## 4 Site Response Analyses
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**No** & **Earthquake** & **Year** & **Station** & **Magnitud (M)** & **Fault Type** & **PGA** & **R\({}_{\text{jb }}\) (km)** & **R\({}_{\text{rup}}\) (km)** & **V\({}_{\text{s30 }}\) (m/sec)** \\ \hline
1 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Imperial \\ Valley-02” \\ \end{tabular} & 1940 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “El Centro \\ Array \#9” \\ \end{tabular} & 6.95 & Strike Slip & 0.280 & 6.09 & 6.09 & 213.44 \\ \hline
2 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Parkfield” \\ \end{tabular} & 1966 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “Cholame– \\ Shandon \\ Array \#5” \\ \end{tabular} & 6.19 & Strike Slip & 0.443 & 9.58 & 9.58 & 289.56 \\ \hline
3 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Managua\_ \\ Nicaragua- \\ 01” \\ \end{tabular} & 1972 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “Managua\_ \\ Esso” \\ \end{tabular} & 6.24 & Strike Slip & 0.371 & 3.51 & 4.06 & 288.77 \\ \hline
4 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Imperial \\ Valley-06” \\ \end{tabular} & 1979 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “El Centro \\ Array \#4” \\ \end{tabular} & 6.53 & Strike Slip & 0.484 & 4.9 & 7.05 & 208.91 \\ \hline
5 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Morgan \\ Hill” \\ \end{tabular} & 1984 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “Gilroy \\ Array \#4” \\ \end{tabular} & 6.19 & Strike Slip & 0.224 & 11.53 & 11.54 & 221.78 \\ \hline
6 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Kobe\_ \\ Japan” \\ \end{tabular} & 1995 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “Amagasaki” \\ \end{tabular} & 6.9 & Strike Slip & 0.275 & 11.34 & 11.34 & 256.00 \\ \hline
7 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Kocaeli\_ \\ Turkey” \\ \end{tabular} & 1999 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “Yarimca” \\ \end{tabular} & 7.51 & Strike Slip & 0.226 & 1.38 & 4.83 & 297.00 \\ \hline
8 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Duzce\_ \\ Turkey” \\ \end{tabular} & 1999 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “Duzce” \\ \end{tabular} & 7.14 & Strike Slip & 0.404 & 0 & 6.58 & 281.86 \\ \hline
9 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Parkfield– \\ 02\_ CA” \\ \end{tabular} & 2004 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “Parkfield— \\ Cholame \\ 4 aw” \\ \end{tabular} & 6.0 & Strike Slip & 0.302 & 4.81 & 5.53 & 283.38 \\ \hline
10 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “El Mayor- \\ Cucapah\_ \\ Mexico” \\ \end{tabular} & 2010 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “Cerro \\ Prieto \\ Geother- \\ mal” \\ \end{tabular} & 7.2 & Strike Slip & 0.286 & 8.88 & 10.92 & 242.05 \\ \hline
11 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} “Darfield\_ \\ New Zealand” \\ \end{tabular} & 2010 &
\begin{tabular}{c} “Linc” \\ \end{tabular} & 7.0 & Strike Slip & 0.461 & 5.07 & 7.11 & 263.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Selected earthquakes and properties [39]. Earthquakes used in site-specific analyses must first be scaled according to the earthquake characteristics of the study area. Earthquake records can be scaled to fit the design spectrum using two different methods (time-history/frequency-definition). In this study, scaling was performed using both methods. With developments in the field of engineering, earthquake records are scaled using different methods. Real earthquake records can be scaled using either time-domain or frequency-domain scaling methods. In time-history scaling methods, the frequency content of the record is changed only by adjusting the amplitude, without altering the frequency. In frequency-domain scaling methods, the frequency content of the ground motion record is modified to achieve parity  
Figure 10: Spectral acceleration-period graphs of earthquakes. Figure 9: The acceleration-time graphs used in the analysis. with the design acceleration spectrum. When Figure 11 is examined, it can be seen that there are changes in the amplitude of the acceleration record in the Sc-1 method compared to 0.689 g, but in the Sc-2 method, there are changes in both the frequency and the duration of the peak acceleration value. After scaling the site-specific dynamic parameters, shear wave velocities of the soil profile, and the 11 earthquakes with two different methods, analyses were performed at a total of 4 boreholes.