Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FOUNDATIONDEFORMATION
DUETOFAULTRUPTURE
www.fugro.com
NorthAnatolianFault
Izmir
IdentificationofActiveFaultsinInterpretedSiteinvestigationData
Pier 1
Pier 2
Pier 1
Pier 2
P03
P04
P02
P01
InthenearshoreareawherefaultswereidentifiedingeophysicaldataPier
foundationswerelocatedinbetweenidentifiedfaults
Imagingoffaultfeatureswasnotpossibleintheonshoreareas,duetohigh
watertableandlargethicknessesofveryrecentsediments
Foundationdesignneedstoaccommodatethepotentialforfaultsbeingpresent
attheindividualfoundationlocations
2,475yearsurfacefaultrupturedisplacements:1mhorizontaland0.5mvertical
Anastasopoulos et al (2008)
Anastasopoulos et al (2008)
Performance of Shallow
Foundation to Fault Rupture
Step 1: Detailed
Soil-Foundation Model
Step 2: Detailed
Superstructure Model
Elevation(m)
StrengthParameters(kPa)
Clays
y (m)
HorizontalDistanced(m)
e_plastic
0.00E+00
4.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.20E-01
1.60E-01
2.00E-01
Contour interval= 2.00E-02
Exaggerated Grid Distortion
Magnification = 1.000E+00
Max Disp = 9.694E-01
y (m)
HorizontalDistanced(m)
e_plastic
0.00E+00
4.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.20E-01
1.60E-01
2.00E-01
Contour interval= 2.00E-02
Exaggerated Grid Distortion
Magnification = 1.000E+00
Max Disp = 9.847E-01
Mesh Sensitivity
1mx1melements
2mx2melements
Numerical Model
Foundation 26m x 36m
Fault Offset
DiversionofFaultRupture
DuetoFootingPresence
FaultOffsetat0m
FaultOffsetat5m
FaultOffsetat+5m
FaultOffsetat10m
FaultOffsetat+10m
HorizontalDisplacement(m)
VerticalDisplacement(m)
C as e1b
C as e1c
0.8
0.6
0.4
Fault offset 0 m
C as e1a
Fault offset 5 m
C as e1d
Fault offset 10 m
C as e1e
0.2
0
0.2
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
C as e1b
C as e1c
C as e1a
C as e1d
C as e1e
0.4
0.2
0
3020100102030
DistancefromFoundationCenterline(m)
10
Dipangle65
Dipangle50o
HorizontalDisplacement(m)
VerticalDisplacement(m)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Angle
80
FDip
oundC
as e1a
o-
Base Case
Angle
FDip
oundC
as e4a65o
Angle
50o
FDip
oundC
as e4b
Dip Angle 80o
Dip Angle 65o
FFree
F C as e4b
Field, Dip Angle 50o
Field,
FFree
F C as e1a
FFree
F C as e4a
Field,
0.4
0.2
0
1.2
1.0
0.8
F oundC as e1a
F oundC as e4a
F oundC as e4b
F F C as e1a
F F C as e4a
F F C as e4b
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
3020100102030
DistancefromFoundationCenterline(m)
11
45o AngleStrike
Foundation
HorizontalDisplacement(m) VerticalDisplacement(m)
F oundC as e1a
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
F oundC as e1a
F oundC as e2
F F C as e1a
F F C as e2
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
40302010010203040
DistancefromFoundationCenterline(m)
12
Conclusions
Thefoundationsystemhasbeenfoundtoplayakeyrole
intheresponseofstructuressubjectedtofaultinduced
groundmovement
Structuresrestingonrigidandcontinuousfoundation
systems(suchasaraft,oraboxtypefoundation)have
demonstratedtobecapableofachievingavery
satisfactoryperformance,irrespectiveofthefaultingtype
ThetypeoffootingselectedfortheIzmitBridgeSouth
ApproachViaductdivertsfaultrupturearoundthefooting
compressessurfaceasperities,thusleadingtosmaller
differentialdisplacements,andthefootingblockitself
remainsstructurallysound
Conclusions
Rotationsandtorsionsontheorderof0.5to1degree
areobservedasthefoundationelementspreadsoutthe
overallgrounddisplacements
Greatertranslationisobservedforcaseswherethefault
ruptureisclosertotheedgesofthefooting,whereasmore
rotation/torsionisobservedfortherupturebeneaththe
footing
13