Advertisement

Soil properties and applications review with NERA (nonlinear earthquake site response analyses) in İstanbul-MARMARAY Project between Kazliçeşme to Sirkeci

  • Günay Beyhan
  • Ayhan Keskinsezer
  • Sercan Öztürk
Original Article
  • 320 Downloads

Abstract

Over the course of history, Marmara region in northwestern Turkey has been the site of numerous destructive earthquakes. Based on historical and instrumental earthquake records, the Marmara sea region is one of the most seismically active regions of the Eastern Mediterranean. The Marmara region is under the influence of the western part of the North Anatolian Fault Zone and the N–S extensional regime of Western Turkey. Therefore, the earthquake risk analysis is very important for the MARMARAY Project. The 76-km-long MARMARAY Project is an important project not only for Turkey but also for the world because it joins the two continents through railway. It will also serve for a comfortable and healthy way of environment, providing a contemporary solution for urban transportation. In this paper, using average wave velocities in layers, thickness, density and formation data based on the PS logs, and seven different boring logs located in different geological regions with depth range 43–60 m from the ground surface, ground response functions have been obtained. The influences of nonlinearity on the site response analysis have been summarized and evaluated with a numerical example. Based on the soil profiles transferred to nonlinear earthquake site response analyses of layered soil deposits (NERA) software, the rock and soil records of August 17, 1999 Kocaeli earthquake from a recording site in Beşiktaş town of Istanbul, response and design spectrums that may be considered crucial in case of an earthquake have been obtained. The acceleration record having a PGA value of 0.04287 g in east–west component has been used as an input motion to sublayers (i.e., sand, gravel, clay) with constant damping ratio of 5 %, using NERA program. The study also provides a critical overview of the site response analysis of the field under interest.

Keywords

PS logging MARMARAY NERA Earthquake site response analysis Geological modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank TAISEI Corporation.

