EFFECT OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL ON SITE RESPONSE BEHAVIOR OF A ONE-LAYERED LIQUEFIABLE SOIL

Öz

This study examines the effect of groundwater level ( ) on the seismic site response behavior of a one-layered liquefiable soil using one-dimensional nonlinear numerical analyses. The response of the liquefiable soil was analyzed with the help of DeepSoil open-source software. The calibration of the numerical model was carried out using the results of a centrifuge experiment from the literature. The outcomes of the site response analyses were discussed in terms of peak horizontal acceleration, amplification ratio, excess pore pressure ratio, shear stress-strain behavior, and maximum lateral displacement. Also, additional numerical analyses were performed to investigate relationships between input motion intensity- , frequency content of earthquake motion- , and layer thickness- . It is shown that the seismic site response behavior of the liquefiable soil is highly affected by changes in groundwater levels. Moreover, depending on the location of the groundwater level, the seismic behavior of the liquefiable soil may also change with the increase of the input motion intensity, frequency content, and layer thickness.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Liquefiable Soil
• Site Response Analysis
• DeepSoil
• Numerical Model
• Groundwater Level

Tek tabakalı sıvılaşabilir bir zeminin saha tepki davranışı üzerine yeraltı suyu seviyesinin etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, yeraltı suyu seviyesinin ( ) tek tabakalı sıvılaşabilir bir zeminin sismik saha tepki davranışına olan etkisini doğrusal olmayan tek boyutlu sayısal analizler kullanılarak incelemektedir. Sıvılaşabilir zeminin tepkisi, bir açık kaynak yazılımı olan DeepSoil yardımıyla analiz edilmiştir. Sayısal modelin kalibrasyonu literatürde yer alan bir santrifüj deneyinin sonuçları kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları maksimum yatay ivme, büyütme oranı, artık boşluksuyu basıncı oranı, kayma gerilmesi-kayma şekil değiştirmesi davranışı ve maksimum yanal yer değiştirme açısından tartışılmıştır. Ayrıca, girdi deprem hareketi büyüklüğü- , deprem hareketinin frekans içeriği- ve tabaka kalınlığı- arasındaki ilişkileri araştırmak için ek sayısal analizler yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, zeminin sismik saha davranışının, yeraltı su seviyesinin değişmesinden oldukça etkilendiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, yeraltı suyu seviyesinin konumuna bağlı olarak, sıvılaşabilir zeminin sismik davranışı giriş hareket yoğunluğunun, frekans içeriğinin ve tabaka kalınlığının artmasıyla değişebilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sıvılaşabilir Zemin
• Saha Tepki Analizi
• DeepSoil
• Sayısal Model
• Yeraltı Suyu Seviyesi

Kaynakça

1. Adalier, K., Elgamal, A., 2005. Liquefaction of Over-Consolidated Sand: A Centrifuge Investigation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9:127-150.
2. Adampira, M., Derakhshandi, M., Ghalandarzadeh, A. 2019. Experimental Study on Seismic Response Characteristics of Liquefiable Soil Layers. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.13632019.11568930.
3. Adampira, M., Derakhshandi, M., 2020. Influence of a Layered Liquefiable Soil on Seismic Site Response Using Physical Modeling and Numerical Simulation. Engineering Geology, 266:105462.
4. Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K.K., Hossain, M.M., Fruth, L.S., 1992. VELACS: Verification of Liquefaction Analyses by Centrifuge Studies, Laboratory Testing Program. Soil Data Report.
5. Darendeli, M.B., 2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves. PhD. Thesis, In: Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin.
6. Das, A., Chakrabortty, P., 2020. Influence of Motion Energy and Soil Characteristics on Seismic Ground Response of Layered Soil. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 1-20.
7. Foerster, E., Modaressi, H., 2007. Nonlinear Numerical Method for Earthquake Site Response Analysis II—Case Studies. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 5:325-345.
8. Gibson, A.D., 1997. Physical Scale Modeling of Geotechnical Structures at One-G. PhD. Thesis, In: California Institute of Technology.

9. Gingery, J.R., Elgamal, A., Bray, J.D., 2015. Response Spectra at Liquefaction Sites During Shallow Crustal Earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 31:2325-2349.
10. Green, R.A., Cubrinovski, M., Cox, B. et al., 2014. Select Liquefaction Case Histories from the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. Earthquake Spectra, 30, 131-153.
11. Hartvigsen, A.J., 2007. Influence of Pore Pressures in Liquefiable Soils on Elastic Response Spectra. PhD. Thesis, In: University of Washington.
12. Hashash, Y., Phillips, C., Groholski, D.R., 2010. Recent Advances in Non-Linear Site Response Analysis. In: 5th Int. Conf. in Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO.
13. Hashash, Y.M., Musgrove, M., Harmon, J., et al., 2016. DEEPSOIL 7.0 User Manual. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
14. Ishihara, K., 1997. Terzaghi Oration: Geotechnical Aspects of the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering-International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, AA Balkema, pp. 2047-2074.
15. Jaky, J., 1944. The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest. Journal of the Society of Hungarian Architects and Engineers, 355-358.
16. Kramer, S.L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
17. Kramer. S., Hartvigsen, A., Sideras, S., Ozener, P., 2011. Site Response Modeling in Liquefiable Soil Deposits. In: 4th IASPEI/IAEE International Symposium: Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, pp. 1-12.
18. Kokusho, T., 2014. Seismic Base-Isolation Mechanism in Liquefied Sand in Terms of Energy. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 63:92-97.
19. Markham, C.S., Bray, J.D., Macedo, J., Luque, R., 2016. Evaluating Nonlinear Effective Stress Site Response Analyses Using Records from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 82:84-98.
20. Matasovic, J., Vucetic, M., 1996. Analysis of Seismic Records from the Wildlife Liquefaction Site. In: Proc. 11th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering.
21. Matasovic, N., 1993. Seismic Response of Composite Horizontally-Layered Soil Deposits. PhD. Thesis, In: University of California.
22. Mei, X., Olson, S.M., Hashash, Y.M., 2018. Empirical Porewater Pressure Generation Model Parameters in 1-D Seismic Site Response Analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 114:563-567.
23. Meyerhof, G.G., 1959. Compaction of Sands and Bearing Capacity of Piles. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 126:1292-1322.
24. Montoya-Noguera, S., Lopez-Caballero, F., 2016. Effect of Coupling Excess Pore Pressure and Deformation on Nonlinear Seismic Soil Response. Acta Geotechnica, 11:191-207.
25. Özener, P.T, Özaydın, K., Berilgen, M.M., 2009. Investigation of Liquefaction and Pore Water Pressure Development in Layered Sands. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 7:199-219.
26. Phillips, C., Hashash, Y.M., 2009. Damping Formulation for Nonlinear 1D Site Response Analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29:1143-1158.
27. Sassa, S., Takagawa, T., 2019. Liquefied Gravity Flow-Induced Tsunami: First Evidence and Comparison from the 2018 Indonesia Sulawesi Earthquake and Tsunami Disasters. Landslides, 16:195-200.
28. Sato, K., Kokusho, T., Matsumoto, M., Yamada, E., 1996. Nonlinear Seismic Response and Soil Property During Strong Motion. Soils and Foundations, 36:41-52.
29. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., 1967. Analysis of Soil Liquefaction: Niigata Earthquake. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 93:83-108.
30. Su, D., Ming, H., Li, X., 2013. Effect of Shaking Strength on The Seismic Response of Liquefiable Level Ground. Engineering Geology, 166:262-271.
31. Taboada, V., Dobry, R., 1993. Experimental Results of Model No. 1 at RPI. In: Arulanandan K, Scott RF, Editors. Verification of Numerical Procedures for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems, Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema, pp. 3-18.
32. Taghavinezhad, M., Choobbasti, A., Farrokhzad, F., 2019. Effect of Liquefaction on Nonlinear Seismic Response in Layered Soils: A Case Study of Babol, North of Iran. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 1-18.
33. Tokimatsu, K., Tamura, S., Suzuki, H., Katsumata, K., 2012. Building Damage Associated with Geotechnical Problems in the 2011 Tohoku Pacific Earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 52:956-974.
34. Vucetic, M., Dobry, R., 1986. Pore Pressure Build-Up and Liquefaction at Level Sandy Sites During Earthquakes. In: Research Rep. No. CE-86-3, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
35. Yoshida, N., Tokimatsu, K., Yasuda, S. et al., 2001. Geotechnical Aspects of Damage in Adapazari City During 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 41:25-45.
36. Youd, T.L., Carter, B.L., 2005. Influence of Soil Softening and Liquefaction on Spectral Acceleration. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131:811-825.
37. Yuan, H., Yang, S.H., Andrus, R.D., Juang, C.H., 2004. Liquefaction-Induced Ground Failure: A Study of the Chi-Chi Earthquake Cases. Engineering Geology, 71:141-155.
38. Zeghal, M., Elgamal, A.W., 1994. Analysis of Site Liquefaction Using Earthquake Records. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120:996-1017.
39. Zeghal, M., Elgamal, A.W., Parra, E., 1996. Identification and Modeling of Earthquake Ground Response—II. Site Liquefaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 15:523-547.
40. Zheng, W., Luna, R., 2011. Nonlinear Site Response and Liquefaction Analysis in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 29:463-475.
41. Zorapapel, G.T., Vucetic, M., 1994. The Effects of Seismic Pore Water Pressure on Ground Surface Motion. Earthquake Spectra, 10:403-438.