Next Article in Journal
External Slot Relationship Memory for Multi-Domain Dialogue State Tracking
Next Article in Special Issue
Machine Learning Algorithms for the Prediction of the Seismic Response of Rigid Rocking Blocks
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Insulation Characteristics of Hexafluorobutene (C4H2F6) Gas and Mixture with CO2/N2 as an Alternative to SF6 for Medium-Voltage Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Numerical Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability of Bridges within the Italian Road Network
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 15
10.3390/app13158937
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

Structural Failures of Adobe Buildings during the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes

by
Ercan Işık
Department of Civil Engineering, Bitlis Eren University, Bitlis 13100, Turkey
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(15), 8937; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158937
Submission received: 3 July 2023 / Revised: 1 August 2023 / Accepted: 2 August 2023 / Published: 3 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Engineering Structures: Design and Assessment Issues for Static and Seismic Actions)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Türkiye experienced great destruction during the Kahramanmaraş earthquake couple which occurred as Pazarcık (Mw = 7.7) and Elbistan (Mw = 7.6) on 6 February 2023. The weak structural characteristics and the magnitude of the earthquakes caused more than 50,000 casualties. Significant damage occurred in both urban and rural building stock in 11 different provinces that were primarily affected by the earthquakes. The dominant building stock is masonry structures in the rural areas of the earthquake region. Structural damages at various levels have occurred in adobe masonry structures built using local labours and resources without any engineering service. The main purpose of this study is to examine the failure and collapse mechanisms of adobe structures after Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in detail. First of all, information about both earthquakes was given. The earthquake intensity for all provinces was obtained by using the peak ground acceleration-intensity relation suggested for Türkiye, taking into account the measured PGAs in earthquakes. The observed structural damages were evaluated in terms of earthquake and civil engineering in adobe structures. Damage classification was conducted using European Macro-Seismic Scale (EMS-98) for a total of 100 adobe buildings. Of these structures, 25% were destroyed, 49% were heavily damaged, 15% were damaged moderately, and 11% were damaged slightly. In addition, the rules regarding adobe structures were compared considering the last two earthquake design codes used in Türkiye. In the study, suggestions were also presented to prevent structural damage in the adobe buildings in the earthquake region. Low strength of adobe material, usage of heavy earthen roofs, failure to comply with earthquake-resistant building design principles, and insufficient support of load-bearing walls are the main causes of damage.

1. Introduction

Two major earthquakes that occurred independently of each other on 6 February 2023, caused great destruction in Türkiye, which is placed in a region of very high seismic hazard. The first earthquake was Mw = 7.7 in the Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) at 04:17 local time, while the other earthquake occurred at 13:24 local time in the Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş) with a magnitude of Mw = 7.6. There is a distance of approximately 90 km between the epicentres of two earthquake pairs that occurred nine hours apart. The successive occurrence of earthquakes caused an increase in the loss of both lives and property. More than 500,000 structures suffered structural damage at different levels while more than 50,000 people died. Both earthquakes significantly affected 11 different provinces such as Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Adıyaman, Malatya, Adana, Osmaniye, Kilis, Şanlıurfa, Gaziantep, Osmaniye, and Diyarbakır. Many different types of structural systems were damaged at various levels such as heavy, moderate, and slightly, or collapsed. Many structures have survived despite the destructive nature of the first earthquake. However, after the second earthquake that happened on the same day, it achieved a higher level of damage and increased the extent of the destruction.
Every devastating earthquake experienced brings the consequence of lessons and precautions to be taken in terms of both earthquake and civil engineering. Detection of structural damage after an earthquake is one of the important phases of advanced post-disaster management. Regarding spatial planning and urban change, the information obtained from damage assessments is crucial [1,2,3]. These and similar data can be used in earthquake zoning studies and the development of earthquake-resistant building design principles [4,5]. This study focused on how the Kahramanmaraş earthquake couple, which occurred on 6 February 2023, affected adobe structures.
In general, reinforced concrete structures are the dominant structural type of the existent building stock in urban regions in 11 different provinces affected by the earthquake. In rural areas, masonry structures built with local craftsmen and construction techniques using different types of materials are the dominant building stock. Although these structures in rural areas vary regionally, they are generally built using rubble stone, adobe, brick, briquette, or cut stone. By increasing the surface areas of the load-bearing walls, which form the structural system of masonry structures, the bearing capacity is increased. The reason for this is that the compressive strength of the wall material used is higher than the tensile strength. However, while these elements can respond to high compressive forces, they are not resistant to shear and bending effects [6,7,8,9,10,11]. The higher compressive forces that will occur depending on the magnitude of the earthquake cause damage at different levels. In addition, structural weaknesses, poor workmanship, and failure to apply earthquake-resistant building design rules directly affect the damage levels.
There are many studies on the damage and damage levels of adobe and other types of masonry structures after earthquakes. Valente [12] investigated the earthquake behaviour of two historic masonry palaces with corner towers by making three-dimensional structural analyses. Numerical structural analyses revealed that the damage distributions and seismic response are highly dependent on the dynamic and geometric features of the structures. In the North-East of Italy, Valente and Milani [13] attempted to predict the behaviour of eight medieval masonry towers using the finite element method using static and non-linear dynamic analysis methods. It has been determined that the geometrical properties of the structures affect the behaviour of the structures with the influence of seismic actions. After the 2003 Valle Scrivia earthquake, Ruggieri et al. [14] examined the current state of 20 masonry churches in Piedmont. They analysed the behaviour of these churches under the influence of the earthquake. Statistical damage and vulnerability analyses were made using peak ground acceleration. They stated that it is possible to make priority lists for retrofit interventions through the methodologies they propose. Valente and Milani [15], created three-dimensional models and examined them with the finite element method in order to reveal the earthquake-induced damage assessment and partial collapse mechanisms of an Italian medieval castle. With their numerical analysis results, they defined damage models for different seismic intensity levels and the most vulnerable parts of the structure. Uva et al. [16] evaluated the structural vulnerabilities of masonry churches with the modern Internet of Things. They propose an application to address the damage measurement problem to evaluate the seismic sensitivity of historic masonry structures. Valente [17], used the finite element method to evaluate earthquake response and damage models of two historic masonry churches with bell towers in Northern Lombardia (Italy). They checked whether the structure was sufficient for different degrees of seismic effects by finding the most critical sections in the structure. Işık et al. [18] investigated the masonry damages in Adıyaman province after the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. They stated that weak structural features are the primary reason for the structural damage. Milani and Valente [19] investigated the failure mechanisms of masonry churches after the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake. They stated that it is useful to do various structural analyses to have a complete understanding of the parts of the buildings that are most likely to be partially destroyed. Milani [20] investigated the limit analysis of three masonry churches in Italy after the 2012 Emilia earthquake. They compared the regulations in the country and made strengthening suggestions. Işık et al. [21] also investigated the damages in minarets and mosques in Adıyaman after the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. It was determined that the damages intensified especially at the transition points in the minarets that did not receive any engineering service. Kocaman [22] investigated the damages in masonry mosques and minarets after the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Bilgin et al. [23] investigated the masonry construction damages following the 2019-Durres (Albania) earthquake. Işık et al. [24] made a case study on the damage rating of masonry structures using the EMS-98 after the 2020-Turkey (Elazig) earthquake. Dizhur et al. [25] researched the damage to un-reinforced clay brick and stone masonry buildings during the 2010 New Zealand (Darfield) earthquake. Penna et al. [26] investigated the seismic performance of masonry structures after the 2012 Italy (Emilia) earthquake. Bayraktar et al. [27] investigated the damage mechanisms in masonry structures after the 2004 Türkiye (Ağrı) earthquake. Sorrentino et al. [28] investigated the earthquake behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings after the 2016 Central Italy earthquakes. Hafner et al. [29] made a post-earthquake evaluation of historical masonry structures during the 2020 Zagreb (Croatia) earthquake. Yoshimura and Kuroki [30] specifically examined the damages in unreinforced adobe and brick buildings after the 2001-Elsalvador earthquake. Najafgholipour et al. [31] investigated the structural damages in masonry structures after the 2017 Iran (Sarpole Zahab) earthquake. Vlachakis et al. [32] conducted a study on the lessons that can be drawn from the damages in masonry structures during the 2017 Greece (Lesvos) earthquake. Miano et al. [33] developed seismic vulnerability curves for existing masonry structures following the 2016 Amatrice earthquake based on Copernicus damage maps using the EMS-98 damage scale. Each of these studies is a case study, and the main results presented in the study provide valuable information for better understanding the seismic response and vulnerability of the structures and for use in the assessment and mitigation of seismic risk.
There are some special studies on the behaviour of adobe structures before and after the earthquake. Sumerente et al. [34] conducted a study on the combined evaluation of in- and out-of-plane fragility functions for adobe buildings in the Peruvian Andes. Ahmad et al. [35], investigated in detail the behaviour of confined adobe structures under earthquake effects. Greco and Lourenço [36] used advanced numerical structural analysis to evaluate the overall behaviour of adobe buildings and to determine the failure mechanisms and damage distribution. Tarque et al. [37], in light of recent earthquakes, investigated the seismic behaviour of adobe masonry structures under the influence of earthquakes. Ramirez et al. [38] analysed the earthquake behaviour of the adobe buildings based on parametric and machine learning after the 2017 Mexico earthquakes. Varum et al. [39] examined the structural behaviour and strengthening of the adobe structures. Sayın et al. [40] investigated the structural damages in adobe and masonry structures during the 2011 Elazığ earthquake within the framework of engineering. Kiyono and Kalantari [41] investigated the failure mechanisms of masonry and adobe structures after the 2003 Bam (Iran) earthquake. Webster and Tolles [42] investigated the earthquake damage in historical adobe structures after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Sayın et al. [43] examined the damages in adobe and masonry structures after the 2011 Van (Türkiye) earthquakes within the framework of a cause-effect relationship.
Each of these and comparable studies can be thought of as case studies, and they can help with the design and strengthening of masonry structures, as well as the development of earthquake-resistant building design concepts for such structures. In addition, some studies can be seen as field studies for seismic risk assessments of such structures before a possible earthquake.
In this study, the effects of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake couple, which was the worst disaster of the century for Türkiye, on adobe structures were examined in detail. A significant part of the dominant masonry building type in rural regions consists of adobe structures. In the study, first of all, the studies in which the damages occurred after earthquakes in masonry structures and especially in adobe structures after different earthquakes were examined were examined. By giving information about the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, the highest PGA values measured at the earthquake stations in 11 provinces most affected by earthquakes are given. It was converted to earthquake intensity for each earthquake station using these measured PGA values, with the help of the PGA-intensity relation, which is especially recommended for Türkiye. It has been tried to reveal the destructive features of the earthquakes with the structural damage data in 11 different provinces affected by the earthquakes. Observed structural damages at different levels in adobe buildings after earthquakes have been investigated within the framework of the cause-effect relationship in terms of civil and earthquake engineering. Moreover, damage levels were determined by using EMS-98 for 100 adobe structures as a result of these earthquakes. A comparison was made for adobe structures within the framework of the rules specified in the last two earthquake design codes used in Türkiye. This study aims to reveal the extent of structural damages caused by two independent earthquakes. This will be one of the first studies to look into in detail the damages caused to adobe structures by the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, which caused great destruction. With this study, it can be used to improve earthquake design principles related to adobe structures. This, and comparable research, can be a useful tool for decision-makers in post-disaster studies, which are a part of modern disaster management.

