SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

GIS-Based Mapping and Assessment of Seismic Hazard and Soil Classification in Elazığ City Center, Turkey

Elazığ Kent Merkezi (Türkiye) Sismik Tehlike ve Zemin Sınıflandırmasının CBS Tabanlı Haritalanması ve Değerlendirilmesi

Nurullah Akbulut(The Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute (BAW), Karlsruhe, Germany)0000-0002-4280-1581
Bahadır Karabaş(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0416-9121
Onur Demirtaş(Ministry of National Defens)0000-0001-5621-3652
Pages
111–130
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️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)

Overall, it was determined that low earthquake hazard levels predominate across the study area.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, analyses of soil classifications and earthquake hazard parameters were conducted for the city center of Elazığ, located in the Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey, using data from 210 boreholes obtained from a 133.65 km² study area.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, field data such as compressional wave velocity (Vp), shear wave velocity (Vs), and average shear wave velocity up to 30 m (VS30) were used to classify the soils according to the EUROCODE and NEHRP systems, and to generate GIS-based maps representing the earthquake hazard levels according to site amplification.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, it was determined that low earthquake hazard levels predominate across the study area.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:CBS · Elazığ’ın geoteknik özellikleri · NEHRP ve EUROCODE zemin sınıflandırmaları

Abstract

In this study, analyses of soil classifications and earthquake hazard parameters were conducted for the city center of Elazığ, located in the Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey, using data from 210 boreholes obtained from a 133.65 km² study area. The evaluations were performed based on EUROCODE and NEHRP soil classification systems, as well as earthquake hazard parameters derived from soil amplification calculations, by utilizing Geographic Information Systems (GIS). For this purpose, field data such as compressional wave velocity (Vp), shear wave velocity (Vs), and average shear wave velocity up to 30 m (VS30) were used to classify the soils according to the EUROCODE and NEHRP systems, and to generate GIS-based maps representing the earthquake hazard levels according to site amplification. As a result, based on the NEHRP classification, 2% of the study area was identified as hard rock (Class A), 69% as rock (Class B), and 29% as very dense soil and soft rock (Class C). According to Eurocode 8, 35% of the area was classified as very dense sand or gravel or very stiff clay, while 65% was classified as dense sand or gravel or stiff clay. Based on the site amplification analysis, 1% of the area was found to correspond to Class B (moderate hazard), while the remaining 99% corresponded to Class C (low hazard). No areas were identified as Class A (high hazard). Overall, it was determined that low earthquake hazard levels predominate across the study area.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin Elazığ şehir merkezi için, 133,65 km²’lik çalışma alanından elde edilen 210 adet sondaj verisi kullanılarak zemin sınıflandırmaları ve deprem tehlike parametreleri analiz edilmiştir. Değerlendirmeler, EUROCODE ve NEHRP zemin sınıflandırma sistemlerine ve zemin büyütme hesaplamalarından türetilen deprem tehlike parametrelerine dayanarak Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla, sahadan elde edilen sıkışma dalgası hızı (Vp), kesme dalgası hızı (Vs) ve 30 m derinliğe kadar ortalama kesme dalgası hızı (VS30) gibi veriler kullanılarak zeminler EUROCODE ve NEHRP sistemlerine göre sınıflandırılmış ve zemin büyütmeye göre deprem tehlike seviyelerini gösteren CBS tabanlı haritalar oluşturulmuştur. Sonuç olarak, NEHRP sınıflandırmasına göre, çalışma alanının %2’si sert kaya (Sınıf A), %69’u kaya (Sınıf B) ve %29’u çok yoğun zemin ve yumuşak kaya (Sınıf C) olarak belirlenmiştir. Eurocode 8’e göre, alanın %35’i çok yoğun kum veya çakıl veya çok sert kil olarak sınıflandırılırken, %65’i yoğun kum veya çakıl ya da sert kil olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Saha büyütme analizine göre, alanın %1’i Sınıf B’ye (orta tehlike), kalan %99’u ise Sınıf C’ye (düşük tehlike) karşılık gelmektedir. Yüksek tehlike (Sınıf A) alanı tespit edilmemiştir. Genel olarak, çalışma alanında düşük deprem tehlike seviyelerinin baskın olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akbulut, N., Karabaş, B., Demirtaş, O. (2026). GIS-Based Mapping and Assessment of Seismic Hazard and Soil Classification in Elazığ City Center, Turkey. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.53501/rteufemud.1885633

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Akçal, A. N. (2020). Geotechnical microzonation of Antalya Province central district soils using geographical information systems (Doktora tezi). Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
  2. Akbulut, N., Karabaş, B., & Tanyeri, H. (2026) Comparative Analysis of Bearing Capacity Methods for Batman Soils: A GIS-Based Approach. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science, 9(3), 1386-1400. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1919745
  3. Ateş, B., Şadoğlu, E. (2025). Effect of tunnelling on settlement of a building: A numerical approach. Recep Tayyip Erdogan University Journal of Science and Engineering, 6(1), 124-139. https://doi.org/10.53501/rteufemud.1550652
  4. Bayrak, E.Y., Baltaş, H. (2023). Determination of radioactivity levels in soil samples of Recep Tayyip Erdogan University campus in Rize province. Recep Tayyip Erdogan University Journal of Science and Engineering, 4(2), 87-96. https://doi.org/10.53501/rteufemud.1274822
  5. Boore, D.M. (2004). Estimating Vs(30) (or NEHRP site classes) from shallow velocity models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(2), 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030144
  6. Borcherdt, R.D. (1994). Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthquake Spectra, 10(4), 617–653. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585791
  7. Cabalar, A.F., Karabas, B., Mahmutluoglu, B., Yildiz, O. (2021). An IDW-based GIS application for assessment of geotechnical characterization in Erzincan, Türkiye. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 14(20), 2129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08526-z
  8. Çetin, K.O., Cakir, E., Ilgaç, M., Can, G., Söylemez, B., Elsaid, A., Çüceoğlu, F., Gülerce, Z., Askan, A., Aydın, S., Gör, M. (2021). Geotechnical aspects of reconnaissance findings after 2020 january 24th, M6.8 Sivrice–Elazığ–Türkiye earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19, 3415–3459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01068-1
  9. Cheloni, D., Akinci, A. (2020). Source modelling and strong ground motion simulations for the 24 january 2020, Mw 6.8 Elazığ earthquake, Türkiye. Geophysical Journal International, 223(2), 1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa350
  10. Civelekler, E., Pekkan, E. (2022). The application of GIS in visualization of geotechnical data (SPT–soil properties): A case study in Eskisehir-Tepebaşı, Türkiye. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 7(3), 302–313. https://doi.org/10.26701/ijeg.923838
  11. Çaylak, Ç. (2002). Investigation of poisson ratio and porosity of shallow sediments from compression and shear wave velocities (Yüksek Lisans tezi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
  12. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority [AFAD]. (2025). Earthquake catalog. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/depremkatalogu
  13. Dobry, R., Borcherdt, R.D., Crouse, C.B., Idriss, I. M., Joyner, W.B., Martin, G.R., Power, M.S., Rinne, E.E., Seed, R.B. (2000). New site coefficients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions. Earthquake Spectra, 16(1), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586081
  14. Elsaid, A. (2022). The assessment of seismic site effects during the 24 january 2020 Elazig-Sivrice Mw 6.8 earthquake (Yüksek Lisans tezi). Türkiye.
  15. Essaied, A., Rouai, M., Bouhali, K. (2025). Microzonation and classification of seismic sites based on analysis and modeling of the HVSR data in the city of Meknes, Morocco. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 196, 109451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.109451
  16. European Committee for Standardization [CEN]. (2004). EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels, Belgium
  17. Gouveia, F., Gomes, R.C., Lopes, I. (2019). Shallow and in-depth seismic testing in urban environment: A case study in lisbon miocene stiff soils using joint inversion of active and passive rayleigh wave measurements. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 169, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2019.06.022
