SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 4

Comparison of Two Different Dynamic Shear Modulus Approaches for Site-Specific Response Analyses in Clay Soils

Killi Zeminlerde İki Farklı Dinamik Kayma Modülü Yaklaşımın Sahaya Özgü Tepki Analizlerinde Karşılaştırılması

Ebru Civelekler(ESKİŞEHİR OSMANGAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK-MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-5528-3453
Pages
884–893
Publication Date
2024-08-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These spectral parameters are presented in graphs and a comparison of these analytical models are made.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the major problems in geotechnical earthquake engineering is the necessity to determine the soil behavior under dynamic loads.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, Roblee and Chiou (2004) and Zhang et al. (2005) models were used to estimate the normalized shear modulus reduction and material damping curves for clayey soils.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These spectral parameters are presented in graphs and a comparison of these analytical models are made.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Doğrusal olmayan zemin davranışı · Dinamik kayma modülü · Sönümleme oranı

Abstract

One of the major problems in geotechnical earthquake engineering is the necessity to determine the soil behavior under dynamic loads. Nowadays, many analytical models have been proposed to predict the dynamic behavior of soils, especially the shear modulus and damping ratio. These models are used to represent specific soil types and stress ranges. Existing models are not universal, which means that a model developed for one soil type cannot be used for all soil types. In this study, Roblee and Chiou (2004) and Zhang et al. (2005) models were used to estimate the normalized shear modulus reduction and material damping curves for clayey soils. Within the scope of the study, one-dimensional nonlinear analyses were performed for 2 boreholes with the same soil type and seismic properties and spectral parameters were obtained. These spectral parameters are presented in graphs and a comparison of these analytical models are made.

Özet

Geoteknik deprem mühendisliğinde en büyük sorunlardan biri dinamik yükler etkisinde zemin davranışının ortaya konması gerekliliğidir. Günümüzde zeminlerin dinamik davranışını; özellikle kayma modülü ve sönüm oranını tahmin etmek için çok sayıda analitik modeller önerilmiştir. Bu modeller belirli zemin türü ve gerilme aralıklarını temsil etmek için kullanılır. Mevcut modeller evrensel değildir; bu da bir zemin türü için geliştirilen bir modelin tüm zemin türleri için kullanılamayacağı anlamına gelir. Bu çalışmada killi zeminlerde, normalleştirilmiş kayma modülü azalım ve malzeme sönümleme eğrilerini tahmin etmek için Roblee ve Chiou (2004) ve Zhang vd. (2005) modelleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında aynı zemin türüne ve sismik özelliklere sahip 2 sondaj için bir boyutlu doğrusal olmayan analizler yapılarak spektral parametreler elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen bu spektral parametreler grafikler halinde sunularak; kullanılan bu analitik modellerin karşılaştırılması yapılmıştır

🔖

Cite This Article

Civelekler, E. (2024). Comparison of Two Different Dynamic Shear Modulus Approaches for Site-Specific Response Analyses in Clay Soils. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 4, 884–893. https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.1425268

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Bolisetti, C., Whittaker, A. S., Mason, H. B., Almufti, I., Willford, M., 2014. Equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis for design and risk assessment of safety-related nuclear structures. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 275, 107–121.
  2. Civelekler, E., Afacan, K.B., Okur, D.V., 2021. Eşdeğer Doğrusal ve Doğrusal Olmayan Yaklaşımlara Göre Sismik Yük Etkisindeki Zeminlerde Davranış Analizi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(2), 158-171. https://doi.org/10.31796/ogummf.839703
  3. Civelekler, E., Afacan, K.B., Okur, D.V., 2024. Effect of site specific soil characteristics on the nonlinear ground response analysis and comparison of the results with equivalent linear analysis, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 220, 105250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2023.105250
  4. Darendeli, M. B., 2001. A new family of normalized modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, PhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/10396
  5. Stokoe, K. H., Darendeli, M. B., Gilbert, R., Menq, F. Y., Choi, W. K., 2002. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Presentation to March 2002 PEER-LL Quarterly Coordination Meeting, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 1-10.
  6. Gücek, S., Afacan, K. B., & Zorluer, İ., 2023. 6 Şubat 2023 Depremleri Sonrası Zemin Büyütmesi ve Sıvılaşma Gerçeği: Antakya, Gölbaşı, Türkoğlu Örnekleri. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(3), 740-752. https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.1298648
  7. Hashash, Y.M.A., Phillips, C., Groholski, D.R., 2010. Recent Advances in Non-Linear Site Response Analysis. 5th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, May 24-29, San Diego, OSP 4.
  8. Hashash, Y.M.A., Musgrove, M.I., Harmon, J.A., Groholski, D.R., Phillips, C.A., Park, D., 2016. DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual, Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 313-323.
  9. Ishibashi, I. and Zhang, X. J., 1993. Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soils Found, 33-1, 182–191.
  10. Kramer, S. L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 0-653.
  11. Roblee, C., Chiou, B., 2004. A proposed geoindex model for design selection of non-linear properties for site response analyses. In: Peer headquarters international workshop on uncertainties in nonlinear soil properties and their impact on modeling dynamic soil response, University of California March, 1-29.
  12. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., 1970. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis, Report No. EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkeley, USA, 0-48.
  13. Seed, H.B., Wong, R.T., Idriss, I.M., Tokimatsu, K., 1986. Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Analysis of Cohesionless Soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112, 11, 1016-1032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:11(1016
  14. Stokoe, K.H., 1993., Gilroy #2, California and Lotung, Taiwan. Appendices Dynamic Properties of Undisturbed Soils from Treasure Island, EPRI 1993 Report on Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions, EPRI Early Site Demonstration Program, March, IV, California, 8.B1, 8.B2, and 8.B3,
  15. Stokoe, K. H., Darendeli, M. B., Andrus, R. D., Brown, L. T., 1999. Dynamic soil properties: Laboratory, field and correlation studies. Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3, Lisbon, Portugal, 811–845.
  16. Vucetic M., Dobry, R. 1991. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng. 117(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89)
  17. Zhang J., Andrus R. D, Juang C. H. 2005. Normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 131(4),453–464. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(453)
  18. İnternet Kaynakları Peer, P.E., 2006. PEER Ground Motion Database, Berkeley. http://peer.berkeley.