+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS
ENGEO-02587; No of Pages 15

Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx – xxx

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using

Geographical Information Systems based on
Multicriteria Decision Analysis
Çağıl Kolat a,⁎, Vedat Doyuran a , Can Ayday b , M. Lütfi Süzen a
a
Department of Geological Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06531, Turkey
b
Anadolu University, Research Institute of Satellite and Space Sciences, Eskişehir 26470, Turkey
Received 7 July 2005; received in revised form 8 July 2006; accepted 13 July 2006

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
based on Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). As study area, the Eskişehir downtown area has been chosen. Eskişehir is one
of the most rapidly growing cities in central Turkey. The model inputs include slope, flood susceptibility, soil, depth to groundwater
table, swelling potential, and liquefaction potential. The weight and rank values are assigned to the layers and to the classes of each
layer respectively. The assignment of the weight/rank values and the analysis are realized by the application of two different
decision models, namely Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methods. The geotechnical
microzonation maps prepared as outputs of these methods are found to be consistent with each other and confirmed by the experts
within the study area. The geotechnical microzonation map prepared using the AHP method is recommended as the final map of
the study.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Geotechnical microzonation model; Geographical Information Systems; Multicriteria Decision Analysis; Analytic Hierarchy Process;
Eskişehir

1. Introduction provides an effective solution for this requirement. Most

Rapidly growing cities with increasing population
underline the requirement for new residential areas. En-
gineering geological evaluations should be performed in
order to determine the most suitable residential areas.
Preparation of the geotechnical microzonation maps
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 210 57 23; fax: +90 312 210
57 50.
E-mail addresses: ckolat@metu.edu.tr (Ç. Kolat),
vedat@metu.edu.tr (V. Doyuran), cayday@anadolu.edu.tr (C. Ayday),
suzen@metu.edu.tr (M. Lütfi Süzen).
0013-7952/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005
of these geotechnical site selection applications require
an enormous amount of data which must be geograph-
ically related to each other. Conventionally, geo-
environmental evaluation and mapping were laborious
and time-consuming tasks because of the large amount of
time and effort required for the manual handling and
processing of the spatial data (Dai et al., 2001). Con-
sequently, there exists a necessity of a system where all
of these large quantities of data could be manipulated
with ease. Geographical Information Systems (GIS),
being a computer-based system that enables acquisition,
storage, retrieval, modeling, manipulation and analysis

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx

of geographically related data (Aronoff, 1993; Worboys,
1995), has provided a complimentary solution for this
requirement.
Site selection decision problems involve a set of
geographically defined alternatives, from which a choice
of one or more alternatives is to be made on the basis of
multiple, conflicting and incommensurate evaluation
criteria. The alternatives are geographically defined in
the sense that results of the analysis (decisions) depend
on their spatial arrangement. Accordingly, many real-
world spatial planning and management problems give
rise to GIS based multicriteria decision making or spatial
Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) (Malczewski,
1999).
GIS should be considered as a special-purpose digital
database in which a common spatial coordinate system

Fig. 1. Location map of the study area.

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx 3

is the primary means of storing and accessing data while
processing the data to obtain information for decision
making. The ultimate aim of GIS is to provide support
for decision making (Densham, 1991). This can be
achieved by integrating the MCDA and the analytical
capabilities of GIS (Diamond and Wright, 1988; Carver,
1991; Eastman et al., 1995; Jankowski, 1995; Keller,
1996; Malczewski, 1999).
The purpose of this study is to prepare a
geotechnical microzonation model using MCDA tech-
niques with GIS support and to propose a concise
flowchart to be used in further similar studies. As study
area, the sub-section of Eskişehir downtown area has
been chosen (Fig. 1). Eskişehir is one of the most
rapidly growing cities in the Central Anatolian region
of Turkey. The study area is bounded by the
coordinates 4408166 N and 283628 E in the north-
western edge and 4403718 N and 288712 E in the
southeastern edge in Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) projection (Zone 36 N, European Mean Datum
1950). The study area covers approximately 22.5 km2
(∼ 5.1 km × 4.4 km). Since the study area is already
densely settled, the proposed microzonation model can
also be used to check the suitability of already settled
areas and also to determine if further precautions are
needed for safer planning actions or modifications.

Fig. 2. Flowchart for the preparation of the microzonation map of the study area using GIS based MCDA.

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx

2. Methodology
The steps followed throughout the study are pre-
sented in Fig. 2, where steps of implementing MCDA and
GIS for the preparation of the geotechnical microzonation
model are emphasized. The data sets used in this study can
be grouped in three main data sources as topographical base
maps, lithological maps and geotechnical borehole data.
From these three data sources six different predictor maps
were produced. These were slope, flood susceptibility, soil,
depth to groundwater table, swelling and liquefaction
potential layers. The next step was to assign weight and
rank values to the layers and to the classes of each layer,
respectively. The assignment of the weight/rank values and
the analysis were realized by the application of two
different decision models, namely the Simple Additive

Fig. 3. a. The Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the study area, b. Slope layer of the study area, c. Flood susceptibility layer of the study area.

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx 5

Weighting (SAW) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) methods.
This flowchart can be applied for further similar studies,
provided that the layers used for the analysis are determined
according to the needs of the study area.
3. Data evaluation
3.1. Topographical map
1:25.000 and 1:5.000 scale topographical maps were
first registered according to the Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) projection system (Zone: 36 and
Datum: European 1950 — Mean) and digitized. These
digitized contours were used to produce the Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) of the study area.
The cell size of the DEM was determined by the
method proposed by Florinsky and Kuryakova (2000)
where the adequate cell size for the DEM of the study
area was determined as 10 m. Six different surface fitting
methods were applied and evaluated according to their
accuracy in order to decide the most appropriate method
that represents the natural environment best. The surface
fitting methods applied were; minimum curvature, in-
verse distance, profiles, polynomial, triangulation and
kriging. Inverse distance and polynomial methods were
discarded since they seem to produce significant errors in
representing the study area properly. The other four
methods were evaluated according to their accuracy. The
accuracy assessment for DEM was performed by the
calculation of Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE). For
computing the RMSE, sample points were taken accord-
ing to USGS mapping standards (USGS, 2004).
The true and interpolated topographic values of the
sample points were examined, and compared by
calculating their RMSE; to be able to decide which
interpolation method should have been used. During the
evaluation, it was observed that when the study area is
divided into two sections (as flat area and gentle hills)
and two different methods are applied for each respective
section, the vertical accuracy of the produced DEM
increases. The RMSE values were calculated, compared
and evaluated separately for these two sections. As a
result, the profile surface fitting algorithm was used for
the gentle hills section and the minimum curvature
algorithm for the flat area section. The integration of
these two methods yielded an RMSE of 0.079 m in the
whole DEM (Fig. 3a), which is quite acceptable.
3.1.1. Slope layer
Slope is an important factor while considering the
ease of engineering construction and susceptibility to

Fig. 4. a. Lithology map of the study area (Ayday et al., 2001), b. Soil layer of the study area including the borehole locations.

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx

Fig. 5. a. Depth to groundwater table layer of the study area including the borehole locations, b. Swelling potential layer of the study area including
the borehole locations, c. Liquefaction potential layer of the study area (modified from Ayday et al., 2001).

landsliding (Dai et al., 2001; Süzen and Doyuran, the ease of engineering constructions, since steep slopes
2004a). There is no slope stability problem encountered interfere with excavation processes.
in the study area (Koyuncu, 2001). Therefore, the slope The slope map was prepared in degrees using the DEM
layer will only contribute to the microzonation map in of the study area. Afterwards, the slope values were

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx 7

Table 1 (Lower Eocene); Conglomerate-sandstone, Tuff–Marl–

Assigned weight and rank values for the layers/classes of the study Clay and Limestone Members of Porsuk Formation
area
(Upper Miocene); Old Alluvium (Quaternary) and Young
Layers Weighting Classes Ranking Alluvium (Quaternary). In the study area, Mamuca and
Liquefaction 10 No liquefaction 5 Porsuk Formations were classified as bedrock.
potential layer potential The soil layer of the study area was based on the
Moderate liquefaction 2
lithology map and on the report prepared by Ayday et al.
potential
High liquefaction 1 (2001). The relevant data of 66 boreholes were reviewed
potential and evaluated. The liquid limit and plasticity index data
Flood susceptibility 8 Non-flood areas 5 were compiled for the depth range corresponding to the
layer Flood-prone areas 1 average foundation excavations and the data were
plotted into the plasticity chart in order to evaluate the
Soil layer 7 Bedrock 5
SC 4 soil behavior. The units classified as bedrock were not
MH/ML 3 taken into consideration. The soil layer of the study area
CL 2 was prepared according to the Unified Soil Classifica-
CH 1 tion System (USCS). Based on USCS, the main soil
Depth to groundwater 5 N10 m 5
classes include, SC (Clayey sands, sand–clay mixtures),
table layer 5–10 m 3
0–5 m 1 MH / ML (Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous
Swelling 4 Bedrock 5 fine sands or silts, elastic silts/Inorganic silts, very fine
potential layer Low expansion 4 sands, rock flour, silty of clayey fine sands), CH
Medium expansion 3 (Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays) and CL
Slope layer 3 Most favorable 5
(Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly
slope class
Intermediate 4 clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays). The results
slope class
Least favorable slope 1 Table 2
class Standardized rank values and normalized weight values
Layers Weighting Classes Ranking
subdivided into three main classes according to the (normalized) (standardized)
Guidelines for Urban Engineering Geological Investiga- Liquefaction 0.2703 No liquefaction 1
tions (South African Institute of Engineering Geologists). potential layer potential
Slopes between 2° and 6° were assigned as the most Moderate 0.4
liquefaction
favorable class, slopes less than 2° and slopes between 6°
potential
and 12° were assigned as the intermediate class, and slopes High liquefaction 0.2
greater than 12° were assigned as the least favorable class. potential
The slope layer of the study area is given in Fig. 3b. Flood susceptibility 0.2162 Non-flood areas 1
layer Flood-prone areas 0.2
3.1.2. Flood susceptibility layer
Soil layer 0.1892 Bedrock 1
The flood susceptibility of the study area was SC 0.8
examined in case of thunderstorms of long duration. MH/ML 0.6
The potential flood-prone areas (Fig. 3c) were defined CL 0.4
as the areas having slope values less than 2° within the CH 0.2
Depth to 0.1351 N10 m 1
Porsuk Stream floodplain. It should be noted that in the
groundwater 5–10 m 0.6
preparation of the flood susceptibility layer, it was table layer 0–5 m 0.2
assumed that the Porsuk Dam will not fail, even in case Swelling 0.1081 Bedrock 1
of an earthquake. potential layer Low expansion 0.8
Medium expansion 0.6
3.2. Lithology map and soil layer
Slope layer 0.0811 Most favorable 1
slope class
The lithology map of the study area was taken from Intermediate 0.8
Ayday et al. (2001). For the study area, six lithological slope class
units were identified (Fig. 4a). These units include Least favorable 0.2
slope class
Conglomerate-sandstone Member of Mamuca Formation

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. The microzonation map prepared by using the SAW method and the histogram showing the boundaries of the three zones.

obtained were evaluated spatially and the boundaries of
the soil classes were determined manually. The soil layer
of the study area including the borehole locations is
given in Fig. 4b.
3.3. Borehole data
The borehole data used in this study was obtained
from Ayday et al. (2001). The borehole data were ana-
lyzed and evaluated in order to obtain the depth to
groundwater table, swelling potential and liquefaction
potential layers.
3.3.1. Depth to groundwater table layer
Groundwater is one of the main factors governing the
stability of foundation excavations as well as the ease and/
or difficulty of the excavation works. In liquefaction as-
sessment the position of the water table within non-

Fig. 7. Hierarchical structure used in the preparation of the microzonation map.

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx 9

Table 3
Comparison judgments from a fundamental scale of absolute numbers
for assigning weight/rank values (Saaty, 2004)
Weight/Rank Intensities
1 Equal
3 Moderately dominant
5 Strongly dominant
7 Very strongly dominant
9 Extremely dominant
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values
Reciprocals For inverse judgments
cohesive sediments should also be known. The lithological
units exposed in the study area formed fair-to-poor aquifers
due to the abundance of MH/ML type soils. Both the
bedrock and the alluvial deposits were hydraulically con-
nected and serve as a single aquifer, which was unconfined.
The depth to water table layer was prepared by
considering the highest elevations of the static water levels.
Thus, from the available geotechnical boreholes, six within
the study area and six located at close vicinity, groundwater
levels measured during May were compiled and depth to
water table layer was prepared. Areas underlain by shallow
(0–5 m) groundwater table were considered as least
favorable, between 5–10 m as favorable, and deeper than
10 m as the most favorable (Fig. 5a).
3.3.2. Swelling potential layer
The swelling potential layer of the study area was
determined using 13 boreholes, for the first 2.5 m from the
surface, since below this depth, the soil moisture remains
constant. After compiling the Clay Content (%) and
Plasticity Index (%) from the borehole data within 0–
2.5 m depth interval, these values were evaluated by using
the activity chart, and were found to be within the low and
medium expansion classes. Therefore, the classes of the
swelling potential layer of the study area were determined
as; low expansion and medium expansion (Fig. 5b).
4. Analysis
4.1. Common steps of Multicriteria Decision Analysis
applications
In order to obtain geotechnical microzonation model of
the study area two methods were applied: Simple Additive
Weighting (SAW) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
In the analysis, weight values to the layers and rank
values to the classes of each layer were assigned. For
each class of the layer, rankings were given according to
their significance in foundation performance. After the
rankings were assigned to the classes of each layer, the
weights were assigned to layers according to their
importance. The interaction between the layers was not
taken into consideration since the layers were assumed
to be independent of each other.
The weight and rank values of the layers and classes of
each layer were standardized in order to obtain a common
dimensionless unit. Afterwards, the output (microzona-
tion map) was created by multiplying the weight value
assigned to each layer by the rank value given to the
classes of that layer and finally by adding up the products.
As a result, the microzonation map of Eskişehir
downtown area regarding the foundation suitability of
residential areas was grouped into different zones based
on the recommended subdivisions by The General
Directorate of Disaster Affairs of Turkey (GDDA, 2000).
4.2. Simple Additive Weighting (SAW)
In the SAW method, the weight and rank values are
given totally based on expert opinion. In this method, all
of the layers are concurrently considered in assigning
weight values, and all classes of each layer are also
concurrently considered while assigning rank values. As
a result, six weight values were assigned to the six layers.

3.3.3. Liquefaction potential layer 4.2.1. Assigning weight and rank values
The liquefaction potential layer of the study area was In the assigning of weight and rank values, inverse
taken from Ayday et al. (2001), which was based on the weighting and ranking criteria was used. For weight
Seed and De Alba (1986) approach. In the calculations,
peak horizontal acceleration was taken as 0.4 g and the Table 4
grain size data for a depth of 5 m was used. The pairwise comparison table for assigning weight values
The liquefaction potential map was reclassified to
Liquefaction Swelling Soil Depth Slope Flood
obtain the liquefaction potential layer of the study area. to gwt
The classes of “bedrock” and “groundwater level deeper
Liquefaction 1 5 3 4 6 1
than 10 m” were assigned to the class of “no liquefaction”. Swelling 1/5 1 1/3 1/2 1 1/4
The liquefaction potential layer of the study area includes Soil 1/3 3 1 2 4 1
high liquefaction potential (Factor of Safety (FS) b 1.0), Depth to gwt 1/4 2 1/2 1 3 1/3
moderate liquefaction potential (1.0 b FS b 1.2) and no Slope 1/6 1 1/4 1/3 1 1/5
Flood 1 4 1 3 5 1
liquefaction potential (FS N 1.2) (Fig. 5c).

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx

Table 5
The pairwise comparison tables for assigning rank values to the classes of each layer
Liquefaction potential layer No liquefaction Moderate High
potential liquefaction liquefaction
potential potential
No liquefaction potential 1 7 9
Moderate liquefaction potential 1/7 1 2
High liquefaction potential 1/9 1/2 1
Flood susceptibility layer Non-flood areas Flood-prone areas
Non-flood areas 1 1/5
Flood-prone areas 5 1
Soil layer Bedrock SC MH/ML CL CH
Bedrock 1 3 5 6 7
SC 1/3 1 3 5 6
MH/ML 1/5 1/3 1 3 4
CL 1/6 1/5 1/3 1 3
CH 1/7 1/6 1/4 1/3 1
Depth to groundwater table layer N10 m 5–10 m 0–5 m
N10 m 1 2 7
5–10 m 1/2 1 4
0–5 m 1/7 1/4 1
Swelling potential layer Bedrock Low expansion Medium
expansion
Bedrock 1 3 5
Low expansion 1/3 1 3
Medium expansion 1/5 1/3 1
Slope layer Most favorable Intermediate Least
slope class slope class favorable
slope class
Most favorable slope class 1 3 6
Intermediate slope class 1/3 1 5
Least favorable slope class 1/6 1/5 1

values, the assignment start from the least important
with the value of 1, the next least important is assigned
the value 2, and the most important layer gets the value
of 10. Similarly the rank values were quantified as the
least important class value being 1 and the most im-
portant class value being 5.
The assigned weight and rank values for the layers/
classes of the study area based on engineering judgment
are given in Table 1. As can be observed from the table,
the most important layer was defined as the liquefaction
potential layer, followed by the flood susceptibility, soil,
depth to groundwater table, swelling potential and slope
layers in decreasing order of importance. In the
determination of the weight values, the liquefaction
layer had the greatest value since the study area is
located in the second degree earthquake zone (GDDA,
1996). The flood layer has taken the second important
role since there is a large floodplain in the study area and
for the case of thunderstorms of long duration, there is a
possible risk of flood (In 1963, the overflow of Porsuk
Stream resulted in serious flood hazard). Soil layer was
also important since the behavior of the soil under static
and dynamic loading conditions should be taken into
consideration during construction. In contributing to the
microzonation map, the depth to groundwater table,
swelling potential and slope layers have carried
relatively low importance, since the possible problems
can be handled relatively more easily and practically.
The weight assigning order of these three layers was
given according to the ease of the precautions needed, as
(in descending order): depth to groundwater table,
swelling potential and slope.
4.2.2. Standardization of rank and weight values
The simplest formula for standardizing the raw data
is to divide each raw score by the maximum value for a
given criterion (Malczewski, 1999). Hence, the rank
values of the classes were standardized according to the
relative distance between the origin and the maximum
rank value, using the following formula:
X Vij ¼ Xij =Xjmax
where X'ij is the standardized rank value for the ith class
for the jth layer. Xij is the raw rank value, and Xjmax is
the maximum rank value for the jth layer.
On the other hand, the weight values were normal-
ized by dividing each weight by the sum of the weights.

