Next Article in Journal
External Workload Evolution and Comparison across a Pre-Season in Belgian Professional Football Players: A Pilot Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Study on the Seismic Response of a Water-Conveyance Tunnel Considering Non-Uniform Longitudinal Subsurface Geometry and Obliquely Incident SV-Waves
Previous Article in Journal
How Pseudomonas nitroreducens Passivates Cadmium to Inhibit Plant Uptake
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rapid Visual Screening Feature Importance for Seismic Vulnerability Ranking via Machine Learning and SHAP Values
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/app14072860
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Field Reconnaissance and Earthquake Vulnerability of the RC Buildings in Adıyaman during 2023 Türkiye Earthquakes

by
Ercan Işık
1,
Fatih Avcil
1,
Rabia İzol
2,*,
Aydın Büyüksaraç
3,
Hüseyin Bilgin
4,
Ehsan Harirchian
5,* and
Enes Arkan
6
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Bitlis Eren University, Bitlis 13100, Türkiye
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06410, Türkiye
3
Çan Vocational School, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale 17400, Türkiye
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Epoka University, 1001 Tirana, Albania
5
Institute of Structural Mechanics (ISM), Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, 99423 Weimar, Germany
6
Department of Architecture, Bitlis Eren University, Bitlis 13100, Türkiye
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(7), 2860; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14072860
Submission received: 28 February 2024 / Revised: 22 March 2024 / Accepted: 25 March 2024 / Published: 28 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Earthquake Engineering and Seismic Risk)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The 6th February 2023 Pazarcık and Elbistan earthquakes (Mw = 7.7 and Mw = 7.6) caused great destruction in many cities and were the disaster of the century for Türkiye. The greatest destruction was caused in the provinces of Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, and Adıyaman during these earthquakes, which were independent of each other and occurred on the same day. Information about earthquakes and strong ground motion records is given within the scope of this study. Reinforced concrete (RC) structures which constitute a large part of the urban building stock in the earthquake region were exposed to structural damage at different levels. The structural damage in the RC structures in the city center, Gölbaşı, and Kahta districts of the province of Adıyaman was evaluated within the scope of earthquake and civil engineering after field investigations. Insufficient RC, low-strength concrete reinforcement problems, RC frame failure, heavy overhang, short columns, soft story, and pounding effect are the main causes of the earthquake damage. The presence of these factors that reduce the earthquake resistance of RC structures increased the damage level. In addition, the fact that the earthquakes occurred nine hours apart and the continuation of aftershocks during that period negatively affected the damage levels. It has been observed that structures that receive the necessary engineering services during the construction and project phases ensure the safety of life and property, even if the structure is slightly damaged. In this study, we also tried to reveal whether the target displacements were satisfactorily represented by numerical analysis for a sample RC structure.

1. Introduction

Türkiye has experienced an enormous loss of life and property due to two major earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş, which occurred at intervals of nine hours. Earthquakes in the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ), which is one of Türkiye’s main tectonic structures, caused very heavy damage in 11 different cities (Figure 1). The first earthquake occurred in Pazarcık, Kahramanmaraş (Mw = 7.7) on 6 February 2023 at 04:17 and lasted for approximately 75 s. The second earthquake occurred on the same day at 13:24 in Elbistan, Kahramanmaraş (Mw = 7.6) and lasted approximately 25 s. Following these earthquakes, more than 10,000 aftershocks have occurred as of 22 March 2023.
The highest loss of life and property was observed in Adıyaman, Hatay, and Kahramanmaraş provinces. Within the scope of this paper, the cause–effect relationships of damage to RC structures in city center, Gölbaşı, and Kahta districts of Adıyaman were examined by the authors as a result of a detailed field investigation.
Buildings suffered extensive and widespread damage. Out of a total population of 85 million, it was predicted that the earthquake affected around 14 million individuals. Of those, 1.5 million became homeless, over 105,000 were injured, and over 50,000 were killed. The Turkish government published numbers showing that the cost of earthquake damage to private and state properties was USD 104 billion. Many structures, including RC, masonry, and historical buildings, suffered major damage or collapsed.
Determination of the structural damage after an earthquake is important for the continuation of social life, the realistic determination of the earthquake hazard of the settlements, and the development of regulations related to buildings. The collection of data regarding earthquake and civil engineering is important. Damage assessments at this stage should be carried out as quickly and practically as possible. In this work, observational evaluations were made [1,2,3,4,5]. Each of these and similar studies carried out or to be carried out after an earthquake is considered a case study and can significantly contribute to both practice and academia. Many publications examine the structural damage in reinforced concrete structures in different countries, such as Türkiye, due to the loss of life and property caused by disasters, within the framework of cause and effect. Alih et al. [6] reported their observations after the earthquake in Malaysia in 2015. They observed that most of the RC structures in the affected area suffered significant damage. They stated that the major reasons for the failure in reinforced concrete structures are the strong beam and weak column condition, the detailing of the structural components with non-ductile elements, short column effects, and soft–weak story mechanisms. Vlachakis et al. [7] studied the earthquake that caused severe damage with a magnitude of Mw = 6.3 which struck the SE of Lesvos Island on 12 June 2017. The study aims to present the models of structural damage and collapse caused by the Lesvos earthquake to masonry structures, highlighting the causes and weaknesses or the factors that prevent them. Jara et al. [8] investigated and evaluated the region after the earthquake that affected Mexico City on 19 September 2017. The observations showed that first soft-story buildings are the most common situation for collapsed buildings. They also proposed to analyze the seismic damage observed in the study, evaluate the seismic fragility of typical soft-story structures, and propose strengthening alternatives, including braces and energy distribution systems, to increase the seismic capacity of existing buildings. Yurdakul et al. [9] conducted field observations after the earthquake in the district of Sivrice of the province of Elazığ on 24 January 2020 and investigated the causes of losses and structural damage. The seismic damage observed in the structural and non-structural members of reinforced concrete structures after the earthquake has been reported. They concluded that the damage in the earthquake was mainly due to low material quality and a lack of control mechanisms during construction. Liu et al. [10] conducted in-depth research on the earthquake damage to various structures due to the M = 8.1 earthquake that occurred in Pokhara, Nepal, on 25 April 2015 and caused the death of thousands of people. They put forward strengthening measures and recommendations for post-earthquake reconstruction. Mertol et al. [11] presented their observations in reinforced concrete buildings after the earthquake near the district of Sivrice of the province of Elazığ on 24 January 2020. They suggested that almost all of the destroyed or heavily damaged reinforced concrete buildings were built between 1975 and 1998. Therefore, the buildings constructed between 1975 and 1998 in the region should be structurally re-evaluated to prevent loss of life and property in future earthquakes. Bayrak et al. [12] presented their field investigations and evaluations after the earthquake in the district of Sivrice of Elazığ on 24 January 2020. The collapse mechanisms of the structures were studied, and the causes of the damage were stated. Dogan et al. [13] studied masonry and rural structures as well as reinforced concrete buildings damaged in the Sivrice, Elazığ earthquake on 24 January 2020. They also compared the causes of damage and collapse observed in buildings with previous damage in Türkiye. Sayın et al. [14] summarized the earthquake region’s past and present seismic characteristics after 24 January 2020 regarding the Sivrice, Elazığ (Mw = 6.8) earthquake. As a result of the observations, the damage is classified as occurring to reinforced concrete structures, masonry houses, and non-residential structures, and the lessons to be learned are stated. Caglar et al. [15] examined different types of structural damage observed after the earthquake. Many structural inadequacies, such as inadequate earthquake-resistant construction techniques, low concrete quality, and poor workmanship, have been cited as the main causes of damage. Gurbuz et al. [16], after the earthquake that occurred off the Aegean Sea on 30 October 2020 and which also affected İzmir, studied the effect of the earthquake on the structures in the region through field investigations. Some preliminary analyses were conducted to study the causes of the observed seismic damage on reinforced concrete buildings. In addition, many studies have been conducted around the world investigating the seismic effects of earthquakes and the damage to structures after earthquakes [17,18,19,20,21,22,23].
After the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, which were the disaster of the century for Türkiye, studies about the evaluation of structural damage based on field observations have found their place in the literature. These studies are generally case studies carried out for all building types or a specific type in a certain region. Işık [24] evaluated the damage caused to adobe buildings in the earthquake zone. Zengin and Aydın [25] and Vuran et al. [26] investigated the effect of the quality of RC structures on structural damage in the earthquake region. Karaşin [27] evaluated the damage in RC structures in the province of Diyarbakır. Avcil et al. [28] examined the damage in different types of structures in the province of Kahramanmaraş. In their studies, Işık et al. [29,30] evaluated in detail the damage to the mosques and minarets in the province of Adıyaman, as well as that to the masonry structures in the province. Ince [31] examined the damage in reinforced concrete structures in the province of Adıyaman. Ivanov and Chow [32] evaluated the causes of damage in RC structures in the province of Adıyaman within the scope of earthquake civil engineering. Although there are no structural analyses in most of these studies, structural damage was investigated as a result of field investigations. In this paper, numerical analyses of the sample RC structure were carried out. Therefore, the aim is to reveal whether the target displacements caused by earthquakes in the structure are adequately represented.
Within the scope of this study, the causes of damage in RC structures were investigated in detail as a result of studies carried out by the authors in the field. Because the earthquakes affected a very large region, only the RC structures in the city center, Gölbaşı, and Kahta districts of Adıyaman were taken into account in this study. The structures were subjected to detailed observational examination. Considering all the parameters that will directly affect the behavior of the buildings under the influence of earthquakes, the cause-and-effect relationships of the structural damage have been revealed. In this context, the main causes of structural damage were evaluated under 11 different subheadings. Structural damage for each parameter was exemplified. The study also gave information about the earthquakes on 6 February 2023. In the study, numerical modeling was carried out for a sample RC building, using the measured and predicted PGA values. An attempt has been made to reveal at what levels the target displacements are sufficient or not. In this study, peak ground acceleration (PGA) and design spectral acceleration coefficients (SDS) for Adıyaman districts were compared specifically for the last two earthquake hazards map that used in Türkiye.

