Estimation of soil dynamic parameters by using ambient noise and scenario earthquake in Aliağa/İzmir (Western Anatolia)

Abstract

As is well known, dynamic parameters are necessary to study the effects of the earthquake because the earthquake is a dynamic phenomenon. The study area is one of the tectonically active regions at Western Anatolia. Microtremor method, which is easy to apply and cheap, was used to reach the dynamic parameters of the study area. The dynamic parameters that were achieved from the microtremor field study applied at 125 points are the predominant frequency of the soil and the dynamic amplification factor. In this study, dynamic amplification factor values were computed and were mapped by joint evaluation of ambient noise and a scenario earthquake. Ambient noise was collected at Aliağa district in Izmir city, and the scenario earthquake was chosen with a distance of 55 km to the study area according to the earthquake distribution. It was observed that the distribution of the soil predominant frequency and the dynamic amplification factor values obtained in the study area were mostly compatible with geological units. These two parameters are expected to change inversely with each other. In some places, they were seen as incompatible. The most important reason for incompatible results was the use of the entire horizontal-to-vertical ratio frequency spectrum during the calculation of the dynamic amplification factor. In contrast, the predominant frequency represents only the frequency at maximum amplitude in the horizontal-to-vertical ratio spectrum not the entire spectrum. Considering the complexity of the geological units and the changes of dynamic amplification factor (DAF) values in the lateral direction, the study area offers heterogeneous structural features. This shows us that the peak ground acceleration (PGA) value calculated by a single earthquake record would be insufficient to represent the entire field of study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

References

  1. Akgün M, Gönenç T, Tunçel A, Pamukçu O (2013) A multi-approach geophysical estimation of soil dynamic properties in settlements: a case study in Güzelbahçe-İzmir (Western Anatolia). J Geophys Eng 10(4):045001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akin Ö, Sayil N (2016) Site characterization using surface wave methods in the Arsin-Trabzon province, NE Turkey. Environ Earth Sci 75:72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Akkaya İ (2015) The application of HVSR microtremor survey method in Yüksekova (Hakkari) region, Eastern Turkey. J Afr Earth Sci 109:87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Apostolidis PI, Raptakis DG, Pandi KK, Manakou MV, Pitilakis KD (2006) Definition of subsoil structure and preliminary ground response in Aigion city (Greece) using microtremor and earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:922–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bala A, Grecu B, Ciugudean V, Raileanu V (2009) Dynamic properties of the Quaternary sedimentary rocks and their influence on seismic site effects. Case study in Bucharest City, Romania. Soil Dyn Earth Eng 29:144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blachowski B, Pnevmatikos N (2018) Neural network based vibration control of seismically excited civil structures. Period Polytech Civil Eng 62(3):620–628. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.11601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Çetin G (2015) Determination of the period distribution in Aliağa-İzmir and its surroundings. Thesis (in Turkish), Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University

  8. Dewey JF, Şengör AMC (1979) Aegean and surrounding regions: complex multiplate and continuum tectonics in a convergent zone. GSA Bull 90(1):84–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eşder T, Yakabağ A, Sarıkaya H, Çiçekli K (1991) Aliağa (İzmir) yöresinin jeolojisi ve jeotermal enerji olanakları. MTA Gen Mud Ege Bol Mud Report. (In Turkish).

  10. Genç ŞC, Yılmaz Y (2000) Geology and young tectonics of Aliağa environment. In: Seismicity of Western Anatolia symposium, 152–159

  11. GEOPSY (1997) Geophysical signal database for noise array processing. www.geopsy.org.

  12. Herak M (2008) Model HVSR-A Matlab® tool to model horizontal-to- vertical spectral ratio of ambient noise. Comput Geosci 34:1514–1526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Herak M (2011) Overview of recent ambient noise measurements in Croatia in free-field and in buildings. Geofizika 28:21–40

    Google Scholar 

  14. Herak M, Allegretti I, Herak D, Kuk K, Kuk V, Marić K, Markušić S, Stipčević J (2010) HVSR of ambient noise in Ston (Croatia): comparison with theoretical spectra and with the damage distribution after the 1996 Ston-Slano earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 8:483–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kamalian M, Jafari MK, Ghayamghamian MR, Shafiee A, Hamzehloo H, Haghshenas E, Sohrabi-bidar A (2008) Site effect microzonation of Qom, Iran. Eng Geol 97:63–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaya C, Başokur AT (2007) Aliağa Jeotermal Sahasının Manyetotellürik Yöntemle Araştırılması. Geothermal energy congress proceedings book, Ankara, Turkey, 231–247. (In Turkish)

  17. Kuruoğlu M, Eskisar T (2015) Effect of local soil conditions on dynamic ground response in the southern coast of Izmir Bay, Turkey. Russ Geol Geophys 56:1201–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee VW, Trifunac MD (1995) Frequency dependent attenuation function, and Fourier amplitude spectra of strong earthquake ground motion in California. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USC Report no. CE 95-03, 190pp

  19. Lermo J, Chavez-Garcia FJ (1993) Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83:1574–1594

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lozano L, Herraiz M, Singh SK (2009) Site effect study in central Mexico using H/V and SSR techniques: independence of seismic site effects on source characteristics. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:504–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McGuire KR, Hanks TC (1980) RMS accelerations and spectral amplitudes of strong ground motion during the San Fernando, California earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1907–1919

    Google Scholar 

  22. McKenzie DP (1978) Active tectonics of the Alpine - Himalayan Belt: the Aegean Sea and surrounding regions. Geophys J Int 55(1):217–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. MTA (2002) 1/500.000 scale geological maps of Turkey, 7, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA), Ankara, Turkey

  24. Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Quart Rep Railw Tech Res Inst 30:25–33

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nakamura Y (1996) Real time information systems for seismic hazards mitigation UrEDAS, HERAS and PIC. Quart Rep Railw Tech Res Inst 37:112–127

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nakamura Y (2000) Clear identification of fundamental idea of Nakamura’s technique and its applications. Proceeding 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, 2656

  27. Özdağ ÖC, Gönenç T, Akgün M (2015) Dynamic amplification factor concept of soil layers: a case study in İzmir (Western Anatolia). Arab J Geosci 8(11):10093–10104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pamuk E, Özdağ ÖC, Tunçel A, Özyalın Ş, Akgün M (2018) Local site effects evaluation for Aliağa/İzmir using HVSR (Nakamura technique) and MASW methods. Nat Hazards 90:887–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. SESAME (2004) Site effects assessment using ambient excitations: guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrations measurements, processing and interpretation. European Research Project. WP12– Deliverable D23.12, December 2004

  30. Singh AP (2015) Seismic hazard evaluation in Anjar city area of western India: microtremor array measurement. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 71:143–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Trifunac MD (1993) Broad band extension of Fourier amplitude spectra of strong motion acceleration. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USC Report no. CE 93-01, 109pp

  32. TUBITAK (2012) Modelling of seismic behavior of soils for safe design of buildings against earthquakes in Izmir Province, Aliaga and Menemen districts. Dokuz Eylul University Earthquake Research and Application Centre, Izmir. [Project No. 106G159]

  33. Tunçel A, Özdağ ÖC, Pamuk E, Akgün M (2019) Calculation of the soil dynamic amplification factor values by using microtremor data: a case study in Izmir (North). J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 34(1):43–52. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.416459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2019) https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/. Accessed 25 Jul 2019

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are given to Assoc. Prof. Meriç A. Berge, for his valuable contributions and helpful discussions. The author would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Cem Kıncal for his contributions during the preparation of the Geology section. The author would like to thank all those who contributed to the project.

Funding

The microtremor field survey of this study was financially supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK, Project No. 106G159).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aykut Tunçel.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Narasimman Sundararajan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tunçel, A. Estimation of soil dynamic parameters by using ambient noise and scenario earthquake in Aliağa/İzmir (Western Anatolia). Arab J Geosci 14, 231 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-06653-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dynamic amplification factor
  • Predominant frequency
  • Ambient noise
  • Scenario earthquake
  • İzmir