Advertisement

An investigation on the evaluation of dynamic soil characteristics of the Elazig City through the 1-D equivalent linear site-response analysis

  • Y. Bulent Sonmezer
  • Murat Celiker
  • Selcuk BasEmail author
Original Paper
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Consideration of the effects of the site response in the design of civil structures systems is of important to mitigate the damages to a certain extent on structures and the environment. Hence, it is relatively crucial to reliably attain the dynamic soil parameters of an earthquake-prone city/state. In the current study, a comprehensive investigation on the dynamic soil properties of the city of Elazig with very close proximity to the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) having a high potential of producing destructive earthquakes is carried out. Performing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), the moment magnitude of the city is determined as Mw = 7.7 according to 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Bedrock-level acceleration spectra is developed utilizing different attenuation relationships for the city, and 1-D equivalent linear site response analysis is conducted on an example soil profile of the city through the SHAKE2000 software considering 16 earthquake motions recorded at the bedrock level. Local surface acceleration spectra obtained from the analysis are then compared to the design spectra of the Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings (TSCB) and Eurocode-8 (EC8) in an attempt to identify the difference between the code spectra and local surface spectra. In addition, in situ geotechnical tests of standard penetration and seismic refraction are conducted at different locations of the study area. Incorporating the results from the field tests into the site response analysis, the soil amplification factor, predominant soil period, peak ground acceleration and spectral maps for the period of T = 0.2 and T = 1.0 s are obtained for the study area. The outcomes from the analysis reveals that structures with higher vibration period than T = 1.0 s are subjected to lower spectral acceleration (Sa), whereas higher Sa values can be used for those with a vibration period lower than T = 0.2 s.

Keywords

Site response analysis Local surface response spectrum Seismic hazard analysis Soil amplification Spectral acceleration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors highly appreciate the engineering firms of AKARE Planlama Müş. Mim. Müh. İnş., Ltd. Şti. and Elazığ Jeoteknik for their help conducting field tests in the study area.

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Shedlock KM (1997) Overv Seismol Res Lett 68:9–23.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R (2013) Update of the AS08 ground-motion prediction equations based on the NGAWest2 data set. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Akın M (2009) Seismic microzonation of Erbaa (Tokat-Turkey) located along eastern segment of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ). Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Akin MK, Topal T, Kramer SL (2013) A newly developed seismic microzonation model of Erbaa (Tokat, Turkey) located on seismically active eastern segment of the north Anatolian fault zone (NAFZ). Nat Hazards 65:1411–1442.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0420-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2007) Empirical prediction equations for peak ground velocity derived from strong-motion records from Europe and the Middle East. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:511–530.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akkar S, Gulkan P (2002) Tasarım spektrumlarının performansa dayalı deprem mühendisliği (pddm) ve yakınmesafe depremler yönünden incelenmesi. Paper presented at the Uluslararası Yapı ve Deprem Mühendisliği Sempozyumu (ECAS2002), Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  7. Algermissen ST, Perkins DM (1976) A probabilistic estimate of maximum acceleration in rock in the contiguous. United States Geological Survey, USGoogle Scholar
  8. Allen CR (1969) Active faulting in northern Turkey. California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Ambraseys NN, Bommer JJ (1991) The attenuation of ground accelerations in Europe. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 20:1179–1202.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290201207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ansa A, Biro Y, Erken A, Gülerce Ü (2004) Seismic microzonation: a case study. In: Ansal A (ed) Recent advances in earthquake geotechnical engineering and microzonation. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 253–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2528-9_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ansal A et al. (2005) Seismic Microzonation for urban planning and vulnerability assessment. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Earthquake Engineering (ISEE2005), Awaji Island, Kobe, JaponyaGoogle Scholar
  12. Arpat E (1977) Karakaya barajı çok büyük depremlerle sınanacaktır (The Karakaya dam will be tested by very big earthquakes) Yeryuvarı ve Insan 2:59–62Google Scholar
  13. Arpat E, Şaroğlu F (1972) Doğu Anadolu Fayı ile İlgili Bazı Gözlemler ve Düşünceler MTA Enst Dergisi 78:44–50Google Scholar
  14. Barka AA, Kadinsky-Cade K (1988) Strike-slip fault geometry in Turkey and its influence on earthquake activity. Tectonics 7:663–684.  https://doi.org/10.1029/TC007i003p00663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. BDTIM, 2015, Regional Earthquake-Tsunami Monitoring Center (2015) Boğaziçi University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  16. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2013) NGA-West2 equations for predicting response spectral accelerations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthquake Spectra 10:617–653.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell KW (1989) The dependence of peak horizontal acceleration on magnitude, distance, and site effects for small-magnitude earthquakes in California and eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79:1311–1346Google Scholar
  19. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2013) NGA-West2 Campbell-Bozorgnia Ground Motion Model for the Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped Elastic Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  20. Caruso S, Ferraro, A, Grasso, S, Massimino, MR (2016) Site Response analysis in eastern Sicily based on direct and indirect Vs measurements - 1st IMEKO TC4 International Workshop on Metrology for Geotechnics, MetroGeotechnicsGoogle Scholar
  21. Castelli F, Cavallaro A, Grasso S, (2016a), SDMT Soil testing for the local site response analysis. Proceedings of the 1st IMEKO TC4 International Workshop on Metrology for Geotechnics, Benevento, 17–18 March 2016, pp. 143–148. (ISBN: 978–92–990075-0-1)Google Scholar
  22. Castelli F, Cavallaro A, Grasso S, Lentini V (2016b) Seismic microzoning from synthetic ground motion earthquake scenarios parameters: the case study of the city of Catania (Italy). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 88:307–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Castelli F, Cavallaro A, Ferraro A, Grasso S (2016c). In situ and laboratory tests for site response analysis in the ancient city of Noto (Italy) - 1st IMEKO TC4 International Workshop on Metrology for Geotechnics, MetroGeotechnicsGoogle Scholar
  24. Castelli F, Cavallaro A, Ferraro A, Grasso S, Lentini V, Massimino MR (2018a) Static and dynamic properties of soils in Catania (Italy). Ann Geophys 61(2):221.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7706 Google Scholar
  25. Castelli F, Cavallaro A, Ferraro A, Grasso S, Lentini V, Massimino MR (2018b) Dynamic characterisation of a test site in Messina (Italy). Ann Geophys 61(2):222Google Scholar
  26. Cavallaro A, Ferraro A, Grasso S, Maugeri M (2008) Site Response analysis of the Monte Po Hill in the city of Catania. Proceedings of the 2008 Seismic Engineering International Conference Commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake MERCEA'08, Reggio Calabria and Messina, 8–11 July 2008, pp. 240–251. (ISBN: 978–0–7354-0542-4/08; EISSN: 15517616; ISSN: 0094-243X),  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2963841. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1020, Issue PART 1, 2008, pp. 583–594. (ISSN: 0094243X)
  27. Cavallaro A, Cessari L, Gigliarelli E, (2013) Site Characterization by in situ and laboratory tests for the structural & architectural restoration of Saint Nicholas Church, Nicosia, Cyprus. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering for the Preservation of Monuments and Historic Sites, Napoli, 30–31 May 2013, pp. 241–247. (ISBN: 978–1–138-00055-1)Google Scholar
  28. Cavallaro A, Grasso S, Ferraro A, (2016a) Study on seismic response analysis in "Vincenzo Bellini" Garden Area by Seismic Dilatometer Marchetti Tests. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, ISC'5, Queensland, 5–9 September 2016. Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 5, Vol. 2, pp. 1309–1314. (ISBN: 978–0–9946261-2-7)Google Scholar
  29. Cavallaro A, Grasso S, Ferraro A (2016b) A geotechnical engineering study for the safeguard, restoration and strengthening of historical heritage. Proced Eng 158:134–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cavallaro A, Capilleri P, Grasso S (2018) Site characterization by in situ and laboratory tests for liquefaction potential evaluation during Emilia Romagna earthquake. Geosciences 8(7):242.  https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8070242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cetin KO et al (2002) Liquefaction-induced ground deformations at hotel Sapanca during Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:1083–1092.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00134-3
  32. Cetin H, Güneyli H, Mayer L (2003) Paleoseismology of the Palu–Lake Hazar segment of the east Anatolian fault zone, Turkey. Tectonophysics 374:163–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2003.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:1583–1606Google Scholar
  34. Darendeli M (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  35. Das S, Gupta ID, Gupta VK (2006) A probabilistic seismic Hazard analysis of Northeast India. Earthquake Spectra 22:1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2163914
  36. Deniz A (2006) Estimation of earthquake insurance premium rates for Turkey. Middle East Technical UniversityGoogle Scholar
