KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 3

İzmir İli için Simülasyon-tabanlı Zemin Büyütme Faktörleri

Simulation-based Local Site Amplification Factors for the city of Izmir

Okan İlhan(ANKARA YILDIRIM BEYAZIT UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND NATURAL SCIENCES)0000-0003-1276-7930
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-10-18
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

ZC ve ZD zeminlerinde FS değerleri TBDY ile daha uyumlu iken, F1 değerleri genellikle daha düşüktür.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:İzmir kenti, yakın çevresindeki sığ kabuksal faylardan kaynaklanan önemli deprem tehlikesine ve özellikle Bornova Ovası’ndaki kalın yumuşak kil, silt ve gevşek kum tabakalarının neden olduğu belirgin zemin etkilerine maruz kalmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği’ndeki (TBDY, 2019) yerel zemin etki katsayılarının büyük ölçüde Batı ABD verilerine dayalı NEHRP (2015) hükümlerinden uyarlanmış olması nedeniyle, bu çalışmada İzmir’e özgü simülasyon tabanlı zemin büyütme katsayıları geliştirilmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:ZC ve ZD zeminlerinde FS değerleri TBDY ile daha uyumlu iken, F1 değerleri genellikle daha düşüktür.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Zemin Etkisi · Zemin Büyütmesi · Tek-boyutlu Zemin Tepki Analizi

Özet

İzmir kenti, yakın çevresindeki sığ kabuksal faylardan kaynaklanan önemli deprem tehlikesine ve özellikle Bornova Ovası’ndaki kalın yumuşak kil, silt ve gevşek kum tabakalarının neden olduğu belirgin zemin etkilerine maruz kalmaktadır. Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği’ndeki (TBDY, 2019) yerel zemin etki katsayılarının büyük ölçüde Batı ABD verilerine dayalı NEHRP (2015) hükümlerinden uyarlanmış olması nedeniyle, bu çalışmada İzmir’e özgü simülasyon tabanlı zemin büyütme katsayıları geliştirilmiştir. Altı deprem senaryosu için ölçeklendirilmiş 132 kuvvetli yer hareketi ve 161 temsili kayma dalgası hızı (VS) profili kullanılarak toplam 42.504 tek boyutlu zemin tepki analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Profiller, İzmir için geliştirilen sığ VS modelinden türetilmiş ve VS=760 m/s referans seviyesine olan derinlik değişkenliği dikkate alınmıştır. Küçük şekil değiştirme sönüm profilleri κ0 parametresi kullanılarak düzenlenmiştir. Simülasyonlardan elde edilen FS ve F1 katsayıları TBDY ile karşılaştırılmıştır. ZE zeminlerinde yönetmelik katsayıları genellikle ortalama+1σ sonuçlarını kapsamakta olup, bu durum NEHRP Zemin Sınıfı E katsayılarının yüksek epistemik belirsizlik nedeniyle muhafazakâr belirlenmesinden kaynaklanmaktadır. ZC ve ZD zeminlerinde FS değerleri TBDY ile daha uyumlu iken, F1 değerleri genellikle daha düşüktür.

Abstract

The city of İzmir is exposed to significant seismic hazard from nearby shallow crustal faults and pronounced site effects associated with thick deposits of soft clay, silt, and loose sand, particularly within the Bornova Plain. Because the local site factors in the Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBEC, 2019) were adopted from National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP. 2015), which was largely developed using western United States ground-motion data, this study develops simulation-based, region-specific site amplification factors for İzmir. A total of 42,504 one-dimensional site response analyses, comprising 21,252 nonlinear (NL) and 21,252 equivalent-linear (EL) simulations, were performed using 161 generic shear wave velocity (VS) profiles and 132 strong ground motions scaled for six earthquake scenarios. The profiles classified with respect to VS30-dependent (time-averaged VS at top 30 m) site classes were generated by randomizing base-case profiles derived from a newly developed shallow VS model for İzmir. Variability in depth to the VS = 760 m/s reference horizon was explicitly considered. Small-strain damping profiles were adjusted using the high-frequency spectral-decay parameter, κ0, to account for attenuation associated with wave scattering effects. Simulation-based short- and long-period amplification factors, FS and F1, respectively, were compared with TBEC (2019). For ZE (VS30 < 180 m/s) sites, the code factors generally encompass the simulated mean+1 standard deviation(σ) values, consistent with the conservatism embedded in NEHRP Class E factors. For ZC (360 m/s < VS30 < 760 m/s) and ZD sites (180 m/s < VS30 < 360 m/s), simulated FS values show improved agreement with TBEC, whereas F1 values generally remain lower, partly because the site natural periods are shorter than the period range used to derive F1. Region-specific mean and mean+1σ FS and F1 factors are tabulated as alternatives to TBEC (2019) for seismic design applications.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

İlhan, O. (2026). İzmir İli için Simülasyon-tabanlı Zemin Büyütme Faktörleri. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 3. https://doi.org/10.24012/dumf.2016261

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (71)

  1. H. B. Seed, M. P. Romo, J. I. Sun, A. Jaime, and J. Lysmer, “The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985—Relationships between soil conditions and earthquake ground motions,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 687–729, Nov. 1988.
  2. R. D. Borcherdt, “Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design methodology and justification,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 617–653, Nov. 1994.
  3. Y. Choi and J. P. Stewart, “Nonlinear site amplification as function of 30 m shear wave velocity,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–30, Feb. 2005. [4] M. D. Trifunac, “Site conditions and earthquake ground motion—A review,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 90, pp. 88–100, Nov. 2016.
  4. G. Falcone, D. Boldini, and A. Amorosi, “Site response analysis of an urban area: A multi-dimensional and nonlinear approach,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 109, pp. 33–45, Jun. 2018.
  5. O. Ilhan, O. Indır, G. Muratoğlu, A. İçen, K. Albayrak, M. A. Sandıkkaya, A. Askan, P. Arduino, and E. Taciroğlu, “Local site effects at the selected stations affected by the February 6 2023 Türkiye earthquake sequences,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 178, Art. no. 108454, Mar. 2024.
  6. D. M. Boore, J. P. Stewart, E. Seyhan, and G. M. Atkinson, “NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1057–1085, Aug. 2014.
  7. E. Seyhan and J. P. Stewart, “Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1241–1256, Aug. 2014.
  8. Turkish Building Earthquake Code, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ankara, Türkiye, 2018, effective Jan. 1, 2019.
  9. S. Akkar, Ö. Kale, A. Yakut, and U. Çeken, “Ground-motion characterization for the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Turkey,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 3439–3463, Aug. 2018.
  10. Y. M. A. Hashash, A. R. Kottke, J. P. Stewart, K. W. Campbell, B. Kim, C. Moss, S. Nikolaou, E. M. Rathje, and W. J. Silva, “Reference rock site condition for Central and Eastern North America,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 684–701, Apr. 2014.
  11. M. A. Sandıkkaya, S. Akkar, and P.-Y. Bard, “A nonlinear site-amplification model for the next pan-European ground-motion prediction equations,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 19–32, Feb. 2013.
  12. G. A. Parker, J. P. Stewart, Y. M. A. Hashash, E. M. Rathje, K. W. Campbell, and W. J. Silva, “Empirical linear seismic site amplification in Central and Eastern North America,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 849–881, May 2019.
  13. O. Ilhan, A. C. Zulfikar, T. Taskiran, K. N. Eroglu, S. Okuyan Akcan, and H. A. Ugurlu, “The observed and simulated site effects at the selected regions influenced by 2023 Turkey earthquake sequences: A preliminary evaluation,” J. Earthq. Eng., vol. 29, no. 16, pp. 3283–3302, 2025.
  14. J. A. Harmon, Y. M. A. Hashash, J. P. Stewart, E. M. Rathje, K. W. Campbell, W. J. Silva, B. Xu, M. Musgrove, and O. Ilhan, “Site amplification functions for Central and Eastern North America—Part I: Simulation dataset development,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 787–814, May 2019.
  15. J. A. Harmon, Y. M. A. Hashash, J. P. Stewart, E. M. Rathje, K. W. Campbell, W. J. Silva, and O. Ilhan, “Site amplification functions for Central and Eastern North America—Part II: Modular simulation-based models,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 815–847, May 2019
  16. Y. M. A. Hashash, O. Ilhan, J. A. Harmon, G. A. Parker, J. P. Stewart, E. M. Rathje, K. W. Campbell, and W. J. Silva, “Nonlinear site amplification model for ergodic seismic hazard analysis in Central and Eastern North America,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 69–86, Feb. 2020.
  17. O. Ilhan, Y. M. A. Hashash, J. P. Stewart, E. M. Rathje, S. Nikolaou, and K. W. Campbell, “Simulated site amplification for Central and Eastern North America: Data set development and amplification models,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 200–229, Feb. 2024.
  18. Building Seismic Safety Council, “NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, Volume I: Part 1 provisions and Part 2 commentary,” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA, FEMA P-1050-1, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DHS/ARCHIVES/fema_p_1050_1_vol_1_pt_1_prov_pt_2_comm_2015.pdf
  19. E. H. Field and K. H. Jacob, “A comparison and test of various site-response estimation techniques, including three that are not reference-site dependent,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 1127–1143, Aug. 1995. [21] N. A. Abrahamson and R. R. Youngs, “A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 505–510, Feb. 1992.
  20. L. A. Atik, N. Abrahamson, J. J. Bommer, F. Scherbaum, F. Cotton, and N. Kuehn, “The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components,” Seismol. Res. Lett., vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 794–801, Sep. 2010.
  21. Y. M. Hashash, O. Ilhan, B. Hassani, G. M. Atkinson, J. Harmon, and H. Shao, “Significance of site natural period effects for linear site amplification in Central and Eastern North America: Empirical and simulation-based models,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 87–110, Feb. 2020.
  22. C. A. Goulet, T. Kishida, T. D. Ancheta, C. H. Cramer, R. B. Darragh, W. J. Silva, Y. M. A. Hashash, J. Harmon, G. A. Parker, J. P. Stewart, and R. R. Youngs, “PEER NGA-East database,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 37, no. S1, pp. 1331–1353, Jul. 2021.
  23. T. D. Ancheta, R. B. Darragh, J. P. Stewart, E. Seyhan, W. J. Silva, B. S.-J. Chiou, K. E. Wooddell, R. W. Graves, A. R. Kottke, D. M. Boore, T. Kishida, and J. L. Donahue, “NGA-West2 database,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 989–1005, Aug. 2014.
  24. G. R. Toro, “Probabilistic models of site velocity profiles for generic and site-specific ground-motion amplification studies,” Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, USA, Tech. Rep. 779574, Nov. 1995. [Online]. Available: https://www.scribd.com/document/496701498/Toro-1995
  25. A. R. Kottke and E. M. Rathje, “Technical manual for Strata,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, PEER Rep. 2008/10, Feb. 2009. [Online]. Available: https://peer.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/web_peer810_albert_r._kottke_ellen_m._rathje.pdf
  26. E. M. Rathje, A. R. Kottke, and W. L. Trent, “Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 136, no. 4, pp. 607–619, Apr. 2010.
  27. O. Ilhan, Y. M. A. Hashash, J. P. Stewart, E. M. Rathje, S. Nikolaou, and K. W. Campbell, “Artificial neural network-based simulated site amplification models for Central and Eastern North America,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 3190–3212, Nov. 2025.
  28. B. Aktuğ, İ. Tiryakioğlu, H. Sözbilir, H. Özener, Ç. Özkaymak, C. Ö. Yiğit, H. İ. Solak, E. E. Eyübagil, B. Gelin, O. Tatar, and M. Softa, “GPS-derived finite-source mechanism of the 30 October 2020 Samos earthquake, Mw=6.9, in the Aegean extensional region,” Turkish J. Earth Sci., vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 718–737, 2021.
  29. V. Plicka, F. Gallovič, J. Zahradník, A. Serpetsidaki, E. Sokos, N. Vavlas, and A. Kiratzi, “The 2020 Samos Mw7 earthquake: Source model depicting complexity and rupture directivity,” Tectonophysics, vol. 843, Art. no. 229591, Nov. 2022.
  30. K. Ö. Çetin et al., “The site effects in Izmir Bay of October 30, 2020, M7.0 Samos earthquake,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 152, Art. no. 107051, Jan. 2022
  31. K. Ö. Çetin, M. Zarzour, E. Çakır, Ş. Ç. Tuna, and S. Altun, “2-D and 3-D basin site effects in Izmir-Bayrakli during the October 30, 2020 MW 7.0 Samos earthquake,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 5419–5442, Sep. 2023.
  32. H. E. Demirci, M. Karaman, and S. Bhattacharya, “A survey of damage observed in Izmir due to 2020 Samos–Izmir earthquake,” Nat. Hazards, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 1047–1064, Mar. 2022.
  33. Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Türkiye, Department of Earthquake, Ankara, Türkiye [Online]. Available: https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/, Accessed on: Jul. 2026.
  34. B. Uzel, H. Sözbilir, and Ç. Özkaymak, “Neotectonic evolution of an actively growing superimposed basin in western Anatolia: The Inner Bay of İzmir, Turkey,” Turkish J. Earth Sci., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 439–471, 2012
  35. B. Uzel, H. Sözbilir, Ç. Özkaymak, N. Kaymakcı, and C. G. Langereis, “Structural evidence for strike-slip deformation in the İzmir–Balıkesir Transfer Zone and consequences for late Cenozoic evolution of western Anatolia (Turkey),” J. Geodyn., vol. 65, pp. 94–116, Apr. 2013.
  36. Ö. Emre, T. Y. Duman, S. Özalp, F. Şaroğlu, Ş. Olgun, H. Elmacı, and T. Çan, “Active fault database of Turkey,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 3229–3275, Aug. 2018.
  37. Ç. Tepe, H. Sözbilir, S. Eski, Ö. Sümer, and Ç. Özkaymak, “Updated historical earthquake catalog of İzmir region (western Anatolia) and its importance for the determination of seismogenic source,” Turkish J. Earth Sci., vol. 30, no. SI-1, pp. 779–805, 2021
  38. A. I. Okay, İ. İşintek, D. Altıner, S. Özkan-Altıner, and N. Okay, “An olistostrome–mélange belt formed along a suture: Bornova Flysch Zone, western Turkey,” Tectonophysics, vols. 568–569, pp. 282–295, Sep. 2012.
  39. Ö. Karaoğlu, “Tectonic controls on the Yamanlar volcano and Yuntdağı volcanic region, western Turkey: Implications for an incremental deformation,” J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., vol. 274, pp. 16–33, Mar. 2014.
  40. I. Seghedi, C. Helvacı, and Z. Pécskay, “Composite volcanoes in the south-eastern part of İzmir–Balıkesir Transfer Zone, Western Anatolia, Turkey,” J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., vol. 291, pp. 72–85, Jan. 2015.
  41. T. Eskişar, M. Kuruoğlu, S. Altun, Ş. Özyalın, and H. R. Yılmaz, “Site response of deep alluvial deposits in the northern coast of İzmir Bay (Turkey) and a microzonation study based on geotechnical aspects,” Eng. Geol., vol. 172, pp. 95–116, Apr. 2014.
  42. M. Akgün, T. Gönenç, O. Pamukçu, and Ş. Özyalın, “Investigation of the relationship between ground and engineering bedrock at northern part of the Gulf of İzmir by borehole data supported geophysical works,” J. Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 545–564, Apr. 2014.
  43. E. Pamuk, M. Akgün, Ö. C. Özdağ, and T. Gönenç, “2D soil and engineering-seismic bedrock modeling of eastern part of İzmir Inner Bay/Turkey,” J. Appl. Geophys., vol. 137, pp. 104–117, Feb. 2017.
  44. E. Pamuk, T. Gönenç, Ö. C. Özdağ, and M. Akgün, “3D bedrock structure of Bornova Plain and its surroundings (İzmir/Western Turkey),” Pure Appl. Geophys., vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 325–340, Jan. 2018.
  45. A. Chiaradonna, E. Karakan, C. Kıncal, G. Lanzo, P. Monaco, A. Sezer, and M. Karray, “Insights on the role of local site effects on damage distribution in the İzmir metropolitan area induced by the October 30, 2020 Samos earthquake,” Soils Found., vol. 63, no. 4, Art. no. 101330, Aug. 2023.
  46. Ö. Kale, S. Akkar, A. Ansari, and H. Hamzehloo, “A ground-motion predictive model for Iran and Turkey for horizontal PGA, PGV, and 5% damped response spectrum: Investigation of possible regional effects,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 105, no. 2A, pp. 963–980, Apr. 2015.
  47. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, “Strong Ground Motion Database,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/, Accessed on: Jul. 18, 2026.
  48. O. Ilhan, G. Muratoğlu, A. Askan, and E. Taciroğlu, “An initial velocity model based on VS30 for the region affected by the February 6, 2023 Türkiye earthquakes,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3569–3587, 2025.
  49. M. Pehlivan, Y. Hashash, J. A. Harmon, E. M. Rathje, J. P. Stewart, W. J. Silva, K. W. Campbell, and S. Nikolaou, “Influence of shear wave velocity reversals on one-dimensional site response of spatially varied profiles,” in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Earthquake Geotech. Eng., Christchurch, New Zealand, Nov. 1–4, 2015.
  50. B. O. Hardin and V. P. Drnevich, “Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and curves,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., vol. 98, no. 7, pp. 667–692, Jul. 1972.
  51. C. Phillips and Y. M. A. Hashash, “Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1143–1158, Jul. 2009.
  52. M. B. Darendeli, “Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves,” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, 2001.
  53. A. Elgamal, T. Lai, Z. Yang, et al., “Dynamic soil properties, seismic downhole arrays and applications in practice,” in Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Recent Advances Geotech. Earthquake Eng. Soil Dyn., S. Prakash, Ed., San Diego, CA, USA, Mar. 26–31, 2001.
  54. C. C. Tsai and Y. M. A. Hashash, “Learning of dynamic soil behavior from downhole arrays,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 135, no. 6, pp. 745–757, Jun. 2009.
  55. E. Yee, J. P. Stewart, and K. Tokimatsu, “Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site response from analysis of vertical array recordings,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 139, no. 10, pp. 1789–1801, Oct. 2013.
  56. S. E. Hough and J. G. Anderson, “High-frequency spectra observed at Anza, California: Implications for QQ structure,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 692–707, Apr. 1988.
  57. O.-J. Ktenidou, N. A. Abrahamson, S. Drouet, and F. Cotton, “Understanding the physics of kappa (κκ): Insights from a downhole array,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 203, no. 1, pp. 678–691, Oct. 2015.
  58. B. Xu, E. M. Rathje, Y. M. A. Hashash, J. P. Stewart, K. W. Campbell, and W. J. Silva, “κ0 for soil sites: Observations from KiK-net sites and their use in constraining small-strain damping profiles for site response analysis,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 36, no. 1, pp.
  59. A. Altındal and A. Askan, “Predictive kappa (κ) models for Turkey: Regional effects and uncertainty analysis,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2479–2499, Nov. 2022.
  60. D. R. Groholski, Y. M. A. Hashash, B. Kim, M. Musgrove, J. Harmon, and J. P. Stewart, “Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 142, no. 9, Art. no. 04016042, Sep. 2016.
  61. Hashash, Y. M., Musgrove, M. I., Harmon, J. A., Ilhan, O., Xing, G., Numanoglu, O.,. & Park, D. (2020). DEEPSOIL 7.0, user manual. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 7, 170.
  62. G. Zalachoris and E. M. Rathje, “Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 141, no. 12, Art. no. 04015053, Dec. 2015.
  63. J. P. Stewart and E. Seyhan, “Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification and its application in NEHRP site factors,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, PEER Rep. 2013/13, Nov. 2013.
  64. J. P. Stewart, K. Afshari, and C. A. Goulet, “Non-ergodic site response in seismic hazard analysis,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1385–1414, 2017.
  65. B. Kim, Y. M. A. Hashash, J. P. Stewart, E. M. Rathje, J. A. Harmon, M. I. Musgrove, et al., “Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1845–1865, Aug. 2016.
  66. R. Pretell, N. A. Abrahamson, and K. Ziotopoulou, “A borehole array data–based approach for conducting 1D site response analyses I: Damping and VS randomization,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1473–1501, Aug. 2023.
  67. Y. Wang, T. Zhao, and Z. Cao, “Site-specific probability distribution of geotechnical properties,” Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 70, pp. 159–168, Nov. 2015.
  68. X. Li, Y. Zhang, Z. Yang, and X. Qi, “Estimation of site-specific multivariate probability distribution of soil properties using a mixed sampling technique,” Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 166, Art. no. 105956, Feb. 2024.
  69. T. Eskişar, M. Kuruoğlu, S. Altun, Ş. Özyalın, and H. R. Yılmaz, “Site response of deep alluvial deposits in the northern coast of İzmir Bay (Turkey) and a microzonation study based on geotechnical aspects,” Engineering Geology, vol. 172, pp. 95–116, Apr. 2014.
  70. C. S. Markham, J. D. Bray, J. Macedo, and R. Luque, “Evaluating nonlinear effective stress site response analyses using records from the Canterbury earthquake sequence,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 82, pp. 84–98, Mar. 2016.
  71. Hashash, Y. M., Musgrove, M. I., Harmon, J. A., Ilhan, O., Xing, G., Numanoglu, O.,. & Park, D. (2020). DEEPSOIL 7.0, user manual. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 7, 170.