Seismic Microzonation Methodology Based on Case Studies

Atilla Ansal
Bogaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute,
Çengelkoy, Istanbul

ABSTRACT: Seismic microzonation can be considered as the initial phase of earthquake risk
mitigation studies. In general terms, it is the process for estimating the response of soil layers under
earthquake excitations and thus the variation of earthquake characteristics on the ground surface.
The key issue in zonation is how to combine contributions from different fields, what should be the
weights of geological, seismological, geotechnical and structural information with respect to each
other and how to issue the recommendations suitable for application by local administrators and
practitioners. The present papers deals with these zonation issues, considering the case-histories of
microzonation performed in Turkey, particularly relevant for regions characterized by high level of
seismicity. Examples will be given from the case studies conducted in the towns of Silivri in Istanbul
and Adapazarı city taking into consideration ground shaking, liquefaction susceptibility and landslide
hazard.

KEYWORDS: Microzonation, Seismic hazard, Site response, Liquefaction susceptibility, Earthquake

1 INTRODUCTION

The response of men made structures during earthquakes are not only related with structural features
but also are controlled by two main factors: earthquake source characteristics and local site conditions.
The characteristics of incoming earthquake waves may change during their propagation through
geologic formations and soil layers. In addition soil characteristics may also change due to the
induced cyclic excitations. Thus any seismic microzonation study neglecting the probable earthquake
characteristics and the effect of the incoming seismic waves at a regional level would be incomplete as
suggested by Aki (1988).
It was shown over and over again (Gazetas et al., 1990; Faccioli, 1991; Ansal et al., 1993; Bard,
1994; Chavez-Garcia et al., 1996; Chin-Hsiung et al., 1998; Gueguen et al., 1998; Kawase, 1998;
Ansal, 1999; Athanasopoulus et al., 1999; Hartzell et al., 2001) based on the encountered earthquake
damage and strong ground motion records that there are numerous source and site factors (i.e. near
field effects, directivity, duration, focusing, topographical and basin effects, soil nonlinearity, etc.) that
are important in assessing ground motion characteristics. The national seismic zoning maps are
generally prepared in small scales such as 1:1,000,000 or less neglecting all these factors and
independent of geological and geotechnical site conditions. The Earthquake codes utilize these
national maps in specifying the minimum design requirements. However, seismic microzonation
requires 1:5,000 or even 1:1,000 scale studies taking into consideration both earthquake source and
regional geological and geotechnical conditions in order to be used for urban and landuse planning.
Thus additional and more detailed investigations are needed to establish microzonation maps with
respect ground shaking, liquefaction susceptibility, and landslide hazard.
Seismic zonation studies may consist of three stages: (1) estimation of the regional seismic
hazard, (2) determination of the local geological features and local geotechnical conditions (3)
assessment of the probable ground response and ground motion parameters.
 There may be differences among the adopted procedures with respect to these three stages
(Marcellini et al., 1995; Lachet et al., 1996; Fäh et al., 1997; Ansal, 2002b). The differences may arise
from different use of the produced microzonation maps and different levels of accuracy achieved
based on the available input data in terms of local geological and geotechnical site conditions. One
option is to produce microzonation maps to be used only for city and landuse planning (Ansal, 2002a,
Ansal et al., 2003). The second option is to use the microzonation maps to estimate the possible
earthquake characteristics for the assessment of structural vulnerability in an earthquake scenario
study. The methodology presented in this paper is based on the first option.

2 REGIONAL SEISMICITY

The first phase of any seismic zonation study is the estimation of the regional seismic hazard based on
probabilistic analyses using the available seismic and geological database (Mcguire, 1995; Frankel et
al., 2000). Ground motion characteristics can be determined for a specific return period or exceedance
probability depending on the purpose of the study. The sophistication of the adopted approach can
vary between single areal sources to very detailed multi source models.

