Cross validation of geotechnical and geophysical site characterization methods: near surface data from selected accelerometric stations in Crete (Greece)

The specification of the near surface ground conditions is highly important for the design of civil constructions. These conditions determine primarily the ability of the foundation formations to bear loads, the stress – strain relations and the corresponding settlements, as well as the soil amplification and corresponding peak ground motion in case of dynamic loading. The static and dynamic geotechnical parameters as well as the ground-type/soil-category can be determined by combining geotechnical and geophysical methods, such as engineering geological surface mapping, geotechnical drilling, in situ and laboratory testing and geophysical investigations. The above mentioned methods were combined, through the Thalis ″Geo-Characterization″ project, for the site characterization in selected sites of the Hellenic Accelerometric Network (HAN) in the area of Crete Island. The combination of the geotechnical and geophysical methods in thirteen (13) sites provided sufficient information about their limitations, setting up the minimum tests requirements in relation to the type of the geological formations. The reduced accuracy of the surface mapping in urban sites, the uncertainties introduced by the geophysical survey in sites with complex geology and the 1D data provided by the geotechnical drills are some of the causes affecting the right order and the quantity of the necessary investigation methods. Through this study the gradual improvement on the accuracy of site characterization data is going to be presented by providing characteristic examples from a total number of thirteen sites. Selected examples present sufficiently the ability, the limitations and the right order of the investigation methods.

[1]  Ali Beitollahi,et al.  Soil and sediment quality and composition as factors in the distribution of damage at the December 26, 2003, Bam area earthquake in SE Iran (Ms = 6.6) , 2009 .

[2]  H. Langer,et al.  On the Importance of Geolithological Features for the Estimate of the Site Response: The Case of Catania Metropolitan Area (Italy) , 2006 .

[3]  N. Theodoulidis,et al.  Exploring the model space and ranking a best class of models in surface-wave dispersion inversion: Application at European strong-motion sites , 2012 .

[4]  Richard D. Miller,et al.  Multichannel analysis of surface waves , 1999 .

[5]  A. Rovelli,et al.  Variations of local seismic response in Benevento (Southern Italy) using earthquakes and ambient noise recordings , 2005 .

[6]  Kyriazis Pitilakis,et al.  Parametric analysis of the seismic response of a 2D sedimentary valley: implications for code implementations of complex site effects , 2005 .

[7]  D. Rozos,et al.  Geo-Characterization at selected accelerometric stations in Crete (Greece) and comparison of earthquake data recordings with EC8 elastic spectra , 2014 .

[8]  G. Bouckovalas,et al.  Analysis of soil effects and distribution of damage from the Pyrgos 1993 (Greece) earthquake , 1996 .

[9]  R. Borcherdt Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay , 1970 .

[10]  G. Fridleifsson,et al.  Site Response as a Function of Near-Surface Geology in the South Iceland Seismic Zone , 1997 .

[11]  M. H. El Naggar,et al.  Nonlinear Analysis of Local Site Effects on Seismic Ground Response in the Bam Earthquake , 2008 .

[12]  John N. Louie,et al.  Faster, Better: Shear-Wave Velocity to 100 Meters Depth From Refraction Microtremor Arrays , 2001 .

[13]  Kyriazis Pitilakis,et al.  3D configuration of Mygdonian basin and preliminary estimate of its site response , 2005 .

[14]  Friedemann Wenzel,et al.  Engineering-Seismological Analysis of Site Effects in the Area of Cologne , 2006 .