Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
June, 2008
DOI: 10.1007/s11803-008-0836-5
Abstract:
This is the second paper of two, which describe the results of an integrated research effort to develop a
fourstep simplified approach for design of raft foundations against dip-slip (normal and thrust) fault rupture. The first two
steps dealing with fault rupture propagation in the free-field were presented in the companion paper. This paper develops an
approximate analytical method to analyze soilfoundationstructure interaction (SFSI), involving two additional phenomena:
(i) fault rupture diversion (Step 3); and (ii) modification of the vertical displacement profile (Step 4). For the first phenomenon
(Step 3), an approximate energybased approach is developed to estimate the diversion of a fault rupture due to presence of
a raft foundation. The normalized critical load for complete diversion is shown to be a function of soil strength, coefficient of
earth pressure at rest, bedrock depth, and the horizontal position of the foundation relative to the outcropping fault rupture.
For the second phenomenon (Step 4), a heuristic approach is proposed, which scans through possible equilibrium positions
to detect the one that best satisfies force and moment equilibrium. Thus, we account for the strong geometric nonlinearities
that govern this interaction, such as uplifting and second order (P) effects. Comparisons with centrifugevalidated finite
element analyses demonstrate the efficacy of the method. Its simplicity makes possible its utilization for preliminary design.
Keywords:
1 Introduction
Recent case histories of faulting through populated
areas have shown that even modest civil engineering
structures on rigid and continuous foundations can survive
large surface dislocations (Youd et al., 2000; Erdik, 2001;
Bray, 2001; Ural, 2001; Ulusay et al., 2002; Pamuk et al.,
2005). Recent research efforts, combining field studies
(Anastasopoulos & Gazetas, 2007a; Faccioli et al., 2007),
centrifuge model testing (Bransby et al., 2007a; 2007b),
and finite element (FE) simulations (Anastasopoulos &
Gazetas, 2007b; Anastasopoulos et al., 2007b), have
shown that the rigidity and continuity of the foundation
system is a crucial factor for survival. While structures
on isolated footings are prone to collapse, buildings lying
on rigid and continuous raft foundations can perform well
even under extreme ground dislocations of the order of
several meters (Faccioli et al., 2007). For such structures,
Correspondence to: G. Gazetas, 36 Asimakopoulou Str., Ag.
Paraskevi 15342, Athens, Greece
Tel: (30) 210 600 85 78; Fax: (30) 210 772 24 05
E-mail: gazetas@ath.forthnet.gr
166
Vol.7
Heavy structure
Soft soil
Fault
Fault
(a) Fault rupture close to the hanging-wall side edge of the foundation
Heavy structure
Light structure
structure
Light
Stiff soil
Soft soil
Fault
Fault
(b) Fault rupture close to the footwall side edge of the foundation
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the prevailing interaction mechanisms. Notice the qualitative difference among the two extremes:
light structure on stiff soil versus heavy structure on soft soil
No.2
I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI
(1)
s
dy
sin( )
167
Strip foundation
(2)
yo
xo
Soil: , , c
Fault
Fig. 2 Simplified analytical method for estimation of fault
rupture diversion : problem definition.
b
X
X
y
yo
cr
xo
O
(x, y)
O
Y
Y
(a) Problem geometry and related definitions
Stresses acting on a soil element
168
yo
(3)
yo sin( )
s dr
(4)
(6)
s c + g y + tan( )
(7)
(8)
b + xo + r cos( )
b xo r cos( )
= arctan
+ arctan
yo r sin( )
yo r sin( )
(9)
and hence, the work done along the rupture path can be
written as:
W=
b+ x
b x
= arctan
+ arctan
y
y
Vol.7
yo sin( )
b + xo + r cos( )
q
c + g [ yo r sin( )] + arctan
+
yo r sin( )
b xo r cos( )
arctan
tan( ) dr
yo r sin( )
(10)
I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI
W/gbH
1.0
q=1
q=7
b/4
b/4
q=40
Dcr=3b/4=3.75m
1.0
0.6
60
70
80
Partial diversion
90
0.4
0
20
40
60
qcr=76kPa
80
100
q (kPa)
Fig. 5
Bifurcation due
to interaction
(12)
Complete diversion
(deg)
Fig. 4
q
[ sin( ) cos( + 2 )]
0.8
q=0(kPa)
50
x = Ko g y +
(11)
q=20
0.6
40
q
[ + sin( ) cos( + 2 )]
1.2
min=90
q=60
0.8
y =g y +
1.4
00
6
0.4
30
2b
min= cr
2b
1.2
q=0
1.4
169
D (m)
No.2
Free-field
Diversion due
to interaction
Free-field
h=2.0m
h1.98m
20
