NUMERICALMODELINGOF

FOUNDATIONDEFORMATION
DUETOFAULTRUPTURE

A. Giannakou, J. Chacko, O. Zarzouras, and W. Chen

www.fugro.com

Izmit Bay Bridge South Approach Viaduct

Istanbul

South Approach Viaduct

NorthAnatolianFault

Izmir

Active Faults near Bridge Alignment

IdentificationofActiveFaultsinInterpretedSiteinvestigationData

Identified Secondary Faults Geophysical Data

Identified Secondary Faults Geophysical Data

Anchorage Location

Beginning of South Approach Viaduct

Pier 1

Pier 2

Identified Secondary Faults Geotechnical Data

Beginning of South Approach Viaduct

Pier 1

Pier 2

South Approach Viaduct Pier Foundation Design

P03

P04

P02
P01

InthenearshoreareawherefaultswereidentifiedingeophysicaldataPier
foundationswerelocatedinbetweenidentifiedfaults
Imagingoffaultfeatureswasnotpossibleintheonshoreareas,duetohigh

watertableandlargethicknessesofveryrecentsediments
Foundationdesignneedstoaccommodatethepotentialforfaultsbeingpresent
attheindividualfoundationlocations
2,475yearsurfacefaultrupturedisplacements:1mhorizontaland0.5mvertical

Case Histories of Bridge Failures due to Fault

Rupture
Failure of the Bolu Viaduct in the 1999 Duzce Eq due to Fault Rupture

Anastasopoulos et al (2008)

Case Histories of Bridge Failures due to Fault

Rupture
Collapse of Two Bridges in the 1999 Chi Chi Eq due to Fault Rupture

Anastasopoulos et al (2008)

Foundation Systems Performance Against Fault

Rupture
Performance of Pile Foundation
to Fault Rupture

Performance of Shallow
Foundation to Fault Rupture

Problem Definition and Design Approach

Step 1: Detailed
Soil-Foundation Model

Step 2: Detailed
Superstructure Model

Idealized Soil Profile

Elevation(m)

StrengthParameters(kPa)

Soil Constitutive Model

Sands

Clays

y (m)

Validation of Soil Model - Centrifuge Test of

Reverse Fault Rupture

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)

Validation of Soil Model - Centrifuge Test of

Normal Fault Rupture

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

Modeling of Strike Slip Fault Rupture

ShearStrainContours
FreeFieldFaultRupture
Propagation

DiversionofFaultRupture
DuetoFootingPresence

Sensitivity to Fault Offset Location with respect to

Footing Centerline
FreeField

FaultOffsetat0m

FaultOffsetat5m

FaultOffsetat+5m

FaultOffsetat10m

FaultOffsetat+10m

HorizontalDisplacement(m)

VerticalDisplacement(m)

Sensitivity to Fault Offset Location with respect to

Footing Centerline
1.2
1.0

Fault offset -10 m

Fault offset -5 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

Sensitivity to Fault Rupture Dip Angle

o

Dipangle65

Dipangle50o

Sensitivity to Fault Rupture Dip Angle

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

Sensitivity to Fault Rupture Direction

TransversetoBridgeAxis

45o AngleStrike

Foundation

HorizontalDisplacement(m) VerticalDisplacement(m)

Sensitivity to Fault Rupture Direction

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6

F oundC as e1a

Transverse to Bridge Axis - Base Case

45 Angle
FFree
F C as e1a Field, Base Case
o
FFree
F C as e2 Field, 45 Angle
o as e2
F oundC

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