SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of local soil conditions with 1D nonlinear site response analysis of Arifiye (Sakarya District), Turkey

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The strong ground motion effect is amplified or de-amplified due to the change in subsoil condition. Local soil properties prediction is critical for earthquake-safe areas and the earthquake hazard assessment of existing structures. This study was carried out with time-domain 1D Nonlinear analysis to understand the soil response characteristics of the Arifiye district. In this sense, geotechnical drilling at 47 points and surface wave analysis at 44 points were performed. Site response profiles in the study area were analyzed with the DeepSoil program for Mw:7.0 1967 Mudurnu and Mw:7.4 1999 Kocaeli earthquake scenarios. Peak spectral acceleration (Pga) and spectral acceleration (Sa) values were determined in the analysis of the Mudunu scenario as 0.11–0.24 g and 0.44–1 g, respectively. The Kocaeli scenario’s Pga and Sa distribution were obtained in a wide range of 0.2–0.56 g and 0.47–2.3 g, respectively, compared to the Mudurnu scenario. Especially in the Mw:7.4 model, high Pga (> 0.3 g) and Sa (> 1 g) values were obtained in the uncemented units located north of the study area. Kocaeli scenario results showed that the spectral accelerations at the surface in soil groups D and E were higher than the Turkish Building Earthquake Code building requirements. It is necessary to update the earthquake design spectra site-specific. The results clearly showed the effect of ground conditions and strong ground motion selection on earthquake-resistant building design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1025–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adampira M, Alielahi H, Panji M, Koohsari H (2015) Comparison of equivalent linear and nonlinear methods in seismic analysis of liquefiable site response due to near-fault incident waves: a case study. Arab J Geosci 8(5):3103–3118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akın MK, Kramer SL, Topal T (2016) Dynamic soil characterization and site response estimation for Erbaa, Tokat (Turkey). Nat Hazards 82(3):1833–1868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkaya I, Özvan A (2019) Site characterization in the Van settlement (Eastern Turkey) using surface waves and HVSR microtremor methods. J Appl Geophys 160:157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys NN, Zatopek A (1969) The Mudurnu Valley, West Anatolia, Turkey, earthquake of 22 July 1967. Bull Seismol Soc Am 59(2):521–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Sitharam TG (2008) Site characterization and site response studies using shear wave velocity. J Seism Earthq Eng 10(2):53–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Sheikh MN, Parihar A (2013) Influence of rock depth on seismic site classification for shallow bedrock regions. Nat Hazard Rev 14(2):108–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assimaki D, Li W, Steidl J, Schmedes J (2008) Quantifying nonlinearity susceptibility via site-response modeling uncertainty at three sites in the Los Angeles Basin. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(5):2364–2390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajaj K, Anbazhagan P (2019) Comprehensive amplification estimation of the Indo Gangetic Basin deep soil sites in the seismically active area. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 127:105855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajaj K, Anbazhagan P (2021) Identification of shear modulus reduction and dam** curve for deep and shallow sites: kik-net data. J Earthquake Eng 25(13):2668–2696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakır BS, Sucuoglu H, Yılmaz T (2002) An overview of local site effects and the associated building damage in Adapazari during the 17 August 1999 Izmit earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(1):509–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barka AA (1992) The north Anatolian fault zone. In Annal Tecton 6:164–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Barka A, Akyuz HS, Altunel E et al (2002) The surface rupture and slip distribution of the 17 August 1999 Izmit earthquake (M 7.4), North Anatolian fault. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(1):43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyen K, Erdik M (2004) Two-dimensional nonlinear site response analysis of Adapazarı plain and predictions inferred from aftershocks of the Kocaeli earthquake of 17 August 1999. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(3):261–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS, Mason HB, Almufti I, Willford M (2014) Equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis for design and risk assessment of safety-related nuclear structures. Nucl Eng Des 275:107–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1087–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallaro A, Castelli F, Ferraro A, Grasso S, Lentini V (2018) Site response analysis for the seismic improvement of a historical and monumental building: the case study of Augusta Hangar. Bull Eng Geol Env 77(3):1217–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandran D, Anbazhagan P (2020) 2D nonlinear site response analysis of typical stiff and soft soil sites at shallow bedrock region with low to medium seismicity. J Appl Geophys 179:104087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1117–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ci̇velekler E, Okur VD, Afacan KB (2021) A study of the local site effects on the ground response for the city of Eskişehir, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Env 80:5589–5607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darendeli MB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material dam** curves. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin

  • Douglas J (2003) Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth Sci Rev 61(1–2):43–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy B, Campbell J, Finnemore M, Gomez C (2014) Defining fault avoidance zones and associated geotechnical properties using MASW: a case study on the Springfield Fault, New Zealand. Eng Geol 183:216–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emre Ö, Duman YT, Özalp S, Şaroğlu F, Olgun Ş, Elmacı H, Çan T (2018) Active fault database of Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng 16:3229–3275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fırat S, Arman H, Kutanis M (2009) Assessment of liquefaction susceptibility of Adapazari City after 17th August, 1999 Marmara earthquake. Sci Res Essays 4(10):1012–1023

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautam D, Forte G, Rodrigues H (2016) Site efects and associated structural damage analysis in Kathmandu Valley. Nepal Earthq Struct 10(5):1013–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groholski DR, Hashash YMA, Kim B, Musgrove M, Harmon J, Stewart JP (2016) Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(9):04016042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groholski DR, Hashash YMA Musgrove M, Harmon J, Kim B (2015) Evaluation of 1-D non-linear site response analysis using a general quadratic/hyperbolic strength-controlled constitutive model. In 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering Christchurch New Zealand pp. 1–4

  • Gülen L, Pınar A, Kalafat D, Özel N, Horasan G, Yılmazer M, Işıkara AM (2002) Surface fault breaks, aftershock distribution, and rupture process of the 17 August 1999 Izmit, Turkey, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(1):230–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürer ÖF, Kaymakçı N, Çakır Ş, Özburan M (2003) Neotectonics of the southeast Marmara region, NW Anatolia. Turk J Asian Earth Sci 21(9):1041–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashash YM, Park D (2001) Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment. Eng Geol 62(1–3):185–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashash YMA, Musgrove MI, Harmon JA, Ilhan O, Groholski DR, Phillips CA, Park D (2017) DEEPSOIL 7.0. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, User Manual

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashash YM, Phillips C, Groholski DR (2010) Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis. In: 5th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Sandiego, California No.4

  • Kaklamanos J, Bradley BA (2018) Challenges in predicting seismic site response with 1D analyses: Conclusions from 114 KiK-net vertical seismometer arrays. Bull Seismol Soc Am 108(5A):2816–2838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Thompson EM, Dorfmann L (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:207–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanbabazadeh H, Hasal ME, Iyisan R (2019) 2D seismic response of the Duzce Basin, Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 125:105754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim B, Hashash YM (2013) Site response analysis using downhole array recordings during the March 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and the effect of long-duration ground motions. Earthq Spectra 29:37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim B, Hashash YM, Stewart JP, Rathje EM et al (2016) Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses. Earthq Spectra 32(3):1845–1865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondner RL, Zelasko JS (1963) Hyperbolic stress-strain formulation of sands. Second pan American conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering Sao Paulo, vol 1, Brazil, pp. 289–324

  • Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall international series in civil engineering and engineering mechanics. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp 1–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Baro O, Harinarayan NH (2016) Obtaining the surface PGA from site response analyses based on globally recorded ground motions and matching with the codal values. Nat Hazards 81(1):543–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Pagán P, Navarro M, Pérez-Cuevas J, Alcalá FJ, García-Jerez A, Rancisco Vidal F (2018) Shear-wave velocity structure from MASW and SPAC methods: The case of Adra town. SE Spain near Surf Geophys 16(3):356–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Matasovic N (1993) Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered soil deposits. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California

  • Meade BJ, Hager BH, McClusky SC, Reilinger RE et al (2002) Estimates of seismic potential in the Marmara Sea region from block models of secular deformation constrained by Global Positioning System measurements. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(1):208–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menq FY (2003) Dynamic properties of sandy and gravelly soils. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Austin

  • Müller JR, Aydın A, Maerten F (2003) Investigating the transition between the 1967 Mudurnu Valley and 1999 Izmit earthquakes along the North Anatolian fault with static stress changes. Geophys J Int 154(2):471–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newmark NM (1959) A method of computation for structural dynamics. J Eng Mech Div 85(3):67–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özel O, Sasatani T (2004) A site effect study of the Adapazari basin, Turkey, from strong-and weak-motion data. J Seismolog 8(4):559–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park C (2013) MASW for geotechnical site investigation. Lead Edge 32(6):656–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park CB, Miller DM, **a J (1999) Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics 64(3):800–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park CB, Miller RD, Miura H (2002) Optimum field parameters of an MASW survey. Jpn Soc Explor Geophys Ext Abstr 22:36

