A Preliminary Report The May 19, 2011 Simav, Turkey Earthquake

Transcription

1 A Preliminary Report The May 19, 2011 Simav, Turkey Earthquake Ömer AYDAN Tokai University, Shizuoka, Japan Visiting Professor, İstanbul Technical University Halil KUMSAR Pamukkale University May 24, 2011

2 CONTENTS Major Characteristics Location and Geography Geology, Tectonics and Pre-post Seismicity Faulting Mechanism Strong Ground Motions Damage (building, geotechnical, lifelines, dams, transportation) Sources of Information

3 MAJOR CHARACERISTICS OF THE EARTHQUAKE Location: near Simav town of Kütahya Prefecture of Turkey Date: 23:15 (TST) on May 19, 2011 Magnitude: Mw ; Ms 6.0; ML Faulting Mechanism: Normal faulting with dextral strike slip component associated with West Anadolu Fault System Casulaties: 2 people as of May 21, 2011 Injured: 85 people Affected population: households heavily damaged or collapsed

4 Major towns and villages in the epicentral area Map from Google

5 Geology-Faults Modified from Oygür & Erler, 2000 (TJK, 43(1), 7-19)

6 Focal Mechanisms of Past Major Earthquakes

7 Pre-Regional Seismicity

8 Aftershock Activity Base map from EMSC

9 Focal Mechanism Normal faulting along north dipping fault. The fault belongs to Simav fault zone This fault is said to be normal fault with a dextral lateral component. The earthquake fault is a normal fault with a dextral lateral component. From EMSC

10 Fault Striation Measurement and Their Focal Mechanism sinistral dextral Two different fault striations on oblique normal faults were observed. One of them has a dextral lateral component while the other one has a sinistral component.

11 Gediz Strong Motions Emet From AFAD

12 Views of some of strong motion stations in the epicentral area Gediz Simav Complete record at Simav SMS could not be obtained due to power loss

13 ACCELERATION(gal) ACCELERATION(gal) Spectra of Selected Strong Motion Stations ACCELERATION(gal) ACCELERATION(gal) GEDIZ Simav-Kutahya (M ) EW (h=5%) EW NS UD EMET Simav-Kutahya (M ) EW (h=5%) EW NS UD NATURAL PERIOD(s) NATURAL PERIOD(s) DURSUNBEY Simav-Kutahya (M ) EW (h=5%) EW NS UD AKHISAR Simav-Kutahya (M ) EW (h=5%) EW NS UD NATURAL PERIOD(s) NATURAL PERIOD(s)

14 Permanent Ground Movements obtained from EPS method 100 mm Base map from Google

15 MAXIMUM GROUND ACCELERATION (gal) Amax & Vmax Attenuation MAXIMUM GROUND VELOCITY (kine) Simav Earthquake V s =259 m/s =0,180 =90 =270 Observation Aydan(2001)-soil Simav Earthquake M s =5.8 M w =5.8 M L = M s =5.8 M w =5.8 M L = HYPOCENTER DISTANCE (km) 2 1 V s =259 m/s =0,180 =90 =270 Observation HYPOCENTER DISTANCE (km)

16 Collapse of Simple Structures Gökçeler Gökçeler Simav Simav Yeşilova

17 Investigation Routes Base map from Google

18 Building Damage Mosques Monuments Hımış Building (Timber Frame with adobe infill walls) Stone Masonry Buildings Brick Masonry Buildings Reinforced Concrete Buildings Non-structural damage

19 Simav Mosque 1

20 Simav Mosque 2

21 Simav Mosque 3 Yeşilova Mosque

22 Karaderbent Mosque Damaged in 1970 Gediz Earthquake

23 Performance of some historical tombs and monuments

24 Damage to Hımış or masonry buildings Gökçeler Simav Karaderbent Karamanca

25 Simav - Downtown Complete collapse of ground floor due to soft floor problem

26 Koyuncuoğlu High School. Soft floor problem

27 Simav - Esenler Damage at lower floors due to cracking between frame and infill walls

28 Simav - Esenler Damage at lower floors due to cracking between frame and infill walls

29 Non-structural damage(window Glass Breakage)

30 Kanal-1 Bridge (near Eynal Spa) No damage except dislocation of embankment protection stone blocks

31 Non-damaged bridges Near Gökçeler Near Gökçeler Near Gökçeler

32 Damage to Lifelines Yeşilova Substation Pumping Stations Water pipes

33 Yeşilova Sub-station No major problem cm dislocation of transformers and perimetrical damage to infill walls

34 Drinking water facilities Yeşilova Karamanca Simav

35 Geotechnical Damage Liquefaction Embankment failure Retaining-wall failure Slope Failure and Rock Falls Performance of Earthfill Dam Performance of Eti Gümüş Tailing dams

36 Soil Liquefaction There is a at least a 8 m thick clay layer at top. The buildings on flat ground are founded over this clay layer. The site investigation clearly shows that there are some slight settlement of ground up-to 5 cm in the downtown of Simav. This may imply a partial liquefaction of soil layers below the top clay layer.furthermore, this top soft layer may amplify ground motions with peculiar frequencies. Simav Settlement Uplift

37 Embankment failure (Near Gökçeler)

38 Retaining-wall failure (near Gökçeler)

39 Near Söğüt Toppling Failure and Rock Falls Near Karamanca Near Karamanca Near Karamanca

40 Planar or wedge sliding failure Near Söğüt Near Karamanca Near Karamanca Near Karamanca Near Karamanca

41 Non-damaged earthfill dam near Gökçeler The earthfill dam was not damaged although it was 1 km away from the epicenter

42 Performance of Eti Gümüş Tailing dams Plan View Tailing dam between 2nd & 3rd ponds Tailing dams failed due to piping and overtopping the newly elevated part over the existing dam before the earthquake. The perimetrical dam has been strengthened now. The maximum ground acceleration at the dam site by this earthquake should be about 20 gals, which could not induce any damage to tailings dams. Open-pit mine

43 References Aydan, Ö., M. Sezaki, R. Yarar (1996). The seismic characteristics of Turkish Earthquakes. The 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., CD-2, Paper No:1270. Aydan, Ö. and Ohta, Y. (2011a): A new proposal for strong ground motion estimations with the consideration of characteristics of earthquake fault. Seventh National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,, Istanbul, Turkey. Aydan, Ö. and Ohta, Y. (2011b):The erratic pattern screening (EPS) method for estimation of co-seismic defromation of ground from acceleration records and its applications.. Seventh National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,, Istanbul, Turkey. EMSC: ED: Google Map:

44 KOERI: Oygür, V. and Erler, A. (2000):Metallogeny of the Simav Grab en (Inner-Western Anatolia, Turkey). Geological Bulletin of Turkey Vol.43, No. 1, USGS:

45 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Yavuz Erkmen, the Governor and İl Özel İdare of Denizli Province for logistic support and the participation of Recep Demirci of İl Afet and Acil Durum Director of Denizli Province and Erhan Ar of İl Özel Director of Kütahya Province and information on strong motions records and stations given by Turgay Kuru of Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ankara.