Vol.7, No.

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2008) 7:165-179

June, 2008

DOI: 10.1007/s11803-008-0836-5

Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against

fault rupture. Part II: soilstructure interaction
I. Anastasopoulos1,2, N. Gerolymos1, G. Gazetas1 and M. F. Bransby2
1. School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece
2. Civil Engineering, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK

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:

fault rupture; analytical method; raft foundation; soil-structure interaction; earthquake

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

Lecturer; Professor; Senior Lecturer

Supported by: OSE (the Greek Railway Organization), and the
EU Fifth Framework Programme Under Grant No. EVG1-CT2002-00064
Received March 23, 2008; Accepted April 24, 2008

foundation and structure distress arises mainly from loss

of support (Anastasopoulos et al., 2007b).
As schematically illustrated in Fig. 1, depending on
the location of the structure relative to the outcropping
fault rupture, loss of support may take place either under
the two edges or under the middle. In the first case
(Fig.1(a)), the unsupported spans behave as cantilevers
on elastic supports (producing hogging deformation);
in the second (Fig.1(b)) as a single span on elastic
supports (producing sagging deformation). The width
of the unsupported span(s) has been shown to decrease
as the surcharge load q increases (Anastasopoulos et al.,
2007b; Faccioli et al., 2007). The latter plays a dual role:
(a) it modifies the stress field underneath the foundation,
., 1976;
facilitating fault rupture diversion (Niccum
Youd, 1989; Kelson et al., 2001; Bray & Kelson, 2006);
and (b) it tends to flatten any tectonically-imposed
soil anomalies, increasing the effective width (seating)
of the foundation, and thus reducing the stressing. With
a high bearing pressure q, detachment may even be
avoided completely (e.g. Anastasopoulos et al., 2007b).
Foundation rotation is also a function of q, as is the
position of the foundation relative to the fault outcrop.
This paper, along with its companion (Anastasopoulos
et al., 2008), develops a four-step semi-analytical
approach for analysis of dip-slip fault rupture
propagation through sand and its interaction with a

166

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Light structure

Vol.7

Heavy structure

Fault rupture diversion

Stiff soil

Soft soil

Free-field fault rupture

Fault

Fault

(a) Fault rupture close to the hanging-wall side edge of the foundation
Heavy structure

Light structure
structure
Light

Fault rupture diversion

Free-field
fault rupture

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

raft foundation. As already discussed in the companion

paper, we consider a uniform soil deposit of thickness
H, at the base of which a dip-slip fault, dipping at angle
, ruptures and produces bedrock offset of vertical
amplitude (throw) h. A raft foundation of width B,
carrying a uniformly distributed load q, interacts with
the outcropping fault rupture and the deforming soil.
The first two steps, already presented in the companion
paper, deal with fault rupture propagation in the freefield, emphasizing estimation of the location of fault
outcropping (Step 1), and of the vertical displacement
profile at the ground surface (Step 2). This paper deals
with the last two steps, emphasizing soil-foundation
structure interaction (SFSI).

2 Fault rupture diversion

To the best of our knowledge, the Central Bank of
Nicaragua constituted one of the earliest case histories
of fault rupture diversion (Niccum et al., 1976). In the
1972 Ms 6.3 Managua earthquake, the strike-slip fault
rupture crossed the Bank. The building sustained almost
no damage, thanks to the existence of a rigid reinforcedconcrete underground vault, which successfully diverted

the rupture. Duncan & Lefebvre (1973) conducted a

series of small-scale tests to investigate the interplay
between a strike-slip fault and a rigid embedded
cylindrical vault. As in reality, the rupture was observed
to divert as it approached the rigid structure, following
the easiest path, which certainly was not through the
rigid body.
Berill (1983) studied the behaviour of a rigid shallow
foundation of width 2b and surcharge load q, subjected
to strike-slip faulting at the base of a soil deposit of
thickness H. Assuming planestrain conditions and
planar fault rupture propagation, he identified four
possible failure mechanisms: Type 1 no diversion of the
rupture and foundation slippage; Type 1a no diversion
of the rupture and foundation structural failure; Type
2 fault rupture diversion starting from bedrock and
emerging at the edge of the foundation; and Type 2a
diversion of the rupture starting at a smaller depth and
also emerging at the edge of the foundation. Assuming
that the thickness and reinforcement of the foundation
is adequate to avoid structural failure (i.e., ignoring the
second mechanism), in order to find the conditions under
which the rupture may be diverted he considered the
work done on the soilfoundation system per unit value
of the offset of the strike-slip fault for each failure type.