    Google Scholar 

  • Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D, Rami Reddy G (2011) Equivalent-Linear Seismic Ground Response Analysis of Some Typical Sites in Mumbai. Geotech Geol Eng 29:1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-011-9443-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips C, Hashash YM (2009) Dam** formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(7):1143–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pınar A, Honkura Y, Kikuchi M (1996) A rupture model for the 1967 Mudurnu Valley, Turkey earthquake and its implication for seismotectonics in the western part of the North Anatolian fault zone. Geophys Res Lett 23(1):29–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman MZ, Siddiqua S, Kamal AM (2021) Site response analysis for deep and soft sedimentary deposits of Dhaka City. Bangladesh Nat Hazards 106(3):2279–2305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayhani MHT, El Naggar MH, Tabatabaei SH (2008) Nonlinear analysis of local site effects on seismic ground response in the Bam earthquake. Geotech Geol Eng 26(1):91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilinger R, McClusky S et al (2006) GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa - Arabia - Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B5)

  • Sana H, Nath SK, Gujral KS (2019) Site response analysis of the Kashmir valley during the 8 October 2005 Kashmir earthquake (M w 7.6) using a geotechnical dataset. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(4):2551–2563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarıaslan MM, Yurdakul ME, Osmancelebioglu R, Kecer M, Basa F, Senturk K (1998) Environmental geology of Sakarya City and its natural resources. Technical Report, MTA, Geology Research Department, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 1–144 (in Turkish)

  • Sancio RB, Bray JD, Stewart JP, Youd TL, Durgunoǧlu HT, Önalp A, Seed RB, Christensen C, Baturay MB, Karadayılar T (2002) Correlation between ground failure and soil conditions in Adapazari, Turkey. Soil Dyn and Earthq Eng 22(9-12):1093–1102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senetakis K, Anastasiadis A, Pitilakis K (2013) Normalized shear modulus reduction and dam** ratio curves of quartz sand and rhyolitic crushed rock. Soils Found 53(6):879–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şengör AMC, Tüysüz O, İmren C, Sakınc M, Eyidoğan H, Görür N, Le Pichon X, Rangin CC (2004) The north anatolian fault: a new look. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 33:1–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibson RH (2002) Geology of the crustal earthquake source. Int Geophys Ser 81:455–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silahtar A, Kanbur MZ (2021) 1D nonlinear site response analysis of the Isparta Basin (Southwestern Turkey) with surface wave (ReMi) and borehole data. Environ Earth Sci 80(7):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silahtar A, Budakoğlu E, Horasan G, Yıldırım E, Küyük HS, Yavuz E, Çaka D (2016) Investigation of site properties in Adapazarı, Turkey, using microtremors and surface waves. Environ Earth Sci 75(20):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sönmezer YB, Celiker M (2020) Determination of seismic hazard and soil response of a critical region in Turkey considering far-field and near-field earthquake effect. Geomech Eng 20(2):131–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Sönmezer YB, Celiker M, Bas S (2019) An investigation on the evaluation of dynamic soil characteristics of the Elazig City through the 1-D equivalent linear site-response analysis. Bull Eng Geol Env 78(7):4689–4712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JP, Chiou SJ, Bray JD, Graves RW, Somerville PG, Abrahamson NA (2002) Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(9–12):765–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub C, Kahle HG, Schindler C (1997) GPS and geologic estimates of the tectonic activity in the Marmara Sea region, NW Anatolia. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 102(B12):27587–27601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor G, Rost S, Houseman GA, Hillers G (2019) Near-surface structure of the North Anatolian Fault zone from Rayleigh and Love wave tomography using ambient seismic noise. Solid Earth 10(2):363–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117(1):89–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • **a J, Miller RD, Park CB (1999) Estimation of near-surface velocity by inversion of Rayleigh wave. Geophysics 64:691–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their suggestions to improve the manuscript. I would like to thank Arifiye Municipality for providing the geotechnical drilling data.

Funding

The author has not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geophysical Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Sakarya University, 54187, Sakarya, Turkey

    Ali Silahtar

Authors
  1. Ali Silahtar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Silahtar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Silahtar, A. Evaluation of local soil conditions with 1D nonlinear site response analysis of Arifiye (Sakarya District), Turkey. Nat Hazards 116, 727–751 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05695-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05695-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation