KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 40 Sayı: 1

SPT Based Liquefaction Hazard Assessments in Igdır City (Türkiye)

Yusuf Guzel(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK VE MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2957-8060
Muhammed Alperen Ozdemir(IĞDIR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, IĞDIR ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ)
Sayfa
148–166
Yayın Tarihi
2024-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Şehirde incelenen alanlar, maksimum yer ivmesi altında şiddetin daha fazla olduğu gözlemlendiğinden, çeşitli seviyelerde sıvılaşma duyarlılığı sergilemektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Sismik olarak aktif bölgeler her zaman deprem olaylarına ve bunların kentsel alanlara nihai zararlarına maruz kalmaya eğilimlidir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bir sahanın sıvılaşma potansiyeli hakkında bilgi edinmek, sismik riskin azaltılması, deprem tehlikesi değerlendirmeleri ve kentsel alanların gelecekteki planlaması açısından son derece önemlidir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Şehirde incelenen alanlar, maksimum yer ivmesi altında şiddetin daha fazla olduğu gözlemlendiğinden, çeşitli seviyelerde sıvılaşma duyarlılığı sergilemektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Sismik şiddet seviyesi · Standard Penetrasyon deneyi · Sıvılaşma potansiyel indeksi

Özet

Sismik olarak aktif bölgeler her zaman deprem olaylarına ve bunların kentsel alanlara nihai zararlarına maruz kalmaya eğilimlidir. Sıvılaşma, deprem uyarımları sırasında veya sonrasında zemin içerisinde meydana gelen olaylardan biridir. Bir sahanın sıvılaşma potansiyeli hakkında bilgi edinmek, sismik riskin azaltılması, deprem tehlikesi değerlendirmeleri ve kentsel alanların gelecekteki planlaması açısından son derece önemlidir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'nin doğusunda yer alan ve bölgedeki diğer üç sismik olarak aktif ülke olan Ermenistan, Nahçıvan ve İran ile sınırı bulunan Iğdır şehrinin sıvılaşma potansiyelini değerlendirmektedir. Şehir içinde ele alınan alanlardaki zemin verileri (Standart Penetrasyon Testi değerleri, su tablası, su içeriği, birim hacim ağırlık, tane boyutu dağılımı ve Atterberg limitleri) 85 sondaj kuyusundan toplanmıştır. Şehir çevresindeki fay hatları incelendikten sonra, bu çalışmada yer alan iki olası maksimum yer ivmesi 0.393g ve 0.225g olarak belirlenmiştir. En büyük iki yer ivmeleri altında çalışma sahalarının sıvılaşma duyarlılık haritaları, sıvılaşma potansiyel indeksi ve sıvılaşma şiddet indeksi yöntemlerine göre belirlenmiştir. Şehirde incelenen alanlar, maksimum yer ivmesi altında şiddetin daha fazla olduğu gözlemlendiğinden, çeşitli seviyelerde sıvılaşma duyarlılığı sergilemektedir.

Abstract

Seismically active regions are always prone to be subjected to earthquake events and their eventual damages to urban areas. Liquefaction is one of the earthquake related incidents occurring within soil bodies during or after earthquake excitations. Gaining the knowledge of liquefaction potential for a site is exceedingly crucial in view of seismic risk mitigation, earthquake hazard assessments and future planning of urban areas. This study evaluates the liquefaction potential of Igdır city located in the eastern-side of Türkiye, having borderlines with three other seismically active countries in the region, Armenia, Nakhichevan and Iran. Soil data (i.e., Standard Penetration Test values, water table, water content, unit weight, grain size distribution and Atterberg limits) at the considered areas within the city is gathered from 85 boreholes. After investigating the fault lines around the city, the two possible maximum peak ground accelerations involved in this study are determined to be 0.393g and 0.225g. Liquefaction susceptibility maps of the areas at the two peak ground acceleration levels are designated in regard to liquefaction potential index and liquefaction severity index methods. The studied areas in the city exhibit various levels of liquefaction susceptibility as the severity is observed to be greater under the larger peak ground acceleration.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Guzel, Y., Ozdemir, M. A. (2024). SPT Based Liquefaction Hazard Assessments in Igdır City (Türkiye). Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 1, 148–166. https://ajindex.com/articles/1266749

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (48)

  1. Kramer S. L. 1996. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Education India
  2. Cabalar A. F., Canbolat A., Akbulut N., Tercan S. H., Isik H. 2019. Soil liquefaction potential in Kahramanmaras, Türkiye. Geomatics Natural Hazards and Risk, 10(1), 1822-38. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19475705.2019.1629106
  3. Rouholamin M., Bhattacharya S., Orense R. P. 2017. Effect of initial relative density on the post-liquefaction behaviour of sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 97, 25-36. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.02.007
  4. Yoshida N., Tokimatsu K., Yasuda S., Kokusho T., Okimura T. 2001. Geotechnical aspects of damage in Adapazari City during 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 41(4), 25-45. https://doi.org/ 10.3208/sandf.41.4_25
  5. Allen J., Bradley B., Green R., Orense R., Wotherspoon L., Ashford S., et al. 2010. Geotechnical reconnaissance of the 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake. Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 43(4), 243. https://doi.org/ 10.5459/bnzsee.43.4.243-320
  6. Papathanassiou G., Mantovani A., Tarabusi G., Rapti D., Caputo R. 2015. Assessment of liquefaction potential for two liquefaction prone areas considering the May 20, 2012 Emilia (Italy) earthquake. Journal of Environmental Earth Sciences, 189, 1-16. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.02.002
  7. Yasuda S. 2014. Allowable Settlement and Inclination of Houses Defined After the 2011 Tohoku: Pacific Ocean Earthquake in Japan. Geotechnical Geological and Earthquake Engineering, 28, 141-57. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-03182-8_5
  8. Sassa S., Takagawa T. 2019. Liquefied gravity flow-induced tsunami: first evidence and comparison from the 2018 Indonesia Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami disasters. Landslides, 16(1), 195-200. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10346-018-1114-x
  9. Cakir, E., Cetin, K. O. 2024. Liquefaction triggering and induced ground deformations at a metallurgical facility in Dörtyol-Hatay after the February 6 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 178, 108465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108465
  10. Ozener, P., Monkul, M. M., Bayat, E. E., Ari, A., Cetin, K. O. 2024. Liquefaction and performance of foundation systems in Iskenderun during 2023 Kahramanmaras-Turkiye earthquake sequence. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 178, 108433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108433
  11. Yilmaz C., Silva V., Weatherill G. 2021. Probabilistic framework for regional loss assessment due to earthquake-induced liquefaction including epistemic uncertainty. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 141, 106493. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106493
  12. Zhang W., Lim K. W., Ghahari S. F., Arduino P., Taciroglu E. 2021. On the implementation and validation of a three-dimensional pressure-dependent bounding surface plasticity model for soil nonlinear wave propagation and soil-structure interaction analyses. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 45(8), 1091-119. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/nag.3194
  13. Kiyota T., Koseki J., Sato T., Tsutsumi Y. 2009. Effects of sample disturbance on small strain characteristics and liquefaction properties of holocene and pleistocene sandy soils. Soils and Foundations, 49(4), 509-23. https://doi.org/ 10.3208/sandf.49.509
  14. Kiyota T., Maekawa Y., Wu C. 2019. Using in-situ and laboratory-measured shear wave velocities to evaluate the influence of soil fabric on in-situ liquefaction resistance. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 117, 164-73. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.11.016
  15. Lees J. J., Ballagh R. H., Orense R. P., van Ballegooy S. 2015. CPT-based analysis of liquefaction and re-liquefaction following the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 79, 304-314. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.02.004
  16. Facciorusso J., Madiai C., Vannucchi G. 2015. CPT-Based Liquefaction Case History from the 2012 Emilia Earthquake in Italy. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141(12). https://doi.org/ 10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0001349
  17. Chern S. G., Lee C. Y. 2009. CPT-based simplified liquefaction assessment by using fuzzy-neural network. Journal of Marine Science and Technology-Taiwan, 17(4), 326-31. https://doi.org/ 10.51400/2709-6998.2024
  18. Seed H. B., Idriss I. M. 1971. Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 97(SM9), 1249-73. https://doi.org/ 10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662
  19. Youd T. L., Idriss I. M., Andrus R. D., Arango I., Castro G., Chritrian J., et al. 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10), 817-33. https://doi.org/ 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817)
  20. Cetin K. O., Seed H. B., Der Kiureghian A., Tokimatsu K., Harder L., Kayen R., et al. 2004. SPT-Based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(12), 1314-40. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.dib.2018.08.043
  21. Duman, E. S., Ikizler, S. B., & Angin, Z. E. K. A. I. (2015). Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential index based on SPT data in the Erzincan, Eastern Turkey. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8, 5269-5283. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12517-014-1550-4
  22. Yıldız, Ö. (2022). Seismic site characterization of Battalgazi in Malatya, Turkey. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15(9), 867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10170-x
  23. Akkaya, İ., Özvan, A., Akin, M., Akin, M. K., & Övün, U. (2018). Comparison of SPT and V s-based liquefaction analyses: a case study in Erciş (Van, Turkey). Acta Geophysica, 66, 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-017-0103-0
  24. Avagyan, A., Sosson, M., Sahakyan, L., Sheremet, Y., Vardanyan, S., Martirosyan, M., Muller, C., 2018. Tectonic Evolution of the Northern Margin of the Cenozoic Ararat Basin, Lesser Caucasus, Armenia. J Petr. Geol. 41(4):495-511. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jpg.12718
  25. Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu İl ve ilçelere göre il/ilçe merkezi, belde/köy nüfusu ve yıllık nüfus artış hızı, [online] Available at: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=nufus-ve-demografi-109&dil=1 [Accessed: 17.05.2023]
  26. Karaoğlu M., Erdel E. 2022. A Study of Soil and Land Features with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analysis: Iğdır, Türkiye. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(2), 198-208. https://doi.org/ 10.19159/tutad.1076908
  27. Koç A., Koç C. 2018. An Assessment through relationship between air pollution and climatic parameters in City of Igdır. Journal of Urban Cultures and Managements, 11(1), 1-10.
  28. Öztürk M., Altay V., Altundağ E., Gücel S. 2016. Halophytic plant diversity of unique habitats in Turkey: Salt mine caves of Çankırı and Iğdır. Halophytes for food security in dry lands, Elsevier, 291-315.
  29. Bulut F., Bohnhoff M., Eken T., Janssen C., Kilic T., Dresen G. 2012. The East Anatolian Fault Zone: Seismotectonic setting and spatiotemporal characteristics of seismicity based on precise earthquake locations. Journal of Geophysics Research-Solid Earth, 117. https://doi.org/ 10.1029/2011jb008966
  30. Yavasoglu H., Tari E., Tuysuz O., Cakir Z., Ergintav S. 2011. Determining and modeling tectonic movements along the central part of the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey) using geodetic measurements. Journal of Geodynamics, 51(5), 339-43. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jog.2010.07.003
  31. Ministry of Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD). http://www.deprem.gov.tr/en/event catalogue (accessed at 12 December 2023).
  32. Emre Ö., Duman T. Y., Özalp S., Şaroğlu F., Olgun Ş., Elmacı H., et al. 2018. Active fault database of Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), 3229-75. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10518-016-0041-2
  33. Karakhanian A. S., Trifonov V. G., Philip H., Avagyan A., Hessami K., Jamali F., et al. 2004. Active faulting and natural hazards in Armenia, eastern Turkey and northwestern Iran. Tectonophysics, 380(3-4), 189-219. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tecto.2003.09.020
  34. Wells D. L., Coppersmith K. J. 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(4), 974-1002. https://doi.org/ 10.1785/BSSA0840040974
  35. Ulusay R., Tuncay E., Sonmez H., Gokceoglu C. 2004. An attenuation relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and iso-acceleration map of Turkey. Engineering Geology, 74(3-4), 265-91. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.04.002
  36. Guzel, Y. 2024. Correlating Measured SPT-N, Shear Wave Velocity and Liquid Limit Values in Melekli Region, Igdır (Türkiye). Journal of Advanced Research in Natural and Applied Sciences, 10(1), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.28979/jarnas.1393352
  37. Seed H. B., Idriss I. M. 1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 97(9), 1249-73.
  38. Seed H. B., Tokimatsu K., Harder L. F., Chung R. M. 1985. Influence of spt procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering-ASCE, 111(12), 1425-45.
  39. Liao S. S. C., Whitman R. V. 1986. Overburden correction factors for spt in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering-ASCE, 112(3), 373-7. https://doi.org/ 10.1061/(asce)0733-9410(1986)112:3(373)
  40. Akin M. K., Kramer S. L., Topal T. 2016. Dynamic soil characterization and site response estimation for Erbaa, Tokat (Turkey). Natural Hazards, 82(3), 1833-68. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11069-016-2274-4
  41. Seed R. B., Cetin K. O., Moss R. E., Kammerer A. M., Wu J., Pestana J. M., et al. 2003. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework. Proceedings of the 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar: Long Beach, CA.
  42. Sonmez H. 2003. Modification of the liquefaction potential index and liquefaction susceptibility mapping for a liquefaction-prone area (Inegol,Turkey). Environmental Geology, 44(7), 862-71. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00254-003-0831-0
  43. Tosun H., Ulusay R. 1997. Engineering geological characterization and evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility of foundation soils at a dam site, southwest Turkey. Environmental and Engineering Geosciences, 3(3), 389-409. https://doi.org/ 10.2113/gseegeosci.III.3.389
  44. Ulusay R., Kuru T. 2004. 1998 Adana-Ceyhan (Turkey) earthquake and a preliminary microzonation based on liquefaction potential for Ceyhan town. Natural Hazards, 32(1), 59-88. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/b:Nhaz.0000026790.71304.32
  45. Duman E. S., Ikizler S. B., Angin Z. 2015. Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential index based on SPT data in the Erzincan, Eastern Turkey. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8(7), 5269-83. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12517-014-1550-4
  46. Seed H. B., Idriss I. 1982. Ground motion and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
  47. Iwasaki T., Tokida K., Tatsuoka F., Watanabe S., Yasuda S., Sato H. 1981. Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on microzonation, Seattle, pp. 1310-30.
  48. Sonmez H., Gokceoglu C. 2005. A liquefaction severity index suggested for engineering practice. Environmental Geology, 48(1), 81-91. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00254-005-1263-9