Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 78:105 | Cite as

Study on seismic isolation measures for cross-fault embankment

  • Honglue QuEmail author
  • Ying Liu
  • Bingkun Zhang
  • Qindi Hu
  • Junwei Zhang
Original Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Under the movement of fault, embankment can produce uneven displacement, deformation and even destruction. Consequently, it is necessary to adopt appropriate seismic measures to reduce the deformation or damage of embankment with the fault displacement. In view of this, the dynamic response of a cross-fault embankment with raft foundation as a seismic isolation measure was simulated by ABAQUS in this paper. Based on the reverse fault and normal fault, three kinds of setting positions of the raft foundation were set and then the displacement of subgrade surface and bending moments of raft foundation in all kinds of working conditions were calculated and compared. The results show that when s/b = 0.75, the fracture zone is shifted to the right compared with no foundation, indirectly reducing the dip angle of fault (“s” is the distance that from left endpoint of the foundation to the surface outer point of fault without foundation, “b” is the width of foundation). In addition, it is found that the vertical displacement curve of subgrade surface when s/b = 0.75 is gentler than other working conditions, furthermore, the curve’s largest inclination value and bending moment of raft foundation are the minimum. Therefore, the best condition for raft foundation as a seismic measure to cross-fault embankment is s/b = 0.75.

Keywords

Cross-fault embankment ABAQUS Dynamic response Seismic measures 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant no. 41602332, and the Youth Scientific and Technological Innovation Team of Southwest Petroleum University under Grant no. 2018CXTD02.

References

  1. Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2007) Foundation–structure systems over a rupturing normal fault: part I. Observations after the Kocaeli 1999 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 5(3):253–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastasopoulos I, Callerio A, Bransby MF, Davies MCR, Nahas AE (2008) Numerical analyses of fault-foundation interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 6(4):645–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anastasopoulos I, Antonakos G, Gazetas G (2010) Slab foundation subjected to thrust faulting in dry sand: parametric analysis and simplified design method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(10):912–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bransby MF, Davies MCR, Nahas AE (2008a) Centrifuge modelling of normal fault-foundation interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 6:585–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bransby MF, Davies MCR, Nahas AE, Nagaoka S (2008b) Centrifuge modelling of reverse fault-foundation interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 6(4):607–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bray JD, Seed RB, Seed HB (1994) Analysis of earthquake fault rupture propagation through cohesive soil. J Geotech Eng ASCE 120(3):562–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dong JC (1999) Brief introduction of safe distance regulations of Earthquake rupture‘Building Seismic Design’ Code Revised profile (Five). Eng Seism 2:14–16 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  8. Guo ED, Shao GB, Bo GS, Ji SZ (2002) A method for earthquake rupture analysis of overlying soil site. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 22(5):122–126 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  9. Loli M, Bransby MF, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2015) Interaction of caisson foundations with a seismically rupturing normal fault: centrifuge testing versus numerical simulation. Geotechnique 62(1):29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lubkowski ZA, Duan X (2001) Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance. Civ Eng 144(6):55–60Google Scholar
  11. Qu HL, Luo H, Hu HG, Jia HY, Zhang DY (2018) Dynamic response of anchored sheet pile wall under ground motion: analytical model with experimental validation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 115:896–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Solhmirzaei R, Soroush A, Zanjani MM (2012) Numerical analysis of effects of fault rupture on overlying soil structures. In: International conference on dams and hydropowerGoogle Scholar
  13. Taniyama H, Watanabe H (2002) Deformation of sandy de-posits by reverse faulting. Struct Eng Earthq Eng 19(2):209S–219SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zanjani MM, Soroush A (2013) Numerical modeling of reverse fault rupture propagation through clayey embankment. Int J Civ Eng 11(2):122–132Google Scholar
  15. Zhang BK (2014) Several key influencing factors in the numerical simulation of fault. Sichuan Archit 2:124–125 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  16. Zhang JY (2016) Active fault setback research on engineering sites. Recent Dev World Seismol 4:47–48 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  17. Zhao L, Wang JH, Zhao JS (2011) Analysis of permanent deformation scale of the overlying soil caused by earthquake fault. Adv Mater Res 243–249:3848–3853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhu JF, Huang ZL (2003) City active fault explore and seismic risk evaluation in Fujian province. Fujian Earthq 2:3–11 (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Honglue Qu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ying Liu
    • 1
  • Bingkun Zhang
    • 2
  • Qindi Hu
    • 1
  • Junwei Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Geoscience and TechnologySouthwest Petroleum UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Sichuan Institute of Building ResearchChengduChina

Personalised recommendations