Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pepi

Effect of soil conditions on predicted ground motion: Case study

from Western Anatolia, Turkey
Elcin Gok a,⇑, Francisco J. Chávez-García b, Orhan Polat c
a
Dokuz Eylul University, Earthquake Research and Implementation Center, Izmir 35160, Turkey
b
Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán 04510, Mexico
c
Dokuz Eylul University, Engineering Faculty, Department of Geophysics, Izmir 35160, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We present a site effect study for the city of Izmir, Western Anatolia, Turkey. Local amplification was
Received 15 November 2013 evaluated using state-of-practice tools. Ten earthquakes recorded at 16 sites were analysed using spectral
Received in revised form 14 January 2014 ratios relative to a reference site, horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios, and an inversion scheme of the
Accepted 14 January 2014
Fourier amplitude spectra of the recorded S-waves. Seismic noise records were also used to estimate site
Available online 24 January 2014
Edited by Vernon F. Cormier
effects. The different estimates are in good agreement among them, although a basic uncertainty of a fac-
tor of 2 seems difficult to decrease. We used our site effect estimates to predict ground motion in Izmir
for a possible M6.5 earthquake close to the city using stochastic modelling. Site effects have a large
Keywords:
Izmir
impact on PSV (pseudospectral velocity), where local amplification increases amplitudes by almost a fac-
Site effect tor of 9 at 1 Hz relative to the firm ground condition. Our results allow identifying the neighbourhoods of
Spectral ratio Izmir where hazard mitigation measurements are a priority task and will also be useful for planning
Strong motion urban development.
Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Earthquake ground motion is usually explained in terms of the
contributions of three groups of factors: source, path, and site ef-
fects. In order to predict ground motion for future earthquakes,
we must characterize somehow each one of them. Destructive
earthquake ground motion evidently requires the liberation of en-
ough energy at a fault. However, it is site effects, that is, the local
amplification due to mechanical or geometrical irregularities close
to the Earth’s surface, that frequently condition damage distribu-
tion at places not directly over the fault. Through the study of site
effects we may be able to constrain a major factor of destructive
ground motion during future earthquakes (Chávez-García, 2011),
provided we are able to estimate reliable transfer function for
the local amplification at the site of interest. Sites with high seis-
mic risk require instrumentation and measurements to estimate
local amplification for the next future earthquakes.
Izmir is the 3rd largest city of Turkey, after Istanbul and Ankara,
with more than 3.5 million inhabitants. In spite of its importance,
and the repeated occurrence of large earthquakes in the region, it
was not until 2008 that a modern seismic network (IzmirNET)
could be installed there (Polat et al., 2009). The purposes of this
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 232 3017284; fax: +90 232 4538366.
E-mail address: elcin.gok@deu.edu.tr (E. Gok).
array are to monitor seismic activity in the region, to collect data
for earthquake hazard assessment studies, to provide seismic re-
cords to evaluate possible site effects in the city of Izmir, and even-
tually to develop a rapid response and damage prediction system
that can be used to evaluate earthquake shaking and damage on
an almost real-time basis.
In this paper we address the estimation of site effects in Izmir
using data from IzmirNET. We compare results obtained using
earthquake data with those using ambient vibration records. The
results of different techniques of analyses are contrasted. Different
data and techniques result in different amplification estimates.
Lacking subsoil data, we are unable to select a single estimate as
being more reliable. However, the different estimates allow us to
estimate at least part of the uncertainty with which we can predict
soil amplification for the next earthquake. Finally, we used the lo-
cal amplification to predict ground motion variations in Izmir for
one of the likely events that will affect the city in the future. We
use the stochastic modelling method to predict ground motion
for a M6.5 close to Izmir. Predicted ground motion shows a very
large effect on PSV (pseudospectral velocity) with maximum
amplification reaching almost a factor of 9 at 1 Hz relative to the
firm ground condition. Large variations are observed throughout
the city. Our results allow identifying the neighbourhoods of Izmir
where hazard mitigation measurements are a priority task and will
also be useful for planning urban development.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2014.01.011
0031-9201/Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 E. Gok et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97 89

2. Setting and data Table 1

Parameters of the earthquakes used in this study. Location parameters were taken
from the AFAD Presidency of Earthquake Directorate (DDB) in Ankara. Nr is the event
The Aegean region of Turkey is characterized by wide scale number, origin time is given in GMT, h is focal depth, and ML is local magnitude.