References

  1. Ambraseys NN, Finkel C (1987) The Saros–Marmara earthquake of 9 August 1912. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 15(1):189–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansal A, Akinci A, Cultrera G, Erdik M, Pessina V, Tönük G, Ameri G (2009) Loss estimation in Istanbul based on deterministic earthquake scenarios of the Marmara Sea region (Turkey). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(2009):699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armijo R, Pondard N, Meyer B, Uçarkuş G, De Lepinay BM, Malavieille J, Dominguez S, Gustcher MA, Schmidt S, Beck C, Çağatay N, Cakir Z, Imren C, Eris K, Natalin B, Özalaybey S, Tolun L, Lefevre I, Seeber L, Gasperini L, Rangin C, Emre Ö, Sarıkavak K (2005) Submarine fault scarps in the Sea of Marmara pull-apart (North Anatolian Fault): implications for seismic hazard in Istanbul. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 6(6):1–29. doi: 10.1029/2004GC000896 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arslan H, Siyahi B (2006) A comparative study on linear and nonlinear site response analysis. Environ Geol 50:1193–1200. doi: 10.1007/s00254-006-0291-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardet JP, Tobita T (2001) NERA: a computer program for nonlinear earthquake site response analyses of layered soil deposits. University of Southern California, Department of Civil Engineering, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardet JP, Ichii K, Lin CH (2000) EERA, a computer program for equivalent linear earthquake site response analysis of layered soils deposits. University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  7. Boatwright J, Fletcher JB, Fumal TE (1991) A general inversion scheme for source, site and propagation characteristics using multiply recorded sets of moderate-sized earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81:1754–1782Google Scholar
  8. Borcherdt RD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground notion near San Francisco Bay. Bull Seismol Soc Am 60:29–81Google Scholar
  9. EDCT (2007) Turkish specification for buildings to be built in seismic zones. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement Government of Republic Turkey English Translation BU Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Inst. http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/PublicatIons/Regulations_14_172.depmuh
  10. Erdik M, Demircioğlu M, Sesetyan K, Durukal E (2005) Assessment of earthquake hazard for Bakirköy, Gemlik, Bandırma, Tekirdağ and Körfez. WB MEER project-A3 component, microzonation and hazard vulnerability studies for disaster mitigation in pilot municipalities. Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Engineering Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  11. Erdik M, Cagnan Z, Zulfikar C, Sesetyan K, Demircioğlu MB, Durukal E, Kariptas C (2008) Development of rapid earthquake loss assessment methodologies for Euro-MED region. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, paper ID: S04-004Google Scholar
  12. Field EH, Jacob KH (1995) A comparison and test of various site-response estimation techniques, including three that are not reference-site dependent. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:1127–1143Google Scholar
  13. Flerit F, Armijo R, King GCP, Meyer B, Barka A (2003) Slip partitioning in the Sea of Marmara pull-apart determined from GPS velocity vectors. Geophys J Int 154:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soil: measurement and parameter effects. J Soil Mech Found Div 98:603–624Google Scholar
  15. Hosseini SMMM, Pajouh MA (2012) Comparative study on the equivalent linear and the fully nonlinear site response analysis approaches. Arab J Geosci 5:587–597. doi: 10.1007/s12517-010-0228-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hwang HHM, Lee CS (1991) Parametric study of site response analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 10(6):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IMM–OYO–Boğaziçi University (2009) Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Earthquake scenario of İstanbul cityGoogle Scholar
  18. Iwan WD (1967) On a class of models for the yielding behavior of continuous and composite systems. J Appl Mech ASME 34:612–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iwata T, Irikura K (1988) Source parameters of the 1983 Japan Sea earthquake sequence. J Phys Earth 36:155–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joyner WB, Chen ATF (1975) Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:1315–1336Google Scholar
  21. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  22. Lam I, Tsai CF, Martin GR (1978) Determination of site dependent spectra using nonlinear analysis. In: 2nd International conference on microzonation, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Le Pichon X, Sengor AMC, Taymaz T (1999) The Marmara fault and the future Istanbul earthquake. In: Karaca M, Ural DN (eds) ITU-IAHS international conference on the Kocaeli earthquake, 17 August 1999, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey, pp 41–54Google Scholar
  24. Le Pichon X, Chamot-Rooke N, Rangin C, Şengör AMC (2003) The North Anatolian Fault in the Sea of Marmara. J Geophys Res 108(B4):2179. doi: 10.1029/2002JB001862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lermo J, Chavez-Garcia FJ (1993) Site effects evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83:1574–1594Google Scholar
  26. Masing G (1926) Eigenspannungen und Verfestigung beim Messing, proceedings of the second international congress of applied mechanics, pp 332–335Google Scholar
  27. Mróz Z (1967) On the description of anisotropic workhardening. J Mech Phys Solids 15:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakamura Y (1988) On the urgent earthquake detection and alarm system (UrEDAS). In: Proceedings of world. Conference in earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  29. Özaydın K, Ansal A, Erdik M, Yıldırım M, Kılıç H, Adatepe Ş, Özener PT, Tonoroğlu M, Şeşetyan K, Demircioğlu M (2004) Earthquake master plan for Istanbul, Zeytinburnu Pilot Project, “report on geological and geotechnical evaluation for seismic microzonation and seismic microzonation for ground shaking” Yıldız Tecknical University, Fac. of Civil Eng. Geotechnical Department, Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Inst. (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  30. Parsons T (2004) Recalculated probability of M47 earthquakes beneath the Sea of Marmara Turkey. J Geophys Res 109:B05304. doi: 10.1029/2003JB002667 Google Scholar
  31. Pondard N, Armijo R, King GCP, Meyer B, Flerit F (2007) Fault interactions in the Sea of Marmara pull-apart (North Anatolian Fault): earthquake clustering and propagating earthquake sequences. Geophys J Int 171:1185–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reilinger RE, Ergintav S, Bürgmann R, McClusky S, Lenk O, Barka A, Gürkan O, Hearn L, Feigl KL, Çakmak R, Aktuğ B, Özener H, Töksoz MN (2000) Coseismic and postseismic fault slip for the 17 August 1999, M = 7.5, Izmit Turkey earthquake. Science 289:1519–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodriguez S, Querol X, Alastues A, Kallos G, Kakaliagou O (2001) Saharan dust contribution to PM10 and TSP levels in southern and eastern Spain. Atmos Environ 35:2433–2447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Report EERC 70-10. University of California, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  35. Seed HB, Whitman RV, Dezfulian H, Dobry R, Idriss IM (1972) Soil conditions and building damage in the 1967 Caracas earthquake. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 98:787–806Google Scholar
  36. Spence R, So E, Ameri G, Akinci A, Cocco M, Cultrera G, Franceschina G, Pacor F, Pessina V, Lombardi AM, Zonno G, Carvalho A, Campos Costa A, Coelho E, Pitilakis K, Anastasiadis A, Kakderi K, Alexoudi M (2005) Technical report on the scenario earthquake definitions for three cities. Deliverable 83, project lessloss on risk mitigation for earthquakes and landslides, sub-project 10—earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for urban areas. Sixth Framework ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  37. TAISEI (2011) Marmaray project map. İstanbul-MARMARAY tube tunneling project (unpublished). Taisei CorporationGoogle Scholar
  38. Toksöz MN, Reilinger RE, Doll CG, Barka AA, Yalçın N (1999) Izmit (Turkey) earthquake of 17 August 1999: first report. Seismol Res Lett 70(6):669–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Usta E (2004) Istanbul Metro Yenikapi–Unkapani engineering geology, Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  40. Yamazaki F, Ansary MA (1997) Horizontal-to-vertical spectrum ratio of earthquake ground motion for site characterization. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26: 671–689. JSSMFE: 14–31Google Scholar
  41. Yıldırım M (1997) Engineering Geological evaluation of solid waste landfill sites: two examples from Istanbul, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol 55:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yıldırım M, Savaşkan E (2002) İstanbul Tersiyer Çökellerinin Stratigrafisi ve Mühendislik Özellikleri, vol 18. Uluslararası Mühendislik Jeolojisi Türk Milli Komitesi Bülteni, İstanbul (in Turkish), pp 48–62Google Scholar
  43. Yılmaz Y (2007) Morphotectonic development of the southern Black Sea Region and the Bosphorus Channel. In: Yanko-Hombach V, Gilbert A, Panin N, Dolukhanov P (eds) The black sea flood question: changes in coastline, climate, and human settlement. NATO science series IV—earth and environmental sciences. Kluwer Academic Press, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 537–569Google Scholar
  44. Yılmaz Y, Gökaşan G, Erbay AY (2010) Morphotectonic development of the Marmara Region. Tectonophysics 488:51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günay Beyhan
    • 1
  • Ayhan Keskinsezer
    • 1
  • Sercan Öztürk
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geophysical Engineering, Engineering FacultySakarya UniversityAdapazarıTurkey
  2. 2.Hyundai Engineering & ConstructionIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations