Journals / Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2

Analysis of Vibration Records for Determination of Soil and Structural Dynamic Parameters

Zemin ve Yapı Dinamik Parametrelerinin Elde Edilmesinde Titreşim Kayıtlarının Analizi

Esref Yalcınkaya(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY-CERRAHPASA)0000-0003-0593-0656
Pages
362–373
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️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)

The overall wave propagation velocities along the building axes were calculated as 397 m/s and 432 m/s, while high-frequency wave propagation velocity, indicative of concrete quality, was 1830 m/s.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Accurate identification of structural and soil dynamic parameters is critical for assessing the seismic safety of existing building stocks.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the dynamic characteristics of a 17-story reinforced concrete residential building in the Halkalı district of İstanbul-including modal frequencies, mode shapes, damping ratios, and wave propagation velocities were determined using ambient vibration (microtremor) measurements.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall wave propagation velocities along the building axes were calculated as 397 m/s and 432 m/s, while high-frequency wave propagation velocity, indicative of concrete quality, was 1830 m/s.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Deprem · Zemin · Rezonans

Abstract

Accurate identification of structural and soil dynamic parameters is critical for assessing the seismic safety of existing building stocks. Non-destructive investigation methods provide a cost-effective and rapid means to reliably obtain these parameters. In this study, the dynamic characteristics of a 17-story reinforced concrete residential building in the Halkalı district of İstanbul-including modal frequencies, mode shapes, damping ratios, and wave propagation velocities were determined using ambient vibration (microtremor) measurements. Surface seismic surveys were also conducted to estimate soil dynamic properties, including soil classification, S-wave velocity profile, soil resonance frequency, and soil amplification, providing reliable data for evaluating potential soil-structure interaction during earthquakes. The analysis revealed that the first three bending mode frequencies of the building were f₀ = 1.33 Hz, f₁ = 5.0-5.3 Hz, and f₂ = 10.5-11.7 Hz, while the damping ratios of the fundamental bending mode were 1.44% and 1.66% along the two principal building axes. Modal displacement shapes for the first three modes were also obtained. The overall wave propagation velocities along the building axes were calculated as 397 m/s and 432 m/s, while high-frequency wave propagation velocity, indicative of concrete quality, was 1830 m/s. The underlying soil had a Vs30 of 274 m/s and was classified as ZD. The soil resonance frequency was determined as f₀ = 1.1 Hz, at which moderate seismic wave amplification is expected. The close proximity of the building and soil natural frequencies indicates a high risk of soil-structure resonance and amplified seismic loads during potential earthquakes. This study emphasizes the importance of non-destructive experimental methods in structural health monitoring and performance assessment of existing buildings.

Özet

Mevcut yapı stokunun deprem güvenliğinin değerlendirilmesinde, yapı ve zemine ilişkin dinamik parametrelerin doğru bir şekilde tespit edilmesi kritik öneme sahiptir. Tahribatsız araştırma yöntemleri, bu parametrelerin ekonomik ve hızlı bir biçimde güvenilir olarak elde edilmesini sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, İstanbul-Halkalı bölgesinde yer alan 17 katlı bir betonarme konut bloğunun dinamik karakteristikleri-mod frekansları, mod şekilleri, sönüm oranları ve dalga yayılım hızları çevresel titreşim (mikrotremör) ölçümleri kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, yüzey sismik ölçümler yapılarak zemin dinamik parametreleri (zemin sınıfı, S-dalgası hız profili, zemin rezonans frekansı ve zemin büyütmesi) hesaplanmış ve olası bir deprem durumunda zemin-yapı etkileşiminin değerlendirilmesi için güvenilir veriler elde edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, yapının ilk üç eğilme modunun frekansları sırasıyla f₀ = 1.33 Hz, f₁ = 5.0-5.3 Hz ve f₂ = 10.5-11.7 Hz olarak belirlenmiştir. Birinci eğilme moduna ait sönüm oranları, her iki yapı ekseninde %1.44 ve %1.66 olarak hesaplanmıştır. İlk üç mod için modal yer değiştirme şekilleri elde edilmiştir. Yapının tamamını etkileyen dalga yayılma hızı, yapı eksenlerine bağlı olarak sırasıyla 397 m/sn ve 432 m/sn olarak belirlenmiştir. Beton kalitesini değerlendirmek amacıyla yüksek frekanslardaki dalga yayılma hızı 1830 m/sn olarak hesaplanmıştır. Yapının oturduğu zeminin Vs30 değeri 274 m/sn ve zemin sınıfı ZD olarak tespit edilmiştir. Zemin rezonans frekansı f₀ = 1.1 Hz olup, bu frekansta deprem dalgalarının zemin tarafından orta şiddette büyütüleceği öngörülmektedir. Yapı ve zemin doğal frekanslarının bu denli yakın olması, olası bir deprem sırasında yapı-zemin rezonansı ve sismik yüklerde büyütme riskinin yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, yapı sağlığı izlemede ve mevcut yapıların performans analizinde tahribatsız deneysel yöntemlerin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yalcınkaya, E. (2026). Analysis of Vibration Records for Determination of Soil and Structural Dynamic Parameters. Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 362–373. https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1918572

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Bayraktar A., Türker T., Altunışık A.C., 2015. Experimental frequencies and damping ratios for historical masonry arch bridges, Construction and Building Materials, 75, 234-241.
  2. Bhattacharyya A., 1943. On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by probability distributions, Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc., 35, 99-109.
  3. Brincker R., Zhang L., Andersen P., 2001. Modal identification of output-only systems using frequency domain decomposition, Smart Materials and Structures, 10(3), 441.
  4. Cakti E., Safak E., 2014. Structural Health Monitoring Systems in Istanbul, in Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, August 25-29, Istanbul, Turkey.
  5. Celebi M., 2000. GPS in dynamic monitoring of long-period structures, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 20(5-8), 477-483.
  6. Celebi M., Sanli A., Sinclair M., 2004. Real-time seismic monitoring needs of a building owner-and the solution: a cooperative effort, Earthquake Spectra, 20(2), 333-346.
  7. Chopra A.K., 2012. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 4th Edition, Pearson Education.
  8. Harris C.M., 2010. Shock and Vibration Handbook, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill.
  9. Ivanovic S.S., Trifunac M.D., 1995.Ambient Vibration Surveys of Full-Scale Structures Using Personal Computers-Examples for Kaprielian Hall, Report No. CE 95-05, Los Angeles, California, USA.
  10. Kramer S.L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA, ISBN 0-13-374943-6.
  11. Lee YT., Ma KF., Wang YJ., Wen K.L., 2015. An empirical equation of effective shaking duration for moderate to large earthquakes, Nat Hazards 75, 1779–1793, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1398-7
  12. Luzi L., Felicetta C., Puglia R., Russo E., Pacor F., D’Amico M., Lanzano G., Working Group 20144 INGV-DPC Project S2-Task2, 2015. Site characterization in ITACA database. Conference: 34° Convegno Gruppo Nazionale Geofisica della Terra Solida - GNGTS: TriesteVolume: Caratterizzazione Sismica del Territorio p.122-128.
  13. Michel C., Guéguen P., Bard P.-Y., 2008. Dynamic parameters of structures extracted from ambient vibration measurements: An aid for the seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings in moderate seismic hazard regions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28(8), 593-604.
  14. Mucciarelli M., Gallipoli M.R., 2001. A critical review of 10 years of microtremor HVSR technique, Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, 42(3-4), 255-266.
  15. Mylonakis G., Gazetas G., 2000. Seismic soil-structure interaction: Beneficial or detrimental?, Journal Of Earthquake Engineering, 4:3, 277-301, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460009350372
  16. Nakamura Y., 1989. A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface, Railway Technical Research Institute, Quarterly Reports, 30(1), 25-33.
  17. Parsons T., 2004. Recalculated probability of M≥ 7 earthquakes beneath the Sea of Marmara, Turkey, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 109(B5).
  18. Rodrigues J., Brincker R., 2005. Application of Random Decrement Technique in Operational Modal Analysis, Proceedings of the 1st International Operational Modal Analysis Conference (IOMAC), Copenhagen, Denmark.
  19. SESAME, 2004. Guidelines for the Implementation of the H/V Spectral Ratio Technique on Ambient Vibrations, EC Project EVG1-CT-2000-00026.
  20. Skolnik D., Lei Y., Yu E., Wallace J.W., 2006. Identification, Model Updating, and Response Prediction of an Instrumented 15-Story Steel-Frame Building, Earthquake Spectra, 22(3): 781-802, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2219487
  21. TBDY, 2018. Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği. T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Ankara, (18.03.2018 tarih ve 30364 sayılı Resmi Gazete).
  22. van Ginkel J., Ruigrok E., Stafleu J., Herber R,. 2022. Development of a seismic site-response zonation map for the Netherlands, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 41-63, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-41-2022
  23. Yalçınkaya E., 2004. Bir boyutlu modeller için zemin büyütmesine etki eden parametrelerin incelenmesi, İstanbul Üniv. Müh. Fak. Yerbilimleri Dergisi, 17(1), 47-56.
  24. Yalçınkaya E., 2010. Zemin neden bu kadar önemli?, Jeofizik Bülteni, sayfa 77-80.
  25. Yalçınkaya E., Alptekin Ö., 2005. Numerical 2D modeling of site responsein Dinar Graben, Southwest Turkey, and comparison with observations, Annals of Geophysics, 48(2).