A large scale shaking table test was carried out to study the failure modes of the slope stabilized by frame beam with prestressed anchors. Based on the Hilbert–Huang Transform (HHT), the damage identification analysis was performed by using the marginal spectrum obtained from the acceleration responses. The results from the tests show that the seismic damage of the slope stabilized by the frame beam with prestressed anchors mainly occurs at the top of the sliding mass and on the free surface of the slope. The upper part of the sliding layer begins to damage under the seismic excitation with low amplitudes. Because of existing anchor cable and frame beam, the middle and lower parts of the slope display better seismic performance. The seismic failure mode of the slope stabilized by frame beam with prestressed anchors is mainly expressed by the penetration of tensile cracks and longitudinal cracks at the top of the sliding mass, collapse and hollowing of free surface at the upper part of the slope, and overall slippage of sliding mass. The slope has an elevation amplification effect on the amplitude of the Hilbert energy spectrum and changes the time-frequency distribution of the energy spectrum.

An accurate description of the load transfer behaviors of the geosynthetic-encased stone column (GESC) is of great importance for revealing the bearing capacity of GESC. Static load tests and shake table model tests were performed to characterize the static and dynamic load transfer behaviors of the composite foundation reinforced by the GESC. Under static loading, static load tests were conducted on a fully geosynthetic-encased stone column (FGESC), partially geosynthetic-encased stone column (PGESC) and traditional stone column (TSC). The influence of length and stiffness of the encasement on the stone columns were investigated. Under seismic loading, the shake table model tests were performed to analyze the differences of the dynamic pile-soil stress responses between the composite foundations with the GESC and the TSC. The results show that the static pile-soil stress ratios of the composite foundation with the FGESC are about three to six times of those of the composite foundation with the TSC, and the difference increases with the increase in the stiffness or length of the encasement. The static vertical stress of 60% acting on the pile top can be transferred to the pile bottom for the FGESC, while only 27~45% for the TSC. The dynamic pile-soil stress ratios of the GESC and the TSC first decrease and then increase slightly with the increase of the input peak acceleration. The dynamic pile-soil stress ratio of the GESC is about three times that of the TSC under seismic excitation with the same type and peak acceleration. The attenuation rate of dynamic stress along the pile body under dynamic loading is much faster than that under the static loading. Under the static and dynamic conditions, the load transfer capacity and pile efficacy of the GESC are always better than those of the TSC.

In order to obtain the seismic internal force response laws of a shallow‐bias tunnel with a small clear distance, the reliability of the numerical simulation is verified by the shaking table model test. The parameter sensitivity of the tunnel is studied by using MIDAS‐NX finite element software. The effects of seismic wave peak (0.1 g, 0.2 g, 0.3 g, 0.4 g, 0.5 g, and 0.6 g), existing slope angle (30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°), clear distance (1.0 D, 1.5 D, 2.0 D, and 3.0 D), and excitation mode (X direction, Z direction, XY direction, and XYZ direction) on the internal force response law of the tunnel are studied, respectively. The results show that (1) the shear force gradually increases with the increasing of seismic peak. The amplification is different with different measuring points. (2) Under different existing slope‐angle conditions, the variation trend of shear force of the tunnel is similar, but the shear force is different. The existing slope has significant effect on the shear force response of the tunnel, and the degree is different with different slope angles. (3) Under the conditions of 1.5 D and 2.0 D, the shear force response of the tunnel is stronger, but the response of other conditions is relatively weak. The tunnel with 1.5 D to 2.0 D clear distance should be avoided. Different excitation modes have a significant effect on the shear force response of the tunnel. (4) Under the same excitation mode, the different excitation directions also have a significant effect on the shear force response. (5) The shear force response of the tunnel crosssection shows nonlinear variation trend. The shear force response is strongest at the arch shoulder and arch foot of the tunnel. The research results provide a useful reference for the design of antishock and vibration resistance of the tunnel.