Comparison of Response Spectrums Determined Using Different Dynamic Shear Modulus Approaches in Ground Response Analysis

Öz

One of the methods used to investigate the effects of earthquake-induced dynamic movements on substructure and superstructure is one-dimensional ground response analysis. In these analyzes, tests performed with direct cyclic loading can be used to define the dynamic properties of soils. However, due to the cost of these experiments and the difficulties in accessibility of the test equipment, modulus reduction and damping curves developed by the researchers are generally used instead of these experiments. The preparation of these curves with test tools with different data sets and technologies causes differences in the behavior of the soil under dynamic effects. Various correction parameters have been developed in the literature to eliminate these differences. However, despite these correction parameters, it is not possible to say that the curves are fully compatible with each other. In this study, the results obtained with dynamic behavior curves were examined and evaluated within the scope of a case. The effect of dynamic response curves used in ground response analysis on soil response outputs has been evaluated comparatively. As a result of the evaluations, it has been determined that the dynamic shear modulus effects are compatible in clayey soils close to the surface. But for sandy soils, inconsistencies were determined and the detected incompatibilities were explained with their reasons.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ground Response Analysis
• Modulus Reductuion Curves
• Earthquake Response Spectrum
• Material Damping Curve

Yer Tepki Analizlerinde Farklı Dinamik Kayma Modülü Yaklaşımları Kullanılarak Belirlenen Tepki Spektrumlarının Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Deprem kaynaklı dinamik hareketlerin zemin içerisindeki dalga yayılımına bağlı olarak altyapı ve üstyapı sistemlerinde oluşturduğu etkilerin araştırılmasında kullanılan araçlardan biri tek boyutlu yer tepki analizleridir. Bu analizlerde zeminlerin dinamik özelliklerinin tanımlanmasında doğrudan çevrimsel yüklemeler ile gerçekleştirilen deneyler kullanılabilmektedir. Fakat bu deneylerin maliyetleri ve deney aletlerinin ulaşılabilirliğindeki zorluklar nedeniyle bu deneylerin yerine genellikle araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen modül azalım ve sönüm eğrileri kullanılmaktadır. Eğrilerin farklı veri setleri ve teknolojilere sahip deney aletleri ile hazırlanması, zeminin dinamik etkiler altındaki davranışlarında farklılıklara sebep olmaktadır. Literatürde bu farklılıkların giderilmesi konusunda çeşitli düzeltme parametreleri geliştirilmiştir. Fakat düzeltme parametrelerine rağmen eğrilerin birbiri ile tam uyumlu olduğundan bahsetmek mümkün değildir. Bu çalışmada dinamik davranış eğrileri ile elde edilen sonuçlar, bir vaka kapsamında incelenmiş ve değerlendirilmiştir. Dinamik eğrilerin yer tepki analizi ile elde edilen zemin davranış çıktılarına etkisi karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Değerlendirmeler neticesinde yüzeye yakın killi zeminlerde dinamik kayma modülü etkilerinin uyumlu olduğu belirlenmiştir. Kumlu zeminler için ise tespit edilen uyumsuzluklar nedenleri ile birlikte açıklanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yer tepki analizi
• Modül azalım eğrileri
• Deprem tepki spektrumu
• Malzeme sönüm eğrileri

Kaynakça

1. [1] Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M. 1970. Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses. Report No.EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.
2. [2] Hardin, B. O., Drnevich, V. P. 1972. Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Measurement and Parameter Effects Terzaghi Lecture.J. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. Cilt. 98, s. 603-624. DOI:10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001756
3. [3] Vucetic, M., Dobry, R. 1991. Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Cilt. 117(1), s. 89–107. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89)
4. [4] Ishibashi, I., Zhang, X. 1993. Unified Dynamic Shear Moduli and Damping Ratios of Sand and Clay. Soils and Foundations, 33(1), 182-191. DOI: 10.3208/sandf1972.33.182
5. [5] Darendeli, M. B. 2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves. Texas University, Doktora Tezi, 362s, Austin, Texas.
6. [6] Tao, Y., Rathje, E. 2020. Taxonomy for evaluating the site-specific applicability of one-dimensional ground response analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 128, 105865. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105865
7. [7] Kumar, S. S., Dey, A., Krishna, A. M. 2018. Importance of site-specific dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies: ground response analysis. International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering (IJGEE), 9(1), 78-98. DOI: 10.4018/IJGEE.2018010105
8. [8] Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D., Juang, C. H. 2005. Normalized Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio Relationships. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(4), s. 453-464. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(453)

9. [9] Roblee, C., Chiou, B. 2004. A Proposed Geoindex Model for Design Selection of Non-linear Properties for Site Response Analysis. In International Workshop on Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties and Their Impact on Modeling Dynamic Soil Response, Mart, PEER Headquarters, UC Berkeley, s. 18-19.
10. [10] Gürsoy, H., Piper, J. D. A., Tatar, O. 2003. Neotectonic Deformation in the Western Sector of Tectonic Escape in Anatolia: Palaeomagnetic Study of the Afyon Region, Central Turkey. Tectonophysics, Cilt. 374, 57-79. DOI: 10.1016/S0040-1951(03)00346-9
11. [11] Ulutürk, Y., 2009. Ömer-Gecek (Afyonkarahisar) Dolayının Jeolojisi ve Suların Kökensel Yorumu. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, 179s, Isparta
12. [12] Basaran, C., Yildiz, A., Duysak, S. 2020. Hydrochemistry and Geological Features of a New Geothermal Field, Bayatcık (Afyonkarahisar / Turkey). Journal of African Earth Sciences, Cilt. 165, s. 103812. DOI: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2020.103812
13. [13] TBDY (2018). Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği. Tarih ve 30364 Sayılı Resmî Gazete, 395s.,
14. [14] ASCE 2022. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE 7, Reston, VA.
15. [15] Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı. Türkiye Deprem Tehlike Haritaları İnteraktif Web Uygulaması. https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/TDTH/main.xhtml (Erişim Tarihi: 21.08.2021)
16. [16] Atik, L. A., Abrahamson, N. 2010. An Improved Method for Nonstationary Spectral Matching, Earthquake Spectra, Cilt.26(3), s. 601–617. DOI: 10.1193/1.3459159
17. [17] Kwok, A. O., Stewart, J. P., Hashash, Y., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., Yang, Z. 2007. Use of Exact Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis Procedures. J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg., 133(11), 1385-1398. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:11(1385)
18. [18] Idriss, I. M., Seed, H. B. 1968. Seismic Response of Horizontal Soil Layers, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Cilt. 94, No. SM4, s. 1003-1031. DOI: 10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001163
19. [19] Hashash, Y.M.A., Musgrove, M.I., Harmon, J.A., Ilhan, O., Xing, G., Numanoglu, O., Groholski, D.R., Phillips, C.A., Park, D. 2020. DEEPSOIL 7, User Manual. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, s. 170
20. [20] Kaklamanos, J., Bradley, B. A. 2018. Challenges in predicting seismic site response with 1D analyses: Conclusions from 114 KiK‐net vertical seismometer arrays. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 108(5A), 2816-2838. DOI: 10.1785/0120180062
21. [21] Phillips, C., Hashash, Y.M.A. 2009. Damping Formulation for Nonlinear 1D Site Response Analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Cilt. 29 (2009), s. 1143–1158. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.01.004
22. [22] Groholski, D. R., Hashash, Y. M. A., Kim, B., Musgrove, M., Harmon, J., & Stewart, J. P. 2016. Simplified Model for Small-Strain Nonlinearity and Strength in 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Cilt. 142(9), s. 4016042. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001496
23. [23] Aaqib, M., Sadiq, S., Park, D., Hashash, Y. M., & Pehlivan, M. (2018). Importance of implied strength correction for 1D site response at shallow sites at a moderate to low seismicity region. In Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V: Seismic Hazard Analysis, Earthquake Ground Motions, and Regional-Scale Assessment (pp. 445-453). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. DOI: 10.1061/9780784481462.043
24. [24] Pehlivan, M., Hashash, YMA., Harmon, JA., Rathje, EM., Stewart, JP., Silva, SJ., Campbell, KW., Nikolaou, S 2015. Influence of shear wave velocity reversals on one-dimensional site response of spatially varied profiles. 6thInternational Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 1-4 November, New Zealand