2. 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes

When the tectonic system in Türkiye is examined, it can be seen that the Arabian Plate moves to the north the Eurasian Plate compresses Eastern Anatolia, and the Anatolian Plate is affected by the North Anatolian Fault (NAF) and Eastern Anatolian Fault (EAF) formed after the resistance of the Eurasian Plate in the north. It is seen that it moves westward (Figure 1). The EAF, with an average length of 580 km, is one of the most seismically active regions of Türkiye and many major earthquakes have occurred along this fault zone. The EAF is a left-lateral strike-slip fault that forms the southeast border of the Anatolian plate and intersects the NAF at Karlıova. Similarly, EAF merges with the Dead Sea Fault (DSF) around Antakya [44,45,46,47,48]. The North and East Anatolian Faults (NAF and EAF) have caused thousands of people to die in the last 150 years, with earthquakes of more than 7 magnitudes they have produced. In short, the earthquake activity in and around Türkiye is directly related to the complex plate tectonics that continues between the Eurasian, Arabian, and African plates.
Firstly, an earthquake happened on 6 February 2023, at 04:17 local time, with a magnitude of Mw = 7.7 in Kahramanmaraş (Pazarcık). After 9 h, at 13:24, an earthquake happened with a magnitude of Mw = 7.6, where the epicentre was the Kahramanmaraş (Elbistan). Another earthquake with a magnitude of Mw = 6.4 happened in Hatay (Yayladağı) on 20 February 2023, at 20:04 local time. Approximately 14% of the country’s land area has seen severe destruction as a result of these earthquakes. In terms of severity and geographic coverage, these earthquakes are the worst recent disasters ever in Türkiye. More than 50,000 people died and more than 500,000 buildings were damaged as a result of these earthquakes. The communication and energy infrastructures were also damaged and created significant economic losses for the country. The second earthquake’s focal depth is 7 km, compared to the previous earthquake’s focal depth of 8.6 km. Since both of the earthquakes are very close to the surface and in terms of time interval, consecutive earthquakes have affected the damage levels very significantly. The earthquake region is shown in Figure 2.
Spectral acceleration values were compared for Kahramanmaraş province, which is the epicentre of both earthquakes. The spectral accelerations that were recorded at strong ground motion stations in 17 different locations in the province are shown in Figure 3 according to different local soil classes. In the Türkiye building earthquake code, six different local soil classes are expressed as ZA, ZB, ZC, ZD, ZE, and ZF. Soil properties weaken as one goes from ZA to ZF. Accordingly, for all soil types at seven locations, the projected acceleration values were surpassed. In ZC and ZD soil types, the number of stations exceeding the expected acceleration value was 10.
The second earthquake Mw = 7.6 magnitude, which happened 9 h after the first earthquake, was recorded in a smaller number of strong ground motion stations located in 11 different locations in Kahramanmaraş than the previous earthquake, probably due to its further distance. Spectral accelerations obtained from the acceleration values are shown in Figure 4 according to different local soil classes. Accordingly, the expected acceleration values were exceeded for all local soil classes at one station. In ZC and ZD soil types, the number of stations whose acceleration value exceeded the expected acceleration value was 2.
The measured peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the stations located in 11 different provinces in the earthquake region was given shown in Table 1.
The highest PGA was measured for Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) in the first earthquake, while in the second earthquake, the highest PGA was measured in Göksun (Kahramanmaraş).
In this study, PGA-intensity transformations were made by using the intensity—PGA relation recommended by Bayrak [52] for Türkiye. This correlation is as follows;
log (PGA) = 0.3392 × I − 0.5427
where I denotes the intensity of the earthquake and PGA denotes the peak ground acceleration (cm/s2).
According to the measured PGA values, the earthquake intensity in the provinces was obtained by using Equation (1), and the results of the obtained intensities are shown in Table 2.
The highest intensity was obtained in Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) with XI, while the lowest intensity was obtained in Centre (Kilis) with VII for the first earthquake. The highest intensity was obtained in Göksun (Kahramanmaraş) with X, while the lowest intensity was obtained in Akçakale (Şanlıurfa) with VI for the second earthquake.
Table 3 lists the overall number of affected structures by the earthquakes across 11 provinces.
Damage assessment studies were completed for 1,712,182 buildings in 11 provinces affected during these earthquakes by the Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change as of 6 March 2023. The classification of damages is given in Table 4. The independent section can also be considered as the name given to each of the areas in the building that can be used alone and suitable for use. Apartments, business offices, stores, and shops belonging to the building are included in the independent parts.
According to the result of the damage assessment study carried out by the relevant Ministry, the total number of residences that fall into the categories of emergency demolition, demolition, or severe damage was determined as 518,009. Damage levels by province are shown in Table 5.
Total housing damage calculated in terms of urgently demolished, heavily damaged, or demolished houses was 54.7 billion dollars [53]. An aerial view of the destruction size of earthquakes in Hatay city centre is shown in Figure 5.

3. Structural Damages in the Adobe Buildings in Earthquake-Prone Region

The dominant building stock type is masonry structures in the rural areas of 11 different provinces affected by earthquakes. Most of these masonry structures are in unconfined masonry type. In addition to the confined masonry structures, reinforced concrete structures are also encountered. Many of the buildings in rural areas were built by local labour and resources using traditional construction methods. Therefore, the earthquake vulnerability of such structures is high. The wall materials used are joined to each other with the help of a mortar. Cement-sand-lime mortar is the type of mortar that is frequently used in the area. When the cement was hard to come by and in places where it existed, a sand-lime mortar was employed. Most of the mortar used in adobe and extremely old masonry structures was earthen.
The masonry buildings located in the rural regions affected by the earthquake were built as one-storey or two-storeys using local craftsmen and materials. The lower floors of the two-story buildings are used as barns or storage areas. Generally, adobe, rubble, cut stone, brick, or briquette are used in buildings built in a masonry style. Structural walls are created using cement or earthen mortar. The strengths of both the wall material and the joining mortars remain quite low. Due to these properties, the structural wall thicknesses take large values. Therefore, in these load-bearing walls, which are planar, there are pressure forces transferred from the top to the supports in one direction. In such masonry systems, the structural members and the space dividing or covering elements overlap. These elements, whose compressive stress values are relatively higher than tensile stresses, are not resistant to bending and shear effects [54,55,56,57].
The materials used in masonry structures in rural areas where earthquakes are effective vary regionally. Some of these structures are adobe structures. In general, adobe buildings with flat earthen roofs were preferred because adobe structures were easy and cheap to build and allowed the production of grain. One of the earliest construction materials is adobe, which is made by combining soil, straw, and water, pouring it into molds, and then drying it in the sun and shade alternately. The hand-kneading and preparation of the clay is the first step in the creation of adobe. The process of shaping it in molds and letting it dry in the sun makes up the second stage [58,59,60]. It is a material that is indispensable, especially for rural areas, has the least cost, does not require the establishment of a production facility, and has a high thermal insulation value [61,62]. The obtained adobe blocks are transported to the construction site and at the same time, these blocks must be built to form a wall. Sections of traditionally built adobe structures are shown in Figure 6.
The fact that adobe buildings were built without taking into account the earthquake-resistant building design principles and the low strength properties of the adobe material caused the earthquake resistance of such structures to be quite weak. The ductility capacity of mudbrick structures is quite low. For this reason, the ability of such structures to consume the energy that will occur during an earthquake by displacement without collapse is weak. These types of structures, which are constructed without any engineering service, cannot meet the earthquake forces and reach the collapse mechanism. Examples of completely collapsed adobe structures are shown in Figure 7.
In masonry structures, there may be cracking or partial collapse of the structural walls after an earthquake. The low tensile strength of the wall material used in adobe structures and the low shear strength of the mortar, heavy earthen roof, and partially inadequate element connections cause partial collapses. In this case, the structure becomes completely unusable. The examples of adobe structures with partial collapse are shown in Figure 8.
In field observations, it was determined that adobe and a different wall material were used together in the construction of load-bearing walls in some adobe structures. During the construction of adobe structures, a compatibility problem between the materials was observed in the use of different types of wall materials. Insufficient interlocking and different material strength properties between different materials caused separation damage between layers or at the junction of two materials. The low shear strength of the mortar used in order to use two different materials together caused the separation between the layers to be greater. Such damages are shown in Figure 9.
Roofs in adobe structures, as in other masonry structures, are usually built as a result of using heavy earthen roofs and wooden beams together. In addition, as a result of adding new soil layers to the soil roofs that are worn out due to climatic conditions over time, the old layers become compressed, and their weight increases. Due to the increased weights, significant structural damage occurs both on the soil roofs and on the load-bearing walls on which the roofs are supported [63,64,65]. In addition, insufficient interlocking between the load-bearing wall and the heavy earthen roof interrupts the load transfer and causes such damage. As a result of the collapse of these roofs, the structures have become unusable. The completely collapsed heavy earthen roofs after the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes are shown in Figure 10.
The bearing capacity of the wooden beams used in the roof has been exceeded due to heavy earthen roofs. Wooden beams collapsed completely because they did not have sufficient support with both the heavy earthen roof and load-bearing wall, while the ones with sufficient support were damaged according to additional loads and passed before collapse (Figure 11).
Heavy earthen roofs, together with the vertical acceleration component of the earthquake, push the load-bearing walls out of the plane/inside under the effect of horizontal load. In this case, these walls, which do not have sufficient connection with the roof and whose rigidity is weak in the in-plane/out-of-plane direction, experience sudden power depletion and collapse on the walls together with the roof. Different types of damage to heavy earth roofs are shown in Figure 12.
Another type of observed damage in adobe buildings is splitting at the corner points and partial collapse of the corner points. These damages are due to insufficient support of the load-bearing walls to the structural element to which they are attached in all three directions. In addition, the high weight of the soil roof causes a decrease in the strength at the corner points under horizontal loads. In addition, due to the weak workmanship at the corner points, the earthquake force coming in two directions at the corner points causes the walls to repel each other and change their directions [66]. Separation damages at the corner points of adobe structures are shown in Figure 13. Out-of-plane structural wall damages at corner points are shown in Figure 14. The out-of-plane collapse damages on the outer load-bearing walls have increased significantly due to the lack of adequate jointing between the outer-inner load-bearing walls that make up the adobe structures, the lack of support detailing, and the effects of heavy earthen roofs. The observed out-of-plane wall damages in adobe structures are shown in Figure 15.
As in other building types, the strength/rigidity differences between storeys in buildings with more than one storey affect the relative storey drifts negatively. Examples of damage at different levels due to strength/rigidity differences between floors are shown in Figure 16.
Failure to provide load transfer on the structural walls of adobe structures, which were constructed using local materials and workmanship with traditional construction technologies, without paying attention to earthquake-resistant design rules, caused various levels of damage to the walls. In addition, poor masonry workmanship, and not using horizontal and vertical beams that should be used also negatively affected the level of damage. Poor quality and insufficient mortar, poor bonding between walls and layers directly affected damage levels. Different examples of damage caused by these reasons are shown in Figure 17.
Window and door openings prevent the load-bearing walls from properly transferring shear and bending stresses [67]. This type of damage has occurred in many structures because both the cavities and the hollow walls do not meet the support conditions specified in the earthquake regulations. Visuals of different types of damage occurring in the gap regions are given in Figure 18.
The horizontal and vertical wooden beams to be used in adobe buildings have increased the earthquake resistance of the adobe structures. Figure 19a shows the out-of-plane movement of the structural walls in the region where these lines are not used. Figure 19b shows the crushing damage at the base of the building. Gable wall damage is similar to damage in cases where there is insufficient connection between the structural walls and roof. An example of roof gable wall damage is shown in Figure 19c.
In adobe masonry structures, in-plane/out-of-plane movements of structural and non-bearing members cause possible loss of life due to different reasons within the structure. Examples of damage that may cause possible loss of life are shown in Figure 20.
Although significant plaster spills were observed in the adobe structure surrounded by reinforced-concrete elements added later, the structure provided life safety performance comfortably. An example of a besieged mudbrick structure is shown in Figure 21.

