanKL (2019) Effects of subsurface soil spatial variability on recorded ground motions at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant. In: Proceedings of Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 25), Charlotte, NC, 4–9 August 2019.
37.
SaxenaSMotamedRRyanKL (2022a) Large-scale 3D ground motion simulations of a moderate-sized earthquake at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. Geo-congress 2022 Proceedings, pp. 92–101.
38.
SaxenaSMotamedRRyanKL (2022b) Contrasting subsurface models for physics-based regional-scale numerical simulations in Japan using a rigorous validation scheme. Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering22(6): 1–21.
39.
ScaliseMPitarkaALouieJNSmithKD (2020) Effect of random 3D correlated velocity perturbations on numerical modeling of ground motion from the source physics experiment. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(1): 139–156.
40.
StewartJCrouseCHutchinsonTLizundiaBNaeimFOstadanF (2012) Soil-structure interaction for building structures. NIST GCR 12-917-21, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
41.
StewartJPFenvesGLSeedRB (1999) Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. I: Analytical methods. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering125(1): 26–37.
42.
TsaiC-CLiuH-W (2017) Site response analysis of vertical ground motion in consideration of soil nonlinearity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering102: 124–136.
43.
UetakeTHikimaKSekineSSawadaY (2016) Spatial variability of ground motion of Niigata—ken Chuetsu area during the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake—Analysis of the data from dense observation array. Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering16(4): 66–79.
44.
UetakeTTokumitsuRNishimuraIHijikataK (2011) Effects of fold structure in the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station on the ground motion characteristics of Niigataken Chuetsu—Oki Earthquake—modeling of sub-surface structure and wave propagation study using a finite difference method. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering76(660): 311–318.
45.
VeletsosA. S.PrasadA. M.WuW. H. (1997) Transfer Functions for Rigid Rectangular Foundations. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26(1): 5–17John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
46.
WangXZhouQZhuKShiLLiXWangH (2017) Analysis of seismic soil-structure interaction for a nuclear power plant (HTR-10). Science and Technology Nuclear Installation2017: 2358403.
47.
YeeEStewartJPTokimatsuK (2013) Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site response from analysis of vertical array recordings. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering139(10): 1789–1801.
48.
ZoghPMotamedRRyanK (2021) Empirical evaluation of kinematic soil-structure interaction effects in structures with large footprints and embedment depths. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering149: 106893.
