On February 6th 2023 two major earthquakes struck southeast Turkey, M7.7 Kahramanmaras and M7.6 Elbistan, respectively. Unfortunately, due to the impact of these catastrophic events more than 50 000 casualties and 35 000 collapsed buildings have been reported since then. The aim of the study is to demonstrate preliminary site response analysis and assessment of re-liquefaction potential of sites which have been affected by the earthquakes – especially the cities of Iskenderun and Golbasi. Both site-specific areas have clear evidences of liquefaction and lateral spreading events which imply the focus of the presented paper. A series of geophysical MASW and microtremor tests have been performed in order to determine shear wave velocities up to depth of 30 m as well as the fundamental natural frequency of the soil deposits.
Moreover, samples have been collected from sand and silt ejecta in order to evaluate some basic physical properties – grain-size curves, specific gravity and plasticity parameters. On the basis of the obtained data seismic classification of the investigated sites according to current design codes has been made and in-depth distance to relatively stiff layer has been assumed. For the sake of evaluating risk of re-liquefaction the widely-used simplified stress-based approach to triggering assessment has been adopted considering some rules of the thumb (e.g., sieve analysis and plasticity properties evaluation). Lastly, post-liquefaction reconsolidation settlement and lateral displacement have been determined in terms of future earthquakes
Ishihara K, Yoshimine M. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils and foundations. 1992;32(1):173–88.
2.
Dobry R, Vucetic M. Dynamic properties and seismic response of soft clay deposits. In: Proc Int Symp on Geotech Engrg of Soft Soils. 1987. p. 51–87.
3.
Bray JD, Sancio RB. Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2006;132(9):1165–77.
4.
Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RES, Kammerer A, Wu J, Pestana J, et al. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework. In: Keynote presentation, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar. 2003.
5.
Technical standards for commentaries for port and harbour facilities in Japan. 1999;
6.
Akil B, Akpinar K, Uckardesler C, Araz H, Saglam M, Ecemis B, et al. Evaluation of Settlement Suitability of Golbasi (Adiyaman) Town, located on the East Anatolian 567 Fault Zone. Turkiye Jeoloji Bulteni-Geological Bulletin of Turkey. 2008;51(1):43–57.
7.
Zhang G, Robertson PK, Brachman RWI. Estimating liquefaction-induced lateral displacements using the standard penetration test or cone penetration test. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2004;130(8):861–71.
8.
Andrus RD, Stokoe KH, Hsein Juang C. Guide for shear-wave-based liquefaction potential evaluation. Earthquake Spectra. 2004;20(2):285–308.
9.
Cetin KO, Bilge HT, Wu J, Kammerer AM, Seed RB. Probabilistic Model for the Assessment of Cyclically Induced Reconsolidation (Volumetric) Settlements. Journal of Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2009;135(3):387–98.
10.
Wu J, Seed RB, Pestana JM. Liquefaction triggering and post liquefaction deformations of Monterey 0/30 sand under unidirectional cyclic simple shear loading. Geotechnical Engineering Research Rep No UCB/GE. 2003;
11.
Shamoto Y, Zhang J, Tokimatsu K. New charts for predicting large residual post-liquefaction ground deformation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 1998;17(7–8):427–38.
12.
Tokimatsu K, Seed HB. Simplified procedures of the evaluation of settlements in clean sands. Rep. 1984;(UCB/GT-84/16).
13.
Province DCR. 023. KAHRAMANMARAŞ AND HATAY. EARTHQUAKES REPORT. 2023;
14.
N.C.E.E.R. In: Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 1997.
15.
Cetin KO, Seed RB. Nonlinear shear mass participation factor (rd) for cyclic shear stress ratio evaluation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2004;24(2):103–13.
16.
Andrus RD, Stokoe KH. Liquefaction resistance based on shear wave velocity. In: Proc, NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 1997. p. 89–128.
17.
Idriss IM, Boulanger RW. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. 2008;261.
18.
Liquefaction resistance of soil. Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER In NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils". 2001;124(10):817–33.
19.
Kramer SL. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. 1996.
20.
Nalca C. Transformation of Iskenderun historic urban fabric from Mid-19th century to the end of 590 the French mandate period. 2018.
21.
DT NEXT. Roads flooded in Turkey’s Iskenderun following quake. YouTube. 2023;578.
22.
Toktanis A, Over S. Konarli Mahallesi’nde (Iskenderun) sivilasma pilot calismasi. 606 Geosound. 2021;54(1):1–11.
23.
Okada K, Sugiyama T, Noguchi T, Muraishi H. A correlation of soil strength between 592 different sounding tests on embankment surface. Soils and foundations. 1992;40(4):11–6.
24.
A.F.A.D.-T.A.D.A.S. 2023;
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