No.2

I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI

The work for Type 1 failure was taken to be equal to

the shearing resistance of the soil plus the work for
foundation slippage:
W1 = b q tan( ) + s dy
H

(1)

where s is the shear strength of the soil along the rupture

path, is the angle of friction at the soil-foundation
interface, and y is the depth below the soil surface. In the
same manner, the work for Type 2 failure was taken to
be equal to the shearing resistance of the soil, but along
a rupture path inclined at angle = arctan (H/b) to the
horizontal:
W2 =

s
dy
sin( )

167

2.1 Simplified analytical method

The approximate analytical method developed here
for dip-slip faulting can be seen as an extension of Berills
workbased approach. We consider a continuous rigid
strip foundation of breadth B = 2b subjected to uniform
surcharge load q, lying on a soil deposit of depth H,
subjected to dip-slip faulting at its base (Fig. 2).
As illustrated in Fig. 3, we consider a reference point
B
b

Strip foundation

(2)

yo
xo

Integrating along the failure paths, Berill produced

closed form expressions for W1 and W2. Then, equating
W1 with FS W2 , he estimated the minimum required
surcharge load qcr for the rupture to be diverted with a
factor of safety FS. To verify his analytical approach, he
conducted a series of small-scale tests. However, qcr in
the experiments was found to be 1.5 to 2.0 times larger
than the theoretical values. This difference was attributed
to the assumption of plane strain conditions.

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

Stresses along the rupture path

(b) Stress-related definitions.

Fig. 3 Simplified analytical method for estimation of fault rupture diversion

168

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

O of a fault, at depth yo and horizontal distance xo

from the centreline of the foundation. In the absence of
foundation (i.e., in the free field), the rupture is assumed
to propagate vertically. This simplifying assumption can
be reasonable in the case of normal faulting; in thrust
faulting it is only a practical approximation. Due to the
presence of the foundation and the associated stress
changes, the rupture may be diverted and forced
to follow an inclined propagation path. We consider
all possible rupture paths, inclined at angle to the
horizontal, and define as critical, cr, the angle for which
the rupture is diverted to the edge of the footing:
b xo
cr = arctan

yo

(3)

yo sin( )

s dr

(4)

Making use of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, the

shear strength along the rupture path can be taken equal
to:
s = c + n tan( )
(5)
where c is the cohesion, is the friction angle, and n
is the normal effective stress along the rupture path.
The latter stems from the initial overburden pressure,
plus the pressure increase p arising from q. Following
Berills methodology, the latter can be estimated through
the increase in mean pressure p = ( x + y ) / 2 for a
uniform strip load on the surface of a linearly elastic
homogeneous half-space (Carothers, 1920):
q
p =

(6)

where is the angle that is subtended by the strip at the

point of interest, as shown in Fig. 3a. Thus, the shear
strength of the soil along the rupture path is:
q

s c + g y + tan( )

(7)

In Cartesian and polar coordinates, the angle is

expressed as:

(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=

Given the previously mentioned assumption of

vertical propagation in the free field, the horizontal
deformation component is also ignored. This means that
the foundation is not directly subjected to shearing, and
therefore slippage at the soil-foundation interface is not
accounted for.
Using polar coordinates (r, ) with the origin at O,
for a given inclination angle (to the horizontal) the
work done by internal forces can be derived through
integration along the rupture path:
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)

