Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Centrifuge modeling of reverse fault rupture propagation through single- T

layered and stratified soil
Naser Talia, Gholam Reza Lashkaripoura, , Naser Hafezi Moghadasa, Abbas Ghalandarzadehb
⁎

a
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
b
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Many buildings have been built over active faults. Surface faulting as a main effect of earthquakes can cause
Fault rupture propagation damage such buildings. Properties of material over bedrock affect the pattern of rupture propagation through
Centrifuge modeling deposits and the width of the rupture zone on ground surface. Several researchers have primarily studied fault
Surface rupture zone rupture propagation patterns on single-layered granular soil; however, natural geologic deposits are rarely
Reverse faulting
homogeneous and uniform, but mostly consist of different layers. In this study, centrifuge model tests were
conducted to investigate the patterns of reverse fault rupture propagation through single and double-layered soil
stratum. It was observed that the soil type and sequence of layers affected the fault rupture propagation pattern
as well as the surface rupture zone. The results show that the width of deformation zone tends to decrease in
stiffer soil in compare to softer soil. These findings may help to produce a framework for predicting the oc-
currence and geometry of surface fault rupture zone that, can help us to define a setback zone, which is a major
concern in building codes.

1. Introduction Previous researches concluded that the width of surface faulting

depends on geological, tectonic and geotechnical parameters, which
Before the 1999 earthquakes in Taiwan (Chi-Chi) and Turkey include but are not limited to the type, thickness, stiffness and strength
(Kocaeli and Duzce), no serious attention was paid to the soil-structure- of the surface layers and the focal mechanism of the main fault rupture.
fault rupture interaction. However, because of the significant width of In addition, the performance of faulting in rocky outcrops differs from
deformation and fault rupture zones in these three earthquakes and the the case in which an alluvium layer is located on bedrock. In this re-
extensive damages to structures and public utilities induced by faulting, gard, it is essential to determine the extent of the surface fault rupture
they have become a turning point in the study of surface fault rupture zone and predict the region in which no construction should be allowed
hazard. In the Chi-Chi earthquake, at least 30% of the damages to as an aspect of building codes and construction regulations. Increases in
buildings were caused by surface fault rupture (Yang and Beeson, the price of urban land and a shortage of land for construction make
2001). It is obvious that the pattern of rupture propagation through optimal determination of this zone of special importance. Therefore, for
alluvial deposit overlying bedrock fault must be investigated (Duffy effective usage of land, it is suggested that complementary studies (field
et al., 2014). investigation or laboratory model testing) be performed.
After the 1999 earthquakes, many researchers have studied the
surface fault rupture hazard through (i) field observations (Faccioli 2. Previous physical model studies
et al., 2008; Lavine et al., 2003; Lin et al., 2012, 2003; Ma and Chiao,
2004; Qin et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2013), (ii) experimental modeling 2.1. Physical modeling under earth gravity conditions
(Chang et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2007, 2005; Loli et al., 2011; Peng et al.,
2013), (iii) numerical analysis (Anastasopoulos et al., 2008; Many researchers have conducted experimental studies under earth
Anastasopoulos and Gazetas, 2010; Dong et al., 2003; Hazeghian and gravity conditions (1 g) to understand failure mechanism of surface
Soroush, 2017; Loukidis et al., 2009; Oettle and Bray, 2013; Taniyama, fault rupture. Cole and Lade (1984) undertook a series of comprehen-
2011) and (iv) analytical approaches (Bray, 2001). sive model test on cohesionless sand involving reverse and normal

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Tali), [email protected] (G.R. Lashkaripour), [email protected] (N. Hafezi Moghadas),
[email protected] (A. Ghalandarzadeh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.12.021
Received 31 October 2017; Received in revised form 15 December 2018; Accepted 21 December 2018
Available online 02 January 2019
0013-7952/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Fig. 1. Newly designed and manufactured split box: (a) longitudinal section of box model; (b) displacement mechanism of movable part; (c) overall view of box
model and (d) manufactured split box.

faulting at different angles to determine the surface fault rupture lo- slip of about 7% of the depth of the alluvium was needed for shear
cation and the affected zone width on an alluvium deposit over a dip- failure to propagate through 75-m deep alluvium. Lee and Hamada
slip fault. They found that a maximum vertical displacement of ap- (2005) investigated the pattern of rupture propagation through sandy
proximately 4% of the total thickness of the soil was required for soil with particular concern for dip-slip faulting. Their 1 g model tests
complete development of a failure surface. Larger vertical movements showed that the location of the surface fault rupture varied according to
were required to develop failure surfaces in more compressible and the model thickness due to the strongly dilatant behavior of the sand
looser sand. under low confinement. Johansson and Konagai (2007) performed ex-
Lade et al. (1984) attempted to simulate multiple failure surfaces in perimental tests on both dry and wet cohesionless soil. They showed
sandy soil in a fault test box. Their results showed that the angle of that the amount of uplift required for surface rupture is larger for wet
dilation was the dominant soil property affecting the location of the soil. In general, the shear zone was wider for wet soil, especially for
failure surfaces and that the displacement fields were the same for reverse faulting, where the incompressibility of the pore water prevents
different materials. Bray et al. (1993) showed that the thickness of the horizontal compression, resulting in increased shear strain.
shear zone in the saturated clay layer overlying a bedrock fault was
related to the magnitude of base movement and the failure strain of the 2.2. Physical modeling under accelerated gravity conditions
soil. The range of the dip angle of the bedrock with respect to the
horizontal plane was selected to vary between 60° and 90° for both Some researchers have conducted experimental studies under ac-
normal and reverse faults. celerated gravity conditions (Ng) to understand failure phenomena.
Taniyama and Watanabe (2001) found that shear failure propagates Roth et al. (1981) showed that the soil properties are significant factors
through sandy soil and breaks the ground surface when the vertical in the formation of a failure pattern. Their tests were performed under
component of the bedrock fault slip reaches 3% to 5% of the thickness Ng conditions for reverse faulting. Lee and Hamada (2005) showed that
(ΔH/H) for 30 and 50 m deep alluvium. They reported that a vertical there was no significant variation in the location of surface fault rupture

274
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

when the thickness of the soil layer changed. Anastasopoulos et al.