extension, and several large scale graben structures oriented on
No. Date Time Lat. (°, N) Lon. (°, E) h (km) ML
the E–W direction. Damaging earthquakes in these grabens show
normal fault mechanisms in agreement with the N–S extensional 1 20090217 05:28 39.1488 29.0448 7 4.8
2 20090314 18:53 38.8232 26.8378 25 3.9
tectonics (Bozkurt, 2001; Eyidogan and Jackson, 1985). Recent
3 20090330 22:22 38.8825 26.1492 26 3.9
studies based on surface morphology and marine seismic reflec- 4 20090507 23:46 39.2883 27.9308 28 4.1
tions provide evidence of active faults in the area (Emre and Barka, 5 20090620 08:28 37.6532 26.8827 3 4.7
2000; Ocakoglu et al., 2004, 2005). Moderate size earthquakes are 6 20090830 00:42 38.5108 26.3293 26 4.2
usual near the study area (Polat et al., 2008). 7 20091204 06:02 37.9212 28.8400 14 4.8
8 20091223 04:44 37.5755 26.2378 27 4.0
Izmir Bay is a shallow marine basin, controlled by active faults
9 20100326 18:35 38.1457 26.1770 24 4.7
(Fig. 1). The bay comprises a Paleocene flysch zone, a Miocene sed- 10 20101114 05:21 37.8558 27.3385 19 4.1
imentary sequence (sandstones, mudstones), volcanic sediments
from the Miocene, and Plio-Quaternary alluvial deposits (Uzel
et al., 2012). GPS measurements and present seismicity indicate
that the area is under E–W shortening in addition to N–S extension
(McClusky et al., 2000; Aktar et al., 2007; Aktug and Kilicoglu,
2006).
Thanks to a cooperation project between Dokuz Eylul Univer-
sity in Izmir and the Earthquake Department of the Presidency of
Disaster and Emergency Management Directorate in Ankara, a local
accelerograph permanent array was deployed in Izmir (Polat et al.,
2009). One of the main objectives of this network is to study site
effects. For this reason, the 16 stations of the array were distrib-
uted on the different geological formations at the surface (Fig. 1).
Stations consist of 24-bit Guralp CMG-5TD accelerographs. Data
is continuously streamed to the central recording facility at Ankara
and mirrored to Dokuz Eylul University in Izmir. A detailed
description of the instruments and the array is given in Polat
et al. (2009).
We selected 10 regional earthquakes to estimate site effects.
These events were well recorded by IzmirNET (only 7 records are
missing from the possible 160). The relevant parameters of the Fig. 2. Epicenter of the events analyzed in this study (solid circles). The numbers
events are given in Table 1 and their location relative to Izmir is correspond to Table 1. Solid triangles show the stations of IzmirNET.
shown in Fig. 2. Local magnitudes vary from 3.9 to 4.8 and hypo-
central distances from 50 to 216 km. From the available 153 re-
cords we selected a window from the record that included the S- removed and a cosine taper applied over 10% of the duration before
waves. The windows start about 3 s before the S-wave arrival Fourier transform was computed. Fourier amplitude spectra were
and have between 10 and 13 s duration. Fig. 3 shows an example smoothed using a Konno and Ohmachi (1998) window with a b-
of window selection for four stations that recorded event number parameter of 40. This window provides increased smoothing with
5 in Table 1. The window length is a compromise to accommodate increasing frequency. We verified that the results were no different
the largest amplitudes in the records for the epicentral distance using, for example, the 1/3 octave square smoothing window of
range spanned by the selected events. The trace mean value was Lermo and Chávez-García (1994). The final, smoothed Fourier

Fig. 1. Geologic and tectonic map of Izmir and surrounding area (after Gok, 2011). The stations of IzmirNET are shown with solid triangles. Thick lines indicate active faults:
Izmir fault (IF), Karsiyaka fault (KF), Seferihisar fault (SF), and the Orhanli-Tuzla Fault Zone (OFZ). The star shows the epicenter of the M6.5 earthquake forecasted by Polat
et al. (2008).
90 E. Gok et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97
Fig. 3. Example of the earthquake records analyzed in this study. Traces at four
stations are shown for event number 5 in Table 1 for the three recorded
components. All traces are plotted at the same scale. The bracket above each trace
shows the window selected for the analysis of S-waves.
amplitude spectra were used as input for the different methods
used to estimate site effects.
In addition to earthquake data, we also estimated local amplifi-
cation using seismic noise records. From the continuous operation
of IzmirNET, we selected about 30 min of seismic noise records.
A local transfer function was estimated using horizontal to vertical
spectral ratios as explained below. Because doubts have been
raised on the use of seismic noise recorded using FBA (force
balance accelerometer) sensors to estimate site effects (e.g.,
Mucciarelli, 1998; Guillier et al., 2008), we also analysed 30 min
of seismic noise recorded at each site using a Guralp CMG-6TD
broad band seismometer. In each case we tested different window
lengths and checked that this parameter had no influence on the
results. The results shown are the average of 11 300-s windows.
Successive windows had an overlap of 50%. Signal processing
followed the same processing and used the same smoothing as
for the earthquake data.
3. Site effect computation
Earthquake data were analysed using three independent, con-
ventional techniques to estimate site effects: standards spectral ra-
tios, i.e., spectral ratios relative to a reference site (SSR), horizontal
to vertical component spectral ratios (HVSR), and a generalized
inversion scheme (GIS). SSR was introduced a long time ago
(Borcherdt, 1970). It has been widely used and discussed in the
literature (e.g., Chávez-García et al., 1990; Safak, 2001; Ozel
et al., 2002). SSR were computed using two different references.
We chose MNV as our first reference station based on geology (it
is located on andesites of the Miocene) and on inspection of the
time signals for all 10 earthquakes. MNV showed the smallest
amplitudes and durations for all our events. SSR relative to MNV
were computed for each horizontal component. To make sure that
the results did not depend on the reference station, we also com-
puted SSR using a composite reference station, following Yu and
Haines (2003). We averaged the horizontal Fourier spectra of the
records obtained at stations BUC, BYR, YMN, and MNV. Again,
surface geology was the first factor took into account to select
these stations but we also considered the results of SSR relative
to reference station MNV. Ratios relative to the composite station
averaged both horizontal components. The use of an average of
four stations as reference allows decreasing the variability related
to the specific response of the reference site and the sensibility
to the path between source and a single reference station, as
discussed in Yu and Haines, 2003.
Horizontal to vertical spectral ratios (HVSR) of the S-wave win-
dow were also computed. These ratios, introduced by Lermo and
Chávez-García (1993) to estimate site effects, are often applied
(e.g., Barnaba and Vuan, 2012). Finally, earthquake data were also
analysed using the generalized inversion scheme (GIS) introduced
by Andrews (1986). Detailed presentations of this technique are gi-
ven in Boatwright et al. (1991), Fletcher and Boatwright (1991).
The results in this paper were computed following closely the pro-
cedure outlined in Field and Jacob (1995). In this technique, ob-
served Fourier amplitude spectra of S waves are fit using simple
parameterized functions for the source and path effects. The ob-
served residual is ascribed to site effects. This technique has one
undetermined degree of freedom, as all the site response terms
can be multiplied by some arbitrary function of frequency, pro-
vided all the source terms are divided by the same function. It is
possible to constrain this unresolved degree of freedom by impos-
ing the amplification at one station, for example we could impose
no amplification at our reference site. However, we have preferred
not to impose zero amplification at station MNV. We prefer to
show the results obtained using GIS at MNV, as an estimate of that
trade-off. For this reason, the result for each site may be considered
as the average transfer function computed relative to the average
amplification for the complete network. This is not a problem be-
cause we are able to compare local amplification computed using
different techniques.
 E. Gok et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97 91

In addition to earthquake data, we analysed ambient vibration

records to estimate a local transfer function using the conventional
HVSR (Nakamura, 1989; Lermo and Chávez-García, 1994). HVSR
from seismic noise records has been thoroughly discussed in the
literature (e.g., Bard, 1999).

4. Results

First, consider the results for our reference station, MNV. Fig. 4
shows estimated site effects at this site using HVSR for earthquake
records (curves labelled hvsr) for the two horizontal components,
those obtained from the GIS technique (curves labelled gis), and
those obtained using HVSR with noise records (curves labelled
acc for noise recorded using accelerometer and cmg for noise re-
corded using a broad band seismometer). It is only the HVSR com-
puted using noise recorded using accelerometer that predicts no
amplification at this station. The curves corresponding to GIS show
a small amplification between 0.7 and 2 Hz with amplitude about
2. HVSR for earthquake records and HVSR computed using noise
recorded with a broad band seismometer show some amplification
without any peak. With the exception of HVSR for seismometer re-
corded seismic noise, amplification is smaller than a factor 2. This
basic uncertainty factor seems difficult to decrease and has been
mentioned in similar studies (e.g. King and Tucker, 1984; Jarpe
et al., 1988; Chávez-García et al., 1990).
Fig. 5 shows the local amplification determined for site BLC
using SSR for the ten selected earthquakes. The thin lines show
SSR computed for each event, while the thick solid line shows
the average curve. The scatter is significant but again not larger
than the factor of 2. Amplification values at frequencies below
0.6 Hz are not reliable due to small signal-to-noise ratio. The
dashed thick lines in the two upper diagrams of Fig. 5 show the
average amplification determined using HVSR of the S-wave win-
dows. HVSR is in very good agreement with the average results Fig. 5. Amplification measured at site BLC using SSR relative to station MNV for the
10 earthquakes we analysed. The three components are shown separately. Each thin
from SSR for frequencies below 10 Hz, and within the scatter of
solid line corresponds to an earthquake. The thick solid line indicates average
the estimates for each event. Average amplification at this site, amplification for each component. The thick dashed line shows average amplifi-
on Quaternary alluvium, reaches a factor of 4.5 at about 3 Hz. Ver- cation determined for the horizontal components using HVSR.
tical component shows significant amplification for frequencies
above 10 Hz but the amplification for frequencies below that
quencies, where the largest amplification is observed on the hori-
shows very small values in average. The absence of amplification
zontal components. High frequency amplification (as that
in the vertical component for frequencies below 10 Hz explains
observed in the vertical component) is not a concern because site
the good agreement observed between SSR and HVSR at low fre-
effects appear at low frequencies and because we expect that input
earthquake ground motion will not have large amplitudes above
10 Hz due to anelastic attenuation.
Fig. 6 compares amplification estimates at site BLC from the dif-
ferent methods: SSR for the two reference sites, HVSR, and GIS.
Each of those curves corresponds to the average computed for
the 10 analyzed earthquakes. We observe a good agreement among
all curves although the maximum estimated amplification varies
between 4 and 7 in the band between 3 and 5 Hz. Maximum ampli-
fication is observed for HVSR but these curves are within the scat-
ter of SSR for the ten events, as mentioned above. We
approximated two simple functions to represent site effects shown
with discontinuous lines in Fig. 6: an average amplification func-
tion (mean amp.) and envelope amplification function (max
amp.). We imposed that both functions tend to unit amplitude at
low (smaller than 0.5 Hz) and high frequencies (larger than
10 Hz), where our results are marred by poor signal-to-noise ratio.
The average amplification function intends to represent the mean
amplification at the site for the different average estimates. The
envelope amplification function aims to provide an upper limit
Fig. 4. Local transfer function estimated at our reference station, MNV. The labels estimate for average local amplification. However, given that re-
‘‘ew’’ and ‘‘ns’’ correspond to the two different horizontal components. Site effects
were estimated using HVSR for earthquake records (curves hvsr), the GIS technique
sults for individual earthquakes may be larger than the average
(curves gis) and HVSR computed using seismic noise recorded with acceleration curve, our ‘‘max amp.’’ amplification function is smaller than
(acc) or velocity (cmg) sensors. would be an envelope of all the individual amplification estimates.
92 E. Gok et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97
Fig. 6. Horizontal amplification estimated at site BLC using earthquake data. The
different curves show average amplification determined from SSR relative to station
MNV (ssr ns and ssr ew for the corresponding components), GIS, HVSR, and SSR
relative to the composite station formed by records at BUC, BYR, YMN, and MNV
(yu, a single curve as it corresponds to the average of both horizontal components).
The two thick lines labelled as mean and max amp. show the simplified functions
selected to represent an average amplification function and an envelope of the
different curves.
The shapes of the ‘‘mean amp.’’ and ‘‘max amp.’’ functions are not
intended to represent in detail the observed transfer functions but
to provide simple functions that can be used to estimate the im-
pact of site effects on ground motion for a future earthquake. Sim-
ilar results are given for two other stations, BYN and MVS, also on
Quaternary alluvium, in Fig. 7. We observe again a good agreement
among all amplification estimates. Results in this figure suggest
that sediment thicknesses are considerably larger on the north
coast of Izmir bay. Maximum average amplification is observed
for the GIS results, a factor of 10 at about 1 Hz. Again, Fig. 7 shows
the simplified average (mean amp.) and envelope amplification
(max amp.) functions. Amplitudes of the simplified functions tend
to unity at low and high frequencies and are meant to represent
average amplification for all the different techniques used (mean
amp.) or an upper estimate of the average local amplification
(max amp.). These simplified functions will be used to predict
ground motion at each of IzmirNET sites.
Similar results were observed for all the other stations. In all
cases, we approximated the observed transfer functions with sim-
plified functions representing the average amplification and enve-
lope amplification. The latter is conservative with regard to
average values but is not conservative with regard to amplification
estimates for individual events. Fig. 8 shows these two amplifica-
tion functions for all the stations. Average amplification peaks at
a factor of 6 but the conservative estimate attains a factor 10.
Fig. 7. Horizontal amplification estimates at sites BYN and MVS using earthquake
data. The different curves show average amplification determined from SSR relative
to station MNV (ssr ns and ssr ew for the corresponding components), GIS, HVSR,
and SSR relative to the composite station formed by records at BUC, BYR, YMN, and
MNV (yu, a single curve as it corresponds to the average of both horizontal
components). The two thick lines labelled as mean and max amp. show the
simplified functions selected to represent an average amplification function and an
envelope of the different curves.
Maximum amplification occurs about 1 Hz and therefore we ex-
pect that site effects will affect more velocity response spectra
and peak ground velocity than acceleration response spectra or
peak ground acceleration.
Consider now the estimates of site effects obtained using HVSR
on seismic noise records. Fig. 9 compares the results obtained
using seismic noise recorded with an accelerometer and a seis-
mometer for the two stations of IzmirNET whose results for earth-
quake data were shown in Fig. 7. The shape of the amplification
functions is the same for both accelerometer and seismometer data
but amplitudes for accelerometer data are significantly smaller.
The comparison with the earthquake derived simplified amplifica-
tion functions suggests that it is the amplification obtained from
seismometer data that is closer to earthquake amplification esti-
mates, albeit only at low frequencies. HVSR of seismic noise re-
cords is known to provide a good estimate of the frequency and
amplification of the first resonant peak only, without information
of amplification at higher frequencies (Lermo and Chávez-García,
1994). In contrast, Fig. 10 shows the results for station GZL. In this
case, acceleration and velocity noise records show similar HVSR for
frequencies larger than 2 Hz. At smaller frequencies, results for the
CMG sensor show large amplitudes, not observed in the HVSR for
acceleration data. Fig. 10 also shows the average horizontal
 E. Gok et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97
Fig. 8. Final amplification functions selected to represent average amplification (mean amp.) and the envelope of the different average curves (max amp.). These functions are
shown for the 16 sites of IzmirNET.
amplification obtained from earthquake data using SSR and the
composite reference station. SSR predicts no amplification at GZL,
in good agreement with HVSR computed from acceleration re-
cords. The large amplification observed at low frequencies from
CMG data is an artefact, probably due to insufficient time for mass
stabilization for the broad band sensor. Thus, there are drawbacks
in the use of both acceleration and velocity to record seismic noise
to estimate site effects using HVSR, a problem that has been men-
tioned repeatedly (Guillier et al., 2008; Atakan, 2009). Unfortu-
nately, it is not always possible to use the two types of sensors
simultaneously.
5. Impact of site effects on expected ground motion
Izmir is subjected to a large seismic risk. Seismicity in the re-
gion during the 20th century consists mainly of dispersed, small
events (a large part of the scatter in the epicentres probably comes
from the lack of a modern seismic network). Although very large
earthquakes in its close vicinity are not likely, medium size events
have caused significant damage in the past. Polat et al. (2008)
listed 26 destructive events in the period 1900–2003 (magnitudes
in the range 5.8–7). Based on the Hurst algorithm (Hurst, 1951;
Cisternas et al., 2004), Polat et al. (2008) forecasted an M6.5 earth-
quake near the SW end of the Orhanli-Tuzla Fault zone, about
40 km to the south of the Gulf of Izmir (see, Fig. 1). We evaluated
the impact of site effects on simulated ground motion for this fore-
casted event using the stochastic modelling method. Our purpose
is to translate the site amplification functions determined above
into measurements more directly applicable for earthquake hazard
93
mitigation, such as PSV and intensity. We have used the package
SMSIM (Boore, 2000) to simulate expected ground motion. The sto-
chastic modelling method is based on the assumption that the
amplitude of ground motion at a site can be specified in a deter-
ministic way, with a random phase spectrum modified such that
the motion is distributed over a duration related to the earthquake
magnitude and to distance from the source. It is particularly useful
for simulating the higher-frequency ground motions of most inter-
est to engineers, and it is widely used to predict ground motions
for regions of the world in which recordings of motion from dam-
aging earthquakes are not available. The details of the method, its
hypotheses and the functional forms used to model source and
path are thoroughly explained in the descriptions of the method gi-
ven in (Boore, 1983, 1986, 2003; Boore and Joyner, 1984; Joyner
and Boore, 1988) and will not be repeated here. Lacking estimates
for the predicted event we model, we have used the parameters
suggested in (Boore, 2000). We are interested in the ground motion
differences introduced by site effects and therefore we compare
simulations computed assuming firm ground conditions with
those considering site effects with the simplified functions (mean
amp. and max amp.) discussed previously and shown on Fig. 7.
Fig. 11 shows the prediction results for stations BYN and MVS.
The curves labelled firm ground show the PSV predicted at each
site assuming no amplification. The two other predicted PSV show
the results of including the average or the conservative amplifica-
tion estimates in the simulation procedure. The impact of site ef-
fects on PSV is very large in the frequency range between 0.3 and
7 Hz. For example, at 1 Hz, the predicted PSV at a rock site at the
same distance from the source as MVS is 4.2 cm/s. If we include
94 E. Gok et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97
Fig. 9. Horizontal amplification estimated at sites BYN and MVS using HVSR with
seismic noise records. The thin lines show the results for noise recorded using FBA
(acc) and for noise recorded with a broad band seismometer (cmg). The results
show a very similar shape but the amplification level is larger for the HVSR from
velocity records. The two thick lines labelled mean and max amp. show the
simplified amplification functions determined from the analysis of earthquake data
at those two sites.
Fig. 10. Horizontal amplification estimated at site GZL using HVSR with seismic
noise records. The different lines show the results for noise recorded using FBA (acc)
and for noise recorded with a broad band seismometer (cmg). The line labelled yu
shows the amplification function estimated using SSR relative to the composite
reference station.
the average amplification curve determined for that site, PSV in-
creases by a factor larger than 5–24.4 cm/s. If the envelope
Fig. 11. Simulated PSV at sites BYN and MVS for a hypothetical M6.5 earthquake
close to Izmir (in parenthesis the epicentral distance for each station). The three
curves correspond to the simulated PSV assuming no amplification at the site (firm
ground condition), average amplification determined from earthquake records
(mean amp. curves in Fig. 8), and a more conservative estimate of the amplification
at each site (max amp. curves in Fig. 8).
amplification curve for MVS is considered, PSV attains 37.9 cm/s,
a factor larger than 8 relative to the firm ground condition.
The results for all sites are summarized in Fig. 12. This figure
shows predicted PGA and PGV as a function of distance for three
different conditions: firm ground, average amplification estimate,
and conservative amplification estimate. As expected, site effects
in Izmir affect more significantly PGV (amplification relative to
firm ground reaches a factor of 3) than PGA (maximum amplifica-
tion is about a factor 2). Another way of showing the results is gi-
ven in Fig. 13. This figure shows the distribution in the city of Izmir
of predicted PSV at 1 s period. Site effects produce very significant
variations in the chosen measure of intensity. Fig. 13 gives a first
indication of the parts of the city where hazard mitigation is a pri-
ority. It also suggests that it is necessary to install additional sta-
tions in the northern coast of Izmir Gulf.
It is possible to relate site effect amplification observed in terms
of PGA and PGV to the expected intensity increase. For example, let
us consider the relations developed by Faenza and Michelini
(2010) for Italy between PGA or PGV and the MCS (Mercalli–Canca-
ni–Sieberg) intensity scale. (Results would be very similar in terms
of the Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI scale. See Muson et al.
(2010), for a detailed discussion of the different intensity scales
and their equivalence.) According to those relations, the PGA val-
ues we computed on rock outcrops for our scenario earthquake
 E. Gok et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97
Fig. 12. PGA and PGV as a function of epicentral distance simulated for the 16 sites
of IzmirNET. The three curves shown correspond to the simulation of ground
motion assuming no amplification at each site (firm ground condition), average
amplification determined from earthquake records (mean amp. curves in Fig. 8),
and a more conservative estimate of the amplification at each site (max amp. curves
in Fig. 8).
imply MCS intensities in Izmir between 5.6 and 5.9. If we use the
predicted PGV for the scenario event, MCS intensities on rock
would vary between 7.8 and 8.1 in Izmir. These MCS intensity val-
ues are increased when we include site effect amplification. If we
Fig. 13. Distribution of amplitude values of PSV at 1 s period in the city of Izmir for the expected M6.5 earthquake to the south (epicenter shown in Fig. 1). The large
significance of site effects is clearly shown as sites at similar epicentral distances show large differences in predicted intensity. The solid triangles show the locations of
IzmirNET stations.
95
consider the envelope amplification function, for example, the
equations given in Faenza and Michelini (2010) indicate an inten-
sity increase between 0.2 and 0.5 on soft soils in Izmir. Our results
allow to map these intensity increases and even to evaluate their
variation on the Quaternary alluvium, where site effects originate
a significant increase in seismic hazard for Izmir.
6. Conclusions
In spite of its importance and its sizeable seismic risk, earth-
quake data in Izmir was only available from the operation of tem-
porary seismic stations. The recent installation of IzmirNET, a
permanent, continuous recording, high sensitivity accelerograph
network, fills a large gap in seismic monitoring of the 3rd largest
city in Turkey. In this paper, we used data recorded by IzmirNET
to evaluate site effects in the city. Site effects are a major compo-
nent of destructive earthquake ground motion, but they are spe-
cific to a site and therefore cannot be extrapolated from
measurements elsewhere.
We estimated local amplification from the analysis of ten well
recorded earthquakes. Earthquake S-wave windows were used to
estimate site effects based on spectral ratios relative to a reference
site (SSR), horizontal to vertical spectral ratios (HVSR), and a gen-
eralized inversion scheme (GIS). SSR were computed using a rock
station as reference and also using a composite reference station
built from horizontal motion recorded at four rock stations. The
average transfer functions from the different methods are in good
agreement and fall within the scatter shown by the SSR estimates
for individual events. This suggests that our amplification esti-
mates are very reliable. This also suggests that the basic uncer-
tainty of a factor 2, frequently invoked, is difficult to reduce, a
fact often overlooked when considering average estimates. Our
estimates for site amplification in Izmir can be improved when
the data from geotechnical boreholes drilled in the city becomes
available.
We also used seismic noise records to estimate site effects using
HVSR. Seismic noise recorded by both accelerometer and seismom-
eter were compared. Although the shapes of the transfer functions
were very similar in all cases, HVSR computed from velocity data
showed larger amplitudes, in better agreement with earthquake
data. However, in some cases, seismometer recorded seismic noise
incorrectly suggested amplification at low frequencies, as has been
96 E. Gok et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97
shown previously (Guillier et al., 2008; Atakan, 2009). HVSR of
seismic noise correctly predicted the frequency of the first peak
of the transfer function and its amplitude (in the case of seismom-
eter data). However, after that first peak, the amplitude of the noise
HVSR decreases and no information is retrieved for amplification
observed at higher frequencies in the earthquake data. This prob-
lem had been already signalled in Lermo and Chávez-García
(1994).
Observed site effects from earthquake data were approximated
at each site using two simplified functions, one for average ampli-
fication and an envelope of the different average amplification esti-
mates. These amplification functions were used to predict ground
motion in Izmir for a hypothesized M6.5 earthquake, a very likely
event according to previous hazard evaluations. The stochastic
simulation method predicts a PGV between 3.95 cm/s (at 44 km
epicentral distance) and 2.24 cm/s (at 65 km) on firm ground con-
ditions. These values increase by factors as large as 3 on Quater-
nary alluvium due to site effects. Local amplification translates in
an increase of 0.5 MCS intensity. Our results allow mapping these
intensity increases and their variation on the Quaternary alluvium,
where site effects are the cause of a significant increase in seismic
hazard for Izmir. Our results allow identifying the zones of Izmir
where hazard mitigation measurements are a priority task and will
also be useful for planning urban development.
Acknowledgments
This study is a part of the PhD Thesis of Elcin Gok. We thank
Murat Nurlu, Zafer Akcig, Rahmi Pinar, Ulubey Ceken and Murat
Kececioglu for their support. The comments by Dr. V.F. Cormier,
Editor, and by an anonymous reviewer were useful to improve
our manuscript. Figs. 1, 2 and 13 were plotted using Generic Map-
ping Tools (GMT) software (http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu). Signal
processing benefitted from the availability of SAC (Goldstein
et al., 2003). We thank Coordinación de la Investigación Científica,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, for support through its
academic exchange program. Part of this research was completed
during the sabbatical visit of one of us (FJCG) to KIGAM, Republic
of Korea. This visit was made possible by support from the Basic
Research Project of the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral
Resources (KIGAM), Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
(CONACYT), and Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Acadé-
micos of Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México through pro-
gram PASPA. This study is part of a joint collaboration between
Dokuz Eylul University in Izmir and Presidency of Disaster and
Emergency Management Directorate (AFAD), Ankara, Turkey. This
research was supported by TUBITAK-KAMAG (Project No.
106G159).
References
Aktar, M., Karabulut, H., Ozalaybey, S., Childs, D., 2007. A conjugate strike-slip fault
system within the extensional tectonics of Western Turkey. Geophys. J. Int. 171,
1363–1375.
Aktug, M., Kilicoglu, A., 2006. Recent crustal deformation of Izmir, Western Anatolia
and surrounding regions as deduced from repeated GPS measurements and
strain field. J. Geodyn. 41, 471–484.
Andrews, D.J., 1986. Objective determination of source parameters and similarity of
earthquakes of different size. In: Das, S., Boatwright, J., Scholz, C.H. (Eds.),
Earthquake Source Mechanics, vol. 37. Geophys. Monograph Series, American
Geophysical Union, pp. 259–268.
Atakan, K., 2009. The need for standardized approach for estimating the local site
effects based on ambient noise recordings. In: Mucciarelli, M., Herak, M.,
Cassidy, J. (Eds.), Increasing Seismic Safety by Combining Engineering
Technologies and Seismological Data, NATO Science for Peace and Security
Series C: Environmental Security. Springer Science & Business Media B.V,
Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 3–16.
Bard, P.Y., 1999. Microtremor measurements: a tool for site effect estimation? In:
Irikura, K., Kudo, K., Okada, K.H., Sasatani, T. (Eds.), The Effects of Surface
Geology on Seismic Motion. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1251–1279.
Barnaba, C., Vuan, A., 2012. Local site response in an alpine valley from recorded
earthquakes and ambient noise analysis. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102, 2225–
2231.
Boatwright, J., Fletcher, J.B., Fumal, T.E., 1991. A general inversion scheme for
source, site and propagation characteristics using multiply recorded sets of
moderate-sized earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 81, 1754–1782.
Boore, D.M., 1983. Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based
on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 73,
1865–1894.
Boore, D.M., 1986. Short-period P - and S-wave radiation from large earthquakes:
implications for spectral scaling relations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 76, 43–64.
Boore, D.M., 2000. SMSIM – Fortran Programs for Simulating Ground Motions from
Earthquakes: Version 2.0 – A Revision of OFR 96-80-A, U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File, Report 96-80-A, p. 73.
Boore, D.M., 2003. Prediction of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure
and Applied Geophy. 160, 635–676.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., 1984. A note on the use of random vibration theory to
predict peak amplitudes of transient signals. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74, 2035–
2039.
Borcherdt, R.D., 1970. Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco
Bay. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 60, 29–61.
Bozkurt, E., 2001. Neotectonics of Turkey, a synthesis. Geodin. Acta 14, 3–30.
Chávez-García, F.J., 2011. Site effects due to topography and to soft soil
layers: progress made and pending issues, a personal perspective. In:
Fifth International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
ISBN 978-956-7141-18-0, Chilean Geotechnical Society, pp. 105–136.
Chávez-García, F.J., Pedotti, G., Hatzfeld, D., Bard, P.Y., 1990. An experimental study
of site effects near Thessaloniki (Nothern Greece). Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 80,
784–806.
Cisternas, A., Polat, O., Rivera, L., 2004. The Marmara Sea Region: seismic behaviour
in time and the likelihood of another large earthquake near Istanbul (Turkey). J.
Seismol. 8, 427–437.
Emre O, Barka A (2000) Active faults between Gediz graben and Aegean Sea (Izmir
region), BAD-SEM 2000 Symp. Izmir (in Turkish language with English abstract).
Eyidogan, H., Jackson, J.A., 1985. A seismological study of normal faulting in the
Demirci, Alasehir, and Gediz earthquakes of 1969–1970 in the western Turkey:
implications for the nature geometry and deformation in the continental crust.
Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 81, 569–607.
Faenza, L., Michelini, A., 2010. Regression analysis of MCS intensity and ground
motion parameters in Italy and its application in ShakeMap. Geophys. J. Int. 180,
1138–1152.
Field, E.H., Jacob, K.H., 1995. A comparison and test of various site response
estimation techniques, including three that are not reference site dependent.
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85, 1127–1143.
Fletcher, J.B., Boatwright, J., 1991. Source parameters of Loma Prieta aftershocks and
wave propagation characteristics along the San Francisco Peninsula from a joint
inversion of digital seismograms. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 81, 1783–1812.
Gok, E., 2011. Investigation of Earthquake Hazard and Seismic Site Characteristic in
the Examples of Bursa and Izmir, PhD thesis, Graduate School of Natural and
Applied Science. Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir.
Goldstein, P., Dodge, D., Firpo, M., Minner, L., 2003. SAC2000: signal processing and
analysis tools for seismologists and engineers. In: Lee, W.H.K., Kanamori, H.,
Jennings, P.C., Kisslinger, C. (Eds.), Invited contribution to The IASPEI
International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology. Academic
Press, London.
Guillier, B., Atakan, K., Chatelain, J.L., Havskov, J., Ohrnberger, M., Cara, F., Duval,
A.M., Zacharopoulos, S., Teves-Costa, P., 2008. The SESAME Team, Influence of
instruments on the H/V spectral ratios of ambient vibrations. Bull. Earthquake
Eng. 6, 3–31.
Hurst, H.E., 1951. Long-term storage capacity of reservoirs. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Trans.
2447, 770–808.
Jarpe, S.P., Cramer, C.H., Tucker, B.E., Shakal, A.F., 1988. A comparison of
observations of ground response to weak and strong ground motion at
Coalinga, California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 78, 421–435.
Joyner, W.B., Boore, D.M., 1988. Measurement, characterization, and prediction of
strong ground motion. In: Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II. Proc.
Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Geotech. Eng. Div. Specialty Conf, Park City, Utah, pp. 43–
102.
King, J.L., Tucker, B.E., 1984. Observed variations of earthquake motion across a
sediment-filled valley. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74, 137–151.
Konno, K., Ohmachi, T., 1998. Ground-motion characteristics estimated from
spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor.
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 228–241.
Lermo, J., Chávez-García, F.J., 1993. Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with
only one station. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 83, 1574–1594.
Lermo, J., Chávez-García, F.J., 1994. Are microtremors useful in site response
evaluation? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 1350–1364.
McClusky, S., Balassanian, S., Barka, A.A., Demir, C., Ergintav, S., Georgiev, I., Gürkan,
O., Hamburger, H., Hurst, K., Kahle, H.G., Kastens, K., Kekelidze, G., King, R.,
Kotzev, V., Lenk, O., Mahmoud, S., Mishin, A., Nadariya, M., Ouzounis, A.,
Paradissis, D., Peter, Y., Prilepin, M., Reilinger, R.E., Sanli, I., Seeger, H., Tealeb, A.,
Toksöz, M.N., Veis, G., 2000. Global positioning system constraints on plate
 E. Gok et al. / Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 229 (2014) 88–97
kinematics and dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. J.
Geophys. Res. 105, 5695–5720.
Mucciarelli, M., 1998. Reliability and applicability range of the Nakamura’s
technique using microtremors: an experimental approach. J. Earthquake Eng.
2, 625–638.
Muson, R.M.W., Grünthal, G., Stucchi, M., 2010. The comparison of macroseismic
intensity scales. J. Seismolog. 14, 413–428.
Nakamura, Y., 1989. A method of dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface
using microtremor on the ground surface. Q Rep. RTRI. 30, 25–33.
Ocakoglu, N., Demirbag, E., Kuscu, I., 2004. Neotectonic structures in the area off
shore of Alacati, Doganbey and Kusadasi (western Turkey): evidence of strike-
slip faulting in the Aegean extensional province. Tectonophysics 391, 67–83.
Ocakoglu, N., Demirbag, E., Kuscu, I., 2005. Neotectonic structures in Izmir Gulf and
surrounding regions (western Turkey): evidences of strike-slip faulting with
compression in the Aegean extensional regime. Mar. Geol. 219, 155–171.
97
Ozel, O., Cranswick, E., Meremonte, M., Erdik, M., Safak, S., 2002. Site effects in
Avcilar, West of Istanbul, Turkey, from strong- and weak-motion data. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 499–508.
Polat, O., Gok, E., Yilmaz, D., 2008. Earthquake hazard of Aegean extension region,
Turkey. Turk. J. Earth Sci. 17, 593–614.
Polat, O., Ceken, U., Uran, T., Gok, E., Yilmaz, N., Beyhan, M., Koc, N., Arslan, B.,
Yilmaz, D., Utku, M., 2009. IzmirNet: a strong-motion network in metropolitan
Izmir, Western Anatolia, Turkey. Seismol. Res. Lett. 80, 831–838.
Safak, E., 2001. Local site effect and dynamic soil behaviour. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Engrg.
21, 453–458.
Uzel, B., Sozbilir, H., Ozkaymak, C., 2012. Neotectonic evolution of an actively
growing superimposed basin in western Anatolia: the inner bay of Izmir,
Turkey. Turk. J. Earth Sci. 21, 439–471.
Yu, J., Haines, J., 2003. The choice of reference sites for seismic ground amplification
analyses: case study at Parkway, New Zealand. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 713–
723.