Integration of this expression is feasible only

numerically. W is computed for a finite number (a value
of 90 was used in this analysis, i.e. a discretisation of
1o) of possible inclination angles : 0 < /2. The
optimum angle min is defined as the angle for which
W is minimized.
While the developed analytical method is similar
to the approach of Berill, it has certain differences
that should be made clear: (a) while Berill computed
and compared the work for two limiting cases (i.e., no
diversion, versus complete diversion to the edge of the
footing), our approach detects the optimum rupture path
in terms of work minimization (i.e., the output is the
extent of diversion, from no diversion at all to complete
diversion); (b) while Berill assumed that the rupture path
in the free-field is at the centerline of the foundation, our
approach also takes into account the horizontal location
xo of the fault rupture at depth yo.
Figure 4 illustrates the normalized work W/gbH
with respect to , for a foundation of width B = 2b = 10
m, for different values of surcharge load q. The fault is
assumed to originate at depth yo = 2b and at horizontal
distance xo = b/4. The soil is assumed to be cohesionless
with = 30. As expected, for q = 0 kPa the normalized
work is minimized for min = 90: i.e., the optimum
rupture path is vertical. The increase of q leads to slight
shifting of min , but not to complete diversion. For q = 60
kPa, the optimum rupture path lies at min = 88o. A sudden
jump in the curve can be observed for q = 76 kPa , and
min is reduced to 67o = cr; i.e., the rupture is diverted to
the edge of the footing. This value of the surcharge load,
required for complete diversion, is defined as the critical
surcharge load for complete diversion, denoted qcr .
Figure 5 refers to the distance D = yo tan() of the
diversion of the rupture at the ground surface. D is
plotted as a function of the surcharge load q. Up to
q = 20 kPa there is absolutely no diversion: D = 0. Then,
the increase of q is accompanied by a slight diversion
of the rupture path. For q = 75 kPa, the diversion is
still insignificant: D = 0.4 m. However, when q reaches

I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI

qcr = 76 kPa the rupture is diverted completely:

D = 4.3 m. Interestingly, the rupture is not diverted exactly
to the edge of the foundation, but about 0.5 m away
(Dcr = b xo = 3.75 m). Further increase in q leads
to further increase of the diversion: D 4.6 m for q
= 100 kPa as the fault avoids the stressed area around
the foundation. Fig. 6 shows the FE and centrifuge
model test results for an approximately equivalent case
(B = 10 m, H = 25 m, and q = 91 kPa). Due to the
presence of the foundation, the rupture is divided in two
ruptures (bifurcation). The first is diverted a few meters
away from the hanging-wall side (right) edge of the
foundation, in agreement with the simplified analytical
method. The second is diverted to the footwall side (left)
edge of the foundation.
q=qcr

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)

Normalised work W/gbH with respect to angle

and surcharge load q (yo = 2 b, xo = b/4, = 2 Mg/

m3, = 30 ). The rupture will propagate at the angle

for which the work W is minimized, denoted min. If

min= 90 , the dislocation is not diverted, otherwise

min represents the angle of the diverted rupture path.
In this example, the critical surcharge load qcr for
complete diversion (min = cr , i.e. diversion to the
edge of the footing), is equal to 76 kPa (thick solid line)

Fig. 5

Diversion D with respect to the surcharge load

q (yo= 2b, xo= b/4, = 2 Mg/m3, = 30). In this
example, up to q = 20 kPa the rupture is not diverted.
Then, some partial diversion is observed (clearly not
enough for the rupture to "avoid" the foundation);
for q > qcr= 76 kPa (for D > Dcr, = 3b/4 = 3.75 m in this
case) complete diversion takes place

Finite element analysis

Centrifuge model test

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

As discussed previously, the shear strength of the

soil along the rupture path was computed using the
mean pressure increase p in place of n (Eq. 6). For a
more rigorous approach, we take into account the actual
elastic stress field, which includes y, x, and (see also
Fig. 3(b)):

q=0

1.4

169

2.2 Taking account of the true stress field

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

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

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)

and Ko the coefficient of horizontal soil pressure at rest.

Along the inclined rupture path, a normal stress
n and a shear stress will apply. These stresses
are derived through a coordinate rotation from the
orthogonal Cartesian system (x, y) to the coordinate
system that is normal and parallel to the rupture path,
denoted ( x , y ):

Figure 7 illustrates the normalized diversion, D/b,

with respect to yo /b and q/gb for a cohesionless soil
of = 30. The normalized critical surcharge load for
complete fault rupture diversion, qcr /gb , can be seen to
decrease substantially with increasing yo / b: the deeper
the point of origin, the easier it is for the rupture to be
diverted to the edge of the footing: qcr/gb = 0.52 for
yo / b = 1, decreasing to 0.12 for yo / b = 8. The dotted
line refers to yo/b = 2, but using the simplified pressure
increase assumption (see previous section) instead of
the elastic stress field. Observe that the critical load
for complete diversion, qcr /gb, predicted with the
simplified assumption is about 2 times larger than the
one predicted with the more rigorous approach (0.76
instead of 0.33). As shown in Fig. 8, FE and centrifuge
model test results confirm the validity of the elastic
stress field assumption. The results refer to a rigid

1.25

yo/b=1
yo/b=2
yo/b=4
yo/b=8

(16)

D/b

1.00

n = x cos 2 ( ) + y sin 2 ( ) 2 sin( ) cos( )

Vol.7

0.75

Complete
diversion

Assumption of
mean pressure
increase for
yo/b=2

0.50

= [ x y ]cos( )sin( ) + [cos 2 ( ) sin 2 ( )] (17)

0.25
0

Finally, the work along the inclined rupture path will

be:
W =

yo sin( )

[c + n tan( ) ] dr

(18)

The optimum angle min is computed as discussed

previously.
2.3 Results and discussion

Fig. 7

0.2

0.4
0.6
qcr /gb

0.8

1.0

Normalised diversion D/b (b = B/2) as a function

of the normalised surcharge load q/gb, for four
values of bedrock depth ratio yo /b, and distance
of the rupture from the centerline xo /b = 0.25. The
dotted line refers to the same analysis, for yo /b = 2,
but using the pressure increase assumption instead
of the true elastic stress field

Centrifuge model test

Finite element analysis

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

B = 10 m footing with surcharge load q = 37 kPa,

subjected to normal faulting not far from its centerline
(xo/b 0.40). Using the mean pressure increase
assumption, no diversion would be predicted: qcr 60
kPa > 37 kPa (qcr /gb = 0.76, = 1.6 Mg/m3, and b
= 5 m). In stark contrast, with the elastic stress field
assumption fault rupture diversion is predicted for this
load: qcr 26 kPa (qcr /gb = 0.33).
Figure 9 plots the qcr/gb ratio as a function of
yo/b, for two values of xo/b and three different sets
of soil properties, assuming Ko = 0.5 (a reasonable
value for many soil types). For all soil types, qcr/gb
is substantially larger when the origin of the rupture
is in the horizontal sense close to the centerline of the
foundation (xo/b = 0.25). Observe that there is a critical
normalized depth, yo,cr /b, for which the required load for
complete fault rupture diversion, qcr/gb, is minimized.
This critical depth is a function of , c, and xo/b. As it
would be expected, yo,cr /b is substantially larger (by a
factor of 2 to 3) when the origin of the rupture is closer
to the centerline of the foundation (xo/b = 0.25). While
larger c implies larger yo,cr , the decrease of leads to the
opposite result. For inferior depths (yo < yo,cr), the critical

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.

3 Modification of the settlement profile

A continuous and rigid raft foundation subjected to
faulting-induced deformation may experience loss of
support. The latter is mainly responsible for its stressing.
As schematically illustrated in Fig. 10, depending on the
location of the foundation relative to the emerging fault
scarp, loss of support may take place either at the two
edges or at the middle. In the first case, the unsupported
spans behave as cantilevers on a central elastic support,
giving hogging deformation of the foundation; in the
latter case, as a single span on elastic end supports, giving
sagging deformation.
An example of rigorous FE results illustrating
foundation stressing due to loss of support is given in
Fig. 11. It refers to a rigid B = 10 m raft foundation
with surcharge load q = 20 kPa or 80 kPa, subjected to
h = 2 m normal fault rupture with a 60o dip angle, through

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

(a) Loss of support at either of the two edges

Simplified equivalent
static system
Simply supported
single span

Sagging
deformation

(b) Loss of support at the middle

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

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

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

Loss of Effective Loss of

support width support

-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

Loss of Effective width Loss of

support of foundation support

-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

a 20 m deep idealized dense sand deposit, at position

xs = 3 m (measured from the hanging-wall side edge of
the foundation). As revealed by the normalized contact
pressure p/q diagram, the foundation experiences loss
of support at the two edges. The two unsupported spans
behave as cantilevers, and the foundation experiences
hogging deformation. Increasing q leads to a reduction
of the length of unsupported spans (left and right
cantilevers), resulting in a reduction of the normalized
bending moment M/qB2. On the other hand, foundation
rotation is increased for the heavily loaded foundation.
Figure 12 illustrates the rigorous FE response of
the same foundation, but for xs = 9 m (i.e. xs/B = 0.9).
As attested by the normalized contact pressure p/q
diagrams, due to the different position of the fault the
foundation now experiences loss of support at its center.
The unsupported span behaves roughly as a simply
supported beam, imposing sagging deformation onto
the foundation. As for xs = 3 m, the increase of q leads
to a decrease of the width of the central unsupported

span, and consequently a reduction in M/qB2. In contrast

to the previous case, however, foundation rotation also
decreases with increasing q.
3.1 Methodology
As discussed previously, the interaction is governed
by strong geometric non-linearities, such as uplifting
and second order (P) effects, prohibiting the solution
of the problem using conventional beam-on-Winkler
foundation approaches. To overcome these difficulties, we
simplify the problem by considering a rigid foundation
superstructure system. Such a crude approximation
can nevertheless be claimed to be reasonable for two
reasons: (a) since fault-induced displacements are of the
order of meters, the superstructure and foundation can
be considered relatively rigid compared to the soil; and
(b) it has already been demonstrated that if foundation
and superstructure are not adequately rigid they cannot
survive such displacements (Anastasopoulos & Gazetas,

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

Effective Loss of Effective

width support width

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

sin( ) arcsin( out )

5 200 d50 1 +
200 d50

(20)

As schematically illustrated in Fig.14, there exists

a finite number of possible equilibrium positions. An
equilibrium position can be defined using a set of two
parameters: (i) the vertical coordinate yu of the footwall
side (right) edge of the foundation, and (ii) the tilting
angle of the structure (Fig. 13a). Using these two
parameters, the vertical displacement along the base of
the foundation will be:
f ( x) = yu + x tan( )

(21)

where x measured from the footwall side (right) edge of

the foundation.
The differential vertical displacement between the
base of the foundation and the deformed soil surface
mobilizes soil reactions p(x). To take into account the
tensionless soilfoundation contact, the soil reactions
are written as:

174

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

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

(b) Forces acting on the structure for a possible equilibrium

position, taking account of second order (P-) effects

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

(a) Loss of support at the left edge

Fig. 14

Sp

(b) Loss of support at both edges

(c) Loss of support at the middle

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

where ks is the coefficient of subgrade reaction (or

Winkler spring modulus). For a given equilibrium
position, the total vertical external force, Fext = qB, is
assumed to act at the center of mass of the foundation
superstructure system, i.e. at height hcm (Fig. 13b).
Taking account of second order (P-) effects, the total
external moment with respect to the footwall side (right)
edge of the structure (x = 0) will be:

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

Then, force and moment equilibrium,

-0.5

M ext = qB cos( ) + hcm sin( )

2

B cos( )

(26)

where:

(22)

175

p( x) x dx M ext = 0

(25)

Free-field
fault outcrop

-20

-10
x (m)

10

Fig. 15 Example comparison of centrifuge model test results

to FE Class A prediction: rigid B = 10 m foundation
with surcharge load q = 91 kPa, subjected to normal
faulting at xs = 1.9 m. Vertical displacement y at the
ground surface for bedrock offset h ranging from 0.2
m to 2 m

are computed for all possible pairs of yu and . The

optimum equilibrium position is defined as the one that
minimizes the root of the mean square error (rms):

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

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

M =

B cos( )

p( x) x dx M ext

(28)

M ext

The necessary integrations to compute F, M are

performed numerically.
The following section provides a comparison of
the simplified method with continuum analysis results.
Although (due to space limitations) emphasis is given
to normal faulting, the conclusions regarding the
performance of the method also hold for the case of
thrust faulting.
3.2 Results and discussion
Characteristic results by using the simplified
analytical approach are compared to the results of
rigorous FE analyses. The latter have been extensively
validated through successful genuine Class A
predictions of centrifuge model tests (Anastasopoulos
et al., 2007a and 2007b). Fig. 15 reproduces one such
comparison, in terms of vertical displacement y at
the ground surface (note that the footwall is now in
the opposite direction). It refers to a B = 10 m rigid
foundation carrying a surcharge load q = 91 kPa,
subjected to normal faulting at distance xs = 1.9 m (the
same example with Fig. 6). Evidently, the comparison is
quite satisfactory for all levels of imposed bedrock offset
h. The analysis is successful in predicting not only the
bifurcation and diversion of the fault rupture (see also

Vol.7

Fig. 6), but also the rotation of the foundation.

Figure 16 compares the results of the simplified
method to FE analysis results in terms of vertical
displacement y at the ground surface, and soil contact
pressures p. The analysis refers to a foundation-structure
system of width B = 10 m, with its center of mass at
hcm = 3 m and q = 35 kPa (a typical 2-storey reinforcedconcrete building), subjected to h = 2 m normal faulting
at = 60 through an H = 40 m idealized dense sand
deposit (see companion paper), outcropping at xs = 2 m
(close to the hanging-wall edge of the foundation). The
spring coefficient ks is estimated from the expressions
of Gazetas (1991) and verified against FE analyses.
The analytical method compares reasonably well with
FE analysis results, both in terms of y and contact
pressures p. The analytical method correctly predicts
a loss of support at both edges of the foundations,
slightly underestimating the footwall side (right-hand)
area of loss of support (1.4 m of cantilever, instead of
2.0 m of the FE analysis), and overestimating the lefthand (hanging-wall side) unsupported span (2.7 m of
cantilever, instead of 2.3 m).
Figure 17 illustrates another comparison for a wider,
taller, and thus heavier structure: B = 20 m, hcm = 7.5
m, and q = 80 kPa (a typical 5-storey building). Fault
rupture outcrops at xs = 16 m (close to its footwall side
edge). The analytical method correctly predicts a loss of
support at the middle of the foundation. The width of the
unsupported span is also predicted correctly (roughly 10
m), but its exact location is not captured with accuracy:
the analytical method overestimates the hanging-wall
B=20 m
hcm=7.5 m
xs=16 m
Dense sand
h=2 m

1
0

p (kPa)

y (m)

-1

20

15

10

20
40
60

-2
Analytical method
FE analysis

-3
20

15

10
x (m)

(a) Vertical displacement y at the ground surface

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

Fig. 18 Comparison of the simplified analytical method with

rigorous FE analysis results. Foundation rotation
as a function of the surcharge load q (B = 20
m structure subjected to h = 2 m normal faulting
through a soil deposit of depth H = 40 m)

side (left-hand) effective width of the foundation (5.7 m

instead of 3.0 m of the FE analysis), and underestimates
the footwall side (right-hand) effective width (4.0 m
instead of 6.9 m of the FE analysis). The differential
settlement of the foundation is underestimated: 1.5 m
instead of 2.3 m of the FE analysis (i.e. = 4.3o versus
6.6o).
To further evaluate the effectiveness of the
simplified analytical method, the analytically computed
foundation rotation versus surcharge load q and sand
type is compared with FE analysis results in Fig. 18. A
rigid structure of width B = 20 m is subjected to normal
faulting at xs = 4 m (i.e. the rupture outcrops close to its
hanging-wall side edge), xs = 10 m (at the middle of the

177

foundation), and xs = 16 m (close to the footwall side

edge of the foundation). The overall performance of the
simplified method is satisfactory, because:
it correctly predicts the magnitude of in most
cases; the only exception: with the rupture emerging near
the footwall side (right-hand) edge of the foundation in
loose sand, the method overestimates by a factor
of 2 (Phenomena such as bifurcation and diffusion,
not accounted for in the simplified method, may be
responsible for this discrepancy.),
it correctly predicts the trends in the variation of
with increasing the applied load q: the linear increase
of versus q in the case of rupture emerging near the
hanging-wall side (left) edge (Fig. 18a), and a nearly
independent of q in the other two cases (Fig. 18b and
c), and
it correctly predicts the varying role of increasing
soil density, ranging from being beneficial in the case
of rupture near the hanging-wall side (left) edge to
being detrimental in case of rupture emergence near the
footwall-side (right) edge.

4 Conclusions and limitations

This paper along with its companion, present
a fourstep simplified approach for design of raft
foundations against normal and thrust faulting. By
realistically modelling two important soilstructure
interaction mechanisms, diversion of the rupture path
and modification of the displacement profile, both
arising from the presence of the foundation, the method
provides a deeper insight into the nature of the problem.
The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) The presence of a structure on top of the
soil deposit diverts the rupture path, as the latter
propagates from the base rock to the ground surface.
The normalized minimum (critical) load (qcr /gb)
beyond which complete fault rupture diversion occurs
is a function of soil strength (, c), the coefficient of
earth pressure at rest (Ko), the normalized bedrock depth
(yo/b), and the horizontal position of the foundation
relative to the outcropping fault rupture (xo/b). Complete
diversion is easier when the rupture is close to the edge of
the foundation. qcr /gb is shown to decrease nonlinearly
with increasing yo/b. The apparent cohesion c is found to
play a substantial role only at shallow depths. For large
soil depths, the frictional component of shear strength
prevails.
(2) A structure on top of the soil deposit will modify
the faulting-induced displacement profile. A rigid raft
foundation on top of an emerging fault will experience
loss of support, which is mainly responsible for its
stressing. Depending on the location of the foundation
relative to the emerging fault scarp, the unsupported
spans behave either as cantilevers on a central elastic
support, producing hogging deformation, or as a single
span on elastic end supports, giving sagging deformation.
Since the interaction is governed by strong geometric

178

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

non-linearities, such as uplifting and second order (P)

effects, the problem cannot be solved directly using a
conventional beam-on-Winklerfoundation approach.
A heuristic approach is employed herein, which scans
through possible equilibrium positions to detect the one
that best satisfies force and moment equilibrium. The
simplicity of the proposed method makes its use possible
for preliminary design purposes.
(3) The method gives results in general accord
with rigorous finite element solutions, predicting the
important trends and phenomena with engineering
accuracy, and tending to overestimate the rotation of
rigid structures.
Based on several simplifying assumptions including
completely ignoring the horizontal displacement
component (only a practical approximation, especially
in the case of thrust faulting), the Winkler-type
springs that do not take account of soil non-linearity
and continuity, and without considering complex
phenomena such as bifurcation and diffusion, the
simplified analytical method presented herein should
only be applied with caution, and always combined with
engineering judgement. It may be suitable for preliminary
assessment and design purposes, and for developing a
qualitative understanding of the complex interaction of a
foundation with an emerging fault rupture, but not for the
final design of important structures, where site-specific
FE analysis is recommended (e.g., Anastasopoulos et al.,
2007b).

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

Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G, Bransby MF, Davies

MCR, and El Nahas A (2007b), Normal Fault
Rupture Interaction with Strip Foundations, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
(submitted for possible publication).
Anastasopoulos I, Gerolymos N, Gazetas G and Bransby
MF (2008), Simplified Approach for Design of Raft
Foundations Against Fault Rupture. Part I: Free-field,
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
7(2):
.
Berill JB (1983), Two-dimensional Analysis of the
Effect of Fault Rupture on Buildings with Shallow
Foundations, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 2(3): 156-160.
Bransby MF, Davies MCR and El Nahas A (2007a),
Centrifuge Modelling of Normal Fault-Foundation
Interaction, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
Special Issue: Integrated Approach to Fault Ruptureand Soil-foundation Interaction, (submitted for possible
publication).
Bransby MF, Davies MCR and El Nahas A (2007b),
Centrifuge Modelling of Reverse Fault-foundation
Interaction, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
Special Issue: Integrated Approach to Fault Ruptureand Soil-foundation Interaction, (submitted for possible
publication).
Bray JD (2001), Developing Mitigation Measures for
the Hazards Associated with Earthquake Surface Fault
Rupture, Proceedings, Workshop on Seismic FaultInduced FailuresPossible Remedies for Damage to
Urban Facilities, Tokyo University Press, Tokyo, pp:
55-79.
Bray JD and Kelson KI (2006), Observations of Surface
Fault Rupture from the 1906 Earthquake in the Context
of Current Practice, Earthquake Spectra, 22(52): 569589.
Carothers SD (1920), Plane Strain: the Direct
Determination of Stress, Proceedings Royal Society,
Serial A, 97: 110123.
Duncan JM and Lefebvre G (1973), Earth Pressure
on Structures Due to Fault Movement, Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 99
(SM12): 11531163.
Erdik M (2001), Report on 1999 Kocaeli and Dzce
(Turkey) Earthquakes, Structural Control for Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering, Ed. by, F. Casciati, G.
Magonette, World Scientific.
Faccioli E, Anastasopoulos I, Callerio A and Gazetas
G (2007), Case Histories of Faultfoundation
Interaction, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
Special Issue: Integrated Approach to Fault Ruptureand Soil-foundation Interaction, Companion paper
(submitted for possible publication).
Gaudin C (2002), Experimental and Theoretical Study
of the Behaviour of Supporting Walls: Validation of

No.2

I.Anastasopoulos et al.: Simplified approach for design of raft foundations against fault rupture. Part II: SSI

Design Methods, Ph.D Dissertation, Laboratoire

Central des Ponts et Chausses, Nantes, France.
Gazetas G (1991), Foundation Vibrations. Foundation
Engineering Handbook, 2nd edition, ed. HY Fang,
Cluwer Publishers, pp. 553593.
Kelson KI, Kang KH, Page WD, Lee CT and Cluff LS
(2001), Representative Styles of Deformation Along
the Chelungpu Fault from the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan)
Earthquake: Geomorphic Characteristics and Responses
of Man-made Structures, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 91(5): 930-952.
Niccum MR, Cluff LS, Chamoro F and Wylie L (1976),
Banco Central de Nicaragua: A Case History of a Highrise Building That Survived Surface Fault Rupture, in
Humphrey, CB, ed., Engineering Geology and Soils
Engineering Symposium, No. 14, Idaho Transportation
Department, Division of Highways, pp. 133-144.
Pamuk A, Kalkanb E and Linga HI (2005), Structural
and Geotechnical Impacts of Surface Rupture on

179

Highway Structures During Recent Earthquakes in

Turkey, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
25: 581-589.
Ulusay R, Aydan O and Hamada M (2002), The
Behaviour of Structures Built on Active Fault Zones:
Examples from the Recent Earthquakes of Turkey,
Structural Engineering & Earthquake Engineering,
JSCE, 19(2): 149167.
Ural D (2001), The 1999 Kocaeli and Duzce
Earthquakes: Lessons Learned and Possible Remedies
to Minimize Future Losses, Proc. Workshop on Seismic
Fault Induced Failures, ed. Konagai, Tokyo, Japan.
Youd TL (1989), Ground Failure Damage to Buildings
During Earthquakes, Foundation Engineering
Current Principles and Practices, 1: 758-770. New
York: ASCE, pp.758-770
Youd TL, Bardet JP and Bray JD (2000), Kocaeli,
Turkey, Earthquake of August 17, 1999 Reconnaissance
Report, Earthquake Spectra, 16 (Suppl. A): 456.