Journal of Seismology

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 543–563 | Cite as

Site classification of Turkish national strong-motion stations

  • M. Abdullah Sandıkkaya
  • Mustafa Tolga YılmazEmail author
  • B. Sadık Bakır
  • Özdoğan Yılmaz
Original Article


Since 1973, the General Directorate of Disaster Affairs of Turkey has deployed several strong-motion accelerographs at selected sites. Within the framework of the project entitled Compilation of National Strong Ground Motion Database in Accordance with International Standards, site conditions were investigated within the upper 30-m depth by surface seismic and standard penetration tests. Preliminary characterization of the sites is made by making use of both geophysical and geotechnical criteria of NEHRP Provisions and Eurocode-8 site classification systems. The liquefaction susceptibility of those sites which comprise saturated cohesionless deposits is also determined. Mean shear-wave velocity, mean penetration resistance, site class, and liquefaction susceptibility of each site are tabulated. The Turkish strong-motion database supplemented by detailed information on site conditions is a valuable source of information particularly for those studies that put emphasis on the relationship between site conditions and strong-motion parameters.


Site classification Penetration resistance Shear-wave velocity Strong-motion database 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akkar S, Çağnan Z, Yenier E, Erdoğan Ö, Sandıkkaya A, Gülkan P (2009) The recently compiled Turkish strong-motion database: preliminary investigation for seismological parameters. J Seismol doi: 10.1007/s10950-009-9176-90
  2. Athanasopoulos GA (1995) Emprical correlations Vs-NSPT for soils of Greece: a comparative study of reliability. In: Çakmak AS (ed) Proc. 7th int. conf. on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, pp 19–36Google Scholar
  3. Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site dependent response spectra for design methodology and justification. Earthq Spectra 10(4):617–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design. McGraw Hill, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  5. Building Seismic Safety Council, BSSC (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, part 1 - provisions and part 2 – commentary. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Çelebi M, Akkar S, Gülerce U, Şanlı A, Bundock H, Salkın A (2001) Main shock and aftershock records of the 1999 İzmit and Düzce, Turkey earthquakes, USGS/OFDA Project [USGS Project No.: 1-7460-63170], USGS Open-File Report 01-163Google Scholar
  7. Day RW (2000) Geotechnical engineer’s portable handbook. McGraw Hill, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  8. Dikmen Ü (2009) Statistical correlations of shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for soils. J Geophys Eng 6(1):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dobry R, Oweis I, Urzua A (1976) Simplified procedures for estimating the fundamental period of a soil profile. Bull Seismol Soc Am 66(4):1293–1321Google Scholar
  10. Dobry R, Borcherdt RD, Crouse CB, Idriss IM, Joyner WB, Martin GR, Power MS, Rinne EE, Seed RB (2000) New site coefficients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions. Earthq Spectra 16(1):41–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elton DJ, Hadj-Hamou T (1990) Liquefaction potential map for Charleston, South Carolina. J Geotech Eng 116(2):245–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Committee for Standardization, CEN (2003) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance – part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN-1998-1: 2003. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Hasancebi N, Ulusay R (2007) Empirical correlations between shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for ground shaking assessments. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66(2):203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joyner WB, Warrick RE, Fumal TE (1981) The effect of quaternary alluvium on strong-ground motion in the Coyote Lake, California, earthquake of 1979. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(4):1333–1349Google Scholar
  15. Kim DS, Yoon JK (2006) Development of new site classification system for the regions of shallow bedrock in Korea. J Earthqu Eng 10(3):331–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Kudo K, Kanno T, Okada H, Özel O, Erdik M, Sasatani T, Higashi S, Takahashi M, Yoshida K (2002) Site-specific issues for strong ground motions during the Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake of 17 August 1999, as inferred from array observations of microtremors and aftershocks. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(1):448–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee SHH (1992) Analysis of the multicollinearity of regression equations of shear wave velocities. Soils Found 32(1):205–214Google Scholar
  19. Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J (1997) Multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW)—a summary report of technical aspects, experimental results, and perspective. Kansas Geological Survey Open File Report 97-10, KSGoogle Scholar
  20. Park CB, Miller RD, Xia J (1999) Multi-channel analysis of surface waves. Geophsics 64(3):800–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phung V, Atkinson GM, Lau DT (2006) Methodology for site classification estimation using strong-motion data from the Chi-Chi Taiwan earthquake. Earthq Spectra 22(2):511–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pitilakis K, Raptakis D, Lontzetidis K, Tika-Vassilikou Th, Jongmans D (1999) Geotechnical and geophysical description of euro-seistest, using field, laboratory tests and moderate strong motion recordings. J Earthqu Eng 3(3):381–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rathje EM, Stokoe KH II, Rosenblad B (2003) Strong-motion station characterization and site effects during the 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Earthq Spectra 19(3):653–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rey J, Faccioli E, Bommer JJ (2002) Derivation of design soil coefficients (S) and response spectral shapes for Eurocode 8 using the European strong-motion database. J Seismol 6:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodriguez-Marek A, Bray JD, Abrahamson NA (2001) An empirical geotechnical site response procedure. Earthq Spectra 17(1):65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenblad BL, Rathje EM, Stokoe KH (2002) Shear wave velocity profiling by SASW method at selected strong-motion stations in Turkey. Lifelines projects topic 2—site response report no. 2A02a. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  27. Seed HB (1979) Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during earthquakes. ASCE J Geotech Eng Div 105(2):201–255Google Scholar
  28. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  29. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute MonographGoogle Scholar
  30. Seed HB, Ugas C, Lysmer J (1976) Site-dependent spectra for earthquake-resistant desing. Bull Seismol Soc Am 66(1):221–244Google Scholar
  31. Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 111(12):1425–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB (1999) Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh waves. Geophysics 64(3):691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB, Tian G (2003) Inversion of high frequency surface waves with fundamental and higher modes. J Appl Geophys 52:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xia J, Miller RD, Park CB, Tian G, Chen C (2004) Utilization of high frequency Rayleigh waves in near-surface geophysics. Lead Edge 23:753–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yılmaz Ö, Eser M, Sandıkkaya MA, Akkar S, Yılmaz MT, Bakır BS (2008) Comparison of shear-wave velocity–depth profiles from downhole and surface seismic experiments. In: 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  36. Youd TL, Perkins DM (1978) Mapping liquefaction induced ground failure potential. ASCE J Geotech Eng Div 104(GT4):433–446Google Scholar
  37. Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT et al (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(10):817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang J, Toksöz MN (1998) Nonlinear refraction travel time tomography. Geophysics 63(5):1726–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zaré M, Bard PY (2002) Soil motion dataset of Turkey: data processing and site classification. Soil Dyn Earthqu Eng 22(8):703–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Abdullah Sandıkkaya
    • 1
  • Mustafa Tolga Yılmaz
    • 2
    Email author
  • B. Sadık Bakır
    • 1
  • Özdoğan Yılmaz
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Engineering SciencesMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Anatolian Geophysical CompanyIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations