Turkey EQ 2023-Preliminary Report by GARINI and GAZETAS

The 2 earthquakes of February 6th 2023 in Turkey
Source: CNBC
Preliminary Report
by Evangelia GARINI and George GAZETAS
NTUA, Greece
PART A
Seismological Data of the M 7.8 and M 7.5 earthquakes
Tectonic setting-Intensity maps
7 February 2023
1
MW 7.5
MW 7.8
Source: BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY
2
Map of seismic epicenters
Source: https://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/Map/gmap.php
3
Map of seismic epicenters
Source: https://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/Map/gmap.php
4
The M 7.8 earthquake resulted from strike-slip faulting at shallow depth.
The event ruptured either a near-vertical left-lateral fault striking
northeast-southwest, or a right-lateral fault striking southeast-northwest.
The preliminary location of the earthquake places it within the vicinity of a
triple-junction between the Anatolia, Africa and Arabian tectonic plates. A
magnitude 7.8 strike slip earthquake is associated with a rectangular fault
rupture of ~240 km long and ~20 km wide.
Nine hours after the first earthquake of M 7.8

a second earthquake of M 7.5 occurred
100 km to the north
5
6
7
SEISMOLOGICAL INFO
8
Map showing main tectonic structures around the Anatolian Plate.
The arrows show displacement vectors of the Anatolian and Arabian Plates
relative to the Eurasian Plate
Source: Wikipedia 9
Tectonics and fault system Map of the East Anatolian Fault
Source: Duman and Emre (2013)
10
Source: CSEM-EMSC + GEM + USGS + Jason R. Patton
11
mainshock
12
Source: Jascha Polet13
The 1st
mainshock of
M7.8
14
15
Source: ANADOLU AGENCY
16
17
Map of the seismic activity of February
6, 2023, near the Türkiye–Syria border.
Fault lines are shown in black. The first
magnitude 7.8 mainshock (yellow star)
occurred at 01:17 AM (UTC) on the East
Anatolian Fault system. The second
magnitude 7.7 mainshock (01:24 PM
UTC; yellow star) occurred about 100
km north of the first event on a
distinctly separate fault.
The first mainshock broke along an

~350 km long stretch of the EAF, while
the 2nd mainshock was ~170 km long.
Graphic courtesy of P. Martin Mai and

Sigurjon Jonsson, Earth Science and
Engineering, KAUST.
18
19
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Failures of Multistorey Buildings

in Turkey and Syria
Due to the Μ 7.8 and Μ 7.5 Earthquakes
PART B: Structural Collapse and Interpretation
PART C: Recorded Accelerograms, Response Spectra
Evangelia GARINI and George GAZETAS
8 February 2023
School of Civil Engineering,

National Technical University of Athens 20
PART B
Some Remarks on the

STRUCTURAL * Collapse of Multistorey Buildings
* and one purely GEOTECHNICAL Failure
21
Based on the following photos, and our experience from the Kocaeli (1999)
earthquake, we draw some conclusions regarding the unprecedented extent of damage.
In addition to the very strong seismic shaking, with PGAs in the order of at least 0.7 g – 1 g,
the following structural deficiencies (that are clearly identified in these photos and are
evident in perhaps all the collapsed buildings) were truly fatal:
1. Very thin columns, but rather thick slabs
2. Very inadequate steel reinforcement (in size and number of longitudinal bars)
3. Transverse reinforcing bars of inadequate density and improperly tied
4. NO beams !! Slabs constracted directly on columns, without continuity of the
longitudinal Rebars, and no proper joints
5. Nowhere to be seen Shear Walls, even in > 10 story buildings

(For comparison, a typical 2-story building in Cephalonia, Greece, is shown ― from an
area of similar seismicity as the region inflicted by the 7.8 earthquake.)
22
Source: https://en.armradio.am/2023/02/08/turkey-and-syria-quake-toll-nears-8000/
See next slide for details