2.1 Single areal source model

In areas with active seismicity and complex tectonic formations, it may be realistic to assume a single
tectonic areal source with a fixed radius around the investigated area to determine the earthquake
recurrence relationship, to calculate exceedance probabilities with respect to earthquake magnitudes
and thus define an earthquake magnitude corresponding to the selected exceedance probability.
A seismic hazard analysis may be considered as composed of four consecutive stages that can be
assumed independent and thus evaluated separately (Ansal and Iyisan, 1998) as shown in Figure 1.
The first stage is the estimation of the probable earthquake magnitude based on seismological and
geological data in the region. The second stage is the estimation of the source distance of the probable
earthquake. The third stage is the estimation of the earthquake characteristics in terms of acceleration
response spectrum at the competent soil or rock outcrop based on contemporary attenuation
relationships (Ambraseys et al., 1996; Boore et al., 1997). The fourth stage is the estimation of
earthquake characteristics on the ground surface based on the local geotechnical site conditions using
spectrum compatible simulated or real earthquake time histories. Each of these stages involves
various degrees of uncertainties therefore probabilistic approaches need to be adopted to determine the
exceedance probabilities in these four stages to evaluate the overall uncertainty.

2.2 Multi source model

The second and more sophisticated alternative is the multi source model as adopted for the Adapazari
microzonation study (Erdik, et al., 2003). In this approach a fault segmentation model is developed
based on the previous studies conducted in the investigated area. The historical and instrumental
seismicity of the region was thoroughly investigated to assess the segmentation as well as the model
parameters for the seismic hazard analysis. The characteristic earthquake recurrence rates are
determined by assigning characteristic magnitude and recurrence intervals to each fault segment in the
region.
The earthquake hazards in the region are assumed to be the result of the ground motions that
would occur as the result from the earthquakes in the magnitude range from 5.0 to 6.9 and from larger
magnitude events in the magnitude range 7.0 and higher.
The first part termed as “background activity”, is the activity not associated with the main tectonic
entities. These events are not assigned to specific faults, but they are assigned to cells of a grid (of size
0.005° x 0.005°), in other words each cell of the grid is assumed to be a potential source for
moderately sized events. It is also assumed that a Gutenberg-Richter type recurrence relationship
governs the earthquake recurrence in the background. The background activity is assumed to be
Poissonian. For the second part is related with the seismic energy release along well-defined faults. A
fault segmentation model is developed and it is assumed that energy along these faults is released by
characteristic events characterized by magnitude and recurrence time adopting a Poisson model using
a characteristic earthquake recurrence relationship. The seismic hazard for the investigated region is
the sum of these two components. Since the major purpose for the microzonation study is for land use
and city planning it was recommended to determine the required earthquake hazard parameters for a
return period of 100 years that corresponds approximately to 40% probability of exceedance in 50
years (Erdik et al., 2003).

Figure 1. Evaluation of seismic hazard for Silivri based on single areal source model (Ansal and Erken,
2003)
3 GEOLOGY AND LOCAL SOIL CONDITIONS

The second stage in seismic microzonation requires detailed study of the geological structures in the
region by in-situ tests and borings. 1:5,000 scale is considered sufficient for mapping the geological
formations and their variations in the investigated districts. However, it should be noted that in most
cases these studies would also demonstrate that these geological units are not homogenous and
significant changes in soil properties would be observed from one point to another, even in the same
geological unit (Wills et al., 2000; Ansal and Erken, 2003). As a result, considering the geological
units as the sole basis in seismic zonation will not be accurate and reliable enough for the selected
microzonation scale.
An important phase in any microzonation study would be the evaluation and analysis of the
available geotechnical data to determine the necessary parameters for conducting the microzonation
with respect to different parameters (Abeki et al., 1995; Ansal et al., 2001). One option is to divide the
investigated area into cells by a grid system of 500 x 500 meters. Site characterization would be
conducted based on the boreholes and other related information available for each grid to determine
the representative soil profiles and site conditions for each grid. This approach could be adopted for
estimating the effects of site conditions at a scale of 1:5000 by assigning partly hypothetical boreholes
at the centre of each grid (Laue et al., 2003a, 2003b). There are basically two reasons behind this
approach (1) to utilize all the available data in each grid in order to have more comprehensive and
reliable information about the soil profile; (2) to eliminate the effects of different distances among
boreholes or site investigation points during the GIS mapping.

4 MICROZONATION WITH RESPECT TO GROUND SHAKING

It would be logical to base final microzonation map with respect to ground shaking on all the available
results obtained from site identification based on equivalent shear wave velocity, site response analysis
as well as from microtremor measurements conducted in the region. In the case of site response
analysis, a suitable parameter is considered to be the average spectral acceleration between 0.5 and 1.5
second periods (Ansal et al., 2003).
The site response analysis would sometimes give unrealistically high spectral amplifications or
very low peak ground acceleration values depending on the thickness of the deposit, estimated initial
shear moduli, and also on the characteristics of the input acceleration time histories. On the other
hand, even though they are more empirical, the spectral amplifications calculated using equivalent
shear wave velocities tend to give more consistent values that appear to be more realistic when
compared with the selected soil profiles. Thus one option is to derive the final microzonation map
with respect to ground shaking based on average spectral accelerations and spectral amplifications
obtained from equivalent shear wave velocities.
The results obtained could be mapped using GIS techniques by applying linear interpolation
among the grid points, thus enabling a smooth transition of the selected parameters. Soft transition
boundaries would be preferred to show the variation of the mapped parameters. Better defined clear
boundaries are not recommended due to the accuracy levels achieved within the study and in addition
to allow some flexibility to the city planners and to avoid misinterpretation by the end users that would
consider the clear boundaries as accurate estimations of the different zones.
The approach proposed in the assessment of the calculated zonation maps involves the division of
the area into three zones as (A, B, and C). Since the site characterizations, as well as all the analysis
performed, require various approximations as well as some assumptions, it was preferred not to
present the numerical values for any parameter. In all cases, the variations of the calculated
parameters are considered for each area separately and their frequency distributions were calculated.
Thus the zone A shows the most unsuitable 33 percentile, zone B the medium 34 percentile and zone
C shows the most favorable 33 percentile.
The seismic microzonation with respect to ground shaking conducted for the town of Silivri in
Istanbul is shown in Figure 2 (Ansal and Erken, 2003). In this study a single source model was
selected to estimate the regional earthquake hazard in terms of acceleration response spectrum at the
competent soils outcrop, where 6 spectrum compatible simulated acceleration time histories (Deodatis,
1996) were used in the site response analyses. The final microzonation map is obtained based on the
average spectral accelerations between 0.5 and 1.5 sec and spectral amplifications calculated using
equivalent shear wave velocity at the top 30 m (Joyner & Fumal, 1984; Borcherdt, 1994; Midorikawa,
1987). The microzonation map is plotted over the surface geology map to compare and eliminate any
unrealistic estimation that may occur as result of the adopted methodology.

Figure 2. Ground shaking microzonation map for Silivri, Istanbul (after Ansal and Erken, 2003)

5 MICROZONATION WITH RESPECT TO LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY

The approach adopted to perform microzonation map in terms of the liquefaction susceptibility was
based on the method developed by Youd et al. (2001) and Iwasaki et al. (1982).
The safety factors were calculated along the whole depth of the borehole for all liquefiable soil
layers based on the available SPT-N blow counts using the surface peak ground accelerations
calculated from site response analysis. The liquefaction potential for each borehole was calculated
based on the procedure proposed by Iwasaki et al. (1982) using the variation of the safety factors with
depth.
Based on the results reported by Iwasaki et al. (1982), three zones (A, B, and C) were identified
with respect to liquefaction potential index. Zone A is the where the liquefaction potential index is
PL>15, zone B is the intermediate zone where the liquefaction potential index is 5>PL>15, and zone C
is the safest zone where liquefaction potential index is PL<5. The microzonation map for liquefaction
susceptibility determined by this approach is shown for Adapazarı region in Figure 3.

6 MICROZONATION WITH RESPECT TO LANDSLIDE HAZARD

Landslide hazard was conducted based on the procedure proposed by Siyahi and Ansal (1993) for
investigating slope stability for microzonation purpose. The stability analysis method is a pseudo-
static evaluation of slope stability utilizing a seismic coefficient A to account for the earthquake
induced horizontal forces. For the zonation purpose three zones (A, B, and C) were identified with
respect to safety factors. Zone A is where the landslide hazard is very likely with a safety factor less
than one, zone B is the intermediate zone where the safety factor is between one and two, and zone C
is the safest zone, where landslide hazard is unlikely with a safety factor greater than two.
 Shear strength is one of the most important parameters for applying this procedure. These may be
evaluated from data obtained from the boreholes. Since the borehole data generally include laboratory
and in-situ testing such as SPT, shear box, triaxial and uniaxial tests, the values of shear strength
defined in terms of the ?shear strength angle? could easily be estimated for soil and rock deposits in
the region.
Within a pseudo-static approach, the effects of an earthquake are represented by constant
horizontal and vertical accelerations. Selection of an appropriate pseudo-static coefficient is the most
important aspect of a pseudo-static stability analysis. In this procedure, maximum ground acceleration
(A) on the surface can be accepted as a pseudo-static coefficient. Maximum ground acceleration on
the surface is evaluated based on the one-dimensional ground response analysis (Siyahi and Fahjan,
2003).

Figure 3. Liquefaction susceptibility microzonation map for Adapazari (after Ansal et al., 2003)

7 CONCLUSIONS

During an earthquake the forces that will affect structures are function of two factors. One of these
factors is the earthquake source characteristics and the second one is the local site conditions. The
characteristics of the seismic waves may change during their propagation through soil layers and may
increase the seismic loads on the ground surface. In addition soil characteristics may also change due
to the induced cyclic excitations. Thus any seismic microzonation study especially in seismically
active near fault regions neglecting the earthquake characteristics would be incomplete.
The National Seismic Zoning Maps are generally is prepared in small scales (1:1,000,000 or less).
The scale of the map indicates the accuracy of the map. On the other hand, seismic microzonation for
a city or a town requires 1:5,000 or even 1:1,000 scale studies. Therefore regional seismic hazard as
well as the probable earthquake characteristics needs to be determined in accordance with the selected
scale for the microzonation study.
Seismic microzonation can be considered as being composed of three main phases. In the first
phase, the earthquake source characteristic for the study area needs to be determined more accurately
in a probabilistic manner to satisfy the requirements of the civil engineering and urban planning. The
second phase is the investigation of the geological and geotechnical site conditions taking into
consideration all the relevant factors (i.e. topographical and basin effects, variations in the soil
stratifications, soil nonlinearity, etc.). This information is an essential ingredient for the assessment of
site dependent seismic hazard studies. The third phase is the analysis and interpretation of the
accumulated data in the first two phases to establish suitable and applicable microzonation parameters
that could be utilized for urban planning and thus for earthquake risk mitigation
The main reason behind the proposed microzonation methodology study is to use the obtained
variation of the selected parameters for landuse and city planning. Therefore it is crucial that the
selected microzonation parameters should be meaningful for city planners as well as for public
officials and should not lead to controversial arguments among the property owners and city
administrators (Ansal 2002a). The purpose is to minimize the damage to the man-made environment.
Thus, selection of the zonation parameters should be in accordance with this objective. Different
zones could be delineated with respect to selected parameters to provide city planners with some
guidelines for specifying population and building density, and, more specifically, building
characteristics. All of these analyses have to be considered within a probabilistic framework in order
to account for all possibilities that may arise due different earthquake source mechanisms attached
with relevant exceedance probabilities (risk) levels that are suitable for the purpose.
The accuracy and the reliability of these maps largely depend on the accuracy of the input data
and basically on the geological and geotechnical data concerning soil stratification and properties of
the soil layers and thus on the mesh size selected to conduct the study. In the examples given the
mesh size was selected as 500x500 m. The accuracy can be improved by decreasing the mesh size.
However, this would require additional site investigations and in-situ tests, thus increasing the cost of
the study.
The results obtained from microzonation studies need to be treated as time dependent parameters
and they have to be updated at regular intervals. And as more data becomes available, the reliability
of the microzonation maps and their impact in city and land use planning will increase.

REFERENCES

Abeki, A., Matsuda, I., Enomoto, T., Shigyo, V., Watanabe, K., Tanzawa, Y. & Nakajima, Y. (1995) “A Study
of Seismic Microzonation Based on the Dynamic Characteristics of Subsurface Ground Conditions”, Proc.
5th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Nice, France, (3):2187-2194.
Aki, K. (1988) “Local Site Effects on Strong Ground Motion”, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II-
Recent Advances in Strong Motion Evaluation, ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication, No.20,
Ed.J.Lawrence Von Thul, 103-155.
Ambraseys,N.N., Simpson,K.A. & Bommer,J.J. (1996) “Prediction of Horizontal Response Spectra In Europe”,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 25: 371-400.
A.Ansal, S.Springman, J.Studer, E.Demirbaş, A.Önalp, M.Erdik, D.Giardini, K.Şeşetyan, M.Demircioğlu,
H.Akman, D.Fäh, A.Christen, J.Laue, J.Buchheister, Ö.Çetin, B.Siyahi, Y.Fahjan, P.Gülkan, S.Bakir,
P.Lestuzzi, M.Elmas, D.Köksal1, O.Gökçe (2003) Part 2C-Case Studies, Microzonation of Pilot Areas,
Adapazarı, Gölcük, İhsaniye and Değirmendere, Research Task Group Report, World Institute for Disaster
Risk Management (DRM) project on “Microzonation for Earthquake Risk Mitigation”
Ansal, A. and Erken, A. (2003) Microzonation Study for the town of Silivri, Istanbul, ITU Foundation, Applied
Research Report for the Municipality of Silivri.
Ansal, A.M. (2002a) “Impact of Microzonation Studies on Urban Planning and Their Effectiveness in Urban
Vulnerability Reduction– Experience From Turkey” 3rd Int. Workshop on Earthquakes and Megacities, Nov.
2002, Shanghai, China
Ansal,A.M. (2002b) “Seismic Microzonation Methodology” Proc. of 12th European Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Paper No.830, London, UK
Ansal,A.M., Iyisan,R. & Yıldırım,H. (2001) “The Cyclic Behaviour of Soils and Effects of Geotechnical Factors
in Microzonation” Soil Dynamics And Earthquake Engineering; 21(5): 445-452.
Ansal,A.M. (1999) “Strong Motions and Site Amplification”, Proceedings of the Second International
Conference On Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Balkema, Rotterdam, 3: 879-894.
Ansal,A.M. & Iyisan,R.(1998) “Uniform Risk In Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analysis”, Proceedings of the XI
Danube European Conference On Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Porec, Croatia, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 317-324.
Ansal,A.M., Şengezer,B.S., İyisan,R. & Gençoğlu,S. (1993) “The Damage Distribution in March 13, 1992
Earthquake and Effects of Geotechnical Factors”, Soil Dynamics and Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,
Ed.P.Seco e Pinto, Balkema, 413-434.
Athanasopoulus, G.A., Pelekis, P.C. & Leonidou, E.A. (1999).”Effects of Surface Topography on Seismic
Ground Response in the Egion (Greece) 15 June 1995 Earthquake”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, (18):135-149.
Bard, P.-Y. (1994) “Effects of Surface Geology on Ground Motion: Recent Results and Remaining Issues”,
Proc. 10th ECEE, Vienna, Austria, (1):305-323.
Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, T. E. Fumal (1997), “Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and
Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work”, Seismological
Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 128-153.
Borcherdt,R.D. (1994) Estimates of Site Dependent Response Spectra For Design (Methodology And
Justification). Earthquake Spectra, 10(4): 617-654.
Chavez-Garcia, F.J., Cuenca, J. & Sanchez-Sesma, F.J. (1996) “Site Effects in Mexico City Urban Zone. A
Complementary Study”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, (15):141-146.
Chin-Hsiung, L., Jeng-Yaw, H. & Tzay-Chyn, S. (1998) “Observed Variation of Earthquake Motion across a
Basin-Taipei City”, Earthquake Spectra, (14)1:115-134.
Deodatis, G. (1996), “Non-stationary Stochastic Vector Processes: Seismic Ground Motion Applications”,
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 11, pp.145-168.
Erdik,M., K.Şeşetyan, M.Demircioğlu, B.Siyahi and H.Akman (2003) Assessment of the Seismic Hazards in