  18. Güler, E., Afacan, K.B. (2021). Assessment of shear wave velocity concept on the site-specific analysis and its effects over performances of building codes. Revista de la Construcción, 20(3), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.7764/RDLC.20.3.527
  19. Karabaş, B. (2019). Use of geographic information system for evaluating some geotechnical properties in Malatya, Türkiye (Yüksek Lisans tezi). Hasan Kalyoncu Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
  20. Karabaş, B., Akbulut, N., Demirtaş, O. (2026). GIS-Based IDW Mapping of Soil Index Properties: A Case Study of Elazığ Center. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 17(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.24012/dumf.1850431
  21. Kaya, Ö. (2025). Data-driven methodology for emergency rescue station placement: Geographic information systems based multi criteria decision making approach. Recep Tayyip Erdogan University Journal of Science and Engineering, 6(3), 659-684. https://doi.org/10.53501/rteufemud.1611414
  22. Klimentos, T. (1991). The effect of porosity, permeability, and clay content on the velocity of compressional waves. Geophysics, 56, 1930–1939. https://doi.org/10.1110/1.1442971
  23. Kurnaz, T.F., Ramazanoğlu, S., Karavul, C. (2011). Urban microzonation study for Esenler district, Istanbul, Türkiye. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 6(21), 4933–4946. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPS11.954
  24. Midorikawa, S. (1987). Prediction of isoseismal map in kanto plain due to hypothetical earthquake. Journal of Structural Dynamics, 33B, 43–48.
  25. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (US), & Building Seismic Safety Council (US). (2003). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Washington D.C., ABD.
  26. Özşahin, E., Öztürk, M. (2024). Evaluation of parameters affecting earthquake damage using a GIS-based random forests machine learning model: The case of the 6 february 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Türkiye. Journal of Geography, 49, 43–63. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2024-1432062
  27. Palutoğlu, M. (2014). Tektonics, seismicity, and microzonation of Elazığ city center (Doktora tezi). Fırat Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
  28. Park, S., Sun, C.G., Cho, H.I., & Koruk, A. (2012). Probabilistic seismic site classification maps based on shear-wave velocity measurements in the san francisco bay area. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(4), 1438–1454. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110204
  29. Sarı, M., Yılmaz, E., Altunışık, A.C. (2022). Effect of soil type on dynamic behavior of reinforced concrete industry chimneys. Recep Tayyip Erdogan University Journal of Science and Engineering, 3(2), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.53501/rteufemud.1178611
  30. Şengül, T., Karabaş, B. (2021). Investigation of liquefaction potential in Kütahya central district using geographic information systems. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali University Journal of Science, 8(2), 817–825. https://doi.org/10.35193/bseufbd.962190
  31. Tunç, G., Mertol, H.C., Akış, T. (2024). Lessons learned from four recent turkish earthquakes: Sivrice–Elazığ, Aegean Sea, and dual Kahramanmaraş. Natural Hazards, 120, 12341–12373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06687-x
  32. Turan, M. (2011). Alluvial fan growth in a seismically active intermontane foreland basin: Kuşçular formation, Eastern Türkiye. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(22), 4681-4699.
  33. URL–1. (2025). Elazığ ili hakkında genel bilgiler. https://elazig.csb.gov.tr/ilimiz-hakkinda-i-681 (Accessed on 24 Mart 2026).
  34. Yıldız, Ö. (2022). Seismic site characterization of Battalgazi in Malatya, Türkiye. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15(9), 867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10141-9
  35. Yıldız, Ö. (2024). Integrated GIS-based mapping and ANFIS modelling for seismic and geotechnical characterization of soil properties. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 28(9), 3708-3721.