Marmara Region is located in northwestern Turkey, and the average elevation is of the least. Despite the small size of the region population, its density is above the average of Turkey. The North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ) passing through this region is a fracture that can be observed clearly in its structural characteristics. This region is one of the very active regions in terms of seismic activity when viewed in the historical process. For this reason, earthquake risk analysis is very important for urban planning, construction and major engineering projects such as Istanbul Metro. This engineering project, which has a worldwide design, has a length of 76 km. Not only it connects Asia and Europe with railways, but also provides urban transportation in a fast and convenient way. In this study, the part of the Istanbul Metro between Yedikule and Sirkeci on the European continent is investigated. Numerous boreholes were opened in this project line, but here 7 of the best representatives of the region were selected and examined in this study. These boreholes have a depth of about 60 m and have penetrated many geological layers and formations in this region. In this study, we used average velocities of P and S waves in layers, density, and thickness and formation data based on the PS logs in selected 7 boreholes of Yedikule-Sirkeci line. The influences of linearity on the site response analysis have been detected and evaluated with numerical examples. The earthquake data needful for the Equivalent Linear Earthquake Site Response Analyses computer program solution is the Kocaeli earthquake data on 17 August 1999, which was recorded at the earthquake station in Besiktas-Istanbul. In addition to Kocaeli earthquake data, the soil parameters from the boreholes are also transferred and calculated. Thus, important ground features of the area where the engineering structure with huge dimensions are to be constructed have been determined.
PS logging, Istanbul Metro, Site Response Analysis
1. Ansal, A., A. Akinci, G. Cultrera, M. Erdik, V. Pessina, G. Tönük, G. Ameri (2009), Loss estimation in Istanbul based on deterministic earthquake scenarios of the Marmara Sea region (Turkey), Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29, p. 699-709, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.07.006.
2. Bardet, J. P., K. Ichii, C. H. Lin (2000), EERA, A Computer Program for Equivalent Linear Earthquake Site Response Analysis of Layered Soils Deposits, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
3. Beyhan, G., A. Keskinsezer, S. Öztürk (2016), Soil properties and applications review with NERA (nonlinear earthquake site response analyses) in Istanbul-MARMARAY Project between Kazleme to Sirkeci, Environmental Earth Sciences, January 2016, p. 75-93, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4783-y (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665 -015-4783-y).
4. Biondi, G., M. R. Massimino, M. Maugeri (2014), Influence of frequency content and amplitude of input motion in DSSI investigated by shaking table tests, Bulletin of Earthquake Eng., 13, p. 1835-1869, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9696-8.
5. Campione, F., P. Capilleri, M. R. Massimino, M. Maugeri (2013), Terremoto dell'Emilia Romagna 2012: risposta sismica locale sulla base di prove SDMT, IARG 2013, 16-18 September 2013, Conference Paper, IARG, Perugia, https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.5158.4969 (ISBN 9788890642135).
6. Erdik, M., M. Demirciolu, K. Sesetyan, E. Durukal (2005), Assessment of earthquake hazard for Bakirkoy, Gemlik, Bandirma, Tekirdag and Korfez. WB MEER project-A3 component, microzonation and hazard vulnerability studies for disaster mitigation in pilot municipalities, Bogazici University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Bogazici.
7. Huang, H. C., C. S. Shieh, H. C. Chiu (2001), Linear and nonlinear behaviors of soft soil layers using Lotung downhole array in Taiwan, Terr. Atmos. Ocean Sci., 12, p. 503-524, https://doi.org/10.3319/TAO.2001.12.3.503(T).
8. Hwang, H. H. M., C. S. Lee (1991), Parametric study of site response analysis, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 10, no. 6, p. 282-290, https://doi.org/10.1016/0267-7261(91)90045-2.
9. Joyner, W. B., A. T. F. Chen (1975), Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 65, p. 1315-1336.
10. Schnabel, P. B., J. Lysmer, H. B. Seed (1972), SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report No. EERC72-12, University of California, Berkeley.
11. Seed, H. B., I. M. Idriss (1970), Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis. Report EERC 70-10, University of California, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley.
12. Spence, R., et al. (2005), Technical report on the scenario earthquake defnitions for three cities. Deliverable 83, Project less loss on risk mitigation for earthquakes and landslides, Sub-Project 10 - earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for urban areas. Sixth Framework Programmed, CORDIS, EU research results, European Commission, Brussels.
13. STFA, (2005), Istanbul Metro. Final Geotechnical Factual Report. Taisei Corporation, STFA Temel Aratirma ve Sondaj, A.S.
14. Yoshida, N. (1994), Applicability of conventional computer code SHAKE to nonlinear problem, Proc. Symposium on Amplification of Ground Shaking in Soft Ground, p. 14-31, JSSMFE, Japan (in Japanese).
15. Yoshida, N., S. Iai (1998), Nonlinear site response analysis and its evaluation and prediction, 2nd International Symposium on the Effect of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, p. 71-90, Yokosuka, Japan.
