SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bozok Journal of Engineering and Architecture / 2026 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1

Comparative Nonlinear Site Response Analysis in Reclaimed Sand Deposits: A Case Study in Iskenderun, Türkiye from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes

Geri kazanılmış kum zeminlerde karşılaştırmalı doğrusal olmayan zemin tepki analizi: 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremleri kapsamında İskenderun (Türkiye) örneği

Tuğçe Başer(Saint Louis University)0009-0004-4771-9490
Pages
100–110
Publication Date
2026-06-29
🏛️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)

Subtle differences in subsurface conditions and structural proximity can produce substantially different seismic responses, highlighting the need for site-specific nonlinear modeling in seismic hazard assessment and performance-based design in earthquake-prone regions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence (Mw7.7 and Mw7.6) inflicted widespread geotechnical failures across southern Türkiye, causing severe structural damage, particularly within the coastal fill zones of İskenderun.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Shear wave velocity profiles, inferred from CPT-11 data, were utilized in one-dimensional nonlinear history analyses.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Subtle differences in subsurface conditions and structural proximity can produce substantially different seismic responses, highlighting the need for site-specific nonlinear modeling in seismic hazard assessment and performance-based design in earthquake-prone regions.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:2023 Kahramanmaras earthquakes · seismic site response · DEEPSOIL

Abstract

The 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence (Mw7.7 and Mw7.6) inflicted widespread geotechnical failures across southern Türkiye, causing severe structural damage, particularly within the coastal fill zones of İskenderun. This study presents a detailed comparative site response analysis using DEEPSOIL to simulate and evaluate nonlinear soil behavior at free field and near field site conditions under strong ground motion conditions. Series of cone penetration tests were performed immediately after the earthquake sequence to determine the soil profiles and site characterization. Shear wave velocity profiles, inferred from CPT-11 data, were utilized in one-dimensional nonlinear history analyses. The seismic input motion was derived from Hatay's AFAD Station #4631 acceleration record. The dynamic response evaluation examined time-domain acceleration histories, peak ground acceleration (PGA), shear strain distributions, cyclic stress-strain behavior, and spectral acceleration characteristics. Results unequivocally indicate that the softer free-field site produced higher amplification (PGA ~0.40g, SA ~1.2g, peak shear strain ~0.40), while the stiffer near-field site showed a more elastic response (PGA ~0.34g, SA ~0.95g, peak shear strain ~0.25). Subtle differences in subsurface conditions and structural proximity can produce substantially different seismic responses, highlighting the need for site-specific nonlinear modeling in seismic hazard assessment and performance-based design in earthquake-prone regions.

Özet

The 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence (Mw7.7 and Mw7.6) inflicted widespread geotechnical failures across southern Türkiye, causing severe structural damage, particularly within the coastal fill zones of İskenderun. This study presents a detailed comparative site response analysis using DEEPSOIL to simulate and evaluate nonlinear soil behavior at free field and near field site conditions under strong ground motion conditions. Series of cone penetration tests were performed immediately after the earthquake sequence to determine the soil profiles and site characterization. Shear wave velocity profiles, inferred from CPT-11 data, were utilized in one-dimensional nonlinear history analyses. The seismic input motion was derived from Hatay's AFAD Station #4631 acceleration record. The dynamic response evaluation examined time-domain acceleration histories, peak ground acceleration (PGA), shear strain distributions, cyclic stress-strain behavior, and spectral acceleration characteristics. Results unequivocally indicate that the softer free-field site produced higher amplification (PGA ~0.40g, SA ~1.2g, peak shear strain ~0.40), while the stiffer near-field site showed a more elastic response (PGA ~0.34g, SA ~0.95g, peak shear strain ~0.25). Subtle differences in subsurface conditions and structural proximity can produce substantially different seismic responses, highlighting the need for site-specific nonlinear modeling in seismic hazard assessment and performance-based design in earthquake-prone regions.

🔖

Cite This Article

Başer, T. (2026). Comparative Nonlinear Site Response Analysis in Reclaimed Sand Deposits: A Case Study in Iskenderun, Türkiye from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes. Bozok Journal of Engineering and Architecture, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.70700/bjea.1934651

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. P. M. Mai, T. Aspiotis, T. A. Aquib et al., “The Destructive Earthquake Doublet of 6 February 2023 in South‑Central Türkiye and Northwestern Syria: Initial Observations and Analyses,” The Seismic Record, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 105–115, May 2023, doi: 10.1785/0320230007.
  2. P. Bassal, D. M. Moug, J. D. Bray, S. B. Kendir, K. Ö. Çetin, and A. Şahin, “Lateral spreading and flooding along the İskenderun coast in the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence,” Jpn. Geotech. Soc. Spec. Publ., vol. 10, no. 44, pp. 1653–1658, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.3208/jgssp.v10.OS-33-04.
  3. D. M. Moug, J. D. Bray, P. Bassal, K. Ö. Çetin, A. Şahin, and S. B. Kendir, “Liquefaction-induced ground and building interactions in İskenderun from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 913–938, 2024.
  4. Baser, T., Nawaz, K., Chung, A. et al. Ground movement patterns and shallow foundation performance in Iskenderun coastline during the 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake sequence. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 22, 867–881 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-023-2205-9.
  5. Ozkula, G., Dowell, R.K., Baser, T. et al. Field reconnaissance and observations from the February 6, 2023, Turkey earthquake sequence. Nat Hazards 119, 663–700 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06143-2.
  6. M. F. Qodri, V. D. A. Anggorowati, and L. Z. Mase, “Site-Specific Analysis to Investigate Response and Liquefaction Potential during the Megathrust Earthquake at Banten Province, Indonesia,” Eng. J., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1–10, Sept. 2022, doi: 10.4186/ej.2022.26.9.1.
  7. E. Yee, J. P. Stewart, and K. Tokimatsu, “Nonlinear site response and seismic compression at vertical array strongly shaken by the 2007 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki earthquake,” PEER Report 2011/107, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, Feb. 2011.
  8. B. Stuyts, W. Weijtjens, C. Sastre Jurado, C. Devriendt, and A. Kheffache, “A critical review of cone penetration test‑based correlations for estimating small‑strain shear modulus in North Sea soils,” Geotechnics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 604–635, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.3390/geotechnics4020033.
  9. M. G. Jefferies and M. P. Davies, “Use of CPTu to estimate equivalent SPT N60,” “Geotechnical Testing Journal", vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 458–468, 1993, doi: 10.1520/GTJ10312J.
  10. T. Lunne, P. K. Robertson, and J. J. M. Powell, “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice“, London, U.K.: Blackie Academic and Professional, 1997.
  11. R. D. Andrus and K. H. Stokoe II, “Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity,” “Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering“, vol. 126, no. 11, pp. 1015–1025, Nov. 2000, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015).
  12. R. Kayen and J. K. Mitchell, “Assessment of liquefaction potential using shear wave velocity,” NCEER Report 97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1997.
  13. R. E. S. Moss, R. B. Seed, R. E. Kayen, J. P. Stewart, and A. Der Kiureghian, “CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 132, no. 8, pp. 1032–1051, Aug. 2006, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:8(1032).
  14. R. Kayen, R. Moss, E. Thompson, R. Seed, K. Çetin, A. Der Kiureghian, Y. Tanaka, and K. Tokimatsu, “Shear-Wave Velocity–Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 407–419, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000743.
  15. Y. M. A. Hashash, M. I. Musgrove, J. A. Harmon, D. R. Groholski, C. A. Phillips, and D. Park, “DEEPSOIL V7.0: 1D Site Response Analysis Program for Earthquake Engineering Applications,” içinde Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Earthq. Geotech. Eng., Santiago, Chile, 2017.
  16. D. Park and Y. M. A. Hashash, “Soil damping formulation in nonlinear time domain site response analysis,” J. Earthquake Eng., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 249–274, Mar. 2004, doi: 10.1142/S1363246904001420.
  17. C. Phillips and Y. M. A. Hashash, “Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses,” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1143–1158, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.01.004.
  18. M. B. Darendeli, “Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Civil Eng., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2001.
  19. J. P. Stewart, R. B. Seed, and G. L. Fenves, "Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. II: Empirical findings," J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 38–48, Jan. 1999. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:1(38).
  20. J. P. Stewart, S.-J. Chiou, J. D. Bray, R. W. Graves, P. G. Somerville, and N. A. Abrahamson, “Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design – PEER Report 2001/09,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, Sep. 2001.
  21. M. K. Akın, S. L. Kramer, and T. Topal, “Dynamic soil characterization and site response estimation for Erbaa, Tokat (Turkey),” Nat. Hazards, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 1833–1868, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2274-4.
  22. S. M. Olson, X. Mei, and Y. M. A. Hashash, “Nonlinear site response analysis with pore-water pressure generation for liquefaction triggering evaluation,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 146, no. 2, Art. no. 04019128, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002191.
  23. F. Avşar, R. de Borst, and M. F. Wheeler, “Constitutive model for 1 D cyclic soil behaviour applied to seismic response,” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., vol. 137, pp. 106260, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106260.
  24. X. Wang, Y. Zhang, and L. Sun, “Cyclic cumulative strain of coarse grained soil under large cyclic loading,” Arch. Civil Mech. Eng., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 56, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.acme.2022.12.005.
  25. X.‑B. Peng, W.‑J. Ren, T.‑Q. Li, Y.‑Y. Xue, X.‑S. Tao, and L.-Y. Xu, “Seismic response of deep soft soil sites with varying shear wave velocities,” “Front. Earth Sci. “, vol. 12, art. 1488519, 2024. DOI: 10.3389/feart.2024.1488519.
  26. A. Satyanto, G. Aubry, and F. Gallage, “Challenges associated with site response analyses for soft soils: modelling issues and strong motion implications,” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., vol. 86, pp. 120–134, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.06.022.
  27. P. Bazzurro and C. Allin Cornell, “Ground‑motion amplification in nonlinear soil sites with uncertain properties,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 2090–2109, Dec. 2004. DOI: 10.1785/0120030169.
  28. R. P. Dhakal, S. L. Lin, A. K. Loye, and S. J. Evans, “Seismic design spectra for different soil classes: a nonlinear parametric study,” Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 79–96, Jun. 2013. DOI: 10.5459/bnzsee.46.2.79-96.
  29. K. Pitilakis, E. Riga, and A. Anastasiadis, “Design spectra and amplification factors for Eurocode 8,” ”Bull. Earthquake Eng. ”, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1377–1400, Oct. 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-012-9367-6.
  30. J. Rey, E. Faccioli, and J. J. Bommer, “Derivation of design soil coefficients (S) and response spectral shapes for Eurocode 8 using the European Strong-Motion Database,” J. Seismol., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 547–555, Dec. 2002. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021421613593.
  31. J. P. Stewart and G. L. Fenves, “System identification for evaluating soil-structure interaction effects in buildings,” “Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. “, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 869–885, 1998. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199809)27:9 3.0.CO;2-P.