2. 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake and Its Effects on Adıyaman (Analysis of the Response Spectra and Strong Ground Motion Records)

The city of Adıyaman in the Central Euphrates region of south-eastern Anatolia is located between 37°25′–38°10′ N parallel and 37°27′–39°15′ E meridians. It is bordered by the Taurus Mountains in the north and the Euphrates in the east. The city has hosted many civilizations in the transition zone between the historical Anatolian geography and Mesopotamia. Mount Nemrut National Park, a world heritage site, is located within the borders of Adıyaman. The city’s center has formed its development around Adıyaman Castle, an archaeological site today. Adıyaman city center, Gölbaşı, and Kahta districts constitute the scope of this study.
Adıyaman is located in the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ), one of Türkiye’s two important fault zones. Specifically, Gölbaşı was built on one of the important segments of the EAFZ. The seismically active East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) is one of the most important active tectonic structures of the eastern Mediterranean region. The EAFZ, a left-lateral strike–slip fault, and the NAFZ, a right-lateral strike–slip fault, cause the Anatolian microplate to move westward. The EAFZ was first described as a transform fault by Arpat and Şaroğlu [33]. The 295 km long eastern section of the EAFZ, between Karlıova and Çelikhan, has a narrow deformation zone, observed as a single fault trace, except for the step-over structures (Figure 2). On the other hand, it divides into northern and southern fault strands in the west of Çelikhan and is observed as a 65 km wide deformation belt [34]. The southern strand, which is the main fault zone, has a total length of 580 km between Karlıova and Antakya and is divided into 7 fault segments called Karlıova, Ilıca, Palu, Pütürge, Erkenek, Pazarcık, and Amanos from N–E to S–W [34,35,36]. Segment lengths vary between 31 and 112 km, and their strikes vary between N–35° E and N–75° E. The northern strand, which is called the Sürgü-Misis Fault System, exhibits a left-lateral strike–slip fault segment of approximately 380 km between Çelikhan and İskenderun Bay [34]. The northern strand from N–E to S–W consists of 9 segments named Sürgü, Çardak, Göksun, Savrun, Çokak, Misis, Toprakkale, Yumurtalık, Karataş, and Düziçi-İskenderun fault segments [34,35,36]. While the northern strand of the EAFZ connects to the Misis-Girne zone via Iskenderun Bay, the southern strand joins with the Ölüdeniz fault zone in the Karasu tectonic depression area.
The shake map of the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes is shown in Figure 3 and the earthquakes that occurred in the earthquake region are shown in Figure 4.
After two main shocks with magnitudes of Mw = 7.7 and Mw = 7.6, acceleration according to accelerometers in the province of Adıyaman is shown in Table 1. In this paper, four different distance metrics have been considered: Joyner–Boore distance (Rjb), rupture distance (Rrup), epicentral distance (Repi), and hypocentral distance (Rhyp).
The peak ground acceleration (PGA) due to both earthquakes was measured as 879.95 cm/s2 in the E-W direction of Adıyaman city center in the first earthquake. The second earthquake was measured as 126.62 cm/s2 in the E-W direction in the Tut district of Adıyaman.
The PGA and peak ground velocities (PGVs) attained according to different probabilities of exceeding 50 years in the currently used Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map for all districts in Adıyaman are given in Table 2. DD-1 is used for the earthquake ground motion level with a 2% probability of exceeding 50 years, and DD-2, DD-3, and DD-4 are the probabilities of exceedance of 10%, 50%, and 68%, respectively.
According to the current earthquake hazard map, the PGA value for the standard design ground motion level (DD-2) is in the range of 0.17–0.61g. The highest PGA values were obtained for Sincik, while the lowest values were obtained for Samsat.
Figure 5 shows the E–W, N–S, and vertical acceleration (u) spectra of the 6th February 2023 Pazarcık, Kahramanmaraş earthquake recorded at station 0201 in Adıyaman, their representations according to the different probabilities of exceedance, and acceleration graphs. According to the acceleration values, the highest acceleration for the E–W direction is 1.15 g, for the north–south direction 1.16 g, and for the vertical direction 0.66 g. Horizontal accelerations of the 0201 station exceeded the design spectra of DD-1, DD-2, and DD-3, while vertical accelerations exceeded the design spectra of DD-2 and DD-3.
The E–W, N–S, and vertical acceleration spectra of the 6 February 2023 Pazarcık, Kahramanmaraş earthquake recorded at the station 0208 of Gölbaşı, Adıyaman, their representations according to the different probability of exceedance, and acceleration graphs are shown in Figure 6. The acceleration values were measured as 0.04 g for the E–W direction, 0.11 g for the N–S direction, and 0.05 g for the vertical direction. It is seen that the acceleration values obtained do not exceed any design spectra values. However, Gölbaşı is located on extremely soft, shallow groundwater and liquefiable soils. Vs30 speed values are in the range of 180–360 m/s and are in ZD and sometimes ZE soil classes. In addition, due to the liquefaction potential, ZF soil classes are also quite dense. The acceleration station, where the acceleration is recorded, shows the ZC soil class feature. On the other hand, the average values of the soil conditions of 30 m show very low values near the surface and are likely to fall below the 180 m/s vs. velocity value. Therefore, regions of weak soil conditions, such as Gölbaşı district, where structures built with shallow foundations are located, cannot be expected to be represented by the acceleration value recorded in the acceleration station that is not in the same soil conditions. As is known, acceleration values are affected by ground conditions. Unless it is for special purposes, acceleration recorders are placed on relatively firmer ground. For this reason, it is obvious that the acceleration values recorded in Gölbaşı are inconsistent with the resulting damage distribution.
The E–W, N–S, and vertical acceleration spectra of the earthquake recorded at station 0205 of Kahta, Adıyaman, their representations according to the various probabilities of exceedance, and the acceleration graphs are shown in Figure 7. According to the acceleration values, the highest acceleration for E–W and N–S directions is 0.17 g and 0.11 g for the vertical direction. It is understood that the acceleration values obtained from this station do not exceed any of the design spectra values.
Considering the last two earthquake hazard maps used in Türkiye, the changes in the PGA and the design spectral acceleration coefficient (SDS) for the short period (0.2 s) for the central locations of the settlements where the fieldwork was performed are shown in Table 3. For the comparison of the short-period values, the local soil class ZC, which is given in the Turkish Building Earthquake Code and can be considered the average soil class, has been taken into account.
In contrast to the present earthquake hazard map, the PGA and SDS values indicated on the previous earthquake map increased for Gölbaşı, Besni, Çelikhan, Sincik, and Tut, while they reduced for Adıyaman/center, Gerger, Kahta, and Samsat districts. One of the most significant tectonic features in the nation, the East Anatolian Fault Zone, lies across much of the city of Adıyaman. The city of Adıyaman is situated along the Gölbaşı–Tür koğlu (90 km), Çelikhan–Erkenek (45 km), and Palu–Sincik (145 km) segments of the EAFZ. During the instrumental period, no earthquake damage was recorded (Adıyaman Provincial Level Disaster Risk Reduction Plan), with the exception of the 2004 Mw = 5.1 Çelikhan earthquake.
RC structures are commonly preferred in settlements with a city center of approximately 632.000. This earthquake caused great destruction for Adıyaman since the building stock in the rural areas did not receive engineering service and most of them were old and simple structures [40,41,42]. Over time, the buildings that completed their service life and were demolished in rural areas were replaced by mixed and reinforced concrete structures. Reinforced concrete structures constitute approximately 58% of the total building stock of Adıyaman cities and districts. Buildings are considered as collapsed, to be demolished, heavily damaged, moderately damaged, slightly damaged, undamaged, and having no detectable damage. This study is based on the data before 2 April 2023. No detectable damage refers to buildings whose damage cannot be determined due to different reasons. Building distributions according to damage levels are shown in Figure 8. Approximately 13% of the RC building stock in Adıyaman city center and its districts has become unusable. This shows the scale of the destruction in Adıyaman. About 74% of the RC building stock survived the earthquakes with slight or no damage.

