Numerical study on phase difference-driven mechanical behaviors of gravel–structure interface under three-dimensional circular cyclic shear

Abstract

Soil–structural interfaces, such as those between foundations, tunnels, retaining walls, and slopes, serve as critical zones for stress and deformation transfer in geotechnical systems. Although extensive research exists on two-dimensional interface mechanics, the zonal characteristics, non-coaxial behavior, and reversible volumetric deformation mechanisms under three-dimensional (3D) loading remain poorly understood. To address this gap, a series of discrete element method (DEM) simulations focused on the phase-dependent response of shear stress, normal displacement, and microstructural interactions were conducted in this study. The influence of the tangential displacement phase difference D_p on the 3D cyclic shear behavior of gravel–structure interfaces under circular shear paths was investigated based on DEM. The controlling role of shear path geometry in governing non-coaxial behavior and reversible volumetric deformation is explicitly revealed. Specifically, it is demonstrated that stable, hysteretic stress–displacement loops with minimal volumetric hysteresis are promoted by circular shear paths (D_p = π/2, 3π/2), whereas abrupt stress reversals and amplified dilatancy-recompression cycles are induced by bidirectional linear paths (D_p = π, 2π). Furthermore, periodic oscillations of non-coaxial angles (α₃) are observed, transitioning from 90° under pure rotation to peak fluctuations exceeding 30° under phase-shifted shear. These mechanistic understandings are highlighted as being crucial for the advancement of 3D interface constitutive models.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

gravel–structure interface / cyclic shear / non-coaxial behavior / reversible volumetric deformation / phase difference / microscopic responses

References

[1] Zhang C , Jiang C , Pang L . Investigation on the shear behavior of thin-layer grouted joints: Discrete element analysis and analytical model. Computational Particle Mechanics, 2025, 12(3): 1751–1771

[2] Yan Z , Zaoui A , Sekkal W . Discrete-element method study of the effect of ballast layer depth on the performance of railway ballast bed. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2025, 25(1): 04024309

[3] Afzali-Nejad A , Lashkari A , Martinez A . Stress–displacement response of sand–geosynthetic interfaces under different volume change boundary conditions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2021, 147(8): 04021062

[4] Rehman Z U , Luo F , Wang T , Zhang G . Large-scale test study on the three-dimensional behavior of the gravel–concrete interface of a CFR dam. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2020, 20(6): 4020046

[5] Yang J , Li X S . State-dependent strength of sands from the perspective of unified modeling. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2004, 130(2): 186–198

[6] Jitsangiam P , Praai S , Boulon M , Jenck O , Chen X , Techavorasinsakul S . Characterization of a soil-rough structure interface using direct shear tests with varying cyclic amplitude and loading sequences under a large cyclic testing cycle condition. Acta Geotechnica, 2022, 17(5): 1829–1845

[7] Qannadizadeh A , Shourijeh P T , Lashkari A . Laboratory investigation and constitutive modeling of the mechanical behavior of sand–GRP interfaces. Acta Geotechnica, 2022, 17(10): 4253–4275

[8] Rui S , Wang L , Guo Z , Zhou W , Li Y . Cyclic behavior of interface shear between carbonate sand and steel. Acta Geotechnica, 2021, 16(1): 189–209

[9] Lashkari A , Jamali V . Global and local sand–geosynthetic interface behavior. Geotechnique, 2020, 71(4): 1–47

[10] Maghsoodi S , Cuisinier O , Masrouri F . Effect of temperature on the cyclic behavior of clay–structure interface. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2020, 146(10): 04020103

[11] Feng W , Li C , Yin J , Chen J , Liu K . Physical model study on the clay–sand interface without and with geotextile separator. Acta Geotechnica, 2019, 14(6): 2065–2081

[12] Sun T , Yang J , Shi K , Lin S , Yang J . Macro–microscopic mechanical study of clay–structure interface shear behavior using direct shear testing and DEM simulation. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2025, 2025(1): 6356879

[13] Feng D , Zhang J . Role of tangential displacement amplitude in 3D cyclic simple shear behavior of gravel–steel interface. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2024, 24(9): 04024189

[14] Feng D KZhang J M. Role of stress amplitude ratio in the non-coaxial behavior of the interface between gravel and structure. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2022, 43(11): 3047–3058 (in Chinese)

[15] Feng D , Zhang J . Consistency behavior and mechanism of the irreversible dilatancy of gravel–structure interface subjected to 3D loadings. Acta Geotechnica, 2024, 19(7): 4637–4653

[16] Martinez A , Palumbo S , Todd B D . Bioinspiration for anisotropic load transfer at soil–structure interfaces. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2019, 145(10): 04019074

[17] Wang H , Zhou W , Yin Z , Jie X X . Effect of grain size distribution of sandy soil on shearing behaviors at soil–structure interface. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2019, 31(10): 04019238

[18] Wang J , Liu F Y , Wang P , Cai Y Q . Particle size effects on coarse soil-geogrid interface response in cyclic and post-cyclic direct shear tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2016, 44(6): 854–861

[19] Zhang G , Wang L , Zhang J . Dilatancy of the interface between a structure and gravelly soil. Geotechnique, 2011, 61(1): 75–84

[20] Feng D , Zhang J , Hou W . Three-dimensional stress-controlled cyclic behavior of the interface between gravel and steel. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 151: 106988

[21] Han F , Ganju E , Salgado R , Prezzi M . Effects of interface roughness, particle geometry, and gradation on the sand–steel interface friction angle. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2018, 144(12): 04018096

[22] Li M , Li Y , Islam M R . Effects of water content and interface roughness on the shear strength of silt–cement mortar interface. Soil and Foundation, 2021, 61(6): 1615–1629

[23] Chen J , Indraratna B , Vinod J S , Ngo T , Liu Y . Effects of particle shape on the shear behavior and breakage of ballast: A DEM approach. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2025, 25(1): 04024304

[24] Zeraati-Shamsabadi M , Sadrekarimi A . A DEM study on the effects of specimen and particle sizes on direct simple shear tests. Granular Matter, 2025, 27(2): 36

[25] Bernhardt M L , Biscontin G , O’Sullivan C . Experimental validation study of 3D direct simple shear DEM simulations. Soil and Foundation, 2016, 56(3): 336–347

[26] Zabihi NAthanasopoulos-Zekkos A. Discrete element modelling of large scale stacked-ring simple shear test of steel spheres. In: Proceedings of the Geo-Congress 2020: Modeling, Geomaterials, and Site Characterization. Minneapolis, MN: ASCE, 2020, 491–500

[27] Zhao J , Zhao S , Luding S . The role of particle shape in computational modelling of granular matter. Nature Reviews. Physics, 2023, 5(9): 505–525

[28] Ari A , Akbulut S . Evaluation of sand–geomembrane interface behavior using discrete element method. Granular Matter, 2022, 24(1): 21

[29] Stutz H H , Martinez A . Directionally dependent strength and dilatancy behavior of soil–structure interfaces. Acta Geotechnica, 2021, 16(9): 2805–2820

[30] DeJong J T , Westgate Z J . Role of initial state, material properties, and confinement condition on local and global soil–structure interface behavior. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2009, 135(11): 1646–1660

[31] Sun Y , Sumelka W , Gao Y , Nimbalkar S . Phenomenological fractional stress–dilatancy model for granular soil and soil–structure interface under monotonic and cyclic loads. Acta Geotechnica, 2021, 16(10): 3115–3132

[32] Sun Y , Wojciech S , He S , Gao Y . Enhanced fractional model for soil–structure interface considering 3D stress state and fabric effect. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2022, 148(9): 04022054

[33] Rehman Z U , Zhang G . Shear coupling effect of monotonic and cyclic behavior of the interface between steel and gravel. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2018, 56(6): 876–884

[34] Zia U R , Zhang G . Three-dimensional elasto-plastic damage model for gravelly soil–structure interface considering the shear coupling effect. Computers and Geotechnics, 2021, 129: 103868

[35] Rehman Z U , Zhang G . Cyclic behavior of the gravel-steel interface under varying rotational shear paths. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2019, 58(3): 305–316

[36] Liu Z , Gong G , Dou X , Zuo T , Zhao Y , Wu Q , Ning F . The microscopic failure mechanism of hydrate-bearing sand under direct shear: Insights from 3D DEM simulation. Energy & Fuels, 2025, 39(17): 8001–8010

[37] Liu Y , Liu H , Mao H . The influence of rolling resistance on the stress-dilatancy and fabric anisotropy of granular materials. Granular Matter, 2018, 20(1): 12

[38] Feng D , Zhang J , Hou W . Three-dimensional behaviors of a gravel–steel interface considering initial shear stress. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2021, 147(2): 04020158

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press