  37. Deniz A, Yucemen MS (2010) Magnitude conversion problem for the Turkish earthquake data. Nat Hazards 55:333–352.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9531-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dikmen Ü (2009) Statistical correlations of shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for soils. J Geophys Eng 6:61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dikmen U, Mirzaoglu M (2005) The seismic microzonation map of Yenisehir-Bursa, NW of Turkey by means of ambient noise measurements. J Balkan Geophys Soc 8:53–62Google Scholar
  40. EC8 (2004) EN 1998–1 (2004): Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  41. El-Hady S, Fergany EA-A, Othman A, ElKareem Abdrabou Mohamed G (2012) Seismic microzonation of Marsa Alam, Egypt using inversion HVSR of microtremor observations. J Seismol 16:55–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-011-9249-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Eskişar T, Kuruoğlu M, Altun S, Özyalın Ş, Recep Yılmaz H (2014) Site response of deep alluvial deposits in the northern coast of İzmir Bay (Turkey) and a microzonation study based on geotechnical aspects. Eng Geol 172:95–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fatahi B, Far H, Samali B (2014) Soil-structure interaction vs site effect for seismic design of tall buildings on soft soil. Geomech Eng 6:293–320.  https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2014.6.3.293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ferraro A, Grasso S, Massimino MR, Maugeri M (2015) Influence of geotechnical parameters and numerical modelling on local seismic response analysis . Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development - Proceedings of the XVI European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, ECSMGEGoogle Scholar
  45. Ferraro A, Grasso S, Maugeri M, Totani F (2016) Seismic response analysis in the southern part of the historic Centre of the City of L'Aquila (Italy). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 88:256–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Finn WDL (1995) Ventura CE Challenging issues in local microzonation. In: 5th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Nice, FranceGoogle Scholar
  47. Firat S, Arman H, Kutanis M (2009) Assessment of liquefaction susceptibility of Adapazari City after 17th august, 1999 Marmara earthquake. Sci Res Essay 4:1012–1023Google Scholar
  48. Firat S, Isik NS, Arman H, Demir M, Vural I (2016) Investigation of the soil amplification factor in the Adapazari region. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:141–152.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0731-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Garini E, Gazetas G, Ziotopoulou K (2018) Inelastic soil amplification in three sites during the Tokachi-oki MJMA 8.0 earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 110:300–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.01.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gautam D, Forte G, Rodrigues H (2016) Site effects and associated structural damage analysis in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Earthq Struct 10:1013–1032.  https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.5.1013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Grasso S, Maugeri M (2009) The seismic microzonation of the city of Catania (Italy) for the maximum expected scenario earthquake of January 11, 1693. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:953–962.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gülkan P, Kocyigit A, Yucemen S, Doyuran V, Basoz N (1993) Earthquake zoning map of Turkey based on most recent data. METU Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  53. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1942) Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and acceleration*. Bull Seismol Soc Am 32:163–191Google Scholar
  54. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188Google Scholar
  55. Gutenberg B, Richter C (1956) Magnitude and energy of earthquakes. Ann Geophys 9:1–15Google Scholar
  56. Hanumantharao C, Ramana GV (2008) Dynamic soil properties for microzonation of Delhi, India. J Earth Syst Sci 117:719–730.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-008-0066-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soil: measurement and parameter effects. J Soil Mech Found Div (ASCE) 98:603–624Google Scholar
  58. Hasancebi N, Ulusay R (2006) Evaluation of site amplification and site period using different methods for an earthquake-prone settlement in Western Turkey. Eng Geol 87:85–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hempton MR (1982) The north Anatolian fault and complexities of continental escape. J Struct Geol 4:502–504.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(82)90041-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hempton MR, Dewey JF (1981) Structure and tectonics of the Lake Hazar pull-apart basin, SE Turkey transactions. Am Geophys Union, EOS 62:1033Google Scholar
  61. Hempton MR, Dewey JF, Şaroğlu F (1981) The east Anatolian transform fault: along strike variations in geometry and behavior transactions. Am Geophys Union, EOS 62:393Google Scholar
  62. Herece E, Akay E (1992) The East Anatolian fault between Karliova and Celikhan. Paper presented at the Petroleum Congress of Turkey, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  63. Iyisan R (1996) Correlations between shear wave velocity and penetration experiments in soils. IMO (Technical Periodical) 7:1187–1199Google Scholar
  64. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 imperial valley, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:2011–2038Google Scholar
  65. Kagan YY (2002) Aftershock zone scaling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:641–655.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kalkan E, Gülkan P, Yilmaz N, Çelebi M (2009) Reassessment of probabilistic seismic Hazard in the Marmara region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2127–2146.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kienzle A, Hannich D, Wirth W, Ehret D, Rohn J, Ciugudean V, Czurda K (2006) A GIS-based study of earthquake hazard as a tool for the microzonation of Bucharest. Eng Geol 87:13–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kijko A, Graham G (1998) Parametric-historic procedure for probabilistic seismic Hazard analysis part I: estimation of maximum regional magnitude mmax. Pure Appl Geophys 152:413–442.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s000240050161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kılıç H, Özener PT, Ansal A, Yıldırım M, Özaydın K, Adatepe Ş (2006) Microzonation of Zeytinburnu region with respect to soil amplification: a case study. Eng Geol 86:238–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kolat C, Ulusay R, Suzen ML (2012) Development of geotechnical microzonation model for Yenisehir (Bursa, Turkey) located at a seismically active region. Eng Geol 127:36–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kramer S (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  72. Kramer S (2009) CEE 526 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering lecture notes. University of Washington, Seattle, WA-USAGoogle Scholar
  73. Mahmood K, Rehman Z-u, Farooq K, Memon SA (2016) One dimensional equivalent linear ground response analysis — a case study of collapsed Margalla tower in Islamabad during 2005 Muzaffarabad earthquake. J Appl Geophys 130:110–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.04.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Midorikawa S (1987) Prediction of isoseismal map in the Kanto plain due to hypothetical earthquake. J Structural Engineering (JSCE) 33B:43–48Google Scholar
  75. Muehlberger WR, Gordon MB (1987) Observations on the complexity of the East Anatolian Fault, Turkey. J Struct Geol 9:899–903.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(87)90091-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Naeim F, Alimoradi A, Pezeshk S (2004) Selection and scaling of ground motion time histories for structural design using genetic algorithms. Earthquake Spectra 20:413–426.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1719028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. NEHRP-BSSC (2003) NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) recommended provisions for Nnew buildings and other ttructures (FEMA 450). Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  78. NTC (2008) Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (Italian Technical Regulation for Constructions), D.M. Ministero Infrastrutture e Trasporti 14 gennaio Roma (in Italian)Google Scholar
  79. Oguz O, Sasatani T (2004) A site effect study of the Adapazari basin, Turkey, from strong- and weak-motion data. J Seismol 8:559–572.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-004-3328-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ordonez G (2012) Shake2000 : a computer program for the 1-D analysis of geotechnical earthquake engineering problems. GeoMotions, LLC, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  81. Ozbey C, Sari A, Manuel L, Erdik M, Fahjan Y (2004) An empirical attenuation relationship for northwestern Turkey ground motion using a random effects approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:115–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2003.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Palutoglu M (2014) Elazığ kent merkezinin tektoniği depremselliği ve mikrobölgeleme (In Turkish). Firat UniversityGoogle Scholar
  83. Perinçek D, Günay Y, Kozlu H (1987) Doğu ve Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesindeki yanal atımlı faylar ile ilgili yeni gözlemler (in Turkish). Paper presented at the Türkiye 7. Petrol KongresiGoogle Scholar
  84. Richter CF (1958) Elementary Seismology. W. H. Freeman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  85. Robertson PK, Woeller DJ, Finn WDL (1992) Seismic cone penetration test for evaluating liquefaction potential under cyclic loading. Can Geotech J 29:686–695.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t92-075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Saroglu F, Emre O, Kuscu I (1992) The east Anatolian fault zone of Turkey. Ann Tecton 7:99–125Google Scholar
  87. Savage MK, Rupp SH (2000) Foreshock probabilities in New Zealand. N Z J Geol Geophys 43:461–469.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2000.9514902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Scawthorn C, Chen WF (2002) Earthquake Engineering Handbook. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  89. Seed H, Idriss I (1981) Evaluation of liquefaction potential sand deposits based on observation of performance in previous earthquakes. Paper presented at the ASCE National Convention (MO)Google Scholar
  90. Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 112:1016–1032.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:11(1016) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Selçuk L, Çiftçi Y (2007) Microzonation of the Plio-quaternary soils: a study of the liquefaction risk potential in the Lake Van Basin, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66:161–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-006-0052-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Şengör AMC, Canitez N (1982) The North Anatolian fault. In: Berckhemer H, Hsul K (eds) Alpine and Mediterranean Geodynamics, American Geophysical Union, Geodynamics Series 7: 205–216Google Scholar
  93. Şengör AMC, Görür N, Şaroğlu F (1985) Strike-Slip Faulting and Related Basin Formation in Zones of Tectonic Escape: Turkey as a Case Study1. In: Biddle KT, Christie-Blick N (eds) Strike-Slip Deformation, Basin Formation, and Sedimentation. SEPM Society for Sedimentary GeologyGoogle Scholar
  94. Shafiee A, Kamalian M, Jafari MK, Hamzehloo H (2011) Ground motion studies for microzonation in Iran. Nat Hazards 59:481–505.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9772-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Shiuly A, Narayan JP (2012) Deterministic seismic microzonation of Kolkata city. Nat Hazards 60:223–240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0004-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P (2007) Seismic hazard analysis for the Bangalore region. Nat Hazards 40:261–278.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-0012-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sonmezer YB, Akbas SO, Isik NS (2015) Assessment of the peak acceleratıon, amplıfıcatıon ratıo and fundamental perıod propertıes for the Kırıkkale provınce settlement area. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 30:711–721Google Scholar
  98. Sonmezer B, Bas S, Isik S, Akbas O (2018a) Linear and nonlinear site response analyses to determine dynamic soil properties of Kirikkale. Geomech Eng 16 (4):435–448.  https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2018.16.4.435
  99. Sonmezer YB, Kalkan I, Bas S, Akbas SO (2018b) Effects of the use of the surface spectrum of a specific region on seismic performances of R/C structures. Nat Hazards 93:1203–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3347-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sun J, Golesorkhi R, Seed H (1988) Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  101. Tavakoli H, Amiri M, Abdollahzadeh G, Janalizade A (2016) Site effect microzonation of Babol, Iran. Geomech Eng 11:821–845.  https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2016.11.6.821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Topal T, Doyuran V, Karahanoğlu N, Toprak V, Süzen ML, Yeşilnacar E (2003) Microzonation for earthquake hazards: Yenişehir settlement, Bursa, Turkey. Eng Geol 70:93–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(03)00085-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. TSCB (2018) Turkish Earthquake Code for Buildings. Disaster and Emergency Management Directorate (AFAD), Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  104. Turan M, Aksoy E, Bingöl FA (1995) Doğu Torosların jeodinamik evriminin Elazig civanndaki özellikleri FÜ Fen ve Müh Bil Derg 7:177–199Google Scholar
  105. Turkmen I, Inceoz M, Aksoy E, Kaya M (2001) New findings on Eocene stratigraphy and paleogeography of Elazig area Bulletin of Earth Sciences Application and Research Centre of Hacettepe University 24:81–95Google Scholar
  106. Ulusay R, Tuncay E, Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C (2004) An attenuation relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and iso-acceleration map of Turkey. Eng Geol 74:265–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Unutmaz B, Siyahi B, Fahjan Y, Akbaş B (2011) Derin alüvyon dolgunun doğrusal olmayan davranışının eşdeğer lineer ve doğrusal olmayan yöntemlerle karşılaştırılması. Paper presented at the 1. Türkiye Deprem Mühendisliği ve Sismoloji Konferansı, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  108. Utsu T, Ogata Y, Matsu'ura SR (1995) The centenary of the Omoriformula for a decay law of aftershock activity. J Phys Earth 43:1–33.  https://doi.org/10.4294/jpe1952.43.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Van Dyck JFM (1985) Statistical analysis of earthquake catalogs. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  110. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1988) Degradation of marine clays under cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng 114:133–149.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:2(133) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic respons. J Geotech Eng 117.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89)
  112. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002Google Scholar
  113. Westaway R (1994) Present-day kinematics of the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 99:12071–12090.  https://doi.org/10.1029/94JB00335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Yucemen MS (2011) Olasılıksal sismik tehlike analizi: genel bakış ve yeni nesil deprem tehlike haritaları (in Turkish). Paper presented at the 7. Ulusal Deprem Mühendisliği Konferansı, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Bulent Sonmezer
    • 1
  • Murat Celiker
    • 2
  • Selcuk Bas
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKirikkale UniversityKirikkaleTurkey
  2. 2.9th Regional Directorate, General Directorate of State Hydraulic WorksElazigTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringBartin UniversityBartinTurkey

Personalised recommendations