3. Damage in Reinforced Concrete Structures

Damage to RC structures is often divided into two categories: brittle failure of RC frame members and out-of-plane collapse of non-structural walls. The majority of RC building collapses that occur during earthquakes can be linked to poor-quality construction and the use of non-ductile detailing. The design and construction of RC moment-frame systems used little to no seismic design, according to an examination of collapsed and damaged buildings.
Different parameters were taken into account while examining the damage to the reinforced concrete structures in Adıyaman. Detailed explanations are given for each parameter and the cause–effect relationship of the damage was investigated.

3.1. Strength of the Concrete

The strength of the materials that make up the structures directly affects the seismic behavior of the structure. The weak point of reinforced concrete structures is the concrete material formed by many stages [43,44,45,46]. Coarse aggregate in larger sizes than necessary, which does not have an appropriate particle size distribution, has insufficient adherence between concrete and reinforcement (Figure 9).
In concrete casting, failure to pay attention to significant issues such as preparation, transportation, temperature, weather conditions, casting time, compaction, taking test samples, post-casting maintenance, and curing also causes low concrete strength. As a result, the concrete did not provide sufficient strength due to segregation and buildings were built using poor-quality concrete with insufficient strength (Figure 10).

3.2. Reinforcement Problems

Reinforcements are used to resist tensile stresses in reinforced concrete. Inadequate and inappropriate reinforcement, as well as poor workmanship, increase reinforcement-related structural damage [47,48]. The buckling of the longitudinal rebars has been observed in the structural system elements, where sufficient stirrup reinforcement is not used. This damage, which occurs in the lower and upper parts of the column, where the earthquake-induced internal forces are greatest, is shown in Figure 11. In addition, the plain reinforcement rebar used in the reinforced concrete is one of the important reasons for the damage caused by the reinforcement and the low adherence between the concrete and the reinforcement. Particularly, it was observed that the outer column longitudinal steel bar buckled within the foundation height where stirrups were either missing or widely spaced.

3.3. Short Column Damage

Column dimensions may vary within a building due to a mezzanine floor, band-type window, or hill slope effect in buildings. Band-type windows made for lighting purposes, especially on the ground and basement floors, create different heights in the column, resulting in a short column mechanism [49,50,51]. Short column damage is shown in Figure 12. Despite the use of adequate reinforcement, the low concrete strength triggered this damage. Such captive column failures led to story collapses in some structures.

3.4. Soft/Weak Story

As a result of the stiffness and strength differences between the stories in buildings, significant differences occur between the relative story drifts. In this case, the soft story mechanism is formed and the ground floors in particular experience the collapse mechanism. This situation has been observed frequently in buildings where there are large commercial enterprises on the ground floors and there are residential sections on the upper floors [52,53,54,55]. In Adıyaman, it is observed that considerable structural damage occurred, notably in some RC buildings with high residual drift as a consequence of soft/weak stories. Such structural damage is shown in Figure 13.

3.5. Heavy Overhang

One of the causes of damage in reinforced-concrete-type structures is heavy overhangs in the structure. Heavy overhanging structures are generally seen in buildings where the upper-floor building areas are larger than the ground-floor building areas [56,57,58]. Damage occurring at different levels in these parts is shown in Figure 14.

3.6. Pounding Effect

Adjacent structures collide with each other as a result of the pounding effect during an earthquake. The main problem here is that the floor levels in adjacent buildings are not the same. The shear forces that occur in structures with different floor levels create additional shear forces on the vertical structural members in the other structure, causing the shear capacity of these columns to be exceeded. It is observed that the damage occurred at dilatation joints where pounding had occurred between adjacent structures and the location of poor concrete consolidation during construction. Damage caused by the pounding effect is shown in Figure 15.

3.7. Ground Failures

Low soil bearing capacity and insufficient foundation depth caused structural damage under lateral loads. Soil-related damages are shown in Figure 16. One of the reason of the damages is insufficient foundation depth prevented the structure from transferring the superstructure loads to the ground correctly. At the same time, although there is no structural damage to the structural system members, the structure is separated from its equilibrium position because the overturning moment capacity is exceeded as a result of both insufficient foundation depth and low soil bearing capacity. Soil-related damage is more common in Gölbaşı district. Some more soil-related damages observed in Gölbaşı after both major earthquakes is shown in Figure 16.

