1887

Abstract

Summary

Soil amplification is an important parameter to estimate the dynamic soil-structure interaction under earthquake loadings accurately. So, a good estimation of the soil amplification is required because the soil conditions of local sites have significant influences on the vulnerability of engineering structures. Although the soil amplification is directly related to impedance ratio between the rocks and soils, it is generally calculated trough empirical formulas based on Vs30 value, an average shear wave velocity (Vs) up to 30m depth. However, when the soil column includes rock units (Vs□700m/s) within the 30m depth, the empirical formulas lose their validity. In this study, we try to explain this issue and compare soil amplification values calculated by using Vs30 and impedance ratio for synthetic models and field cases which include rocks unit within the 30m depth. In synthetic models, the soil amplification for four scenarios for two-layered medium is calculated by most known empirical formulas and compared with that of impedance ratio. In field cases, we compare soil amplifications for shallow and deep bedrock cases. Synthetic and real results show that soil amplifications calculated by empirical formulas couldn’t characterize the real ground conditions, especially in the case of the hard-solid units in shallow depths.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201702523
2017-11-05
2020-05-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altundag, D.
    [2008] Environmental changes in holocene period in Uzungöl and its catchment area, Master thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon-Turkey.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Borcherdt, R. D., Wentworth, C. M., Janssen, A., Fumal, T. and Gibbs, J.
    [1991] Methodology for Predictive GIS Mapping of Special Study Zones for Strong Ground Shaking in San Francisco Bay Region, Proc. 4th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Vol.3, 545–552.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BSSC
    BSSC [2003] Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, 2003 Edition: Part I (Provisions) and Part II (Commentary), FEMA 450, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (2003)
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Kritakis, G.S. and Vafidis, A.
    [2011] Different Alternatives of surface waves data inversion. Applications on environmental and geotechnical case studies, 6th Congress of Balkan Geophysical Society, P05 Budapest, Hungary.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Midorikawa, S.
    [1987] Prediction of iso-seismal map in the Kanto Plain due to hypothetical earthquake, Journal of Structural Engineering, 33B, 43–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ozcep, T., Ozcep, F. and Ozel, O.
    [2013] Vs30, site amplifications and some comparisons: The Adapazari (Turkey) case, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 63, 92–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Poormirzaee, R. and MoghadamR. H.
    [2014] Determination of S-wave structure via Refraction Microtremor Technique in Urban Area: a Case Study, Journal of Tethys2, No: 4, 347–356.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Roesset, J.M.
    [1977] Soil amplification in earthquakes, Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, edited by C.S.Desai and J.T.Christian, New York, Chapter 19, 639–682, ISBN 0-07-016542-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Yalcinkaya, E.
    [2004] Investigation of Parameters Affecting the Soil Amplification for 1-D Models, in Turkish, Istanbul Yerbilimleri Dergisi17, 1, 47–56.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201702523
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201702523
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error