## 5 Results and Discussion
** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**First Layer**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Second Layer**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Third Layer**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Depth to the Top of**} \\ \hline  & \(\mathbf{V_{p}}\) **(m/s)** & \(\mathbf{V_{s}}\) **(m/s)** & \(\mathbf{V_{p}}\) **(m/s)** & \(\mathbf{V_{s}}\) **(m/s)** & \(\mathbf{V_{p}}\) **(m/s)** & \(\mathbf{V_{s}}\) **(m/s)** & **Second Layer** & **Third Layer** \\ \hline
1 & 506.46 & 447.85 & 1152.5 & 904.48 & 2250.78 & 1513.74 & –3.6 & –18.7 \\ \hline
2 & 402.06 & 331 & 1123.83 & 916.82 & 2246.82 & 1481.54 & –1.5 & –19.5 \\ \hline
3 & 570.33 & 496.24 & 1203.48 & 907.59 & 2012.68 & 1553.1 & –4.8 & –18.9 \\ \hline
4 & 381.65 & 225.83 & 1152.84 & 833.24 & 1982.06 & 1452.03 & –1.5 & –14.7 \\ \hline
5 & 356.38 & 270.9 & 1177.01 & 893.6 & 2350.18 & 1433.16 & –1.8 & –18.1 \\ \hline
6 & 575.04 & 426.93 & 1225.98 & 920.31 & 2219.22 & 1260 & –3.1 & –19.7 \\ \hline
7 & 618.2 & 496.15 & 1234.22 & 970.75 & 2242.66 & 1706.72 & –4.8 & –23.0 \\ \hline
8 & 534.63 & 382.5 & 1214.56 & 911.85 & 2401.43 & 1356.7 & –2.3 & –19.2 \\ \hline
9 & 609.61 & 488.14 & 1303.6 & 1093.96 & 2821.81 & 1571.72 & –3.6 Using the Voxler(r) 4 program, a 3D velocity distribution was built up from the 2D models that were obtained by inverting the shallow refraction data in the investigated site [40]. The comparison and correlation of all the computed models highly depended on this data presentation. The P-wave and S-wave velocities along the seventeen measurement profiles are shown in the three-dimensional fence diagram (Figure 11). This figure reveals the former three interpreted geoseismic strata, which were distinguished identically based on the vertical and horizontal velocity distributions. Figure 12 displays the contour maps of the seismic P- and S-wave velocity variations along the study site for the three layers. These figures show the horizontal velocity changes due to lithological changes. They revealed that the lithology was not identical everywhere due to changes in the physical properties of soils/rocks throughout the layers. Figure 13 shows a shading color relief map of the depths to the top of the second and third layers from the seismic data. The thickness of the first layer increased to the east and west central sides of the site, decreased to the north and south, and reached a minimum value in the southeastern and northwestern parts of the site. The thickness of the second layer increased in the north and south directions and decreased in the east and west directions. Figure 11: (**A**) Three-dimensional fence diagrams depicting the velocity variations for the P-wave and (**B**) S-wave along the surveyed profiles. The three interpreted geoseismic layers are shown in this figure. They were all differentiated using the vertical and horizontal velocity distributions. Figure 12: Zonation maps showing the spatial variation of seismic P- and S-wave velocities for three layers along the study site, as shown in the (**a**) V\({}_{\rm p}\) of the first layer, (**b**) V\({}_{\rm p}\) of the second layer, (**c**) V\({}_{\rm p}\) of the third layer, (**d**) V\({}_{\rm s}\) of the first layer, (**e**) V\({}_{\rm s}\) of the second layer, and (**f**) V\({}_{\rm s}\) of the third layer.