Adapazarı, Gölcük, Değirmendere and İhsaniye Provınces in Northwestern Turkey, Part 2C-Case Studies,
Microzonation of Pilot Areas, Adapazarı, Gölcük, İhsaniye and Değirmendere, Research Task Group Report,
Chapter 3
Faccioli, E. (1991) “Seismic Amplification in the Presence of Geological and Topographic Irregularities”, Proc.
2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, St. Louis,
Missouri, State-of-the-Art paper, 1779-1797.
Fäh, D., Rüttener, E., Noack, T. & Kruspan, P. (1997) “Microzonation of the City of Basel”, Journal of
Seismology, (1):87-102.
Frankel, A.D., Mueller, C.S., Barnhard, T.P., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, R.L., Harmsen, S.C., Klein, F.W.,
Perkins, D.M., Dickman, N.C., Hanson, S.L. & Hopper, M.G. (2000) “USGS National Seismic Hazard
Maps”, Earthquake Spectra, (16)1:1-15
Gazetas,G., Dakoulas, P. & Papageorgiou, A. (1990) “Local Soil and Source-Mechanism Effects in the 1986
Kalamata (Greece) Earthquake” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, (19):431-453
Hartzell, S., Carver, D. & Williams, R.A. (2001) “Site Response, Shallow Shear-Wave Velocity and Damage in
Los Gatos, California, from the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake”, BSSA, (91)3:468-478.
Iwasaki, T., Tokida, K., Tatsuoka, F., Watanabe, S., Yasuda, S., & Sato, H. (1982) “Microzonation of Soil
Liquefaction Potential Using Simplified Methods”, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. On Microzonation, Seattle, 3:1319-
1330
Joyner,W.B. & Fumal,T (1984). “Use of Measured Shear-Wave Velocity For Predictive Geological Site Effects
On Strong Motion”, Proceedings of the 8th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 2: 777-783.
Kawase, H. (1998) “The Cause of the Damage Belt in Kobe: ‘The Basin Edge Effect’, Constructive Interference
of the Direct S-Wave with the Basin-induced Diffracted/Rayleigh Waves”, Seismological Research Letters,
(67):25-34.
Lachet, C., Hatzfeld, D., Bard, P.Y., Theodulidis, N., Papaioannou, C. & Savvaidis, A. (1996) “Site Effects and
Microzonation in the City of Thessaloniki-Comparison of Different Approaches”, BSSA, (86)6:1692-1703.
Laue, J., Springman, S.M., & Buchheister, J. (2003a) Geotechnical Site Characterisation, Part 2C-Case Studies,
Microzonation of Pilot Areas, Adapazarı, Gölcük, İhsaniye and Değirmendere, Research Task Group Report,
Chapter 5
Laue, J., Springman, S.M., & Buchheister, J. (2003b) Site Response Analyses, Part 2C-Case Studies,
Microzonation of Pilot Areas, Adapazarı, Gölcük, İhsaniye and Değirmendere, Research Task Group Report,
Chapter 6
Marcellini, A., Bard, P.Y., Iannaccone, G., Meneroud, J.P., Mouroux, P., Romeo, R.W., Silvestri, F., Duval,
A.M., Martin, C. & Tento, A. (1995). “The Benevento Seismic Risk Project. II- The microzonation”, Proc.
5th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Nice, France, (1):810-817.
Mcguire,K.R.(1995) “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Earthquakes: Closing The Loop”,
BSSA 1995; 85(5): 1275-1284.
Midorikawa, S. (1987) “Prediction of Isoseismal Map in the Kanto Plain due to Hypothetical Earthquake”,
Journal of Structural Eng. 33B, 43-48.
Siyahi, B. ve Fahjan, Y. (2003) Landslide Hazard, Part 2C-Case Studies, Microzonation of Pilot Areas,
Adapazarı, Gölcük, İhsaniye and Değirmendere, Research Task Group Report, Chapter
Siyahi,B.G. & Ansal,A.M. (1993) Manual for Zonation on Seismic Geotechnical Hazard, TC4 Committee of
ISSMFE, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp.55-57
Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., Dobry, R., Finn, W. D. L.,
Harder, L. F. Jr., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J. P., Liao, S. S. C., Marcuson, W. F. III., Martin, G, R.,
Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M. S., Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B., and Stokoe, K. H., II. (2001)
“Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10):817-833
Wills, C.J., Peterson, M., Bryant, W.A., Reichle, M., Saucedo, G.J., Tan, S., Taylor, G. & Treiman, J. (2000) “A
Site Conditions Map for California based on Geology and Shear Wave Velocity”, BSSA, (90)6B:S187-S208.