Min. static actuator force (kN)

(2007) investigated the location of fault outcropping and found that
vertical displacement profile of the ground surface and a minimal fault
offset at bedrock were necessary for the rupture to reach the ground
Weight of box (kg)

surface. Their analysis showed that dip-slip faults refract at the soil rock
interface, initially increasing in dip angle. The dip angle may continue
to increase in normal faults as they approach the ground surface. In
contrast, reverse faults tend to decrease in dip angle as they emerge at
314

the ground surface. For small values of base fault offset (ΔH) relative to
85

soil thickness (H), a rupture cannot propagate all the way to the surface.
The ΔH/H ratio required for outcropping is a function of soil duc-
tility. Reverse faults require a significantly higher ΔH/H to outcrop than
do normal faults. Cai et al. (2013, 2010) conducted two centrifuge tests
Max. horizontal displacement (mm)

to investigate the effects of rigid and flexible boundary conditions on

Diameter of actuator shaft (mm)

normal fault propagation. They showed that, in the rigid boundary

condition, a smaller differential settlement resulted on the ground
surface in compare with the bedrock fault movement. On the other
hand, for the flexible boundary condition the differential settlement on
the ground surface was larger than the bedrock fault movement. Ng
et al. (2012) provided experimental evidence and numerical explana-
tions of the failure mechanisms of soil induced by normal faulting under
three ground conditions (uncemented clay, cemented clay with and
24

50

without a preexisting fracture).

As stated above, most previous studies were conducted on homo-
geneous and uniform soil layers; however, in nature, soil is usually
heterogenic and stratified. In this study, a series of centrifuge model
tests were conducted on sandy and clayey-sandy soil to understand
Max. vertical displacement (mm)

better soil behavior during fault rupture propagation towards the

ground surface. These tests were performed on single and/or double-
Stroke of actuator (mm)

layered soils and at a centrifugal acceleration of 60 g. In addition, the

reverse fault rupture had a dip angle of 60° (at bedrock level).

3. Testing procedure

The tests were performed at the centrifuge facility using Actidyn

150
42

Systems C67-2 equipment. The device comprises a beam with a 7 m

diameter that can accelerate a model package of up to 1.5 ton at 100 g
of centrifugal acceleration (i.e. 150-g-t).

3.1. Split box

Dimensions (L*W*H) (mm)

Dip angle of fault (°)

A split box was designed and manufactured for this study to simu-
late reverse and normal faulting. It was composed with a fixed and
932*508*400

movable part designed to simulate footwall and hanging wall, respec-

tively. This type of split box is commonly used to simulate fault rupture
propagation through soil layers in a centrifuge (Ashtiani et al., 2016;
60

Bransby et al., 2008b, 2008a; Kiani et al., 2016a, 2016b; Lee and
Hamada, 2005; Moradi et al., 2013; Ng et al., 2012; Rojhani et al.,
2012). Fig. 1(a) shows the longitudinal section of the box and its 85 kN
hydraulic actuator. Fig. 1(b) shows the displacement mechanism of the
movable part that is pushed or pulled by the hydraulic actuator.
Peak acceleration (g)

The main parts of the box were made of high-resistance steel with a
transparent sidewall made of a 30-mm thick Plexiglas plate that fa-
cilitated observation of rupture propagation during the tests. Fig. 1(c)
Fixed part
Footwall

shows an overall view of the split box. Fig. 1(d) shows the completed
split box with hydraulic connections. This box can simulate both re-
60

verse and normal faulting at a dip angle of 60° with respect to the
horizontal. It can be adjusted for dip angles of 15° to 80° by changing
Specifications of split box.

four parts. The maximum allowable vertical offset of the movable

hanging wall is 42 mm (2.52 m at 60 g centrifugal acceleration).
Reverse and normal

In compliance with the capacity of the centrifuge and design of the

Type of faulting

split box, the tests were conducted at a centrifugal acceleration of 60 g.

Hanging wall
Movable part

Furthermore, the large dimensions of an actual prototype made it un-

feasible to conduct a test on such a specimen in a centrifuge. It was
Table 1

necessary to scale down the dimensions of the specimen to fit into the
centrifuge. Dimension analysis and scaling law require that, if the

275
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Fig. 2. Grain size distribution curves of Firoozkuh sand No. 161 and clayey-sand.

Fig. 3. Stress-strain curve of soils under different confining pressure: (a) Firoozkuh sand No. 161 and (b) Clayey-sand.

length is scaled down N times, the acceleration should be scaled up N friction angles were 35° and 33°, respectively, and the dilation angle
times; thus, using the dimensions of the split box and the model, 60 g was 5° for the stress at shallow depth of sandy soil layer (Ashtiani et al.,
was calculated and adopted. Thus, “N” is the scaling factor. The max- 2016).
imum slip rate of the simulator was 30 mm/s. Table 1 presents the To understand better the behavior of natural soil, the Firoozkuh
specifications of the different parts of the box. sand was mixed with kaolinite to obtain cohesive soil. The mixture
consisted of one portion of kaolinite and three portions of Firoozkuh
3.2. Soil properties sand by weight. The grain size distribution curve of the mixed soil is
presented in Fig. 2. A series of direct shear tests were conducted on
Two different soil types were used in centrifuge model tests: clean mixed soil having a relative density (Dr) of 140% and a moisture
sand (Firoozkuh sand No. 161) and mixed sand (clayey-sand). The content of 10% (corresponding to a unit weight -wet- of 21.1 kN/m3).
Firoozkuh sand No. 161 with a relative density of Dr = 70% is uni- The peak and residual internal friction angles, angle of dilation and
formly-graded fine clean sand with a mean grain size (D50) of 0.3 mm, cohesion were measured to be φP = 25°, φres = 23°, ψP = 0° and
maximum void ratio (emax) of 0.943 and a minimum void ratio (emin) of C = 28 kPa, respectively.
0.548. Its grain size distribution curve is shown in Fig. 2 (Farahmand Additionally, in order to precisely identify the soil mechanical
et al., 2016). Direct shear tests were conducted on samples with a re- parameters, a series of triaxial tests (cd type) were conducted in this
lative density of 70% and a moisture content of 5% (corresponding to a research. The confinement pressures were 50, 100 and 300 kPa, re-
unit weight -wet- of 16.77 kN/m3). The peak and residual internal spectively. Fig. 3 illustrates the stress-strain curve for two selected soil

276
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

200
180 E0 Sand
160
E50 Sand
140
120 Er Sand

E(MPa)
100
80
60
40
20
0
a 0 5 10 15 20
√σ3(kPa)

200
E0 Clayey-sand
180
E50 Clayey-sand
160
Er Clayey-sand
140
120
E(MPa)

100
80
60
40
20
0
b 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
√σ3(kPa)
Fig. 4. Comparison of different elasticity modulus (E0, E50 and Er) for the adopted soils in this research.

Fig. 5. (a) Colored sand layer for visual detection of shear planes; (b) spray-painted exposed surface that allows visual detection of shear and tension planes.

types under the specified confining pressure. improve homogeneity, the surface of each layer was scratched before
It's concluded from the curves, that the sand is stiffer and has larger the next layer was laid (Cai et al., 2013, 2010). The layers were com-
strength (higher yield point) than the clayey-sand. Furthermore, in pacted using a calibrated steel hammer with a flat rectangular tamping
order to compare the soils, the different elasticity modulus (E0, E50 and face and a 1450 g sliding weight with a free fall of 25 cm (Ashtiani
Er) are presented in Fig. 4. The results indicate that the stiffness of the et al., 2016).
sand is higher than the clayey-sand. After compaction of the two layers, a colored sand layer (navy-blue
inked sand) was placed in close proximity to the Plexiglas side to fa-
cilitate visual detection of the shear planes during test procedure
3.3. Model preparation (Fig. 5(a)) and the subsequent digital image analysis (Bransby et al.,
2008a, 2008b). After compaction of each layer, silicon oil was applied
As explained, clean sand and clayey-sand were used in the models. to both sides of the split box to reduce the frictional resistance between
The moist tamping method was selected to produce homogeneous the soil and the sidewalls. The total thickness of the soil layers was
specimens. Soil layers of 15 mm in thickness were compacted. To

277
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Fig. 6. Layout of instrumental devices for centrifuge model of reverse faulting: (a) top view; (b) side view.

Table 2
Lists of centrifuge model tests.
Test No. RV-01-S to 05-S RV-06-S RV-09-CS RV-10-S/CS RV-11-CS/S

Faulting type Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse

Soil type Sand Sand Clayey-sand Clayey-sand below sand layer Clayey-sand above sand layer
Dip angle of fault(°) 60 60 60 60 60
Centrifugal acceleration (g) 60 60 60 60 60
Model dimensions (L*W*H) (mm) 932*508*300 932*508*300 932*508*300 932*508*300 932*508*300
Max. vertical displacement (mm) 42 42 42 42 42

30 cm. A grid of orthogonal blue lines was then spray-painted onto the 3.4. Model instrumentation
exposed surface of the specimen to allow the visual detection of the
shear and tension planes after testing (Fig. 5(b)). All models were in- The instrumentation layout for all four tests is shown in Fig. 6. Five
itially prepared outside the centrifuge chamber and then transferred on linearly variable differential transformers (LVDTs), a digital camera and
a swinging platform into the centrifuge. three digital video recorders were used during the tests. Four LVDTs
were used to measure displacement on the model surface and another

278
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Fig. 7. Schematic diagrams of soil models for tests: (a) RV-06-S; (b) RV-09-CS; (c) RV-10-S/CS; (d) RV-11-CS/S.

3.5. Centrifuge test procedure

After model preparation, the split box was transferred to the cen-
trifuge. The instrumentation of the model was installed and the con-
nections were fixed. The hydraulic inlet and outlet connections were
joined to the centrifuge connections and the control panel was pro-
grammed to reach the desired centrifugal acceleration. After the model
was subjected to centrifugal acceleration of 60 g in-flight, bedrock fault
movement was applied. To improve the quality of the photos, the
camera was programmed to capture one photo every 3 s. Accordingly,
the average rate of fault movement was chosen to be approximately
1.4 mm/s (corresponding to 0.083 m/s at prototype scale) despite the
higher capacity of the split box. The results were interpreted using the
measured data accompanied by the photos and post-test observations.
In these tests, the faulting velocity was not scaled. The experiment used
a pseudo-static loading scheme and the dynamic effect of faulting was
ignored. The soil in the current models was granular and was not sa-
turated; thus, the shearing rate effect could have had a minor influence
on the results. Kabir et al. (2010) reported that the compressive re-
Fig. 8. Schematic illustration of the reverse faulting model and corresponding sponse of fine sand is not sensitive to the strain rate under loading
definitions. conditions, but is significantly dependent on the moisture content, in-
itial density and lateral confinement.
was used to measure the bedrock fault movement. The digital camera
was mounted in front of the Plexiglas side to photograph model de- 3.6. Test cases
formation. One of the digital video recorders was used to monitor
model surface deformation and the other two were employed to record Although 14 tests were conducted on reverse and normal faulting
bedrock fault movement. A data acquisition system automatically re- systems, only the results of nine reverse faulting tests are presented. The
corded these measurements. test conditions are summarized in Table 2. Five initial tests were done

Fig. 9. Measures for reducing sidewall friction: (a) double polyurethane sheets with silicon oil; (b) polyurethane sheet with silicon oil; (c) silicon oil alone.

279
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Fig. 10. Vertical displacement of ground surface and bedrock at prototype scale in tests: (a) RV-06-S; (b) RV-09-CS; (c) RV-10-S/CS; (d) RV-11-CS/S.

to calibrate and improve the boundary conditions. Another four tests resistance (Fig. 9). Tests RV-06-S, RV-09-CS, RV-10-S/CS and RV-11-
were performed to evaluate the soil type and stratified soil behavior CS/S were conducted using polyurethane sheets along with silicon oil-
during reverse fault rupture propagation through the soil. Test RV-06-S covered surfaces, which were determined to be the best solution
was performed in sandy soil. Test RV-09-CS was performed in clayey- (Fig. 9(b)).
sand and tests RV-10-S/CS and RV-11-CS/S were performed in stratified
soil. Fig. 7 shows the geometries of the models in tests RV-06-S, RV-09- 4.1. Vertical ground surface displacement in flexure zone and footwall area
CS, RV-10-S/CS and RV-11-CS/S. Fig. 8 shows the 3D diagram of re-
verse faulting that describe the geometry and parameters used. In this One of the important factors that should be measured during the
figure, “flexure” denotes the width of the main ground surface distor- tests is the vertical ground surface displacement (Bransby et al., 2008b;
tion zone and “scarp” denotes the vertical offset between the initial Cai et al., 2010). Fig. 10 shows the vertical displacement of the ground
ground surface and the distortion zone. surface and bedrock during the simulation of reverse faulting in tests
: (ΔH) vertical movement of bedrock; (H) soil layer thickness; (d) RV-06-S, RV-09-CS, RV-10-S/CS and RV-11-CS/S. The moment that the
induced vertical movement in soil layers; (1) bedrock; (2) stationary reverse faulting was initiated was set as the origin of the time axis. It
block (footwall); (3) moving block (hanging wall); (4) faulting plane; was found that vertical displacement of bedrock of 42 mm (equivalent
(5) straight extension of bedrock fault plane; (6) vertical projection of to 2.52 m at prototype scale) occurred within an average of 30 s and
fault trace; (7) tension cracks; (8) faulting dip angle; (A) width of resulted in a velocity of reverse faulting of approximately 1.4 mm/s
tension zone between vertical projection of fault trace in bedrock and (0.084 m/s at prototype scale). Consequently, the model surface at the
boundary of fault deformation; (B) zone between fault trace outcrop hanging wall displaced 39, 33, 35 and 38 mm in tests RV-06-S, RV-09-
and straight extension of bedrock fault place; (S) theoretical deforma- CS, RV-10-S/CS, and RV-11-CS/S, respectively (LVDT 1; Fig. 6). No
tion zone between straight extension and vertical projection of fault to obvious vertical displacement was observed at the ground surface on
ground; (W) width of deformation zone. the footwall (LVDTs 3 and 4; Fig. 6) (Ahmed and Bransby, 2010; Cai
et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2006).
4. Results of centrifuge tests
4.2. Appearance of faulting fractures on ground surface
The nature of the boundary conditions is an important factor that
must be considered in physical modeling (Anastasopoulos et al., 2007; The required bedrock displacement for appearance of the rupture on
Cai et al., 2010; Stone and Wood, 1992). Therefore, five initial tests ground surface is an important factor during faulting. A threshold
were conducted to improve the boundary conditions of the models. The earthquake magnitude of 5 to 5.5 (Richter scale) is required for the
sidewalls of a model could create undesirable friction that could affect appearance of shear failure at the ground surface (Bonilla, 1988). The
the test results; thus, different solutions were examined for reducing ratio ΔH/H is often used to assess the effect of soil thickness in surface
friction. Polyurethane sheets, double polyurethane sheets and silicon oil faulting hazards. Lee and Hamada (2005) showed that this value varies
were used on both sides of the split box to reduce the frictional from 5.77% to 10.1% of the soil thickness, depending on soil density.

280
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Fig. 11. Bedrock vertical displacement required the fault to outcrop and dip angle of fault rupture traces as they emerge on ground surface: (a) RV-06-S; (b) RV-09-
CS; (c) RV-10-S/CS; (d) RV-11-CS/S (Not to scale).

Propagation of shear failure through the soil models is shown in Fig. 11. of a failure surface (Fig. 12). Comparing Fig. 11 a, b, c and d, it can be
In each test, the non-stationary half of the frame moved up and into seen that the normalized vertical displacement required for the fault to
the soil mass (reverse faulting) until the primary failure surface de- outcrop (ΔH/H) increased with an increase in the percentage of clay
veloped through the entire height of the soil. For the 30 cm soil thick- content. These results agree with those of previous researchers (Ahmadi
ness (18 m at prototype scale) in the four models with reverse faulting, et al., 2018).
a complete slip surface generally developed after 1.59 to 2.04 cm
(95.4 cm to 122.04 cm at prototype scale) of vertical displacement of 4.3. Angle of fault plane through soil layers
the bedrock. Thus, a maximum vertical displacement of approximately
6.8% of the total soil thickness was required for complete development Anastasopoulos et al. (2007) showed that the dip-slips of faults

281
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

the fault dip angle at the surface. Furthermore, Fig. 13(c) and (d) in-
dicate that in two-layered models, the change in material properties
result refraction of dip angle of fault ruptures. According to Fig. 13, it
can be concluded that when the fault rupture passes a stiffer soil layer
(sand) to a softer soil (clayey-sand), the propagation dip angle will
decrease. For instance, in Fig. 13(c) the propagation angle in the
clayey–sand is 62°, however, after entering the sand layer, the dip angle
increases to 67°. Similarly, by changing the layers' order, in Fig. 13(d),
the propagation dip angle changes and decreases when the rupture
passes a stiffer layer (sand) to a softer layer (clayey-sand), and it should
be noted that the changes in the inclination is not obvious and large
(refer to Fig. 4) as the differences in the stiffness is small.
The relation between the rupture angle and the elasticity modulus is
illustrated in Fig. 14. In the aforementioned Figure, the elasticity
modulus of each layer is normalized with the amount of its below layer.
In addition, the rupture angle in each layer is normalized with the
amount of its below layer. The mentioned values compared to the
normalized 45-Φ/2/60 and 45 + Φ/2/60 lines (respect to the fault
Fig. 12. Propagation of shear failure in soil models related to bedrock dis- rupture angle on the bedrock).
placement. The definitions of H, ΔH and h are indicated in the inset. As it could be concluded from Fig. 14, the curves of the rupture
propagation in single-layered models are located on sides of the graph
and the doubled-layer models are located between the two extreme
refract at the soil rock interface, initially increasing in dip, particularly
(single-layered) curves. This has been observed in previous works (Cole
in soil with a low angle of dilation. The dips of normal faults may
and Lade, 1984) that the start of the fault rupture is assumed as an
continue to increase as they approach the ground surface. In contrast,
active condition, the slope of the rupture is complying with the 45 + Φ/
reverse faults tend to decrease in dip as they emerge at the ground
2 and the emerged rupture on surface is complying with passive con-
surface. Fig. 13 shows the surface angles of the fault planes and the
dition. Anastasopoulos et al. (2007) indicated that the initiation of the
refraction angles of the fault plane in boundary of two soil layers
fault rupture is with an increase in dip angle and this increase alleviate
(Fig. 13c and d). In accordance to the previous studies, the results in-
along the soil depth and comply with the 45-Φ/2 on the surface. These
dicate that the rupture dip angle at the ground surface is decreased and
findings are in accordance with those of Lee and Hamada (2005), who
it is smaller than the fault dip angle at the bedrock. As depicted in
showed that fault rupture is mainly affected by the dip angle of the
Fig. 13(a) and (b), the changing of soil type resulted in differences in

Fig. 13. Dip angle of fault rupture traces as they propagate through soil layers: (a) RV-06-S; (b) RV-09-CS; (c) RV-10-S/CS; (d) RV-11-CS/S.

282
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Fig. 14. The relations between the rupture dip angle and the elasticity modulus in different soil types (αi = dip angle of each three cm soil thickness rupture; α = dip
angle of bedrock fault and Ei = elasticity modulus of each three cm soil thickness.

bedrock fault and the ductility of the soil rather than by model thick- ground surface was recorded. The ratio of ground surface uplift to
ness. This was confirmed by Mortazavi Zanjani and Soroush (2014). bedrock fault movement (d/h) was about 91%, 92%, 93% and 94% in
tests RV-06-S, RV-11-CS/S, RV-10-S/CS and RV-09-CS, respectively.
4.4. Trishear model of deformation The decrease in ground surface uplift from bedrock uplift was ac-
counted for and defined as the dissipated displacement ratio (DDR), in
The shear deformation induced by reverse faulting could be ex- order to understand better the difference between the test results. A
plained by “Trishear model” that has been proposed and developed by higher DDR value denotes decreased ground surface uplift so increased
Allmendinger, 1998; Cardozo, 2005; Cardozo et al., 2003; Champion the dissipation of the ground surface displacement. Fig. 16 presents
et al., 2001; Erslev, 1991; Hardy and Ford, 1997; Jin and Groshong, bedrock dislocation in relation to the ground surface as the DDR for
2006; Zehnder and Allmendinger, 2000). In the trishear model, a single different tests. The sand layer produced the highest DDR value and the
fault in bedrock expands outward into a triangular zone of distributed clayey-sand deposit produced the lowest value. Fig. 16 shows that top-
shear zone. According to Allmendinger et al. (2004), the present fault soil with 0.5 to 0.75 m of bedrock movement had the largest DDR.
rupture propagation could be classified as reactivation a preexisting
fault or generating a new one. Fig. 15 illustrated the fault displacement 4.6. Development of deformation area
and trishear formation. As reported by Lin et al. (2006); Ahmed and
Bransby (2010) and Lee et al. (2000) a bifurcation of the fault zone into The width of a surface rupture must be considered when de-
two branches can be observed in sand models (tests RV-06-S and RV-10- termining a safe distance from the rupture for construction sites (Zhang
S/CS), and it is going to form in two other models as shown in Fig. 15 et al., 2013). Estimation of this zone is very important for the seismic
(b) and (d). This phenomenon has been observed with progressive fault safety of buildings near an active fault. To do this during testing,
uplift after emergence of fault fracture at surface, developed and re- photographs were taken of the surface of the models before and after
ported in previous works (Bray, 2001; Cole and Lade, 1984; Lin et al., each test (Fig. 17). The progression of the fault rupture zone on the
2006) (denoted as numbers 1 and 2 in Fig. 15 (a), (b), (c) and (d)). footwall is shown in Fig. 18. In this figure, line 5 shows the position of
When the fault tip propagation continued, the slip trace divided into the straight extension of the fault plane and line 6 shows the vertical
two branches. The resulting of this mechanism is that the fault rupture projection of the fault plane. The zone between lines 5 and 6 is the
zone formed a stepped shape and the sand models show a steeper slope theoretical fault rupture zone.
than did the clayey-sand models. Therefore, this phenomenon resulted Fig. 18 reveals that the real deformation area is wider than the
in a wider fault rupture zone in the clayey-sand model. This indicates theoretical zone. During the initial stage of fault rupture propagation in
that the sandy deposit without cohesive particles created a steeper the sand model, a fracture formed a large dip angle. As faulting con-
scarp, which generated a narrower deformation of the fault rupture tinued, the fracture formed two branches, of which the second had a
zone, and the clayey-sand created a gentler slope with wider de- smaller dip angle. This created a deformation area with a stepped form
formation of the fault rupture zone. These differences can have a strong and resulted in a limited fault rupture zone. The clayey-sand and the
effect on the level of damages to buildings. stratified model with clayey-sand on top show a gentle slope flexure.
This indicates that the type of soil in the layer on top of the bedrock
4.5. Ground surface uplift defines the width of the fault rupture zone and the upper layer defines
its exposed shape.
Previous earthquake experience has shown that thick sediment In Fig. 17, the ground surface has been divided into three parts by
layers can prevent fault rupture from reaching the ground surface. An orthogonal grid lines showing deformation. The diameters of some
increase in bedrock vertical displacement will increase the probability squares are fixed, of some are stretched and of others have decreased.
of the appearance of a fault trace at the ground surface. In fact, ground These cases indicate the no change, tension and compression stress
surface uplift is a hanging wall translation for which the displacement conditions, respectively. The tension and compression areas are shown
ratio depends on the physical and mechanical properties of the soil. in Fig. 17. The areas outside of the fault rupture zone (W) experienced
During testing, the displacement of the bedrock in relation to the no change. The zone located between the vertical projection of the fault

283
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Fig. 15. Trishear model of deformation and generation of a bifurcation of the fault zone in different models (a) RV-06-S; (b) RV-09-CS; (c) RV-10-S/CS; (d) RV-11-CS/
S.

trace and the border of the extension area on the hanging wall side is summarizes the values for S, A, B, W and W/H. Fig. 19 illustrated the
denoted as A, and the zone between the straight projection of the fault development of ground surface deformation zone related to vertical
trace and fault rupture line is denoted as B. Finally, zone S is located displacement of bedrock. According to this Figure, the clayey-sand has
between the straight extension and vertical projection of the fault to the the widest deformation zone and sand layer has the narrowest one. The
ground surface that forms theoretical fault rupture zone. Stratified models have an average reaction.
The compression and tension zones across W were different in all The deformation zones on both sides of the fault are asymmetric and
tests (Fig. 18) such that W-CS > W-S/CS > W-CS/S > W-S in which the proportion between the hanging wall side and the footwall side
W-CS, W-S/CS, W-CS/S and W-S are the width of the fault rupture zones ranges from 4.3:1 to 2.5:1. This indicates that the avoidance zone is not
in RV-09-CS, RV-10-S/CS, RV-11-CS/S and RV-06-S tests, respectively. simply half of the deformation zone. The above mentioned results agree
It appears that the clay content of the soil affected W. Table 3 with those of previous researchers (Lee et al., 2000).