3.8. Failure of Reinforced Concrete Frame

Insufficient connections between the horizontal and vertical structural members of the reinforced concrete (RC) structural system mean that the frame members transfer loads independently. In this case, frame members that do not work together increase the probability of structural damage, causing the structure to suffer much more damage (Figure 17).

3.9. Strong Beam–Weak Column Failure

Column–beam dimensions of RC frame systems must be compatible. This situation is explained in the regulations as the end moments required to carry the columns should be 20% more than the total beam end moments, and it is stated that the columns should be built stronger than the beams [59,60]. However, due to this situation, which was not taken into account during the project and implementation phase, heavy structural damage occurred as shown in Figure 18. As a result of this situation and frame failure, the floors collapsed on top of each other, causing pancake-style collapse.

3.10. Damage Due to Inadequate Concrete Cover and Adherence

The concrete cover is an important detail that protects the reinforcement from external effects and should be built as a part of the reinforced concrete. However, too little concrete cover, due to poor workmanship, is then covered with plaster [61]. As a result of this, with elements that cannot provide sufficient adherence between concrete and reinforcement, the concrete cover spills, and the structural element is damaged. Examples of such damage are shown in Figure 19.
In addition, insufficient concrete cover causes a loss of mass due to corrosion of the reinforcement over time, and as a result, it causes ruptures in the reinforcement and damage by separating it from the concrete. Such damage is shown in Figure 20.

3.11. The Infill Wall Damage

The damage that occurs on the infill walls, which are used for the purpose of dividing and closing the spaces in reinforced concrete structures and which are considered only as a load in the building design, is shown in Figure 21. Infill walls, which are generally constructed of materials with low tensile and shear strength, increase the extent of damage to these members due to poor workmanship. The infill wall damage was widespread, including in- and out-of-plane failures.

3.12. Buildings Providing Life Safety

Despite minor structural damage, the safety of life and property was preserved in the structures that were constructed in accordance with the technique requirements during the construction phase by receiving engineering services. In particular, the shear walls used in RC structures have positively supported the behavior of the structures under the influence of earthquakes. Example structures that provide life and property safety are shown in Figure 22.

3.13. Secondary Effects of Earthquake

RC buildings that were heavily damaged and collapsed as a result of the earthquake also caused economic losses. In particular, many vehicles have become unusable due to damage by building debris. This damage is shown in Figure 23.
In light of all these evaluations, the main causes of damage to reinforced concrete structures are shown in Figure 24.

4. Sample RC Structure Model

The purpose of earthquake-resistant building codes is to ensure that structures are built to withstand expected ground motion levels without experiencing damage. For the numerical analysis, SeismoStruct-2023 software was employed [62]. Using the acquired data, pushover analyses were performed on a 5-story sample RC building model. Every building under analysis had an identical story plan, which is shown in Figure 25. All slabs were selected as rigid diaphragms and the height of the slabs was selected as 120 mm.
All building models consider the story height to be 3 m. Five meters of span in each direction were taken into consideration when selecting the example reinforced concrete building, which was carried out symmetrically in the X and Y directions. Figure 26 displays the applied loads and the 2D and 3D building models for the 5-story building.
All structural designs were created using the infrmFBPH (force-based plastic hinge frame elements) for columns and beams. These components only allow for a finite amount of plasticity and simulate the spread inelasticity based on force. To represent the stress–strain distribution in the cross-section, the number of fibers in the cross-section should be sufficient [63]. For the parts that were chosen, a total of 100 fiber members are specified. This amount is adequate for these sections. The chosen plastic hinge length (Lp/L) was 16.67%. A totally fixed column footing and a free top end were the outcomes of setting the column’s boundary conditions in line with the cantilever boundary criteria.
The characteristics of the reinforced concrete structure model are shown in Table 4.
Pushover analysis was used in all structural analyses. Pushover analysis captures the behavior of a structure from a fully elastic state to collapse. It is an approximate method of exposing the structure to lateral forces that increase step by step with a constant height distribution until the target displacement is reached. In addition to permanent loads due to gravity, incremental loads consisting of horizontal loads at each floor level are also applied to the structure in the X direction. Conventional (non-adaptive) pushover analysis is used to estimate the horizontal capacity of structures whose dynamic behavior is not significantly affected by the levels of deformations occurring (i.e., the shape of the horizontal load model that should simulate the dynamic behavior can be assumed to be constant) [66,67,68].
In performance-based earthquake engineering, it is crucial to predict the goal displacements for damage calculation when specific structural element performance limitations are met. In this investigation, the limit states provided in Eurocode 8 (Part 3) [69,70] were considered for damage estimation. Figure 27 displays the goal displacements, and Table 5 provides a description of these limit states.
The target displacements were attained one by one according to the PGAs anticipated in the last two earthquake hazard maps, taking into account the standard ground motion level for the geographical locations selected from each district of the province of Adıyaman. In order to make comparisons, structural analyses were carried out by taking into account the highest PGA values measured in the earthquake stations in those districts during earthquakes. In districts where there is no PGA measurement, the values in the nearest district are taken into account. All limit states obtained from structural analyses are shown in Table 6.
The target displacement values obtained from the measured values in all districts except the Adıyaman central district are provided with the predicted values on both maps. As a result of the analysis for DD-1 for Adıyaman city center, target displacements were obtained as DL = 0.118 m, SD = 0.152 m, and NC = 0.263 m, respectively. The predicted values for the DD-1 ground motion level for Adıyaman city center did not meet the measured values.

5. Conclusions

Structures under the influence of earthquakes may show structural system weaknesses due to design, construction defects, and environmental effects. In addition, the negative structural factors caused by a change in the building function also cause damage in earthquakes. Unsuitable design, using low-strength materials, poor workmanship, and lack of inspection constitute the destructive roles of damage. The appropriate structural features of the structures exposed to a possible earthquake will reduce the loss of life and property. In addition, obtaining the local soil conditions realistically will make the structural design and evaluation meaningful.
It has been observed that the reinforced concrete structures which were examined in the settlements where fieldwork was carried out for damage assessment were damaged, especially due to low concrete strength, insufficient reinforcement, and low earthquake resistance. Especially in core concrete, crushing and segregation show that the concrete strength is very low. In addition, the use of plain reinforcement and the low adherence between concrete and reinforcement are the main causes of damage.
One of the primary reasons for the high level of destruction in the city center housing was commercial structuring that led to the formation of soft floors. In order to avoid this situation in new settlements, commercial structures should be arranged independently from residences.
Columns in frame structures may be stretched up to their plastic moment capacity when subjected to horizontal loads. An immense moment gradient and hence a significant shear force occur in the case of short columns with significant bending capacity. Before the plastic moment capacity is achieved, a shear fracture frequently occurs. Therefore, it is best to avoid using short columns. The shear capacity must be enhanced to account for the excessive strength of the vertical reinforcement. An alternative is to design and detail the columns following capacity design criteria.
When necessary, dilatation joints appropriate for their technique should be used; otherwise, adjacent constructions should be abandoned. Additionally, it is important to make sure that the floors of all nearby structures are level with one another. Otherwise, it will be inevitable that the additional shear forces that will occur due to the pounding effect from the neighboring floors during the earthquake will cause significant damage.
The construction of heavy overhanging buildings, which are common in cities and districts, should be abandoned. The prohibition of making mezzanine floors and floor height changes within the building to prevent soft/weak floor formations in buildings other than commercial and industrial buildings will provide additional benefits in preventing loss of property and life after earthquakes.
It should be made mandatory for the masters who have the Vocational Qualification Certificate to take part in the building inspection system, and these masters should be responsible for the part that concerns them. In this way, it will be possible to carry out production following the project with a sense of responsibility.
In the current earthquake regulation, there is no obligation to use reinforced concrete shear walls. Attention should be paid to constructing reinforced concrete shears that will serve as earthquake shear walls at the rates to be determined in all kinds of reinforced concrete buildings to be built in the new design phase.
In concrete casting, adequate supervision should be carried out to pay maximum attention to vital issues such as preparation, transportation, temperature, weather conditions, casting time, compaction, taking test sampling, post-casting maintenance, and curing.
As plastic deformations frequently result in unpredictable behavior, additional displacements, and stress in the building structure, foundation structures must constantly stay elastic. Additionally, foundation repairs are far more challenging than building structural repairs. This calls for strengthening the reinforcement immediately beneath the plastic zones and detailing it suitably.
Sandy or silty soils that have been saturated with water may have a sufficient ability to carry a static load. However, they suddenly behave like a liquid when shaken, such as during an earthquake. If the soil is unevenly or inhomogeneously liquefied, buildings might tilt or completely collapse, which is frequently unavoidable. Therefore, the possibility of liquefaction of such soils should be investigated. Precautions should be taken against soil-related problems when necessary with measures such as injections, piled foundations, etc.
Target displacements are especially important in order to realistically reveal the seismic performance of structures under a possible earthquake. Target displacements were obtained by taking into account the last two earthquake hazard maps used in Türkiye and the PGA values measured in the February 6 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in the province of Adıyaman. It can be stated that the earthquake hazard is not adequately represented only in Adıyaman city center. The earthquake hazard taken into account in the design of buildings in all other districts of the province of Adıyaman has been taken into account at a sufficient level. This situation is also reflected in target displacements.
Some precautions should be taken regarding existing structures before a possible earthquake in the region. For example, with the health monitoring of the buildings, the changes after the use of the building can be followed. In this context, by making QR codes and similar applications, it will be possible to transfer this information to the system by checking the structures at specific intervals after they are used.
In conclusion, many buildings still stand in the region’s seismically active areas built or planned according to past seismic laws. These structures should be appropriately fortified as soon as possible to prevent more casualties. Unquestionably, earthquake-resistant building design has increased in importance with the earthquakes in Türkiye on 6th February 2023.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.I., H.B., A.B. and R.İ.; methodology, E.I., F.A., A.B. and E.A.; validation, A.B., R.İ. and E.H.; investigation, E.I., F.A., A.B. and E.A.; resources, H.B. and R.İ.; data curation, E.H. and E.A.; writing—original draft preparation, H.B., E.I., A.B. and F.A.; writing—review and editing, E.A. and R.İ.; visualization, E.A. and F.A.; supervision, E.I., A.B. and F.A.; funding acquisition, E.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Adıyaman Provincial Director of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change, Faysal Ergezen, for his important contributions to the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bessason, B.; Bjarnason, J.Ö. Seismic vulnerability of low-rise residential buildings based on damage data from three earthquakes (Mw6. 5, 6.5 and 6.3). Eng. Struct. 2016, 111, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Mišetić, V.; Morić, D. Seismic vulnerability assessment of an old historical masonry building in Osijek, Croatia, using Damage Index. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 28, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Binici, B.; Yakut, A.; Kadas, K.; Demirel, O.; Akpinar, U.; Canbolat, A.; Yurtseven, F.; Oztaskin, O.; Aktas, S.; Canbay, E. Performance of RC buildings after Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes: Lessons toward performance based design. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2023, 22, 883–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ademović, N.; Kalman Šipoš, T.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M. Rapid assessment of earthquake risk for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18, 1835–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cavallaro, A.; Fiamingo, A.; Grasso, S.; Massimino, M.R.; Sammito, M.S.V. Local site amplification maps for the volcanic area of Trecastagni, south-eastern Sicily (Italy). Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2024, 22, 1635–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alih, S.C.; Vafaei, M. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings and wooden structures during the 2015 Mw 6.0 Sabah earthquake in Malaysia. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2019, 102, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vlachakis, G.; Vlachaki, E.; Lourenço, P.B. Learning from failure: Damage and failure of masonry structures, after the 2017 Lesvos earthquake (Greece). Eng. Fail. Anal. 2020, 117, 104803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jara, J.M.; Hernández, E.J.; Olmos, B.A.; Martínez, G. Building damages during the September 19, 2017 earthquake in Mexico City and seismic retrofitting of existing first soft-story buildings. Eng. Struct. 2020, 209, 109977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yurdakul, Ö.; Duran, B.; Onur Tunaboyu, O.; Avşar, Ö. Field reconnaissance on seismic performance of RC buildings after the January 24, 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake. Nat. Hazards 2021, 105, 859–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, C.; Fang, D.; Zhao, L. Reflection on earthquake damage of buildings in 2015 Nepal earthquake and seismic measures for post-earthquake reconstruction. Structures 2021, 30, 647–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mertol, H.C.; Tunc, G.; Akis, T. Damage Observation of Reinforced Concrete Buildingsafter 2020 Sivrice (Elazığ) Earthquake, Türkiye. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2021, 35, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bayrak, O.F.; Bikçe, M.; Erdem, M.M. Failures of structures during the January 24, 2020, Sivrice (Elazığ) Earthquake in Türkiye. Nat. Hazards 2021, 108, 1943–1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dogan, G.; Ecemis, A.S.; Korkmaz, S.Z.; Arslan, M.H.; Korkmaz, M.H. Buildings Damages after Elazığ, Türkiye Earthquake on January 24, 2020. Nat. Hazards 2021, 109, 161–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Erkut Sayın, E.; Yön, B.; Onat, O.; Gör, M.; Öncü, M.E.; Tunç, E.T.; Bakır, D.; Karaton, M.; Calayır, Y. 24 January 2020 Sivrice-Elazığ, Türkiye earthquake: Geotechnical evaluation and performance of structures. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 19, 657–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Caglar, N.; Vural, I.; Kirtel, O.; Saribiyik, A.; Sumer, Y. Structural damages observed in buildings after the January 24, 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake in Türkiye. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 18, e018862023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gurbuz, T.; Cengiz, A.; Kolemenoglu, Ş.; Demir, C.; Ilki, A. Damages and Failures of Structures in İzmir (Türkiye) during the October 30, 2020 Aegean Sea Earthquake. J. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 27, 1565–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Milani, G. Lesson learned after the Emilia-Romagna, Italy, 20–29 May 2012 earthquakes: A limit analysis insight on three masonry churches. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 34, 761–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Milani, G.; Valente, M. Failure analysis of seven masonry churches severely damaged during the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake: Non-linear dynamic analyses vs conventional static approaches. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2015, 54, 13–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Monaco, P.; Totani, G.; Barla, G.B.; Cavallaro, A.; Costanzo, A.; Donofrio, A.; Evangelista, L.; Foti, S.; Grasso, S.; Lanzo, G.; et al. Geotechnical aspects of 2009 l’Aquila Earthquake. In Special Topics in Earthquake Engineering, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; Volume 400. [Google Scholar]
  20. Livaoğlu, R.; Timurağaoğlu, M.Ö.; Serhatoğlu, C.; Döven, M.S. Damage during the 6–24 February 2017 Ayvacık (Çanakkale) earthquake swarm. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 18, 921–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cavallaro, A.; Capilleri, P.P.; Grasso, S. Site characterization by dynamic in situ and laboratory tests for liquefaction potential evaluation during Emilia Romagna earthquake. Geosciences 2018, 8, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Piccinini, F.; Gorreja, A.; Di Stefano, F.; Pierdicca, R.; Sanchez Aparicio, L.J.; Malinverni, E.S. Preservation of Villages in Central Italy: Geomatic Techniques’ Integration and GIS Strategies for the Post-Earthquake Assessment. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pan, Z.; Lang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yu, C.; Wu, C. Geological Hazard Assessment of Secondary Collapses Due to Volcanic Earthquakes on Changbai Mountain in China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2023, 12, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Işık, E. Structural failures of adobe buildings during the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquakes. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zengin, B.; Aydin, F. The effect of material quality on buildings moderately and heavily damaged by the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vuran, E.; Serhatoğlu, C.; Timurağaoğlu, M.Ö.; Smyrou, E.; Bal, İ.E.; Livaoğlu, R. Damage observations of RC buildings from 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence and discussion on the seismic code regulations. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2024, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Karasin, I.B. Comparative Analysis of the 2023 Pazarcık and Elbistan Earthquakes in Diyarbakır. Buildings 2023, 13, 2474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Avcil, F.; Işık, E.; İzol, R.; Büyüksaraç, A.; Arkan, E.; Arslan, M.H.; Aksoylu, C.; Eyisuren, O.; Harirchian, E. Effects of the February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquake on structures in Kahramanmaraş city. Nat. Hazards 2024, 120, 2953–2991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Işık, E.; Avcil, F.; Arkan, E.; Büyüksaraç, A.; İzol, R.; Topalan, M. Structural Damage Evaluation of Mosques and Minarets in Adıyaman due to the 06 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2023, 151, 107345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Işık, E.; Avcil, F.; Büyüksaraç, A.; İzol, R.; Arslan, M.H.; Aksoylu, C.; Harirchian, E.; Eyisuren, O.; Arkan, E.; Gngur, M.; et al. Structural damages in masonry buildings in Adıyaman during the Kahramanmaraş (Turkiye) earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on 06 February 2023. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2023, 151, 107405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ince, O. Structural damage assessment of reinforced concrete buildings in Adıyaman after Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes on 6 February 2023. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024, 156, 107799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ivanov, M.L.; Chow, W.K. Structural damage observed in reinforced concrete buildings in Adiyaman during the 2023 Turkiye Kahramanmaras Earthquakes. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; Volume 58, p. 105578. [Google Scholar]
  33. Arpat, E.; Saroglu, F. The East Anatolian fault system: Thoughts on its development. Bull. Miner. Res. Explor. Inst. Turk. 1972, 78, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
  34. Duman, T.Y.; Emre, Ö. The East Anatolian Fault: Geometry, Segmentation and Jog Characteristics; Geological Society, London, Special Publications: London, UK, 2013; Volume 372, pp. 495–529. [Google Scholar]
  35. Emre, Ö.; Duman, T.Y.; Özalp, S.; Elmacı, H.; Olgun, Ş.; Şaroğlu, F. Active Fault Map of Türkiye with Explanatory Text; General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration Special Publication Series; General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration: Ankara, Turkey, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  36. Emre, Ö.; Duman, T.Y.; Özalp, S.; Şaroğlu, F.; Olgun, Ş.; Elmacı, H.; Çan, T. Active fault database of Türkiye. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 3229–3275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Akar, F.; Işık, E.; Avcil, F.; Büyüksaraç, A.; Arkan, E.; İzol, R. Geotechnical and structural damages caused by the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in Gölbaşı (Adıyaman). Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Available online: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/executive (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  39. Available online: https://www.afad.gov.tr/ (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  40. Isik, E.; Buyuksarac, A.; Avcil, F.; Arkan, E.; Aydin, M.C.; Ulu, A.E. Damage evaluation of masonry buildings during Kahramanmaras (Turkiye) earthquakes on February 06, 2023. Earthq. Struct. 2023, 25, 209–221. [Google Scholar]
  41. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı. Available online: https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Kahramanmaras-ve-Hatay-Depremleri-Raporu.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  42. Peker, O.; Altan, M.F. The effect of errors in structural system design on the structure damaged in 2023 Turkey earthquakes: A case study. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024, 157, 107923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Su, N. Structural evaluations of reinforced concrete buildings damaged by Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan. Pract. Period. Struct. 2001, 6, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ates, S.; Kahya, V.; Yurdakul, M.; Adanur, S. Damages on reinforced concrete buildings due to consecutive earthquakes in Van. Soil Dyn. 2013, 53, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Varum, H.; Dumaru, R.; Furtado, A.; Barbosa, A.R.; Gautam, D.; Rodrigues, H. Seismic performance of buildings in Nepal after the Gorkha earthquake. In Impacts and Insights of the Gorkha Earthquake; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 47–63. [Google Scholar]
  46. Çağatay, İ.H. Experimental evaluation of buildings damaged in recent earthquakes in Turkey. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2005, 12, 440–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Çelebi, E.; Aktas, M.; Çağlar, N.; Özocak, A.; Kutanis, M.; Mert, N.; Özcan, Z. October 23, 2011 Türkiye/Van–Ercis earthquake: Structural damages in the residential buildings. Nat. Hazards 2013, 65, 2287–2310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sezen, H.; Whittaker, A.S.; Elwood, K.J.; Mosalam, K.M. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction practise in Turkey. Eng. Struct. 2003, 25, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ghobarah, A.; Galal, K.E. Seismic rehabilitation of short rectangular RC columns. J. Earthq. Eng. 2004, 8, 45–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, C.Y.; Liu, K.C.; Liu, Y.W.; Huang, W.J. A case study of reinforced concrete short column under earthquake using experimental and theoretical investigations. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2010, 36, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Işık, E.; Ulutaş, H.; Harirchian, E.; Avcil, F.; Aksoylu, C.; Arslan, M.H. Performance-based assessment of RC building with short columns due to the different design principles. Buildings 2023, 13, 750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Özmen, H.B.; Inel, M.; Demirtaş, Y. Evaluation of different cases of soft story formation for mid-rise RC buildings. Res. Eng. Struct. Mater. 2020, 6, 229–240. [Google Scholar]
  53. Uzun, M.; Cogurcu, M.T. Investigation of effect of infilled wall on soft story irregularity. J. Eng. Res. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 878–885. [Google Scholar]
  54. Tezcan, S.; Yazıcı, A.; Özdemir, Z.; Erkal, A. Zayıf kat- yumuşak kat düzensizliği. In Proceedings of the Altıncı Ulusal Deprem Mühendisliği Konferansı, İstanbul, Turkey, 17–22 October 2007; pp. 339–350. [Google Scholar]
  55. Özmen, H.B.; İnel, M.; Bilgin, H. Yumuşak kat davranışının duvar etkisi dikkate alınarak incelenmesi. In Proceedings of the Altıncı Ulusal Deprem Mühendisliği Konferansı, İstanbul, Turkey, 17–22 October 2007; pp. 423–434. [Google Scholar]
  56. Doğangün, A. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 Bingöl earthquake in Türkiye. Eng. Struct. 2004, 26, 841–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yakut, A.; Sucuoğlu, H.; Binici, B.; Canbay, E.; Donmez, C.; İlki, A.; Caner, A.; Celik, O.C.; Ay, B. Performance of structures in İzmir after the Samos island earthquake. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 20, 7793–7818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. İnel, M.; Ozmen, H.B.; Bilgin, H. Re-evaluation of building damage during recent earthquakes in Türkiye. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 412–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, C.; Tao, M.X. Strong-column–weak-beam criterion for reinforced concrete frames subjected to biaxial seismic excitation. Eng. Struct. 2021, 241, 112481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. TBEC. Turkish Building Earthquake Code; T.C. Resmi Gazete: Ankara, Türkiye, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  61. Işık, E.; Harirchian, E.; Bilgin, H.; Kaya, B.; Karaşin, İ.B. The effect of insufficient cover thickness on structural performance of reinforced concrete buildings. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Organization and Technology of Maintenance, Osijek, Croatia, 10 December 2021; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 262–277. [Google Scholar]
  62. Seismosoft. SeismoStruct 2022—A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed Structures. 2022. Available online: http://www.seismosoft.com (accessed on 10 February 2024).
  63. Antoniou, S.; Pinho, R. Seismostruct–Seismic Analysis Program by Seismosoft; Technical Manual and User Manual; Seismosoft: Pavia, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  64. Menegotto, M.; Pinto, P.E. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. In Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well-defined Repeated Loads; International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering: Zurich, Switzerland, 1973; pp. 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  65. Mander, J.B.; Priestley, M.J.N.; Park, R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 1998, 114, 1804–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Habibi, A.; Saffari, H.; Izadpanah, M. Optimal lateral load pattern for pushover analysis of building structures. Steel Compos. Struct. 2019, 32, 67–77. [Google Scholar]
  67. Antoniou, S.; Pinho, R. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. J. Earthq. Eng. 2004, 8, 497–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Papanikolaou, V.K.; Elnashai, A.S.; Pareja, J.F. Evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis II: Comparative results. J. Earthq. Eng. 2006, 10, 127–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. EN 1998-3; Eurocode-8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistanc—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2005.
  70. Pinto, P.E.; Franchin, P. Eurocode 8—Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. In Proceedings of the Eurocode 8 Background and Applications, Dissemination of Information for Training, Lisbon, Portugal, 10–11 February 2011. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 14 02860 g001
Figure 1. The affected provinces during the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes and representation of Adıyaman and studied districts.
Figure 1. The affected provinces during the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes and representation of Adıyaman and studied districts.
Applsci 14 02860 g001
Applsci 14 02860 g002
Figure 2. The tectonic system in which the Anatolian Block is located [37].
Figure 2. The tectonic system in which the Anatolian Block is located [37].
Applsci 14 02860 g002
Applsci 14 02860 g003
Figure 3. Shake map of the Kahramanmaraş earthquake [38].
Figure 3. Shake map of the Kahramanmaraş earthquake [38].
Applsci 14 02860 g003
Applsci 14 02860 g004
Figure 4. The East Anatolian Fault Zone and the epicentral distribution of the earthquakes that occurred [39].
Figure 4. The East Anatolian Fault Zone and the epicentral distribution of the earthquakes that occurred [39].
Applsci 14 02860 g004
Applsci 14 02860 g005
Figure 5. The comparison of earthquake spectral acceleration with design spectra. (a) Horizontal, (b) vertical of Adıyaman Downtown, the components of ground accelerations recorded at Adıyaman 0201 station, (c) E–W, (d) N–S, (e) Vertical directions.
Figure 5. The comparison of earthquake spectral acceleration with design spectra. (a) Horizontal, (b) vertical of Adıyaman Downtown, the components of ground accelerations recorded at Adıyaman 0201 station, (c) E–W, (d) N–S, (e) Vertical directions.
Applsci 14 02860 g005
Applsci 14 02860 g006
Figure 6. The comparison of earthquake spectral acceleration with design spectra. (a) Horizontal, (b) vertical of Gölbaşı, Adıyaman, the components of ground accelerations recorded at Gölbaşı 0208 station, (c) E–W, (d) N–S, (e) Vertical directions.
Figure 6. The comparison of earthquake spectral acceleration with design spectra. (a) Horizontal, (b) vertical of Gölbaşı, Adıyaman, the components of ground accelerations recorded at Gölbaşı 0208 station, (c) E–W, (d) N–S, (e) Vertical directions.
Applsci 14 02860 g006
Applsci 14 02860 g007
Figure 7. The comparison of earthquake spectral acceleration with design spectra. (a) Horizontal, (b) vertical of Kahta, Adıyaman, the components of ground accelerations recorded at Kahta 0205 station, (c) E–W, (d) N–S, (e) Vertical directions.
Figure 7. The comparison of earthquake spectral acceleration with design spectra. (a) Horizontal, (b) vertical of Kahta, Adıyaman, the components of ground accelerations recorded at Kahta 0205 station, (c) E–W, (d) N–S, (e) Vertical directions.
Applsci 14 02860 g007
Applsci 14 02860 g008
Figure 8. Damage distribution of reinforced concrete buildings in Adıyaman (by Adıyaman Provincial Directorate of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, 2023).
Figure 8. Damage distribution of reinforced concrete buildings in Adıyaman (by Adıyaman Provincial Directorate of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, 2023).
Applsci 14 02860 g008
Applsci 14 02860 g009
Figure 9. Inappropriate particle size distribution.
Figure 9. Inappropriate particle size distribution.
Applsci 14 02860 g009
Applsci 14 02860 g010
Figure 10. Examples of the use of poor-quality concrete and damage.
Figure 10. Examples of the use of poor-quality concrete and damage.
Applsci 14 02860 g010
Applsci 14 02860 g011
Figure 11. Examples of damage caused by reinforcement.
Figure 11. Examples of damage caused by reinforcement.
Applsci 14 02860 g011
Applsci 14 02860 g012
Figure 12. Examples of short column damage.
Figure 12. Examples of short column damage.
Applsci 14 02860 g012
Applsci 14 02860 g013
Figure 13. Complete collapse of the ground story as a result of soft story damage.
Figure 13. Complete collapse of the ground story as a result of soft story damage.
Applsci 14 02860 g013
Applsci 14 02860 g014
Figure 14. Structural damage in RC structures due to heavy overhangs.
Figure 14. Structural damage in RC structures due to heavy overhangs.
Applsci 14 02860 g014
Applsci 14 02860 g015
Figure 15. Examples of damage caused by the pounding effect.
Figure 15. Examples of damage caused by the pounding effect.
Applsci 14 02860 g015
Applsci 14 02860 g016
Figure 16. Examples of soil-related damage.
Figure 16. Examples of soil-related damage.
Applsci 14 02860 g016
Applsci 14 02860 g017
Figure 17. Failure due to insufficient RC frame.
Figure 17. Failure due to insufficient RC frame.
Applsci 14 02860 g017
Applsci 14 02860 g018
Figure 18. Examples of strong beam–weak column failure.
Figure 18. Examples of strong beam–weak column failure.
Applsci 14 02860 g018
Applsci 14 02860 g019
Figure 19. Examples of damage caused by insufficient concrete cover.
Figure 19. Examples of damage caused by insufficient concrete cover.
Applsci 14 02860 g019
Applsci 14 02860 g020
Figure 20. Damage due to corroded reinforcement.
Figure 20. Damage due to corroded reinforcement.
Applsci 14 02860 g020
Applsci 14 02860 g021
Figure 21. Examples of infill wall damage in RC structures.
Figure 21. Examples of infill wall damage in RC structures.
Applsci 14 02860 g021
Applsci 14 02860 g022
Figure 22. RC buildings that provide life and property safety despite minor damage.
Figure 22. RC buildings that provide life and property safety despite minor damage.
Applsci 14 02860 g022
Applsci 14 02860 g023
Figure 23. Examples of vehicles damaged by collapsed structures.
Figure 23. Examples of vehicles damaged by collapsed structures.
Applsci 14 02860 g023
Applsci 14 02860 g024
Figure 24. Main causes of structural damage in RC buildings during Kahramanmaraş earthquakes.
Figure 24. Main causes of structural damage in RC buildings during Kahramanmaraş earthquakes.
Applsci 14 02860 g024
Applsci 14 02860 g025
Figure 25. The blueprint of the sample RC building.
Figure 25. The blueprint of the sample RC building.
Applsci 14 02860 g025
Applsci 14 02860 g026
Figure 26. The 2D and 3D models of the sample RC building.
Figure 26. The 2D and 3D models of the sample RC building.
Applsci 14 02860 g026
Applsci 14 02860 g027
Figure 27. Target displacements on idealized and pushover curves.
Figure 27. Target displacements on idealized and pushover curves.
Applsci 14 02860 g027
Table 1. Measurement of earthquakes in city of Adıyaman.
Table 1. Measurement of earthquakes in city of Adıyaman.
DistrictStation CodeLongitudeLatitudePGA (cm/s2)R (km)
NSEWUDRjbRrupRepiRhyp
06.02.2023  04:17    Mw = 7.7 (Pazarcık-Kahramanmaraş)
Besni271337.4925437.624050.032.980.03125.96125.9656.1556.80
Gölbaşı020837.7869437.6527530.2014.0016.97147.38147.3877.2677.73
Tut021337.7966737.92957242.28171.69291.29166.84166.8496.4896.87
Centre020137.7612138.26742474.12879.95318.97189.97189.97120.12120.42
Centre021037.7672038.2866065.9161.3742.13191.77191.77121.92122.23
Çelikhan021438.02829838.2259461.6854.3869.91203.09203.09132.74133.02
Sincik021538.02995838.5562661.40108.1328.82226.99226.99156.69156.92
Sincik021638.03090738.55708720.4438.5822.58227.11227.11156.80157.04
Sincik021738.02995838.55626813.0517.9017.47226.99226.99156.69156.92
06.02.2023   13:24    Mw = 7.6 (Elbistan-Kahramanmaraş)
Tut021337.7966737.92957121.30126.6271.3566.9766.9768.7369.08
Samsat020937.5776338.4825133.4235.5415.61162.75162.75123.12123.32
Kahta020537.7917738.6159744.8854.6632.94124.36124.36125.19125.39
Table 2. The predicted PGA and PGV values for the districts of Adıyaman.
Table 2. The predicted PGA and PGV values for the districts of Adıyaman.
NoDistrictPGA (g)PGV (cm/s)
2%10%50%68%2%10%50%68%
1Center0.4230.2440.0990.06629.34516.2646.2274.056
2Besni0.5630.3250.1230.08237.66320.7777.4704.885
3Çelikhan1.0620.5920.2090.12677.71341.89311.3326.395
4Gerger0.6890.3740.1500.10641.91321.9218.1645.556
5Gölbaşı0.9550.5100.1700.11163.99832.7669.7686.073
6Kahta0.4230.2410.0980.06727.64415.4356.0284.023
7Samsat0.3300.1790.0700.04721.53311.9474.7703.204
8Sincik1.1010.6120.2100.13171.42038.62311.1496.400
9Tut0.9100.4920.1590.10158.43430.6659.2235.594
Table 3. Comparison of PGA and SDS values based on the last two earthquake hazard maps.
Table 3. Comparison of PGA and SDS values based on the last two earthquake hazard maps.
NoDistrictTSDC-2007
Seismic Zone		TSDC-2007 PGA (g)TBEC-2018 PGA (g)PGA
2018/2007		SDS
2007		SDS
2018		SDS
2018/2007
1Center20.3000.2440.810.750.7340.98
2Besni20.3000.3251.080.750.9251.23
3Çelikhan10.4000.5921.481.001.7021.70
4Gerger10.4000.3740.941.001.0691.10
5Gölbaşı10.4000.5101.101.001.4621.50
6Kahta20.3000.2410.800.750.7190.96
7Samsat20.3000.1790.600.750.5340.71
8Sincik10.4000.6121.531.001.7701.77
9Tut10.4000.4921.231.001.3991.40
Table 4. Analyzing the structural models’ input data.
Table 4. Analyzing the structural models’ input data.
ParametersValue
Concrete gradeC20/25
Reinforcement gradeS420
Beams250 × 500 mm
Height of floor120 mm
Cover thickness25 mm
Columns400 × 500 mm
Longitudinal reinforcementCorners4Φ20
Top bottom side4Φ16
Left right side4Φ16
Transverse reinforcementΦ10/100
Material model (steel)Menegotto-Pinto [64]
Material model (Concrete)Mander et al. non-linear [65]
Constraint typeRigid diaphragm
Local soil classZC
Incremental loads5.0 kN
Permanent loads5.0 kN/m
Target displacement (5-story)0.30 m
Importance classII
Damping5%
Table 5. Suggested limit states in Eurocode 8 (Part 3) [69,70].
Table 5. Suggested limit states in Eurocode 8 (Part 3) [69,70].
Limit StateDescriptionReturn Period
(Year)		Probability of Exceedance
(in 50 Years)
Damage Limitation (DL)Only lightly damaged, damage to non-structural components is economically repairable2250.20
Significant Damage (SD)Significantly damaged, some residual strength and stiffness, non-structural components damaged, uneconomic to repair4750.10
Near collapse (NC)Heavily damaged, very low residual strength and stiffness, large permanent drift but still standing24750.02
Table 6. The obtained target displacements of the sample RC model.
Table 6. The obtained target displacements of the sample RC model.
DistrictTBEC-2007, SuggestedTBEC-2018, SuggestedMeasured PGA-2023
DL (m)SD (m)NC (m)DL (m)SD (m)NC (m)DL (m)SD (m)NC (m)
Center0.0840.1080.1870.0680.0870.1520.2490.3190.553
Besni0.0840.1080.1870.0910.1170.2020.0030.0040.006
Çelikhan0.1120.1430.2490.1650.2120.3680.0200.0250.044
Gerger0.1120.1430.2490.1050.1340.2330.0150.0200.034
Gölbaşı0.1120.1430.2490.1430.1830.3170.0080.0100.019
Kahta0.0840.1080.1870.0670.0860.1500.0150.0200.034
Samsat0.0840.1080.1870.0500.0640.1110.0090.0110.020
Sincik0.1120.1430.2490.1710.2190.3800.0310.0390.068
Tut0.1120.1430.2490.1370.1760.3060.0360.0470.081
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Işık, E.; Avcil, F.; İzol, R.; Büyüksaraç, A.; Bilgin, H.; Harirchian, E.; Arkan, E. Field Reconnaissance and Earthquake Vulnerability of the RC Buildings in Adıyaman during 2023 Türkiye Earthquakes. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2860. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14072860

AMA Style

Işık E, Avcil F, İzol R, Büyüksaraç A, Bilgin H, Harirchian E, Arkan E. Field Reconnaissance and Earthquake Vulnerability of the RC Buildings in Adıyaman during 2023 Türkiye Earthquakes. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(7):2860. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14072860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Işık, Ercan, Fatih Avcil, Rabia İzol, Aydın Büyüksaraç, Hüseyin Bilgin, Ehsan Harirchian, and Enes Arkan. 2024. "Field Reconnaissance and Earthquake Vulnerability of the RC Buildings in Adıyaman during 2023 Türkiye Earthquakes" Applied Sciences 14, no. 7: 2860. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14072860

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop