SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Earth Sciences Knowledge and Applications / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 2

Investigation of Soil Dominant Frequency using Single-Station Microtremor Method: A Case Study for Western Part of Atatürk University Campus, Erzurum (NE Türkiye)

Ülkü Nagihan Güzelhan(Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Geological Engineering, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Türkiye)
Ekrem Kalkan(Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Türkiye)
Çağlar Özer(Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Türkiye)
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-04
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Furthermore, the findings of this passive-source study should be further validated with complementary active-source geophysical investigations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Erzurum, located in northeastern Anatolia, is one of Türkiye's most seismically active provinces.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, a microtremor investigation was conducted at 78 points in the western part of the Atatürk University Campus in Erzurum (Northeast Turkey) using the Horizontal-Vertical Spectral Ratio (HVSR) method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, the findings of this passive-source study should be further validated with complementary active-source geophysical investigations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Erzurum · Karasu Basin · Microtremor

Abstract

Erzurum, located in northeastern Anatolia, is one of Türkiye's most seismically active provinces. The city is situated at the northern end of the tectonically controlled Karasu Basin, and its urbanization is currently progressing towards the basin center. The basin fill consists mostly of volcanic-origin clay, silt, sand, gravel, and blocks, with grain sizes gradually varying from the basin edges to the center. These sediments are expected to be susceptible to local site effects during strong ground motions. Therefore, determining the soil dominant frequency (f) is important, especially for areas with high residential development potential. In this context, a microtremor investigation was conducted at 78 points in the western part of the Atatürk University Campus in Erzurum (Northeast Turkey) using the Horizontal-Vertical Spectral Ratio (HVSR) method. While the soil dominant frequencies were mostly below 1 Hz, local values reached up to 15.4 Hz. Significant H/V amplitude (A) values and low f values were detected in the study area, which is located on alluvial fan deposits. The 0.12-1 Hz range corresponds to relatively long field periods and may be significant for structures whose natural periods overlap with this range. However, structural resonance cannot be assessed solely from the soil dominant frequency and also depends on the structural system and its dynamic characteristics. If this area is opened to construction in the future, a combined assessment of both building and soil-dominant frequencies is crucial. Furthermore, the findings of this passive-source study should be further validated with complementary active-source geophysical investigations.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güzelhan, Ü. N., Kalkan, E., Özer, Ç. (2026). Investigation of Soil Dominant Frequency using Single-Station Microtremor Method: A Case Study for Western Part of Atatürk University Campus, Erzurum (NE Türkiye). International Journal of Earth Sciences Knowledge and Applications, Volume: 8 Issue: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/1494585

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (67)

  1. AFAD, 2026. The online earthquake catalog of Ministry of Interior Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) of Türkiye. http://www.deprem.gov.tr.
  2. Akbas, B., Akdeniz, A.N., Altun, A., Balci, I., Bilginer, V.E., 2011. Türkiye Geological Map. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration Ankara-Türkiye. http://www.mta.gov.tr, Ankara-Türkiye, [Accessed January 2026].
  3. Akbayram, K., Bayrak, E., Pamuk, E., Ozer, C., Kiransan, K., Varolgunes, S., 2022. Dynamic sub-surface characteristic and the active faults of the Genc District locating over the Bingol Seismic Gap of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Eastern Turkey. Natural Hazards 114 (1), 825-847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05414-8.
  4. Akbayram, K., Kiransan, K., Varolgunes, S., Buyukakpinar, P., Karasozen, E., Bayik, C., 2023. Multidisciplinary analyses of the rupture characteristic of the June 14, 2020, Mw 5.9 Kaynarpinar (Karliova, Bingol) earthquake reveal N70E-striking active faults along the Yedisu Seismic Gap of the North Anatolian Fault Zone. International Journal of Earth Sciences 112 (2), 489-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-022-02256-4.
  5. Akkaya, I., Ozvan, A., 2019. Site characterization in the Van settlement (Eastern Turkey) using surface waves and HVSR microtremor methods. Journal of Applied Geophysics 160, 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2018.11.009.
  6. Allen, M., Jackson, J., Walker, R.W., 2004. Late Cenozoic Reorganization of the Arabia-Eurasia Collision and the Comparison of Short-Term and Long-Term Deformation Rates. Tectonics 23, TC2008, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003TC001530.
  7. Anadolu, N.C., Kalyoncuoglu, U.Y., 2010. Seismicity and Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Southeastern Anatolia Region. Suleyman Demirel University, Journal of the Institute of Science 14 (1), 84-94. (in Turkish).
  8. Arpat, E.,1965. Iliса-Askale (Erzurum) Arasindaki Sahanin ve Kuzeyinin Genel Jeolojisi- Petrol Imkanlar 1, MTA Raporu. No: 4040, Ankara, Türkiye.
  9. Ates, E., 2021. Mikrotremor, Deprem ve Yuzey Dalgalarinin Cok Kanalli Analiz Yontemi Kayitlari Kullanilarak Zemin Ozelliklerinin Belirlenmesi: AFAD Kampusunden Ornek Bir Uygulama. Artvin Coruh Universitesi, Dogal Afetler Uygulama ve Arastirma Merkezi, Dogal Afetler ve Cevre Dergisi 7 (2), 240-251.
  10. Aydin, O.L., Karimi, B., Kazaz, I., 2025. Geotechnical and geophysical investigations on local site effects in Erzurum, Türkiye. Natural Hazards 121, 12837-12861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-025-07298-w.
  11. Barka, A., Bayraktutan, M.S., 1985. Active fault patterns in the vicinity of the Karasu Basin. Abstract, TJK Geological Congress 1985, p. 11.
  12. Bayrak, E., Ozer, C., Perk, C., 2020. Erzurum ve Cevresi Icin Gerilme Tensor ve Coulomb Analizleri (in Turkish with English abstract). Turk Deprem Arastirma Dergisi 2 (1), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.737222.
  13. Bayrak, E., 2022. Investigation of soil dynamic properties using horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio for Eastern Pontides, Northeast Turkey. Environmental Earth Sciences 81 (21), 514.
  14. Bayraktutan, M.S., Merefield, J.R., Grainger, P., Evans, B.M., Yilmaz, M., Kalkan, E., 1996. Regional gas geochemistry in an active tectonic zone, Erzurum Basin, eastern Turkey. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology 29, 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEGH.1996.029.P3.04.
  15. Bayraktutan, M.S., Villa, I., 1986. Geochronology and geochemistry of Paleogene Volcanic Basement of the Narman Basin, NE Turkey. International Conference on Geochronology, Cambridge, Terra Cognita, 6 (2), 186.
  16. Beker Usta, Y., Sayil, N., 2024. Microzonation based on site effect using active and passive source surface waves data: The case of Gumushane. Gumushane University Journal of Science 14 (2), 639-653. https://doi.org/10.17714/gumusfenbil.1418648.
  17. Beker, Y. 2011. KTU Yerleskesinde Mikrotremor Yontemiyle Zemin Ozelliklerinin Belirlenmesi. Y. Lisans Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, Trabzon.
  18. Bilgin, Y., 2023. Kamu binalarinda deprem-zemin-yapi etkilesiminin arastirilmasi; Erzurum ornegi. Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Universitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, Erzurum, Türkiye.
  19. Bonilla, L.F., Steidl, J.H., Lindley, G.T., Tumarkin, A.G., Archuleta, R.J., 1997. Site amplification in the San Fernando Valley, California: Variability of site-effect estimation using the S-wave, coda, and H/V methods. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 87 (3), 710-730. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0870030710.
  20. Bozkurt, E., 2001. Neotectonics of Turkey - a synthesis. Geodinamica Acta 14 (1-3), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2001.11432432.
  21. Caielli, G., de Franco, R., Di Fiore, V., Albarello, D., Catalano, S., Pergalani, F.,.Cavuoto, G., Cercato, M., Compagnoni, M., Facciorusso, J., Famiani, D., Ferri, F., Imposa, S., Martini, G., Paciello, A., Paolucci, E., Passeri, F., Piscitelli, S., Puzzilli, L.M., Vassallo, M., 2020. Extensive surface geophysical prospecting for seismic microzonation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 18, 5475-5502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00866-4.
  22. Celik, S., Ozyazicioglu, M., Sahin, R., Uysal, H., Cakici, F.Z., Kalkan, E., 2021. The destruction of Erzurum ski-jumping complex by a landslide: evaluation of an engineering design failure. Natural Hazards 107 (1), 475-496.
  23. Dogru, A., Gorgun, E., Aktug, B., Ozener, H., 2018. Seismic hazard assessment of the central North Anatolian Fault (Turkey) from GPS-derived strain rates and b-values. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 9 (1), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1441193.
  24. Duman, T.Y., Emre, O. 2013. The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics. Geological Society Special Publications-London 372, 495-529. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP372.1.
  25. Emre, O., Duman, T.Y., Ozalp, S., Elmaci, H., Olgun, S., Saroglu, F. 2013. 1/1.250.000 scaled Türkiye active fault map. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration Special Publication, http://www.mta.gov.tr.
  26. Emre, O., Duman, T.Y., Ozalp, S., Saroglu, F., Olgun, S., Elmaci, H., Can, T. 2018. Active fault database of Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16, 3229-3275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0041-2.
  27. Ercan, T., Fujitani, T., Matsuda, J., Notsu, K., Tokel, S., Ui, T., 1990. Dogu ve Guneydogu Anadolu Neojen Volkanitlerine Iliskin Yeni Jeokimyasal, Radyometrik ve Izotopik Verilerin Yorumu. MTA Dergisi 110, 143-164.
  28. Erdik, M., Demircioglu, M., Sesetyan, K., Durukal, E., Siyahi, B., 2004. Earthquake hazard in Marmara Region, Turkey. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (8), 605-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.04.003.
  29. Fadli, D. I., Awaliyah, I. A., Hadi, A. I., Farid, M., Akbar, A. J., Refrizon, R., 2023. Microzonation Site Effects and Shear Strain during Earthquake Induced Landslide Using HVSR Measurement in Ulu Mana Sub-District, South Bengkulu Regency Indonesia. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA 9 (2), 592-599.
  30. Goncuoglu, M.C., Kozlu, H., Dirik, K., 1997. PreAlpine and Alpine terranes in Turkey: explanatory notes to the terrane map of Turkey. Annales Geologiques des Pays Helleniques 37, 515-536.
  31. Gulen, L., Pinar, A., Kalafat, D., Ozel, N., Horasan, G., Yilmazer, M., Isikara, A.M., 2002. Surface fault breaks, aftershock distribution, and rupture process of the August 17, 1999 Izmit, Turkey Earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92 (1), 230-244. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000815.
  32. Guzelhan, U.N. 2023. Atatürk Universitesi kampusu batisinin zemin dinamik parametrelerinin belirlenmesi, Yuksek lisans tezi. Atatürk Universitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, Erzurum, Türkiye, (in Turkish).
  33. Huang, Q., Oncel, A.O., Sobolev, G.A., 2002. Precursory seismicity changes associated with the 1999 August 17 Izmit (Turkey) earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 151 (1), 235-242. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.2002.01762.x.
  34. Hubert-Ferrari, A., Armijo, R., King, G., Meyer, B., Barka, A. 2002. Morphology, displacement, and slip rates along the North Anatolian Fault. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 107 B10, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000393.
  35. Ibs-von Seht, M., Wohlenberg, J., 1999. Microtremor measurements used to map thickness of soft sediments. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 89 (1), 250-259. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0890010250.
  36. Kalkan, E., Yarbasi, N., 2007. Karasu Havzasi ve Havza Guneyindeki Aluvyon Cokellerin Sivilasma Potansiyeli. 60. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayi, Türkiye, 16-22 Nisan 2007, Ankara, 336-338.
  37. Karaca, S., Bayram, H., 2019. Erzurum Havzasi’nda Yerlesme ve Zemin Iliskisi. Al-Farabi International Journal on Social Sciences 3 (2), 80-98.
  38. Karsli, F., Bayrak, E. 2024. Single station microtremor surveys for site characterization: A case study in Erzurum city, eastern Turkey. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 23 (3), 563-576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-024-2257-5.
  39. Keskin, M., 1998. Erzurum- Kars Platosunun Carpisma Kokenli Volkanizmasinin Volkano Stratigrafisi ve Yeni K-Ar Yas Gruplari Isiginda Evrimi: Kuzeydogu Anadolu. MTA Dergisi 120, 135-157.
  40. Keskinsezer, A., Dag, E., 2019. Investigating of soil features and landslide risk in Western-Atakent (Istanbul) using resistivity, MASW, Microtremor and boreholes methods. Open Geosciences 11 (1), 1112-1128. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2019-0086.
  41. Kocyigit, A., Canoglu, M.C., 2017. Neotectonics and seismicity of Erzurum pull-apart basin, East Turkey. Russian Geology and Geophysics 58 (1), 99-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rgg.2016.04.015.
  42. Kocyigit, A., Ozturk, A., Inan, S., Gursoy, H., 1985. Karasu Havzasi’nin (Erzurum) Tektonomorfolojisi ve Mekanik Yorumu. Cumhuriyet Universitesi Muhendislik Fakultesi Yer Bilimleri Dergisi 2 (1), 3-15.
  43. Lermo, J., Chavez-Garcia, F.J., 1993. Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 83 (5), 1574-1594. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0830051574.
  44. Lermo, J., Chavez-Garcia, F.J., 1994. Are microtremors useful in site response evaluation? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 84 (5), 1350-1364. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840051350.
  45. McKenzie, D., 1978. Active tectonics of the Alpine-Himalayan belt: the Aegean Sea and surrounding regions. Geophysical Journal International 55 (1), 217-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.1978.tb04759.x.
  46. Nakamura, Y. 2019. What is the Nakamura method? Seismological Research Letters 90 (4), 1437-1443. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180376.
  47. Nakamura, Y., 1989. A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Quarterly Report of Railway Technical Research Institute 30 (1), 25-33.
  48. Oncu, L., Kalkan, E., 2023. Liquefaction Analysis for Aziziye District (Erzurum, NE Turkey) Soils According to Turkey Building Earthquake Regulations 2018 (TBER-2018). International Journal of Innovative Research and Reviews 7 (2), 70-76.
  49. Oncu, L., Kalkan, E., Yilmaz, M.K., 2025. Erzurum Aziziye Ilcesi Zeminlerinin Deprem Etkisi Altindaki Sivilasma Davranisinin Incelenmesi. 10. Geoteknik Sempozyumu 7-8 Kasim 2025, Kocaeli, Türkiye.
  50. Ozcan, G., 2013. Yapilarin dinamik ozelliklerinin mikrotremor olcumleri ile belirlenmesi. Master's thesis, Pamukkale Universitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, Denizli, Türkiye.
  51. Ozer, C., 2019. Erzurum ve Cevresi Yerel Zemin Etkilerinin SSR ve HVSR Yontemleri Kullanilarak Arastirilmasi. Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Muhendislik Fakultesi Fen ve Muhendislik dergisi 21 (61), 247-257. https://doi.org/10.21205/deufmd.2019216124.
  52. Peynirci, O., Demirtas, R., Yagyemez, B., Ugras, M., 2010. Erzurum Ili Buyuksehir Belediyesi Yerlesim Alaninin 1/5000 olcekli Nazim Imar Planina Esas Jeolojik-Jeoteknik Etut Raporu, Erzurum.
  53. Putti, S.P., Satyam, N., 2020. Evaluation of site effects using HVSR microtremor measurements in Vishakhapatnam (India). Earth Systems and Environment 4, 439-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-020-00158-6.
  54. Reilinger, R.E., Mcclusky, S.C., Oral, M.B., King, R.W., Toksoz, M.N., 1997. Global Positioning System Measurements of Present-Day Crustal Movements in the Arabia-Africa-Eurasian Plate Collision Zone. Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 9983-9999. https://doi.org/10.1029/96JB03736.
  55. Sarac, B., Ozer, C., 2024. Soil dynamic features of Atatürk University Campus (Erzurum), eastern Türkiye, by microtremor method. Baltica 37 (2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.5200/baltica.2024.2.4.
  56. Sarigul, S., Bayrak, E. 2025. Investigation of local soil properties of Erzurum province (Eastern Türkiye) by Horizontal/Vertical Spectral ratio method. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration 176 (176), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.19111/bulletinofmre.1574914.
  57. Saroglu, F., Yilmaz, Y., 1986. Geological Evolution and Basin Models During Neotectonic Episode in the Eastern Anatolia. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration 107, 70-93. https://izlik.org/JA63RA59BK.
  58. Sengor, A.M.C., 1979. The North Anatolian Fault; Its Age, Offset and Tectonic Significance. Journal of Geology 136, 269-282. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsjgs.136.3.0269.
  59. Sengor, A.M.C., Yilmaz, Y., 1981. Tethyan evolution of Turkey: A plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics 75 (3-4), 181-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(81)90275-4.
  60. Tavlasoglu, E., 2021. Erzurum Aziziye Bolgesi Jeolojik ve Jeoteknik Calismasi. Yuksek lisans Tezi, Atatürk Universitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, Erzurum, Türkiye.
  61. Timur, E., 2000. Stratigraphy of the Yesircol Mountain (Askale-Erzurum) and Surrounding Area. Istanbul University, Faculty of Engineering, Journal of Earth Sciences 13 (1-2), 85-99.
  62. Trifonov, V.G., Sokolov, S.Y., 2014. Late Cenozoic Tectonic Uplift Producing Mountain Building in Comparison with Mantle Structure in the Alpine-Himalayan Belt. International Journal of Geosciences 5 (5), 497-518. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2014.55047.
  63. Wathelet, M., Chatelain, J.L., Cornou, C., Di Giulio, G., Guillier, B., Ohrnberger, M., Savvaidis, A., 2020. Geopsy: a user-friendly open-source tool set for ambient vibration processing. Seismological Research Letters 91 (3), 1878-1889. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190360.
  64. Yalcin, H., Gulen, L., Utkucu, M., 2013. Türkiye ve Yakin Cevresinin Aktif Faylari Veri Bankasi ve Deprem Tehlikesinin Arastirilmasi. Yerbilimleri. Hacettepe Universitesi Yerbilimleri Uygulama ve Arastirma Merkezi Bulteni 34 (3), 133-160. https://izlik.org/JA42YD88MA.
  65. Yalcinkaya, E., 2010. Zemin neden bu kadar onemli. Jeofizik Bulteni 63, 77-80.
  66. Yarbasi, N., Kalkan, E. 2009. Geotechnical Mapping for Alluvial Fan Deposits Controlled by Active Faults: A Case Study in the Erzurum, NE Turkey, Environmental Geology 58, 701-714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1544-1.
  67. Caielli, G., de Franco, R., Di Fiore, V., Albarello, D., Catalano, S., Pergalani, F.,.Cavuoto, G., Cercato, M., Compagnoni, M., Facciorusso, J., Famiani, D., Ferri, F., Imposa, S., Martini, G., Paciello, A., Paolucci, E., Passeri, F., Piscitelli, S., Puzzilli, L.M., Vassallo, M., 2020. Extensive surface geophysical prospecting for seismic microzonation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 18, 5475-5502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00866-4.