4. Damage Classification in Adobe Buildings

The first damage assessments to be made after the earthquake should be made practically and quickly as possible. Due to the need for rapid assessment of damage, the magnitude of the damage, and the shortage of personnel who are not sufficiently specialized in their field, this is not possible in earthquakes where large-scale damage has occurred. Difficult terrain conditions, climatic conditions, and insufficient public resources after the earthquake also negatively affect this process.
In addition, damage information on buildings is essential for search and rescue, humanitarian aid, and reconstruction operations in earthquake zones. The damages in buildings can be classified in the field using damage scales [68]. In this study, the European Macro-Seismic Scale (EMS-98), which is widely used after earthquakes in different parts of the world, was used for damage classification of the adobe structures. The EMS-98 was developed by the European Commission of Seismology (ESC), taking into account the extensive damage levels [69,70,71]. Damage classification of masonry structures in EMS-98 is shown in Figure 22. Since all the structures examined are adobe structures, they were chosen as vulnerability class A. The selected adobe structures were chosen to reveal various types of damage.
Figure 23 shows the damage examples in which there is no structural damage in the adobe structures studied, only minor plaster spills and a small part of the loose mud bricks on the upper part of the building have fallen.
Structures with slight structural damage and moderate damage in non-structural elements were determined as Grade 2. Examples of adobe structures with large plaster spills observed at this level of damage are shown in Figure 24.
In Grade 3, it states that there is significant heavy damage in the building. At this damage level, structural elements have moderate damage, while non-structural elements are heavily damaged. Examples of adobe structures with large and wide cracks on most of the walls are shown in Figure 25.
The level at which heavy damage occurs in structural elements and very severe damage in non-structural elements is specified as Grade 4. At this level of damage, very large separations on the walls and partial breaks in the roof and floors are observed. Examples of adobe structures belonging to this damage level are shown in Figure 26.
A partial or total collapse of any structure as a result of severe structural damage is defined as the 5th grade. Examples of adobe structures partially or completely collapsed as a result of earthquakes are shown in Figure 27.
The classification of damage levels for the 100 adobe structures in rural areas of Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, and Adıyaman is listed in Table 6.
Approximately 25% of the adobe buildings examined were partially or totally collapsed, 30% of them were very severely damaged and 19% of them were severely damaged. Therefore, 74% of them have become unusable. It can be said that 26% of them showed sufficient resistance against earthquakes. This is a clear indication of how low the earthquake resistance of adobe structures is. It also indicates that such structures are not built in accordance with earthquake-resistant building design rules. These results showed once again that the earthquake vulnerability of other masonry structures, especially adobe masonry structures, is very high. The main reason for this is that adobe structures do not obtain any engineering services. In this context, it will be beneficial to apply the building inspection system applied for the urban building stock in such buildings.

5. Evaluation of Investigated Adobe Structures within the Scope of Earthquake Codes

The last 5 earthquake codes used in Türkiye include design rules for masonry structures. In the last two earthquake codes (2007 and 2018) [72,73], there is a general section as “Masonry Structures”. However, in the previous 3 regulations (1968, 1975, and 1998), it was included with the title “Masonry Buildings”. Although these three regulations (1968, 1975, and 1998) each have sections for adobe buildings were not specifically mentioned in the last two regulations. While the masonry building type is not mentioned in the 1998 and 2007 regulations, four types of masonry buildings are mentioned in the 2018 regulation. These are specified as reinforced, unreinforced, reinforced panel systems, and encircled masonry buildings, respectively. In 1968, 1975, and 1998 regulations, simplified geometric rules were envisaged in case calculations could not be made. In the 2007 regulation, it was stated that only adobe masonry buildings can be constructed with only one storey at most in totally earthquake regions, without counting the basement. In the same regulation, it is stated that the height of a single story can be a maximum of 2.70 m in adobe masonry structures, and the height of the basement can be a maximum of 2.40 m if it is built. The regulations also specify the rules regarding horizontal and vertical lines that should be used. In addition, in the last two earthquake codes, strength rules such as controlling the normal and shear stresses that happen under the joint effect of horizontal and vertical loads on the structural walls in masonry buildings were introduced. Again, in these two regulations, keeping the window and door spaces limited, opening window and door spaces at least 1.0~1.5 m from the corners of the building, is extremely important for the earthquake behaviour of the masonry building. As can be seen from the visuals of the buildings examined, although the regulations require the use of reinforced concrete horizontal beams, these horizontal beams are not used. While there are no horizontal beams in some structures, in some structures these beams are made of wood. Masonry buildings should be constructed with reinforced concrete vertical beams at the corners, in the vertical cross-sections of the load-bearing walls, and on each side of the door and window spaces to strengthen their earthquake protection. In the regulation, floors of masonry buildings should be reinforced concrete slabs or toothed floors with dimensions and reinforcements designed according to the rules that are given in TS-500. These rules were not followed in most of the masonry structures that did not receive any engineering and were the subject of the study.
In the 2007 regulation, masonry structures in the first-degree earthquake zone can be built with a maximum of two storeys. The number of storeys in the considered adobe structures corresponds to the number of storeys given in the regulation. In the 2018 regulation, the number of storeys is not used, instead, the building height class (BYS) is expressed, and the total allowed building height is foreseen as 7–10.50 m. The adobe masonry structures examined provide this situation. It is stated that cement-lime mortar (cement/lime/sand volume ratio = 1/2/9) or cement mortar (cement/sand volume ratio = 1/4) should be used on load-bearing walls. Cement-added mortar was not used in any of the structures examined.
There are adobe structures that have not been damaged due to different reasons in the earthquake region. However, it is a known fact that the earthquake performance of adobe and other masonry structures in rural areas is quite low and insufficient. Therefore, it is a necessity to apply the earthquake-resistant design rules of masonry structures with precision. The application of the building inspection system applied in Türkiye for urban building structures to such buildings will solve this problem. With the help of this system, damage levels can be minimized with the necessary controls during the design and construction stages of adobe and other masonry structures.

6. Conclusions

Türkiye suffered great destruction on 6 February 2023, with the effect of two independent major earthquakes, the epicenters of which were Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş; Mw = 7.7) and Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş; Mw = 7.6). In this study, the effects of the earthquake couple, which were effective in 11 different provinces, on the adobe structures were tried to be examined in detail. After giving information about both earthquakes, the spectral accelerations measured at earthquake recording stations and suggested for different soils were compared. It was determined that the spectral accelerations measured in both earthquakes exceeded the recommended values. In this study, earthquake intensity was obtained for 11 provinces by using the intensity-PGA conversion recommended for Türkiye. In both earthquakes, the highest intensity values were obtained for the province of Kahramanmaraş, which is the epicenter of the earthquakes. As a result of the observational evaluations made on the site for adobe structures, it has been revealed once again that the earthquake vulnerability of such structures is quite high. Damages of different types and levels in the investigated adobe structures were evaluated within the framework of cause-effect relationships in terms of earthquake and civil engineering. The damage caused by the adobe buildings examined can be sorted as follows:
  • The strength properties of the adobe material are very low,
  • Generally, loamy soil or lower-strength binders are used as joining mortar,
  • The construction of such structures using local materials, workmanship, and construction technologies without any engineering service,
  • Not using horizontal and vertical beams,
  • Insufficient support of load-bearing walls
  • Insufficient connection between heavy earth roof and structural walls
  • Usage of heavy earthen roof
  • Insufficient clamping of load-bearing walls in both directions
  • Usage of different types of structural wall material,
  • Insufficient connection between different structural walls layer
  • Poor workmanship
  • The fact that the earthquakes that occur are very close to the surface and large
In this study, damage classification was also carried out for 100 different adobe structures. All the results obtained showed that the earthquake resistance of adobe structures is very low.
As in other masonry structures, the earthquake vulnerability of adobe structures is quite high. The masonry building stock contains many structural uncertainties and emerges as a building type with high damage potential. For all these reasons, new buildings to be built in rural areas must be constructed and inspected in accordance with the regulations. In this context, it has become a necessity to examine the existing building stock in the regions affected by the earthquake in detail and to take the necessary precautions. It should be ensured that the rules in the earthquake regulations are applied in a controlled manner during the design and construction phase of all masonry structures to be built. Rules related to adobe structures that are not included in the last earthquake regulation should be determined and added to the earthquake code. It is considered that adobe material is friendly for environmental and sustainable construction. One of the most important causes of damage in adobe structures is the use of heavy earthen roofs. Although the use of heavy soil roofs is prohibited by regulation, they continue to be used. This should be prevented in new buildings by making necessary inspections.
This study can be used as a resource to improve the behavior of such structures in future earthquakes, especially in studies on adobe structures. In Türkiye, as in other countries, earthquake-resistant building design rules are renewed and updated over time. However, it is clear that these rules will be effective if they are fully implemented during the project and construction phase. The building control mechanism, which is actively used in urban areas in Türkiye, should also be implemented in rural areas. Rather than strengthening existing adobe structures that have been damaged at different levels, demolition seems to be a more realistic solution. Necessary structural analyses can be made for existing adobe structures that are not damaged, and strengthening or demolition decisions can be made about these structures. The adobe structures with low earthquake performance and no monumental value should be demolished first and new structures should be built according to the earthquake regulations. If there are adobe structures whose earthquake performance will reach a sufficient level after repair and strengthening, engineering applications that are foreseen in the earthquake regulations for the strengthening of masonry structures or that will not conflict with these methods can be used. Here, economical solutions should be selected by comparing the retrofitting with the reconstruction cost.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Most data are included in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ademović, N.; Oliveira, D.V.; Lourenço, P.B. Seismic evaluation and strengthening of an existing masonry building in Sarajevo, B&H. Buildings 2019, 9, 30. [Google Scholar]
  2. Tabrizikahou, A.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Kuczma, M.; Lozančić, S. Application of shape memory alloys in retrofitting of masonry and heritage structures based on their vulnerability revealed in the Bam 2003 earthquake. Materials 2021, 14, 4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Işık, E.; Sağır, Ç.; Tozlu, Z.; Ustaoğlu, Ü.S. Determination of urban earthquake risk for Kırşehir, Turkey. Earth Sci. Res. J. 2019, 23, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Bilgin, H.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Işık, E.; Ozmen, H.B.; Harirchian, E. A comparative study on the seismic provisions of different codes for RC buildings. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2022, 83, 195–206. [Google Scholar]
  5. Büyüksaraç, A.; Işık, E.; Bektaş, Ö. A comparative evaluation of earthquake code change on seismic parameter and structural analysis; a case of Turkey. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2022, 47, 12301–12321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Çirak, İ.F. Yığma yapılarda oluşan hasarlar, nedenleri ve öneriler. Uluslararası Teknol. Bilim. Derg. 2011, 3, 55–60. [Google Scholar]
  7. Koç, V. Depreme maruz kalmış yığma ve kırsal yapı davranışlarının incelenerek yığma yapı yapımında dikkat edilmesi gereken kuralların derlenmesi. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniv. Fen Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg. 2016, 2, 36–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Latifi, R.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Radu, D.; Rouhi, R. A brief overview on crack patterns, repair and strengthening of historical masonry structures. Materials 2023, 16, 1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Işık, M.F.; Işık, E.; Harirchian, E. Application of IOS/Android rapid evaluation of post-earthquake damages in masonry buildings. Gazi Mühendislik Bilim. Derg. 2021, 7, 36–50. [Google Scholar]
  10. Arkan, E.; Işık, E.; Harirchian, E.; Topçubaşı, M.; Avcil, F. Architectural characteristics and determination seismic risk priorities of traditional masonry structures: A case study for Bitlis (Eastern Türkiye). Buildings 2023, 13, 1042. [Google Scholar]
  11. Biçen, V.S.; Işık, E.; Arkan, E.; Ulu, A.E. A study on determination of regional earthquake risk distribution of masonry structures. ArtGRID-J. Archit. Eng. Fine Arts 2020, 2, 74–86. [Google Scholar]
  12. Valente, M. Seismic behavior and damage assessment of two historical fortified masonry palaces with corner towers. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 134, 106003. [Google Scholar]
  13. Valente, M.; Milani, G. Non-linear dynamic and static analyses on eight historical masonry towers in the North-East of Italy. Eng. Struct. 2016, 114, 241–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ruggieri, S.; Tosto, C.; Rosati, G.; Uva, G.; Ferro, G.A. Seismic vulnerability analysis of Masonry Churches in Piemonte after 2003 Valle Scrivia earthquake: Post-event screening and situation 17 years later. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2022, 16, 717–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Valente, M.; Milani, G. Earthquake-induced damage assessment and partial failure mechanisms of an Italian Medieval castle. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2019, 99, 292–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Uva, G.; Sangiorgio, V.; Ruggieri, S.; Fatiguso, F. Structural vulnerability assessment of masonry churches supported by user-reported data and modern Internet of Things (IoT). Measurement 2019, 131, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Valente, M. Earthquake response and damage patterns assessment of two historical masonry churches with bell tower. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2023, 151, 107418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Işık, E.; Avcil, F.; Büyüksaraç, A.; İzol, R.; Arslan, M.H.; Aksoylu, C.; Harirchian, E.; Eyisüren, O.; Arkan, E.; Güngür, M.Ş.; 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]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. Kocaman, İ. The effect of the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on historical masonry mosques and minarets. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2023, 149, 107225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bilgin, H.; Shkodrani, N.; Hysenlliu, M.; Ozmen, H.B.; Isik, E.; Harirchian, E. Damage and performance evaluation of masonry buildings constructed in 1970s during the 2019 Albania earthquakes. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 131, 105824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Işık, E.; Ulu, A.E.; Büyüksaraç, A.; Aydın, M.C. A study on damages in masonry structures and determination of damage levels in the 2020 Sivrice (Elazig) earthquake. In Advanced Technologies, Systems, and Applications VII: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Innovative and Interdisciplinary Applications of Advanced Technologies (IAT); Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 35–54. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dizhur, D.; Ismail, N.; Knox, C.; Lumantarna, R.; Ingham, J.M. Performance of unreinforced and retrofitted masonry buildings during the 2010 Darfield earthquake. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 2010, 43, 321–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Penna, A.; Morandi, P.; Rota, M.; Manzini, C.F.; Da Porto, F.; Magenes, G. Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 2255–2273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bayraktar, A.; Coşkun, N.; Yalçin, A. Damages of masonry buildings during the July 2, 2004 Doğubayazıt (Ağrı) earthquake in Turkey. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2007, 14, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sorrentino, L.; Cattari, S.; Da Porto, F.; Magenes, G.; Penna, A. Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 central Italy earthquakes. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 5583–5607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Hafner, I.; Lazarević, D.; Kišiček, T.; Stepinac, M. Post-earthquake assessment of a historical masonry building after the Zagreb earthquake—Case study. Buildings 2022, 12, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yoshimura, K.; Kuroki, M. Damage to masonry buildings caused by the El Salvador earthquake of 13 January 2001. J. Natur. Dis. Sci. 2001, 23, 53–63. [Google Scholar]
  31. Najafgholipour, M.A.; Maheri, M.R.; Khajepour, M. Performance of confined masonry buildings in November 2017, Sarpole Zahab earthquake (Mw = 7.3), Iran. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 20, 4065–4095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. 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]
  33. Miano, A.; Jalayer, F.; Forte, G.; Santo, A. Vulnerability assessment for masonry buildings based on observed damage from the 2016 Amatrice earthquake. In Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 3908–3915. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sumerente, G.; Lovon, H.; Tarque, N.; Chácara, C. Assessment of combined in-plane and out-of-plane fragility functions for adobe masonry buildings in the Peruvian Andes. Front. Built Environ. 2020, 6, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ahmad, M.E.; Khan, F.Z.; Ahmad, N. Seısmıc performance assessment of confıned adobe masonry structures. NED Univ. J. Res. 2021, 18, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Greco, F.; Lourenço, P.B. Seismic assessment of large historic vernacular adobe buildings in the Andean Region of Peru. Learning from Casa Arones in cusco. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 40, 102341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tarque, N.; Sayın, E.; Rafi, M.M.; Tolles, E.L. Behaviour of adobe construction in recent earthquakes. In Structural Characterization and Seismic Retrofitting of Adobe Constructions: Experimental and Numerical Developments; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 15–33. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ramírez Eudave, R.; Ferreira, T.M.; Vicente, R.; Lourenco, P.B.; Peña, F. Parametric and machine learning-based analysis of the seismic vulnerability of adobe historical buildings damaged after the September 2017 Mexico Earthquakes. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2023, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Varum, H.; Tarque, N.; Silveira, D.; Camata, G.; Lobo, B.; Blondet, M.; Costa, A. Structural behaviour and retrofitting of adobe masonry buildings. Struct. Rehab. Old Build. 2014, 2, 37–75. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sayın, E.; Yön, B.; Calayır, Y.; Karaton, M. Failures of masonry and adobe buildings during the 23 June 2011 Maden-(Elazığ) earthquake in Turkey. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 34, 779–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kiyono, J.; Kalantari, A. Collapse mechanism of adobe and masonry structures during the 2003 Iran Bam earthquake. Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. Univ. Tokyo 2004, 79, 161. [Google Scholar]
  42. Webster, F.A.; Tolles, E.L. Earthquake damage to historic and older adobe buildings during the 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 January–4 February 2000. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sayin, E.; Yon, B.; Calayir, Y.; Gor, M. Construction failures of masonry and adobe buildings during the 2011 Van earthquakes in Turkey. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2014, 51, 503–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bozkurt, E. Neotectonics of Turkey—A synthesis. Geodin. Acta 2001, 14, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Arpat, E.; Şaroğlu, F. The East Anatolian fault system; thoughts on its development. Bull. Miner. Res. Explor. 1972, 78, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
  46. Alkan, H.; Büyüksaraç, A.; Bektaş, Ö.; Işık, E. Coulomb stress change before and after 24.01. 2020 Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake (Mw = 6.8) on the East Anatolian Fault Zone. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 2648. [Google Scholar]
  47. Şengör, A.C.; Özeren, M.S.; Keskin, M.; Sakınç, M.; Özbakır, A.D.; Kayan, I. Eastern Turkish high plateau as a small Turkic-type orogen: Implications for post-collisional crust-forming processes in Turkic-type orogens. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2008, 90, 1–48. [Google Scholar]
  48. Özbey, V.; Şengör, A.C.; Henry, P.; Özeren, M.S.; Klein, E.C.; Haines, A.J.; Öğretmen, N. Kinematics of the Kahramanmaraş Triple Junction: Evidence of Shear Partitioning. 2023. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-04053058 (accessed on 20 July 2023).
  49. Arkan, E.; Işık, E.; Avcil, F.; Büyüksaraç, A.; İzol, R.; Arslan, M.H.; Topalan, M. Effects of 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes on Registered Immovable Cultural Heritage. 2023, unpublished.
  50. AFAD. 2023. Available online: https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/event-detail/17966 (accessed on 21 July 2023).
  51. AFAD. 2023. Available online: https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/event-detail/17969 (accessed on 21 July 2023).
  52. Bayrak, E. Türkiye için şiddet-magnitüd azalım ilişkisinin geliştirilmesi ve makro sismik deprem tehlike haritasının hazırlanması. In Doktora Tezi; Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi: Trabzon, Türkiye, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  53. 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).
  54. Karaşin, A.; Öncü, M.E. Çok katli yiğma binalarin deprem güvenliklerinin değerlendirilmesi. Fırat Üniv. Doğu Araşt. Derg. 2009, 8, 63–67. [Google Scholar]
  55. Korkmaz, A.; Çarhoğlu, A.I.; Orhon, A.V.; Nuhoğlu, A. Effects of different structural material properties on masonry building structural behaviour. Nevşehir J. Sci. Technol. 2014, 3, 69–78. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Pavić, G.; Lešić, M. Seismic vulnerability of old confined masonry buildings in Osijek, Croatia. Earthq. Struct. 2016, 11, 629–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Isik, E.; Aydin, M.C.; Buyuksarac, A. 24 January 2020 Sivrice (Elazig) earthquake damages and determination of earthquake parameters in the region. Earthq. Struct. 2020, 19, 145. [Google Scholar]
  58. Eroğlu, M.; Akyol, A.A. Antik yapı malzemesi olarak tuğla ve kiremit: Boğsak adası Bizans yerleşimi örneklemi. Sanat Tasar. Derg. 2017, 20, 141–162. [Google Scholar]
  59. Demirkan, D.S. Yığma Yapılarda derz Kalınlığı ve Duvar Örme Tekniğinin Yapıya Etkisinin Anizotrop bir Model Üzerinde Incelenmesi. Ph.D. Thesis, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Istanbul, Türkiye, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  60. Işık, E.; Ademović, N.; Harirchian, E.; Avcil, F.; Büyüksaraç, A.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Bülbül, M.A.; Işık, M.F.; Antep, B. Determination of natural fundamental period of minarets by using artificial neural network and of the impact of different materials on their seismic vulnerability. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 809. [Google Scholar]
  61. Austin, G.S. Adobe as a building material. New Mex. Geol. 1984, 6, 69–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Preciado, A.; Santos, J.C.; Ramirez-Gaytan, A.; Ayala, K.; Garcia, J.D.J. A correlation between moisture and compressive strength of a damaged 15-year-old rammed soil house. Geomech. Eng. 2020, 23, 227–244. [Google Scholar]
  63. Işık, E.; Avcil, F.; Arkan, E.; İzol, R. Investigation of damages caused by heavy earthen roof in masonry structures. 2023, unpublished.
  64. Karaşin, İ.B.; Eren, B.; Işık, E. Investigation of an existing masonry building with different rapid assessment method. Dicle Uni. J. Inst. Nat. Appl. Sci. 2016, 5, 70–76. [Google Scholar]
  65. Özgünler, S.A.; Gürdal, E. Dünden bugüne toprak yapı malzemesi: Kerpiç. Restorasyon Konserv. Çalışmaları Derg. 2012, 9, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  66. Bayülke, N. Yığma yapıların deprem davranışı ve güvenliği. In Proceedings of the Türkiye Deprem Mühendisliği ve Sismoloji Konferansı, Ankara, Türkiye, 11–14 October 2011. [Google Scholar]
  67. Sherafati, M.A.; Sohrabi, M.R. Performance of masonry walls during Kaki, Iran, earthquake of April 9, 2013. J. Perfor. Constr. Facil. 2016, 30, 04015040. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sharma, R.C.; Tateishi, R.; Hara, K.; Nguyen, H.T.; Gharechelou, S.; Nguyen, L.V. Earthquake damage visualization (EDV) technique for the rapid detection of earthquake-induced damages using SAR data. Sensors 2017, 17, 235. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Zanini, M.A.; Hofer, L.; Faleschini, F. Reversible ground motion-to-intensity conversion equations based on the EMS-98 scale. Eng. Struct. 2019, 180, 310–320. [Google Scholar]
  70. Grunthal, G. Conseil de L’Europe, Cahiers du Centre Europeen de Geodynamique et de Seismologie, In European Macroseismic Scale; Centre Europèen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie: Luxembourg, 1998; Volume 15. [Google Scholar]
  71. Grünthal, G.; Levret, A. L’echelle Macrosismique Européenne = European Macroseismic Scale 1998:(EMS-98); Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie: Luxembourg, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  72. TEC-2007; Turkish Earthquake Code. T.C. Resmi Gazete: Ankara, Türkiye, 2007.
  73. TBEC-2018; Turkish Building Earthquake Code. T.C. Resmi Gazete: Ankara, Türkiye, 2018.
Applsci 13 08937 g001
Figure 1. Simplified tectonic map of Türkiye [49]. (The yellow star is the epicentre of the Pazarcık earthquake and blue star is the epicentre of the Elbistan earthquake).
Figure 1. Simplified tectonic map of Türkiye [49]. (The yellow star is the epicentre of the Pazarcık earthquake and blue star is the epicentre of the Elbistan earthquake).
Applsci 13 08937 g001
Applsci 13 08937 g002
Figure 2. Epicentres and cities affected by earthquakes.
Figure 2. Epicentres and cities affected by earthquakes.
Applsci 13 08937 g002
Applsci 13 08937 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of spectral accelerations for different soil types of 17 acceleration stations in Kahramanmaraş for Pazarcık Earthquake (Mw = 7.7).
Figure 3. Comparison of spectral accelerations for different soil types of 17 acceleration stations in Kahramanmaraş for Pazarcık Earthquake (Mw = 7.7).
Applsci 13 08937 g003
Applsci 13 08937 g004
Figure 4. The graph of spectral acceleration for different local soil classes of 11 acceleration stations in Kahramanmaraş for the Elbistan Earthquake (Mw = 7.6).
Figure 4. The graph of spectral acceleration for different local soil classes of 11 acceleration stations in Kahramanmaraş for the Elbistan Earthquake (Mw = 7.6).
Applsci 13 08937 g004
Applsci 13 08937 g005
Figure 5. Aerial view of the destructive effect of the earthquakes [53].
Figure 5. Aerial view of the destructive effect of the earthquakes [53].
Applsci 13 08937 g005
Applsci 13 08937 g006
Figure 6. Cross-section examples from a typical adobe structure.
Figure 6. Cross-section examples from a typical adobe structure.
Applsci 13 08937 g006
Applsci 13 08937 g007
Figure 7. Examples of completely collapsed adobe masonry structures.
Figure 7. Examples of completely collapsed adobe masonry structures.
Applsci 13 08937 g007
Applsci 13 08937 g008
Figure 8. Examples of partially collapsed adobe structures.
Figure 8. Examples of partially collapsed adobe structures.
Applsci 13 08937 g008
Applsci 13 08937 g009
Figure 9. Damages in adobe structures using different types of wall materials; (a) adobe-rubble stone, (b) adobe-rubble stone, (c) adobe-briquette.
Figure 9. Damages in adobe structures using different types of wall materials; (a) adobe-rubble stone, (b) adobe-rubble stone, (c) adobe-briquette.
Applsci 13 08937 g009
Applsci 13 08937 g010
Figure 10. Adobe structures where heavy earthen roofs have completely collapsed.
Figure 10. Adobe structures where heavy earthen roofs have completely collapsed.
Applsci 13 08937 g010
Applsci 13 08937 g011
Figure 11. Damages in wooden beams due to the effect of heavy earthen roofs.
Figure 11. Damages in wooden beams due to the effect of heavy earthen roofs.
Applsci 13 08937 g011
Applsci 13 08937 g012
Figure 12. Different effects of heavy earthen roofs; (a) in-plane damage to the load-bearing wall with the effect of the collapsed heavy earthen roof, (b) out-of-plane movement of the heavy earthen roof, (c) out-of-plane damage to the load-bearing wall with the effect of the collapsed heavy earthen roof.
Figure 12. Different effects of heavy earthen roofs; (a) in-plane damage to the load-bearing wall with the effect of the collapsed heavy earthen roof, (b) out-of-plane movement of the heavy earthen roof, (c) out-of-plane damage to the load-bearing wall with the effect of the collapsed heavy earthen roof.
Applsci 13 08937 g012
Applsci 13 08937 g013
Figure 13. Separation damages at the corner points of adobe structures.
Figure 13. Separation damages at the corner points of adobe structures.
Applsci 13 08937 g013
Applsci 13 08937 g014
Figure 14. Out-of-plane wall damages due to insufficient bracing at corner points.
Figure 14. Out-of-plane wall damages due to insufficient bracing at corner points.
Applsci 13 08937 g014
Applsci 13 08937 g015
Figure 15. Out-of-plane structural wall damages in adobe structures.
Figure 15. Out-of-plane structural wall damages in adobe structures.
Applsci 13 08937 g015
Applsci 13 08937 g016
Figure 16. Structural damages due to unsymmetrical strength/stiffness and gap amounts between floors.
Figure 16. Structural damages due to unsymmetrical strength/stiffness and gap amounts between floors.
Applsci 13 08937 g016
Applsci 13 08937 g017
Figure 17. Damages due to low-strength mortar and insufficient interlocking.
Figure 17. Damages due to low-strength mortar and insufficient interlocking.
Applsci 13 08937 g017
Applsci 13 08937 g018
Figure 18. Torsional moment damages in window spaces.
Figure 18. Torsional moment damages in window spaces.
Applsci 13 08937 g018
Applsci 13 08937 g019
Figure 19. Different types of structural damage (a) horizontal-vertical beam effect, (b) crushing damage at the base, (c) roof and gable wall damage.
Figure 19. Different types of structural damage (a) horizontal-vertical beam effect, (b) crushing damage at the base, (c) roof and gable wall damage.
Applsci 13 08937 g019
Applsci 13 08937 g020
Figure 20. Examples of damage that may cause possible loss of life.
Figure 20. Examples of damage that may cause possible loss of life.
Applsci 13 08937 g020
Applsci 13 08937 g021
Figure 21. Example of an adobe building surrounded by reinforced concrete structural elements.
Figure 21. Example of an adobe building surrounded by reinforced concrete structural elements.
Applsci 13 08937 g021
Applsci 13 08937 g022
Figure 22. Damage classification of masonry structures according to EMS-98.
Figure 22. Damage classification of masonry structures according to EMS-98.
Applsci 13 08937 g022
Applsci 13 08937 g023
Figure 23. Examples of adobe structures with negligible slight damage (Grade-1).
Figure 23. Examples of adobe structures with negligible slight damage (Grade-1).
Applsci 13 08937 g023
Applsci 13 08937 g024
Figure 24. Examples of moderately damaged adobe structures (Grade-2).
Figure 24. Examples of moderately damaged adobe structures (Grade-2).
Applsci 13 08937 g024
Applsci 13 08937 g025
Figure 25. Examples of adobe structures with heavy damage (Grade-3).
Figure 25. Examples of adobe structures with heavy damage (Grade-3).
Applsci 13 08937 g025
Applsci 13 08937 g026
Figure 26. Examples of very heavily damaged adobe structures (Grade-4).
Figure 26. Examples of very heavily damaged adobe structures (Grade-4).
Applsci 13 08937 g026
Applsci 13 08937 g027
Figure 27. Examples of total and partially collapsed adobe structures (Grade-5).
Figure 27. Examples of total and partially collapsed adobe structures (Grade-5).
Applsci 13 08937 g027
Table 1. The highest PGAs measured in 11 provinces [50,51].
Table 1. The highest PGAs measured in 11 provinces [50,51].
Mw = 7.7Mw = 7.6
StationProvince/DistrictPGA (cm/s2)StationProvince/DistrictPGA (cm/s2)
131Adana/Saimbeyli159.77131Adana/Saimbeyli402.30
213Adıyaman/Tut242.28213Adıyaman/Tut126.62
2104Diyarbakır/Ergani116.472107Diyarbakır/Çermik47.61
2310Elazığ/Baskil60.462308Elazığ/Sivrice69.80
2718Gaziantep/Islahiye654.432703Gaziantep/Şahinbey93.68
3135Hatay/Arsuz1372.073138Hatay/Hassa78.11
4414Malatya/Kale163.844406Malatya/Akçadağ467.20
4614Maraş/Pazarcık2039.204612Maraş/Göksun635.45
6304Şanlıurfa/Bozova238.236306Şanlıurfarfa/Akçakale36.00
7901Kilis/Centre53.117901Kilis/Centre50.91
8002Osmaniye/Bahçe242.958003Osmaniye/Centre66.60
Table 2. Intensity obtained for both earthquakes.
Table 2. Intensity obtained for both earthquakes.
Mw = 7.7Mw = 7.6
StationProvince/DistrictIStationProvince/DistrictI
131Adana/SaimbeyliVIII131Adana/SaimbeyliIX
213Adıyaman/TutIX213Adıyaman/TutVIII
2104Diyarbakır/ErganiVIII2107Diyarbakır/ÇermikVII
2310Elazığ/BaskilVII2308Elazığ/SivriceVII
2718Gaziantep/IslahiyeX2703Gaziantep/ŞahinbeyVII
3135Hatay/ArsuzXI3138Hatay/HassaVII
4414Malatya/KaleVIII4406Malatya/AkçadağIX
4614Maraş/PazarcıkXI4612Maraş/GöksunX
6304Şanlıurfa/BozovaIX6306Şanlıurfa/AkçakaleVI
7901Kilis/CentreVII7901Kilis/CentreVII
8002Osmaniye/BahçeIX8003Osmaniye/CentreVII
Table 3. Number of buildings overall in the provinces affected by the earthquake [53].
Table 3. Number of buildings overall in the provinces affected by the earthquake [53].
ProvinceResidentialCommercialPublicOtherTotal
Adana404,50229,92089167779451,117
Adıyaman107,242576543703119120,496
Diyarbakır199,13811,41211,9643165225,679
Elazığ106,569722128727051123,713
Gaziantep269,21222,82954808162305,683
Hatay357,46733,51110,3825489406,849
Kahramanmaraş219,35112,35868794565243,153
Kilis33,3991526165173637,312
Malatya159,896837066704051178,987
Osmaniye128,163942831052384143,080
Şanlıurfa347,90218,84711,7904089382,628
Total of the region2,332,841161,18774,07950,5902,618,697
Table 4. The classification of the damaged buildings (6 March 2023) [53].
Table 4. The classification of the damaged buildings (6 March 2023) [53].
Damage ClassificationNumber of BuildingsIndependent Parts
No damage860,0062,387,163
Slightly damage431,4211,615,817
Moderate damage40,228166,132
Heavy damage179,786494,588
Collapse35,35596,100
Demolished immediately17,49160,728
Could not detect147,895296,508
Total1,712,1825,117,036
Table 5. Classification of damage levels in residential buildings by province [53].
Table 5. Classification of damage levels in residential buildings by province [53].
ProvinceTotal of Demolished Immediately + Heavy Damaged + Collapsed Residential BuildingsModerate DamagedSlightly Damaged
Adana295211,76871,072
Adıyaman56,25618,71572,729
Diyarbakır860211,209113,223
Elazığ10,156152231,151
Gaziantep29,15520,251236,497
Hatay99,32617,887161,137
Kahramanmaraş71,51912,801107,765
Kilis215,25525,957189,317
Malatya2514130327,969
Osmaniye16,111412269,466
Şanlıurfa61636041199,401
Total of the region518,009131,5761,279,727
Table 6. Distribution of the investigated adobe structures according to their damage levels.
Table 6. Distribution of the investigated adobe structures according to their damage levels.
Damage GradeNumber of Buildings
Grade 111
Grade 215
Grade 319
Grade 430
Grade 525
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. Structural Failures of Adobe Buildings during the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8937. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158937

AMA Style

Işık E. Structural Failures of Adobe Buildings during the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(15):8937. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158937

Chicago/Turabian Style

Işık, Ercan. 2023. "Structural Failures of Adobe Buildings during the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes" Applied Sciences 13, no. 15: 8937. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158937

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