Erkan ATEŞ, Fadime SERTÇELİK, Cengiz KURTULUŞ, İbrahim SERTÇELİK, Turgay KURU, Kudret TEKİN, Aytaç APAK, Derya KÖKBUDAK, Selim SEZER, Derya YALÇIN

Türkiye ulusal kuvvetli yer hareketi kayıt istasyonlarının zemin özelliklerinin belirlenmesi

Bu çalışmada, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı (AFAD) tarafından işletilen Türkiye Ulusal Kuvvetli YerHareketi Gözlem Ağına (TR-KYH) ait 312 kuvvetli yer hareketi kayıt istasyonunun zemin özellikleribelirlenmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında, Aktif Kaynaklı Yüzey Dalgası Yöntemi (MASW), Pasif Kaynaklı DoğrusalDizilim Yöntemi (ReMi) ve Mikrotremor yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. İstasyon yerlerinde ilk 30 m derinliğe kadarmakaslama dalgası hızının (VS30) belirlenmesinin yanısıra, MASW + ReMi birleşik ters çözümü yapılarakinilebilen değişik derinliklerdeki (h=250 m’ye varan) S-dalga hız-derinlik profili ve yer yapısı da belirlenmiştir.MASW çalışması sonuçları, Türkiye Deprem ve Bina Yönetmeliği TDBY2018[1], NEHRP [2] ve EUROCODE8’e [3] göre sınıflandırılmıştır. TDBY 2018’e göre ZA:3, ZB:33, ZC:178, ZD:98; NHERP e göre A:3, B:37, C:173,D:99; EUROCODE-8’e göre ise A:36, B:174, C:102 adet zemin belirlenmiştir. Mikrotremor yöntemi ile doğaltitreşim frekansı ve sismik genlik büyütme katsayısı bulunarak Rodrigez-Marek vd. [4] ve DiAlessandro Carolavd. [5] göre değerlendirilmiştir. Rodrigez–Marek vd. [4] sınıflamasına göre A:1, B:46, C1:68, C2:34, C3:70, D1:65,D2:19, D3:4, E2:1 ve DiAlessandro Carola vd. [5] sınıflamasına göre CL-I:31, CL-II:54, CL-III:55, CL-IV:82, CLV :27, CL-VI:27, CL-VII:37 adet zeminde bu istasyonların kurulduğu bilgisine ulaşılmıştır. Çalışma sonucundaelde edilen bu istasyonlara ait zemin sınıf ve parametrelerinin ileride yapılacak araştırmalara önemli katkılarsağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Determination of site characterization in Turkey strong motion recording stations

In this study, the site characteristics of 312 strong ground motion recording stations belonging to the National Strong Motion Network of Turkey (TR-KYH) operated by the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) were determined. Active Sourced Surface Wave Method (MASW), passive sourced linear array method (ReMi) and Microtremor methods were used in this study. The S-wave velocity-depth profile and the ground structure at different depths (down to 250 m), which can be avoided from MASW+ReMi combined inversion, are also determined at the station sites, along with the determination of the shear wave velocity to the first 30 m depth (VS30). MASW study results were classified according to Turkey Earthquake Building Regulations TDBY 2018 [1], the NHERP [2] and EUROCODE-8 [3]. According to TDBY 2018, ZA:3, ZB: 33, ZC:178, ZD:98; according to NHERP, A:3, B:37, C:173, D:99; according to EUROCODE-8, A:36, B:174, C:102 points were determined. The natural frequency and seismic amplification coefficients of the microtremor were determined and compared with those of Rodrigez-Marek et al., [4] and DiAlessandro, Carola, et al., [5]. According to Rodrigez-Marek et al.,[4] classification, A:1, B:46, C1:68, C2:34, C3:70, D1:65, D2:19, D3: 4, E2:1 point and according to DiAlessandro, Carola, et al., [5] classification, CL-I:31, CL-II:54, CL-III:55, CL-IV:82, CL-V:27, CL-VI:27, CLVII:37 point have been identified. It is thought that the site classes and parameters of these stations obtained as a result of the study will contribute to future researches.

PDF

___

1. Türkiye 2018 Deprem ve Bina Yönetmeliği, Resmî Gazete, Sayı: 30364, 18 Mart 2018.
2. NHERP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Building Seismic Safety Council, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures and Accompanying Commentary and Maps, FEMA 450, Chapter, 3, 17–49, 2003.
3. Eurocode-8, European Committee for Standardization CEN, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part I: General Rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Brussels, May 2004.
4. Rodriguez-Marek A., Jonathan D.B., Norman A.A, An empirical geotechnical seismic site response procedure, Earthquake Spectra, 17 (1), 65-87, 2001.
5. Di Alessandro, C, Bonilla, L, F, Boore, D, M, Rovelli, A, Scotti, O, Predominant period site classification for response spectra prediction equations in Italy, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102 (2), 680- 695, 2012.
6. Edward H, Field, Spectral amplification in a sedimentfilled Valley exhibiting clear basin-edge-induced waves, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86 (4), 991-1005, 1996.
7. Gok E, Chavez- Garcia F, J, and Polat O, Effect of soil conditions on predicted ground motion: case study from Western Anatolia, Turkey, Physics of the Earth and Planetery Interiors 229, 88-97, 2014.
8. Akbaş S.O., Sönmezer Y.B., Işık N.S., Assessment of the peak acceleration, amplification ratio and fundamental period properties for the Kirikkale province settlement area, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 30 (4), 711-721, 2015.
9. Özer Ç, ve Polat O, 3-D crustal velocity structure of izmir and surroundings, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 32 (3), 733-747, 2017.
10. Ancheta T.D, Darragh R.B, Stewart J.P., Seyhan E., Silva W.J., Chiou B.S.J., Wooddell K.E., Graves R.W., Kottke A.R., Boore M., Kishida T., Donahue J.R., NGA-West2 database, Earthq Spectra 30 (3), 989- 1005, 2014,
11. Choon B, Park, Richard D, Miller, Jianghai Xia, Multichannel analysis of surface waves, Geophysıcs, 64 (3), 800-808, 1999.
12. Stephenson W.J., Louie J.N., Pullammanappallil S., Williams R.A., Odum J.K., Blind Shear-Wave Velocity Comparison of ReMİ and MASW Results with Boreholes to 200 m in Santa Clara Valley: Implications for Earthquake Ground-Motion Assessment, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95 (6), 2506-2516, 2005.
13. Tunçel A., Özdağ Ö.C., Pamuk E., Akgün M., Calculation of the soil dynamic amplification factor values by using microtremor data: A case study in Izmir (North), Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 34 (1), 3-52, 2019.
14. Mulumulu E., Özer Ç., Gök E., Chavez-Garcia F.J., Polat O., 3-D Upper crustal velocity structure of the Inner Gulf of Izmir from ambient noise tomography, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 35 (1), 255-274, 2020.
15. Okada H., The Microtremor Survey Method, Geophysical Monograph Series, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, USA, 2003.
16. Polat, O., Ceken, U., Uran, T., Gok, E., Yilmaz, N., Beyhan, M., Koc, N., Arslan, B., Yilmaz, D, and Utku., IzmirNet: A Strong-Motion Network in Metropolitan Izmir, Western Anatolia, Turkey, Seismological Research Letters, 80 (5), 831-838, 2009.
17. Sandıkkaya M.A., Yılmaz M.T., Bakır B.S, and Yılmaz Ö., Site classification of Turkish national strong motion stations, Journal of Seismology, 14 (3), 543-563, 2010.
18. Chiara F., Maria D., Giovanni L., Rodolfo P., Emiliano R., Lucia L., Site characterization of Italian accelerometric stations, Bull, Earthquake Eng, 15 (6), 2329-2348, 2017.
19. SCREAM, yazılım, Guralp Systems Ltd, http: // www.guralp.com
20. Geopsy, yazılım, SESAME, Avrupa Birliği Projesi, 2004, http: // www.geopsy.org
21. Luzi L., Puglia R., Pacor F., Gallipoli M, R., Bindi D., Mucciarelli M., Proposal for a soil classification based on parameters alternative or complementary to Vs, 30, Bulletin Earthquake Engineering, (9), 1877–1898, 2011.