40
(%)
60
Fig. 6 Example of FE and centrifuge model test results illustrating the fault rupture diversion due to interaction with a strip
foundation: rigid B = 10 m strip foundation, with a surcharge load q = 91 kPa. Notice that due to the presence of the
foundation, the rupture is divided in two. The first of the two ruptures is diverted a few meters away from the hangingwall side (right) edge of the foundation, in accord with the simplified analytical approach. The second is diverted to the
footwall side (left) edge of the foundation
170
q
sin( )sin( + 2 )
(13)
where:
b + xo + r cos( )
[b xo r cos( )]
= arctan
arctan
yo r sin( )
yo r sin( )
(14)
[b xo r cos( )]
= arctan
yo r sin( )
(15)
1.25
yo/b=1
yo/b=2
yo/b=4
yo/b=8
(16)
D/b
1.00
Vol.7
0.75
Complete
diversion
Assumption of
mean pressure
increase for
yo/b=2
0.50
0.25
0
yo sin( )
[c + n tan( ) ] dr
(18)
Fig. 7
0.2
0.4
0.6
qcr /gb
0.8
1.0
Free-field
Diversion due
to interaction
Free-field
h=2.0m
h=2.03m
Fig. 8
20
40
60
(%)
80
Example of FE and centrifuge model test results illustrating fault rupture diversion due to interaction with a strip
foundation: rigid B = 10 m strip foundation, with a surcharge load q = 37 kPa. The rupture is diverted to the footwall side
edge of the foundation, in agreement with the prediction of the simplified analytical approach with the elastic stress field
assumption
No.2
I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI
load for complete diversion qcr/gb decreases nonlinearly with the increase of yo /b, and a threshold value of
yo /b exists, below which the rupture cannot be diverted.
1.0
2.0
0.8
yo,cr/b=2.5
qcr /gb
qcr /gb
1.5
yo,cr/b=2
1.0
0.6
yo,cr/b=1.1
0.4
0.5
171
=30
=30, c=40kPa
=45
yo,cr/b=1.65
yo,cr/b=0.7
0.2
=30
=30, c=40kPa
=45
yo,cr/b=0.5
0
0
yo /b
yo /b
(b) xo/b=0.75
(a) xo/b=0.25
Fig. 9 Normalised critical load qcr /gb , assuming Ko= 0.5, with respect to bedrock depth yo/b , soil type, and horizontal distance
of the fault rupture from the centerline of the footing. ( = 2 Mg/m3 )
Cantilever
Cantilever
Simply supported
single span
q
Simplified equivalent
static system
Cantilever
Hogging
deformation
Cantilever
Simplified equivalent
static system
Simply supported
single span
Sagging
deformation
Fig. 10. Schematic illustration of foundation distress arising from loss of support. Depending on the position of the outcropping
fault rupture, loss of support may take place. More complicated equilibrium modes are also possible
172
Vol.7
B=10 m
xs=3 m
Dense sand
H=20 m
h=2 m, =60
1
Pa
q=20 k
-2
p/q
y (m)
0
-1
-6
-2
-3
-15
-4
-10
-5
10
20 kPa
80 kPa
-8
15
20
0.2
0.4
x (m)
1
-0.12
Pa
k
80
M/qB2
y (m)
-1
-2
-5
1.0
10
-0.06
-0.03
0
-10
0.8
20 kPa
80 kPa
h=0
-0.09
q=
-3
-15
0.6
x/B
15
20
0.03
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
x/B
x (m)
Fig. 11 Example of FE analysis results illustrating the stressing of the foundation due to loss of support : rigid B = 10 m strip
foundation with surcharge load q = 20 and 80 kPa, subjected to h = 2 m normal fault rupture through an H = 20 m dense
sand deposit, at distance xs = 3 m. As revealed by the normalized contact pressure p/q diagram, the increase of q leads
to a decrease of the width of the unsupported spans of the foundation (left and right cantilevers), and of the normalised
bending moment M/qB2. In contrast, foundation rotation is increased with q
No.2
I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI
173
B=10 m
Dense sand
h=2 m, =60
0
-4
Pa
0k
-1
q=2
/q
y (m)
Xs=9 m
-8
-12
-2
-3
-20
H=20 m
Effective
width
-15
-10
Loss of
support
Effective
width
-5
20 kPa
80 kPa
-16
5
10
15
0.2
0.4
x (m)
1
0.8
1.0
0
0.02
q=80
-1
M/qB2
0
y (m)
0.6
x/B
kPa
0.04
0.06
-2
-3
-20
-15
-10
-5
20 kPa
80 kPa
Static
0.08
10
15
x (m)
0.10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
x/B
Fig. 12 Example of FE analysis results illustrating the stressing of the foundation due to loss of support : rigid B = 10 m strip
foundation with surcharge load q = 20 and 80 kPa, subjected to h = 2 m normal fault rupture through an H = 20 m dense
sand deposit, at distance xs = 9 m. As revealed by the normalized contact pressure p/q diagram, the increase of q leads to a
decrease of the of the width of the unsupported span of the foundation (central simply supported span), and hence of the
normalised bending moment M/qB2. Foundation rotation is also decreased with the increase of q
2007a; b).
The geometry of the problem is depicted in Fig.
13. A rigid system of width B = 2b, carrying a uniform
surcharge load q, is subjected to faulting-induced vertical
displacement profile Sp(x). To simplify the procedure,
we ignore the quasi-elastic vertical displacement
component, focusing on plastic displacements only.
Using the semi-analytical expressions of the companion
paper, and setting W = 1 xs so that the rupture outcrops
at distance xs from the hanging-wall side (left) edge of
the foundation, Sp(x) can be written as:
Sp ( x) = 1 tanh { ( x + 1 xs )}
h hy
2
(19)
where:
2
h hy
(20)
(21)
174
Vol.7
2b
2b
B=
B=
Center of
mass
h cm
qB
hcmcos() b cos ()
yu
X
Y
act
l re
Soi
Sp
(a) Problem geometry
yu
X
n
o
i s
Fig. 13 Simplified analytical method to determine the modification (suppression) of the vertical displacement profile
Soil
Soil
Fault
Soil
Fault
Fault
Sp
Sp
Sp
X
X
Y
Y
Sp
Sp
Sp
Simplified analytical method for estimation of the modification of the vertical displacement profile: trial equilibrium
positions of the foundation
No.2
I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI
f ( x) Sp ( x) ks ,
p( x) =
,
0
if
f ( x) Sp ( x)
if
f ( x) < Sp ( x)
eRM ( yu , ) = F2 + M2
B cos( )
B cos( )
(27)
Fext
q=91 kPa
xs=1.9 m
(23)
y (m)
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
p( x)dx Fext = 0
-2.5
(24)
h=0.2m
h=0.6m
h=1.0m
h=1.5m
h=2m
h0.20 m
h0.59 m
h0.99 m
h1.49 m
h1.98 m
-3.0
-30
p( x)dx Fext
B=10 m
-0.5
B cos( )
(26)
where:
(22)
175
p( x) x dx M ext = 0
(25)
Free-field
fault outcrop
-20
-10
x (m)
10
B=10 m
hcm=3 m
xs=2 m
B=10m
Dense sand
h=2 m
1
x (m)
10
0
20
-1
p (kPa)
y (m)
-2
-3
10
Analytical method
FE analysis
8
x (m)
(a) Vertical displacement y at the ground surface
40
60
80
Analytical method
FE analysis
0
100
(b) Soil reactions p
Fig. 16 Comparison of the simplified analytical method with FE analysis results ; B = 10 m, q = 35 kPa, hcm = 3 m (2-storey)
structure, subjected to h = 2 m normal faulting at xs = 2 m through dense sand
176
M =
B cos( )
p( x) x dx M ext
(28)
M ext
Vol.7
1
0
p (kPa)
y (m)
-1
20
15
10
20
40
60
-2
Analytical method
FE analysis
-3
20
15
10
x (m)
80
Analytical method
FE analysis
100
x (m)
(b) Soil reactions p
Fig. 17 Comparison of the simplified method with FE analysis results; B = 20 m, q = 80 kPa, hcm = 7.5 m (5-storey) structure,
subjected to h = 2 m normal faulting at xs = 16 m through dense sand
No.2
I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI
6
(%)
5
4
3
2
1
0
20
40
60
q (kPa)
(a) xs =4 m
80
100
16
(%)
12
8
FE Analysis Analytical method
Dense
Dense
Loose
Loose
4
0
20
40
60
q (kPa)
(b) xs =10 m
80
100
16
(%)
12
8
4
0
20
40
60
q (kPa)
(c) xs =16 m
80
100
177
178
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by OSE (the Greek Railway
Organization), as part of the research project Railway
Bridges on Active Seismic Faults. Centrifuge testing
and finite element analyses formed part of the EU
research project QUAKER, funded through the EU
Fifth Framework Programme, under contract number:
EVG1-CT-2002-00064.
References
Anastasopoulos I and Gazetas G (2007a), FoundationStructure Systems over a Rupturing Normal Fault: Part
I. Observations After the Kocaeli 1999 Earthquake,
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 5(3): 253275.
Anastasopoulos I and Gazetas G (2007b), Behaviour of
StructureFoundation Systems over a Rupturing Normal
Fault: Part II. Analysis of the Kocaeli Case Histories,
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 5(3): 277301.
Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G, Bransby MF, Davies MCR
and El Nahas A (2007a), Fault Rupture Propagation
Through Sand: Finite Element Analysis and Validation
Through Centrifuge Experiments, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133
(8): 943958.
Vol.7
No.2
I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI
179