284
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

18 phenomena and they are relatively inexpensive. Therefore, the results

of current study may offer some insight into the fault rupture problem.
RV-06-S
16
Specially, the width of deformation zone is a key parameter in de-
RV-09-CS
Dissipated displacement ratio (%)

14 RV-11-CS/S
termination of avoidance zone, which is very well measurable in model
12
RV-10-S/CS
tests.
As shown in Table 4 the values of avoidance zone proposed by New
10 Zealand building code and the abovementioned studies are larger than
8
those observed in tests RV-06-S; RV-09-CS; RV-10-S/CS and RV-11-CS/
S. The thickness and type of sediment layer and dip angle of bedrock
6 fault are not reported by building codes and field studies and they do
4
not take into account these parameters for measuring and calculating
avoidance zone. That could be the reason for differences between va-
2 lues of Table 4.
0
Fig. 20 (b to e) illustrates the results of avoidance zone according to
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 the test results (RV-06-S; RV-09-CS; RV-10-S/CS and RV-11-CS/S)
Vertical bedrock displacement (m) compare to the proposed avoidance zone in New Zealand building code
(Fig. 20 a). It seems that a further studies and observation are necessary
Fig. 16. Ground surface uplift dissipation in soil models at prototype scale.
for better understanding of this issue. Therefore, for effective usage of
land, it is suggested that complementary studies (field investigation or
4.7. Comparison of findings and building codes laboratory model testing) could be performed.

Some building codes and construction regulations state that an 5. Conclusions

avoidance zone should be determined around an active fault (Kerr
et al., 2003). A common misconception regarding setbacks is that they In this research, a series of centrifuge model tests were conducted to
should always be 15 m from both side of the active fault trace. Ac- study the effects of soil type and stratification on fault rupture propa-
cording to studies on 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake hanging wall deforma- gation and development of a fault rupture zone caused by reverse
tion and its effect to buildings and structures conducted by Lee et al. faulting. The following findings were determined in relation to model
(2000), they proposed a setback zone about 15 m wide on both side of parameters such as fault dip angle, soil type and soil thickness. These
the fault trace for common buildings. Moreover, field studies of Lin observations are obviously limited to the test conditions and may not be
et al. (2003) showed that the deformation fault zone of the Chelungpu applicable for different types of soil, sequences of stratification, thick-
fault varied between 10 and 65 m. Furthermore the research results of ness of deposits, fault dip angles and mechanisms.
Kelson et al. (2001) indicated that, the deformation width of an in-
dividual scarp is about 10 to 20 times the net vertical displacement. The
field observations and measurements of Zhang et al. (2013) were used
• Vertical movement of the ground surface in the rupture zone in the
sand (stiffer soil) model was larger than for the clayey-sand model.
to calculate the width of deformation zone as 41.72 m.
Accurate determination of avoidance zone requires observation of
• The rupture zone showed a gentler slope in the clayey-sand model,
while the sand model (stiffer soil) showed a stepped slope.
real fault ruptures (previous earthquakes) or conducting model tests.
Centrifuge model tests provide more or less similar conditions to real
• The curves of the rupture propagation in single-layered models are
located on sides of the graph and the doubled-layer models are

Fig. 17. Top view of ground surface deformation induced by reverse fault movement.

285
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Fig. 18. Development of fault rupture zone induced by reverse fault movement in different models.

Table 3
Values of S, A, B, and W in test models for fault throw ΔH = 2.4 m.
Test No. Soil type S (m) A (m) B (m) W (m) W/H

RV-06-S Sand 10.4 2.9 4.0 17.3 0.96

RV-09-CS Clayey-sand 10.4 9.0 5.8 25.2 1.40
RV-10-S/CS Sand/Clayey-sand 10.4 4.6 6.1 21.1 1.17
RV-11-CS/S Clayey-sand/Sand 10.4 4.2 3.4 18.0 1.00

located between the two extreme (single-layered) curves.

• The sand layer had the highest dissipated displacement ratio of
bedrock displacement and clayey-sand had the lowest DDR.
• The highest DDR occurred during the initial movement of the bed-
rock (0.5–0.75 m).
• Vertical displacement of 5.3% to 6.8% of the total thickness of the
soil was required for complete development of a failure surface. The
minimum required displacement occurred in test RV-10-S/CS and
the maximum in the clayey-sand model (RV-09-CS).
• The failure surface approached the ground surface at a smaller dip Fig. 19. Development of deformation zone induced by reverse fault movement
in different models. The definitions of H, ΔH, and W are indicated in the inset.
angle than the fault dip angle at bedrock. This decrease was more
pronounced when the soil layer was clayey-sand. The model with a
sand layer demonstrated the smallest decrease. to 25.2 m at prototype scale. The setback zones in the California and
• Clayey-sand had the widest fault rupture zone, followed by the New Zealand building codes are proposed regardless of soil type,
stratified S/CS, CS/S, and sand models. thickness and fault dip angle and usually are based on the vulner-
• The width of the fault rupture zones could be affected by soil type, ability of structures. Under the conditions of the current tests, the
thickness and stratification in addition to the other parameters, measured widths of the rupture zones were smaller than the
which were investigated in the previous researches. The measured minimum setback zone values in the above-mentioned codes.
widths under the conditions of the present study ranged from 17.3

286
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Table 4
Comparison of width of Avoidance zone values in different studies.
Code or study New Zealand building Lee et al. (2000) Lin et al. (2003) Kelson et al. Zhang et al. RV-06-S RV-09- RV-10-S/ RV-11-CS/
code (2001) (2013) CS CS S

Avoidance zone (m) 40 30 10–65 25–50 41.72 17.3 25.2 21.1 18

Fig. 20. Proposed avoidance zone according to results of different tests (Fig. 20 b to e) compare to the New Zealand building code (Fig. 20 a) (adapted from Kerr
et al., 2003).

