The Effect of Soil Type and Different In-situ Test Results on Soil Amplification Analysis

Öz

The effect of local soil conditions is taken into consideration in the evaluation of ground motion properties in seismic design of structures. One of the most important effects on the ground surface due to strong ground motion is soil amplification resulted in the structural damage. Soil amplification can be determined both by dynamic analyses performed according to analytical methods  based on local site conditions and obtained with investigations based on the results of in-situ testing methods. Therefore, the effects of local site conditions are considered to evaluate the properties of ground motion for seismic design of structure. In this study, soil properties of İnönü district are evaluated based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Wave (MASW) method which is one of the geophysical methods. İnönü is located at the west of Eskişehir surrounded with numerous active fault systems and subjected to very intensive tectonic activities in geological history. The studies related to seismic activity have been made on the basis of probabilistic seismic hazard analyses. Soil amplification analyses are performed with Shake2000 software comparatively by taking into considerations data from in-situ testing methods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Local Site Condition,Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Waves,Standard Penetration Test,Local Site Condition,Soil Amplification

References

1. [1] Bell FG (1998). Environmental Geology. Blackwell, Malden, MA, USA.
2. [2] De Mulder EFJ (1996). Urban Geoscience. In: McCall GJH, De Mulder, EFJ, Marker BR (Eds.), Urban Geoscience. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1 – 11.
3. [3] Bell FG, Cripps JC, Culshaw MG, O’Hara M. (1987). Aspects of Geology in Planning. In: Culshaw MG, Bell FG, Cripps JC, O’Hara M. (Eds.), Planning and Engineering Geology, Geological Society Engineering Geology Special Publication, No. 4, pp. 1–38.
4. [4] Erdik M, Alpay BY, Onur T, Sesetyan K, Birgoren G. Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions. Ann Geofis 1999; 42:1125–1138.
5. [5] Kayabalı K, Akın M. (2003). Seismic hazard map of Turkey using the deterministic approach. Eng Geol; 69: 127–137.
6. [6] Bayrak Y, Yılmaztürk A, Öztürk S. (2005). Relationships between fundamental seismic hazard parameters for the different source regions in Turkey. Nat Hazards; 36: 445–462.
7. [7] Seed HB, Idriss IM. (1969). Influence of soil conditions on ground motions during earthquakes. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division (ASCE); 95:99-137.
8. [8] Seed HB, Whitman RV, Dezfulian H, Dobry R, Idriss IM. (1972). Soil conditions and building damage in Caracas earthquake. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division (ASCE); 98: SM8.

9. [9] Chang KP, Chang TS. (1994). Liquefaction Induced Earth Movements and Mitigation in an Earthquake-Prone area Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, Balasubramaniam et al. (eds), Balkana.
10. [10] Kramer SL. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
11. [11] Xu Y, Xia J, Miller RD. (2006). Quantitative estimation of minimum offset for multichannel surface-wave survey with actively exciting source. J Appl Geophys; 59(2): 117-125.
12. [12] Zhang SX, Chan LS, Xia J. (2004). The selection of field acquisition parameters for dispersion images from multichannel surface wave data. Pure Appl Geophys; 161:185-201.
13. [13] SHAKE 2000. A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites; by Schnabel P B, Lysmer J, Seed HB. Report No. UCB/EERC72/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, December, (1972), User’s Manual, revised by Gustavo AO, July 2011.
14. [14] DSİ (1975). Eskişehir ve İnönü Ovaları Hidrojeolojik Etüt Raporu. Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Jeoteknik Hizmetler ve Yeraltısuları Daireasi Başkanlığı, 49 s, Eskişehir.
15. [15] Tokay F, Altunel A. (2005). Eskişehir fay zonunun inönü-dodurga çevresinde neotektonik aktivitesi. MTA Dergisi; 130:1-15.
16. [16] Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB. (1999). Estimation of nearsurface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics; 64(3):691–700.
17. [17] Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J. (1999). Multi-channel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics; 64 (3): 800-808.
18. [18] Seyrek E. (2009). Numerical analysis models in dam site seismic hazard analysis and an application. PhD Thesis, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
19. [19] Bozkurt E. (2001). Neotectonics of Turkey−a synthesis. Geodinamica Acta 1;14: 3-30.
20. [20] Koçyiğit A, Yusufoğlu H, Bozkurt E. (1999). Evidence from the Gediz graben for episodic two-stage extension in western Turkey. Journal of the Geological Society; 156: 605−616.
21. [21] Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Seismol Soc; 84 (4): 974-1002.
22. [22] Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE. (1997). Equations For Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, 68:128-153.
23. [23] Gülkan P, Kalkan E. (2002). Attenuation modeling of recent earthquakes in Turkey. J Seismol; 6(3): 397-409.
24. [24] Kalkan E, Gülkan P. (2004). Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in Turkey. Earthq Spectra; 20(4): 1111-1138.
25. [25] Bommer JJ, Douglas J, Strasser FO. (2003). Style-of-faulting in ground motion prediction equations. Bull Earthq Eng; 1:171.
26. [26] Abrahamson NA, Youngs RR. (1992). A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bull Seismol Soc Am; 82:505–510.
27. [27] Hancock J, Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ. (2008). Numbers of scaled and matched accelerograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses. Earthq Eng Struct D; 37(14):1585–1607.
28. [28] Vucetic M, Dobry R. (1991). Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering; 117(1): 89-107.
29. [29] Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K. (1986). Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering; 112(11): 1016-1032.
30. [30] İyisan R, Haşal ME. (2011). Zemin büyütmesi ve yerel koşulların spektral ivmeye etkisi. İTÜ Dergisi/ D Mühendislik; 10(4): 47-56.