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx 11

Table 6 4.2.3. Result map of SAW

The computed weight and rank values For the preparation of the microzonation map of the
Layers Weighting Classes Ranking study area, the overlay operations of the layers were used.
Liquefaction 0.350722 No liquefaction 0.792757 The formula proposed by Malczewski (1999) for
potential layer potential obtaining the total scores was applied in this study.
Moderate 0.131221 Accordingly, each pixel of the output microzonation map
liquefaction
(Mi) was calculated by using the following summation:
potential
High liquefaction 0.076022 Mi ¼ Rj wj xij
potential
Flood susceptibility 0.256510 Non-flood areas 0.833333 where, xij = rank value of the ith class with respect to
layer Flood-prone areas 0.166667 the jth layer
Soil layer 0.184303 Bedrock 0.496900
wj = normalized weight of the jth layer.
SC 0.264927
MH/ML 0.129109 Thus the normalized weight value assigned for each
CL 0.069362 layer was multiplied by the standardized rank value
CH 0.039702 given to the classes of that layer. Finally the sum of the
Depth to groundwater 0.102535 N10 m 0.602629 products was calculated.
table layer 5–10 m 0.315029
The microzonation map of the study area was
0–5 m 0.082342
Swelling 0.057615 Bedrock 0.636986 categorized in three resultant classes as: Areas Suitable
potential layer Low Expansion 0.258285 for Settlement (SA), Provisional Settlement Areas
Medium expansion 0.104729 (PSA) and Detailed Geotechnical Investigation Re-
quired Areas (DGA) (Fig. 6). The boundary conditions
Slope layer 0.048315 Most favorable 0.634838
for the categories were evaluated according to the expert
slope class
Intermediate 0.287203 judgment taking into consideration the score distribu-
slope class tions by means of discrete histograms (Fig. 6).
Least favorable 0.077959
slope class 4.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

In the AHP method, pairwise comparisons form

Thus the sum of the normalized weight values was equal the backbone of the methodology. AHP provides us
to 1. The standardized rank values and the normalized with a way to derive from an observer's quantified
weight values are given in Table 2. judgments (i.e., from the relative values associated

Fig. 8. The microzonation map prepared by using the AHP method and the histogram showing the boundaries of the three zones.

Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx
with pairs of stimuli), a set of relative weights or
priorities associated with individual stimuli (Özdemir,
2005). Hence, in assigning the weights of the layers,
only two layers were considered at a time. In total 15
different weights were given, since in assigning each
weight, only two layers were considered at a time. In
other words, the total number of pairings where every
layer was matched with all others is 15. Similarly, the
rankings of the classes of each layer were also
assigned considering only two classes at a time.
The hierarchical structure used in the preparation of
the microzonation map is given in Fig. 7. In assigning
weights, pairwise comparisons of each layer with other
layers were assessed, while in assigning rank values,
pairwise comparisons of each class with other classes
of the same layer were assessed. For the assignment of
weight and rank values, the comparison judgments
scale from Saaty (2006) was used, as given in Table 3
with their corresponding meanings.
4.3.1. Assigning weight values
The pairwise comparison matrix for assigning
the weight values is given in Table 4. The logic
behind assigning values in the pairwise comparison
matrix can be explained through the liquefaction layer
as follows:
The liquefaction layer has equal importance with the
flood layer and moderate prevalence to soil layer,
whereas it has moderate–strong, strong, and strong–
very strong prevalence against depth to groundwater
table, swelling and slope layers, respectively.
4.3.2. Assigning rank values
The AHP method can be used not only to assess
weights but also to assess the performance of
alternatives by pairwise comparison of the alternatives
(Janssen, 1992). In order to assign the rank values to
the classes of each layer, the pairwise comparison
matrix was prepared separately for the layers, using the
Table 7
Possible result numbers of the addition process with the corresponding
percentages
Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
comparison judgments presented in Table 3. The
implementation of pairwise comparison tables for
assigning rank values to the classes of each layer is
given in Table 5.
4.3.3. Obtaining overall weight and rank values
In order to obtain the overall weight/rank values, the
eigenvector solution was used. This approach had been
demonstrated mathematically by Saaty (1990). The
solution for the eigenvector can be explained in the
following steps:
i. A short computational way to obtain the weight/
rank values is to raise the pairwise matrix to pow-
ers that are successively squared each time.
ii. The row sums are then calculated and normalized.
iii. The iteration is instructed to stop when the
difference between these sums in two consecutive
calculations is smaller than a prescribed value.
Applying the above method, the overall weight
values of the layers and the overall rank values of the
classes of each layer were obtained. The pairwise
comparison matrix was squared; row sums were
calculated and normalized, the matrix obtained was
squared; row sums were calculated and normalized
again. This process was repeated until the difference
between the normalized values fell below the
threshold of computing capabilities. When the differ-
ence value appeared to be zero, then the normalized
values were taken as weight/rank values for the
classes/layers. The computed weight and rank values
are given in Table 6.
4.3.4. Consistency ratio
The consistency ratio was calculated in order to
determine whether the pairwise comparisons were
consistent or not. The consistency ratio (CR) is designed
in such a way that if CR b 0.10, the ratio indicates a
reasonable level of consistency in the pairwise compar-
isons; if CR ≥ 0.10, the values of the ratio are indicative
of inconsistent judgments (Malczewski, 1999). The
consistency ratios for all of the pairwise comparisons
used in order to obtain the microzonation map were
calculated and found to be consistent.
4.3.5. Result map of AHP
The geotechnical microzonation map of the study
area using results of AHP method was prepared in a
manner consistent with that of the SAW method.
Thus, the normalized weight value assigned for each
layer was multiplied by the standardized rank value
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx
given to the classes of that layer. Finally the sum of
the products was calculated.
As in the SAW result, the AHP microzonation map
of the study area was categorized again in three resul-
tant classes as: Areas Suitable for Settlement (SA),
Provisional Settlement Areas (PSA) and Detailed Geo-
technical Investigation Required Areas (DGA) (Fig. 8).
The boundary conditions for the categories were
evaluated according to the expert judgment taking
into account the score distributions by means of
discrete histograms (Fig. 8).
4.4. Comparison of microzonation maps
In order to compare the microzonation maps which
were prepared using SAW and AHP methods, the
common areas and noncommon areas were highlighted.
During this process, firstly the classes of a categorical
map were transferred from the ordinal scale to the
interval scale (Süzen, 2002). Numbers were assigned to
the classes of both microzonation maps, in such a way
that, the sum of these values from the two microzona-
tion maps must be unique and represent different
conditions (Süzen and Doyuran, 2004b). In this study,
two microzonation maps were added to find out the
common and noncommon areas. The possible results of
the addition process are shown in Table 7 with the
corresponding percentages obtained from the addition
process.
As a result of the comparison analysis of the study
area, the two microzonation maps were found to give
similar outputs. In the comparison output map; only the
classes of “11”, “22”, “33”, and “32” were found. The
absence of classes “13” and “31” shows that there
exists no conflict between the microzonation maps.
Furthermore, classes “11”, “22”, and “33” stand for
exactly same classes both in SAW and in AHP to DGA,
PSA and SA, respectively. Unfortunately class “32”
means that the “PSA” class found in the microzonation
map prepared with SAW method is found as “SA” class
in the microzonation map prepared with AHP method.
As a result, the ratio of the correct classification
category (classes “11”, “22” and “33”) in the
comparison of two microzonation maps was found to
be 98.39% of the total study area.
5. Discussion
Multiple objectives are essential to many ‘real’ sys-
tems. Frequently, these multiple objectives conflict with
each other (as one objective is improved, the others may
deteriorate). Dimensional analysis can help the decision
Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
13
maker to make better decisions under such circum-
stances (Starr and Stein, 1976).
In decision making context, a criterion would imply
some sort of standard by which one particular choice or
course of action could be judged to be more desirable
than another. Actually in real life, every decision re-
quires the balancing of multiple factors so that in some
sense, everyone is well practiced in multicriteria de-
cision making. However, the human brain can only
simultaneously consider a limited amount of informa-
tion, so that all factors cannot be resolved in one's head
(Belton and Stewart, 2002).
Usage of GIS based MCDA is essential in the
preparation of geotechnical microzonation maps due to
the need for using a large amount of spatial data and
integrating the geographical data with the decision
maker's preferences.
Two considerations are of critical importance for
spatial Multicriteria Decision Analysis: (i) the GIS capa-
bilities of data acquisition, storage, retrieval, manipula-
tion and analysis, and (ii) the MCDA capabilities for
aggregating the geographical data and the decision
maker's preferences into uni-dimensional values of
alternative decisions (Carver, 1991; Jankowski, 1995).
Accordingly, the possible sources of errors in our study
can be categorized as data related errors and errors
resulting from the decision maker's preferences:
Considering the data related errors; the original
geological, hydrogeological, and geotechnical data
seem to be quite satisfactory for this study. However,
the number of boreholes (especially for the groundwater
level observations) could be increased to obtain more
information for better geotechnical characterization of
the study area. For the preparation of the data layers, the
continuous surfaces are formed from the interpolation of
this raw point/line data. During this interpolation
process, some errors may have occurred due to lack of
information between the consecutive points/lines. We
tried to minimize these errors in the preparation of DEM
of the study area by applying several surface fitting
methods and choosing the method with least RMSE
value. For the maps prepared using the borehole data, the
point data is interpolated manually as accurate as
possible.
In addition to the data related errors, there is un-
certainty involved in the specification of decision maker
preferences. In fact, the criterion map errors and de-
cision maker preference errors are interrelated. The
information derived from criterion maps is an essential
element for specifying the decision maker's preferences.
For reliable results, the decision maker is expected to be
an expert to make preferences since the importance of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx
each criterion can be overestimated or underestimated
according to these preferences.
The subjectivity of the preferences comes mainly
from the assignment of weight and rank values. In the
scope of this study, the weight and rank values which are
used both in the SAWand the AHP methods, are assigned
properly according to the engineering judgment.
The basic differences between the SAW and the AHP
methods lie in their objectiveness, easiness and evaluation
opportunities. Although AHP is more complicated than
SAW, AHP has more objective results. The basic strategy
is to divide the decision problem into small, understand-
able and manageable parts; analyze each part; and
integrate the parts in a logical manner to produce a
meaningful solution (Malczewski, 1999). In the AHP
method, this strategy is applied in assigning rank and
weight values since only two layers/classes are considered
and compared at a time. This decreases the subjectivity of
the study and brings an advantage to AHP method.
Besides, the pairwise comparison for the determina-
tion of weights is more suitable than direct assignment
of the weights, because one can check the consistency of
the weights by calculating the consistency ratio in
pairwise comparison; however, in direct assignment of
weights, the weights are depending on the preference of
decision maker (Şener et al., 2006).
On the other hand, the SAW method definitely has an
advantage in rapidity. In applying this method, the result
can be realized quickly with the contribution of a
qualified expert. However, since SAW method uses
direct assignment of the weights/ranks, the qualification
of the expert needed is much more than needed in AHP.
Furthermore, the AHP method provides the user to be
able to evaluate the situation in different aspects. In
many decision problems, four kinds of concerns are
considered: benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks
(BOCR); in which the first two are advantageous, and
hence, are positive and the second two are disadvanta-
geous and are therefore negative (Saaty and Özdemir,
2003). They have shown that the negative priorities can
also be defined as relative numbers and used along with
positive priorities in AHP. Therefore, another important
advantage of the AHP method is to lead the expert to be
able to evaluate the BOCR of the problem separately,
which is not possible when applying the SAW method.
The microzonation maps obtained by using the SAW
and the AHP methods are found to be consistent with
each other. The reason for this consistency lies in the
proper assignments of weight and rank values by the
expert. The microzonation map prepared using the AHP
method is chosen to be the final map of this study due to
the clear advantages of this method.
Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
6. Conclusion
This study demonstrates the superiority of the usage of
MCDA techniques with GIS for the preparation of the
geotechnical microzonation map regarding the suitability
of the residential areas. The important advantages of using
these techniques can be summarized as having relatively
low cost, easy data manipulation, rapidly updating of data
and the possibility to produce various new scenarios.
In this study, the slope, flood susceptibility, soil,
depth to groundwater table, swelling potential and
liquefaction potential layers were prepared for the
chosen study area in Eskişehir. The assignment of the
weight and rank values and the analysis were performed
by application of the SAW and the AHP methods. As a
result, the study area was categorized into three different
zones regarding the foundation suitability of residential
areas as: (1) Areas Suitable for Settlement; (2)
Provisional Settlement Areas; (3) Areas requiring
detailed geotechnical investigations. The maps prepared
using the SAW and the AHP methods were found to be
consistent with each other. The geotechnical micro-
zonation map prepared using the AHP method is
recommended as the final map of the study area.
According to this final map; the majority of the study
area is found to be in the “Areas Suitable for Settlement”
(SA) and “Provisional Settlement Areas” (PSA) zones.
The minority part of the study area is found to be in
DGA, in which detailed geotechnical investigations are
required. For the already settled areas which are not
found in the first zone (SA), the necessity of the
precautions must be considered. The methodology used
for the chosen area in this study can also be applied to the
other locations and to other site selection procedures by
reconstructing the necessary parameters appropriately.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by METU Research
Foundation Grant No: BAP-2004-07-02-00-57.
References
Aronoff, S., 1993. Geographic Information Systems: A Management
Perspective. WDL Publications, Ottowa, Canada.
Ayday, C., Altan, M., Nefeslioğlu, H.A., Canigür, A., Yerel, S., Tün,
M., 2001. Preparation of Engineering Geological Map of Eskişehir
Urban Area. Research Institute of Satellite and Space Sciences,
Anadolu University (in Turkish).
Belton, V., Stewart, T.J., 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis — An
Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group. 372 pp.
Carver, S.J., 1991. Integrating multicriteria evaluation with Geograph-
ical Information Systems. International Journal of Geographical
Information Systems 5 (3), 321–339.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ç. Kolat et al. / Engineering Geology xx (2006) xxx–xxx
Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F., Zhang, X.H., 2001. GIS-based geo-environmental
evaluation for urban land-use planning: a case study. Engineering
Geology 61, 257–271.
Densham, P.J., 1991. Spatial decision support systems. In: Maguire, D.J.,
Goodchild, M.S., Rhind, D.W. (Eds.), Geographical Information
Systems: Principles and Applications. Longman, pp. 403–412.
Diamond, J.T., Wright, J.R., 1988. Design of an integrated spatial
information system for multiobjective land use planning. Envi-
ronment and Planning. B 15 (2), 205–214.
Eastman, J.R., Jin, W., Kyem, P.A.K., Toledano, J., 1995. Raster
procedures for multicriteria/multiobjective decisions. Photogram-
metric Engineering and Remote Sensing 61 (5), 539–547.
Florinsky, I.V., Kuryakova, G.A., 2000. Determination of grid size for
digital terrain modelling in landscape investigations — exempli-
fied by soil moisture at a micro-scale. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science 14 (8), 815–832.
GDDA, 1996. Earthquake zoning map of Turkey. General Directorate
of Disaster Affairs. Ministry of Reconstruction and Resettlement of
Turkey (in Turkish).
GDDA, 2000. Laws and Regulations: Regulations for the Construction
of Buildings in Hazard Areas, Ankara, pp. 244–332 (in Turkish).
Guidelines for Urban Engineering Geological Investigations, South
African Institute of Engineering Geologists.
Jankowski, P., 1995. Integrating Geographical Information Systems
and multiple criteria decision making methods. International
Journal of Geographical Information Systems 9 (3), 251–273.
Janssen, R., 1992. Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental
Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 232 pp.
Keller, C. P., 1996, Decision Making using Multiple Criteria, NCGIA
Core Curriculum, Unit 57, Santa Barbara, CA: National Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis, URL: http://www.geog.
ubc.ca/courses/klink/gis.nodes/ncgia/u57.html#UNIT57.
Koyuncu, P., 2001, Assessment of Geo-Engineering Properties of the
Geological Units in the City Center of Eskişehir and Preparation of
Engineering Geological Map, M. Sc. Thesis, Hacettepe University
(in Turkish).
Please cite this article as: Çağıl Kolat et al., Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using Geographical Information Systems based
on Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Engineering Geology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.005.
15
Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John
Willey and Sons Inc. 392 pp.
Özdemir, M.S., 2005. Validity and inconsistency in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process. Applied Mathematics and Computation 161,
707–720.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the Analytic Hierarchy
Process. European Journal of Operational Research 48, 9–26.
Saaty, T.L., 2006. Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the
analytic hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Oper-
ational Research 168 (2), 557–570.
Saaty, T.L., Özdemir, M., 2003. Negative priorities in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 37,
1063–1075.
Seed, H.B., De Alba, P., 1986. Use of SPT and CPT Tests for Evaluating
the Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Proceedings, Institu. ASCE.
Şener, B., Süzen, M.L., Doyuran, V., 2006. Landfill site selection by
using geographic information systems. Environmental Geology
49, 376–388.
Starr, M.K., Stein, I., 1976. The Practice of Management Science.
Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 231 pp.
Süzen, M. L., 2002, Data Driven Landslide Hazard Assessment using
Geographical Information Systems and Remote Sensing, M.E.T.U.
Ph. D. Thesis, 196 p. http://www.metu.edu.tr/~suzen.
Süzen, M.L., Doyuran, V., 2004a. Data driven bivariate landslide
susceptibility assessment using Geographical Information Sys-
tems: a method and application to Asarsuyu catchment, Turkey.
Engineering Geology 71/3–4, 303–321.
Süzen, M.L., Doyuran, V., 2004b. A comparison of the GIS based
landslide susceptibility assessment methods: multivariate versus
bivariate. Environmental Geology 45–5, 665–679.
USGS, 2004. Standards for Digital Elevation Models, U.S. Geological
Survey http://rmmcweb.cr.usgs.gov/public/nmpstds/acrodocs/
dem/2DEM0198.PDF.
Worboys, M.F., 1995. GIS — A Computing Perspective. Taylor and
Francis.