287
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

Acknowledgments 0091-7613(1991)019<0617:TFPF>2.3.CO;2.
Faccioli, E., Anastasopoulos, I., Gazetas, G., Callerio, A., Paolucci, R., 2008. Fault rup-
ture–foundation interaction: Selected case histories. Bulletin of Earthquake
This work was supported by Ferdowsi University of Mashhad [Grant Engineering 6 (4), 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9089-y.
No. 28840-09/12/2013]. It was conducted in the Physical Modeling Farahmand, K., Lashkari, A., Ghalandarzadeh, A., 2016. Firoozkuh sand: introduction of a
and Centrifuge Laboratory of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation benchmark for geomechanical studies. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 40,
133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-016-0009-0.
Engineering Department of the School of Civil Engineering at the Hardy, S., Ford, M., 1997. Numerical modeling of trishear fault propogation folding.
University of Tehran. The authors express their deep gratitude to all the Tectonics 16, 841–854. https://doi.org/10.1029/97TC01171.
experts and personnel of the lab. Journal reviews by Professor Juang, Hazeghian, M., Soroush, A., 2017. Numerical modeling of dip-slip faulting through
granular soils using DEM. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 97, 155–171. https://doi.org/10.
Editor in Chief, handling editor and two anonymous reviewers are ap- 1016/j.soildyn.2017.03.021.
preciated. Jin, G., Groshong, R.H., 2006. Trishear kinematic modeling of extensional fault-propa-
gation folding. J. Struct. Geol. 28, 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2005.09.
003.
References
Johansson, J., Konagai, K., 2007. Fault induced permanent ground deformations:
Experimental verification of wet and dry soil, numerical findings' relation to field
Ahmadi, M., Moosavi, M., Jafari, M.K., 2018. Experimental investigation of reverse fault observations of tunnel damage and implications for design. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27,
rupture propagation through cohesive granular soils. Geomech. Energy Environ. 14, 938–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.01.007.
61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gete.2018.04.004. Kabir, M.E., Song, B., Martin, B.E., Chen, W., 2010. Compressive Behavior of Fine Sand,
Ahmed, W., Bransby, M., 2010. Centrifuge modelling of the interaction between fault Sandia National Laboratories. New Mexico.
rupture and rows of rigid, shallow foundations. In: Proceedings of the 7th Kelson, K.I., Kang, K.H., Page, W.D., Lee, C.T., Cluff, L.S., 2001. Representative styles of
International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics (ICPMG 2010), deformation along the Chelungpu fault from the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake:
pp. 1–6. geomorphic characteristics and responses of man-made structures. Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Allmendinger, R.W., 1998. Propagation folds footwall synclines. Tectonics 17, 640–656. Am. 91, 930–952. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000741.
https://doi.org/10.1029/98TC01907. Kerr, J., Nathan, S., Van Dissen, R., Webb, P., Brunsden, D., King, A., 2003. Planning for
Allmendinger, R.W., Zapata, Y.T., Manceda, R., 2004. Trishear kinematic modeling of Development of Land on or Close to Active Faults: A Guideline to Assist Resource
structures, with examples from the Neuquén Basin, Argentina. AAPG Mem. 82, Management Planners in New Zealand. Wellington.
356–371. Kiani, M., Akhlaghi, T., Ghalandarzadeh, A., 2016a. Experimental modeling of segmental
Anastasopoulos, I., Gazetas, G., 2010. Analysis of cut-and-cover tunnels against large shallow tunnels in alluvial affected by normal faults. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 51,
tectonic deformation. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 8, 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.10.005.
s10518-009-9135-4. Kiani, M., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Akhlaghi, T., Ahmadi, M., 2016b. Experimental evaluation
Anastasopoulos, I., Gazetas, G., Asce, M., Bransby, M.F., Davies, M.C.R., El Nahas, A., of vulnerability for urban segmental tunnels subjected to normal surface faulting. Soil
2007. Fault rupture propagation through sand: finite-element. J. Geotech. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 89, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.07.012.
Geoenviron. Eng. 133, 943–958. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007) Lade, P.V., Cole, D.A.J., Cummings, D., 1984. Multiple failure surfaces over dip-slip faults.
133:8(943). J. Geotech. Eng. 110, 616–627. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)
Anastasopoulos, I., Callerio, A., Bransby, M.F., Davies, M.C.R., El Nahas, A., Faccioli, E., 110:5(616).
Gazetas, G., Masella, A., Paolucci, R., Pecker, A., Rossignol, E., 2008. Numerical Lavine, A., Gardner, J.N., Reneau, S.L., 2003. Total station geologic mapping: an in-
analyses of fault-foundation interaction. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 6, 645–675. https://doi. novative approach to analyzing surface-faulting hazards. Eng. Geol. 70, 71–91.
org/10.1007/s10518-008-9078-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(03)00083-8.
Ashtiani, M., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Towhata, I., 2016. Centrifuge modeling of shallow Lee, J.W., Hamada, M., 2005. An Experimental study on earthquake fault rupture pro-
embedded foundations subjected to reverse fault rupture. Can. Geotech. J. 53, pagation through a sandy soil deposit. Struct. Eng. Earthq. Eng. 22, 1s–13s. https://
505–519. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0444. doi.org/10.2208/jsceseee.22.1s.
Bonilla, M.G., 1988. Minimum earthquake associated with coseismic surface faulting. Lee, C.T., Kelson, K.I., Kang, K.H., 2000. Hangingwall deformation and its effect to
Bull. Assoc. Environ. Eng. Geol. 25, 17–29. buildings and structures as Learned from the Chelungpu faulting in the 1999 Chi-Chi,
Bransby, M.F., Davies, M.C.R., El Nahas, A., 2008a. Centrifuge modelling of normal fault- Taiwan Earthquake. In: Proc. Intl. Workshop Ann. Commem. Chi-Chi Earthquake,
foundation interaction. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 6, 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Taipei. vol. 1. pp. 93–104.
s10518-008-9079-0. Lin, C.W., Lee, Y.L., Huang, M.L., Lai, W.C., Yuan, B.D., Huang, C.Y., 2003. Characteristics
Bransby, M.F., Davies, M.C.R., El Nahas, A., Nagaoka, S., 2008b. Centrifuge modelling of of surface ruptures associated with the Chi-Chi earthquake of September 21, 1999.
reverse fault-foundation interaction. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 6, 607–628. https://doi.org/ Eng. Geol. 71, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(03)00123-6.
10.1007/s10518-008-9080-7. Lin, M.L., Lu, C.Y., Chang, K.J., Jeng, F.S., Lee, C.J., 2005. Sandbox experiments of plate
Bray, J.D., 2001. Developing mitigation measures for the hazards associated with convergence - Scale effect and associated mechanisms. Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. 16,
earthquake surface fault rupture. In: A Work. Seism. Fault-Induced Fail. – Possible 595–620.
Remedies Damage to Urban Facil, pp. 55–80. Lin, M.L., Chung, C.F., Jeng, F.S., 2006. Deformation of overburden soil induced by thrust
Bray, J., Seed, R., Seed, H., 1993. 1 g small-scale modelling of saturated cohesive soils. fault slip. Eng. Geol. 88, 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.08.004.
Geotech. Test. J. 16, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(93)92235-i. Lin, M.L., Chung, C.F., Jeng, F.S., Yao, T.C., 2007. The deformation of overburden soil
Cai, Q.P., Hu, P., Van Laak, P., Ng, C.W.W., Chiu, A.C.F., 2010. Investigation of boundary induced by thrust faulting and its impact on underground tunnels. Eng. Geol. 92,
conditions for simulating normal fault propagation in centrifuge. In: 4th Int. Conf. 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.03.008.
Geotech. Eng. Soil Mech. 614. pp. 1–8. Lin, A., Rao, G., Yan, B., 2012. Field evidence of rupture of the Qingchuan Fault during
Cai, Q., Ng, C.W.W., Luo, G., Hu, P., 2013. Influences of pre-existing fracture on ground the 2008 Mw7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, northeastern segment of the Longmen Shan
deformation induced by normal faulting in mixed ground conditions. J. Cent. South Thrust Belt, China. Tectonophysics 522–523, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Univ. 20, 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-013-1512-0. tecto.2011.12.012.
Cardozo, N., 2005. Trishear modeling of fold bedding data along a topographic profile. J. Loli, M., Anastasopoulos, I., Bransby, M.F., Ahmed, W., Gazetas, G., 2011. Caisson
Struct. Geol. 27, 495–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2004.10.004. foundations subjected to reverse fault rupture: centrifuge testing and numerical
Cardozo, N., Bhalla, K., Zehnder, A.T., Allmendinger, R.W., 2003. Mechanical models of analysis. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137, 914–925. https://doi.org/10.1061/
fault propagation folds and comparison to the trishear kinematic model. J. Struct. (ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000512.
Geol. 25, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(02)00013-5. Loukidis, D., Bouckovalas, G.D., Papadimitriou, A.G., 2009. Analysis of fault rupture
Champion, J., Mueller, K., Tate, A., Guccione, M., 2001. Geometry, numerical models and propagation through uniform soil cover. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
revised slip rate for the Reelfoot fault and trishear fault-propagation fold, New 29, 1389–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.04.003.
Madrid seismic zone. Eng. Geol. 62, 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013- Ma, K.F., Chiao, L.Y., 2004. Rupture behavior of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake-
7952(01)00048-5. slips on a curved fault in response to the regional plate convergence. Eng. Geol. 71,
Chang, Y.Y., Lee, C.J., Huang, W.C., Hung, W.Y., Huang, W.J., Lin, M.L., Chen, Y.H., 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(03)00122-4.
2015. Evolution of the surface deformation profile and subsurface distortion zone Moradi, M., Rojhan, M., Galandarzadeh, A., Takada, S., 2013. Centrifuge modeling of
during reverse faulting through overburden sand. Eng. Geol. 184, 52–70. https://doi. buried continuous pipelines subjected to normal faulting. J. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib.
org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.10.023. 12, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1139/t2012-022.
Cole, D.A.J., Lade, P.V., 1984. Influence zones in alluvium over dip-slip faults. J. Geotech. Mortazavi Zanjani, M., Soroush, A., 2014. Numerical modeling of fault rupture propa-
Eng. 110, 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:5(599). gation through two-layered sands. Sci. Iran. 21, 19–29.
Dong, J.J., Wang, C.D., Lee, C.T., Liao, J.J., Pan, Y.W., 2003. The influence of surface Ng, C.W.W., Cai, Q.P., Hu, P., 2012. Centrifuge and numerical modeling of normal fault-
ruptures on building damage in the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake: a case study in rupture propagation in clay with and without a preexisting fracture. J. Geotech.
Fengyuan City. Eng. Geol. 71, 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(03) Geoenviron. Eng. 138, 1492–1502. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
00131-5. 0000719.
Duffy, B., Campbell, J., Finnemore, M., Gomez, C., 2014. Defining fault avoidance zones Oettle, N., Bray, J.D., 2013. Fault rupture propagation through previously ruptured soil.
and associated geotechnical properties using MASW: a case study on the Springfield J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139, 1637–1647. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.
Fault, New Zealand. Eng. Geol. 183, 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo. 1943-5606.0000919.
2014.10.017. Peng, J.B., Chen, L.W., Huang, Q.B., Men, Y.M., Fan, W., Yan, J.K., 2013. Physical si-
Erslev, E.A., 1991. Trishear fault-propagation folding. Geology. https://doi.org/10.1130/ mulation of ground fissures triggered by underground fault activity. Eng. Geol. 155,

288
N. Tali et al. Engineering Geology 249 (2019) 273–289

19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.01.001. Taniyama, H., Watanabe, H., 2001. Deformation of sandy deposit by reverse faulting.
Qin, X., Chen, Q., Wu, M., Tan, C., Feng, C., Meng, W., 2015. In-situ stress measurements Seism. Fault Induc. Fail. 135–142. https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej.1998.591_313.
along the Beichuan-Yingxiu fault after the Wenchuan earthquake. Eng. Geol. 194, Wang, G., Huang, R., Kamai, T., Zhang, F., 2013. The internal structure of a rockslide dam
114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.04.029. induced by the 2008 Wenchuan (Mw7.9) earthquake, China. Eng. Geol. 156, 28–36.
Rojhani, M., Moradi, M., Ebrahimi, M.H., Galandarzadeh, A., Takada, S., 2012. Recent https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.01.004.
developments in faulting simulators for geotechnical centrifuges. Geotech. Test. J. 35. Yang, H.W., Beeson, J., 2001. The setback distance concept and 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan)
https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20120083. earthquake. In: Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Roth, W.H., Scott, R.F., Austin, I., 1981. Centrifuge modeling of fault propagation through Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics.
alluvial soils. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/GL008i006p00561. Zehnder, A.T., Allmendinger, R.W., 2000. Velocity field for the trishear model. J. Struct.
Stone, K.J.L., Wood, D.M., 1992. Effects of dilatancy and particle size observed in model Geol. 22, 1009–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00037-7.
tests on sand. In: Soils Found. 32. pp. 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1248/cpb.37.3229. Zhang, Y., Shi, J., Sun, P., Yang, W., Yao, X., Zhang, C., Xiong, T., 2013. Surface ruptures
Taniyama, H., 2011. Numerical analysis of overburden soil subjected to strike-slip fault: induced by the Wenchuan earthquake: their influence widths and safety distances for
distinct element analysis of Nojima fault. Eng. Geol. 123, 194–203. https://doi.org/ construction sites. Eng. Geol. 166, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.
10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.08.003. 09.010.

289