Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 607–628 | Cite as

Centrifuge modelling of reverse fault–foundation interaction

  • M. F. BransbyEmail author
  • M. C. R. Davies
  • A. El Nahas
  • S. Nagaoka
Original Research Paper


The propagation of reverse faults through soil to the ground surface has been observed to cause damage to surface infrastructure. However, the interaction between a fault propagating through a sand layer and a shallow foundation can be beneficial for heavily loaded foundations by causing deviation of the fault away from the foundation. This was studied in a series of centrifuge model tests in which reverse faults of dip angle 60° (at bedrock level) were initiated through a sand layer, close to shallow foundations. The tests revealed subtle interaction between the fault and the shallow foundation so that the foundation and soil response depend on the foundation loading, position, breadth and flexibility. Heavily loaded rigid foundations appeared best able to deviate fault rupture away from the foundation but this deviation could be associated with significant foundation rotations. However, a lightly loaded foundation was unable to deviate a reverse fault and the fault emerged beneath the foundation. This led to gapping beneath the foundation as well as significant rotations and may cause severe structural distress. As well as providing insight into the mechanisms of behaviour, the data from the tests is used to validate finite element analyses in a separate article.


Centrifuge modelling Earthquake fault rupture Shallow foundations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2007a) Foundation-structure systems over a rupturing normal fault: I. Observations after the Kocaeli 1999(Earthquake. Bull Earthquake Eng 5(3): 253–275 doi: 10.1007/s10518-007-9029-2 Google Scholar
  2. Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2007b) Behaviour of structure-foundation systems over a rupturing normal fault: II. Analyses, experiments, and the Kocaeli case histories. Bull Earthquake Eng 5(3): 277–301 doi: 10.1007/s10518-007-9030-9 Google Scholar
  3. Anastasopoulos I, Callerio A, Bransby MF, Davies MCR, Gazetas G, Masella A et al (2008) Numerical analyses of fault–foundation interaction. Bull Earthquake Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-008-9078-1
  4. Berill JB (1983) Two-dimensional analysis of the effect of fault rupture on buildings with shallow foundations. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2(3): 156–160 doi: 10.1016/0261-7277(83)90012-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bransby MF, Davies MCR, El Nahas A (2008) Centrifuge modelling of normal fault–foundation interaction. Bull Earthquake Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-008-9079-0
  6. Bray JD (1990) The effects of tectonic movements on stresses and deformations in earth embankments. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray JD (2001) Developing mitigation measures for the hazards associated with earthquake surface fault rupture. In: A workshop on seismic fault-induced failures– possible remedies for damage to urban facilities. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, University of Tokyo, Japan, January 11–12, pp 55–79Google Scholar
  8. Cole DA Jr, Lade PV (1984) Influence zones in alluvium over dip-slip faults. J Geotechnol Eng 110: 599–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faccioli E, Anastasopoulos I, Callerio A, Gazetas G (2008) Case histories of fault–foundation interaction. Bull Earthquake Eng (submitted)Google Scholar
  10. Gaudin C (2002) Modélisation physique et numérique des écrans de soutènement: application à l’étude de l’effet d’une surcharge sur le sol soutenu. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de NantesGoogle Scholar
  11. Johansson J, Konagai K (2007) Fault induced permanent ground deformations: experimental verification of wet and dry soil, numerical findings’ relation to field observations of tunnel damage and implications for design. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 27(10): 938–956 doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karamitros D, Bouckovalas G, Kouretzis G (2007) Stress analysis of buried steel pipelines at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 27(3): 200–211 doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Muir Wood D (2004) Geotechnical modelling. Spon Press.Google Scholar
  14. O’Rourke MJ (2003) Buried pipelines. In: Chen W-F, Scawthorn C (eds) Earthquake engineering handbook. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Pamuk A, Kalkanb E, Linga HI (2005) Structural and geotechnical impacts of surface rupture on highway structures during recent earthquakes in Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 25: 581–589 doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ramancharla PK, Meguro K (2002) Non-linear static modelling of dip-slip faults for studying ground surface deformation using applied element method. Struct Eng/Earthquake Eng JSCE 19(2): 169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roth WH, Scott RF, Austin I (1981) Centrifuge modelling of fault propagation through alluvial soils. Geophys Res Lett 8(6): 561–564 doi: 10.1029/GL008i006p00561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roth WH, Sweet J, Goodman RE (1982) Numerical and physical modelling of flexural Slip phenomena and potential for fault movement. Rock Mech Suppl 12: 27–46Google Scholar
  19. Schofield AN (1980) Cambridge University geotechnical centrifuge operations. Rankine lecture. Geotechnique 30(3): 227–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taniyama H, Watanabe H (2002) Deformation of sandy deposits by reverse faulting. Struct Eng/Earthquake Eng JSCE 19(2): 209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ulusay R, Aydan O, Hamada M (2002) The behaviour of structures built on active fault zones: examples from the recent earthquakes of Turkey. Struct Eng Earthq Eng JSCE 19(2): 149–167 doi: 10.2208/jsceseee.19.149s CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vardoulakis I, Graf B, Gudehus G (1981) Trap-door problem with dry sand: a statical approach based on model test kinematics. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 5: 58–78 doi: 10.1002/nag.1610050106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. White RJ, Stone KJL, Jewel RJ (1994) Effect of particle size on localization development in model tests on sand. In: Leung CF, Lee FH, Tan ET (eds) Centrifuge, vol 94. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 817–822Google Scholar
  24. White DJ, Take WA, Bolton MD (2003) Soil deformation measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry. Geotechnique 53(7): 619–631 doi: 10.1680/geot.53.7.619.37383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yilmaz MT, Paolucci R (2007) Earthquake fault rupture–shallow foundation interaction in undrained soils: a simplified analytical approach. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 36(1): 101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Youd TL, Bardet J-P, Bray JD (2000) Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake of August 17, 1999. Reconnaissance report. Earthquake spectra, Suppl. A to vol 16, pp 456Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. F. Bransby
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. C. R. Davies
    • 1
  • A. El Nahas
    • 1
  • S. Nagaoka
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Civil EngineeringUniversity of DundeeNethergate, DundeeUK

Personalised recommendations