23
VERY THIN COLUMNS
NO BEAMS !
Numerous buildings without any beam, with small size columns

(inappropriate even for 1-story buildings in a region of moderate seismicity).24
Creator: Ghaith Alsayed
Credit: AP
See next slide for details 25

NO BEAMS
NO SHEAR WALLS
POOR JOINT,
COLUMN
PENETRATES
THE SLAB
VERY FEW
REBARS, OF
VERY SMALL
DIAMETER
26
Photo: Mahmoud Hassano/Reuters

27
The slab is effectively
SIMPLY-SUPPORTED, as
just resting on top of the VERY THIN
thin columns ! COLUMNS
NO Slab–Column
JOINT
28
Source: https://kazibaonline.com/major-earthquakes-kill-2600-people-in-turkey-and-syria/
29
Joints fail, as if
there is no
continuity of the
longitudinal
reinforcement
(REBARS).
Essentially, NO
Slab–Column JOINT
30
Source: https://en.as.com/latest_news/turkey-and-syria-earthquakes-live-updates-death-toll-nears-100000-
earthquake-map-video-of-magnitude-78-quake-n/
31
VERY FEW REBARS,
OF VERY SMALL
DIAMETER
32
Photo: ymphotos/Shutterstock

33
Transverse reinforcement almost effectively non-existing… it was
untied, leading the inadequate longitudinal rebars to buckle.
34
Photo: Suhaib Salem/Reuters

35
Transverse bars
were un-tied.
Longitudinal
REBARS are of
VERY SMALL
DIAMETER
36
NO BEAMS, POOR (or rather No)
JOINTS !
37
Photo: Mohammed Al-Rifai/AFP/Getty Images

Effectively, Lack of
transverse
reinforcement leads
to longitudinal
rebar buckling
Transverse rebar
The next one

39
Collapsed Building Another under
construction with the
same method !!
Photo: WHITE HELMETS /REUTERS

40
Same building seen from a different angle
Photo: WHITE HELMETS /REUTERS
41
NO BEAMS, POOR JOINTS !
VERY FEW
REBARS OF
VERY SMALL
DIAMETER
42
Source: https://www.rescue.org/article/earthquakes-near-turkish-syrian-border-deepen-crisis

43
VERY THIN COLUMNS
NO BEAMS
POOR JOINTS
44
45
Longitudinal REBARS have
penetrated the supported
slab !!
46
Aerial photo shows the destruction in Kahramanmaras, southern Turkey, Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2023. (Photo | AP)

Un-connected
parts of a
column !!
Failed in
SLIDING or
SHEAR (??)
48
NO BEAMS, NO JOINTS, NO SHEAR WALLS
49
Photo: Twitter/@PAOK_FC
An aerial photo from Kahramanmaras, Turkey CREDIT: Ahmet Akpolat/DIA via AP 50
Notice the deformed
shape of this column !!
Inadequate columns cannot

“follow” the above building on
its lateral movement
51
FEW LONGITUDINAL REBARS,
OF VERY SMALL DIAMETER
Transverse reinforcement ??
53
NO BEAMS !
NO transverse
reinforcement ??
NO transverse
reinforcement
VERY FEW Longitudinal

REBARS, OF VERY
SMALL DIAMETER
54
Rescue efforts in Diyarbakir, Turkey (Aydin Arik/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

56
57
Thick Slab
VERY THIN
COLUMNS
Rubbles of a collapsed building in Idlib, Syria, on February 6. (Aaref Watad/AFP/Getty Images)

58
Source: The New York Times 59

NO CONTINUITY OF
REINFORCEMENT,
NO ANCHORING OF
BARS
Residents retrieve an injured girl from the rubble of a collapsed building following an earthquake in the town of Jandaris.
AFP via Getty Images
60
without any beams, with small size columns
(inappropriate even for 1-story buildings in a
(Photo by Mohammed AL-RIFAI / AFP) region of moderate seismicity). It is a miracle that
it did not fully collapsed.
61
NO BEAMS,
VERY THIN COLUMNS
See next slide for comparison with a well-designed 2-story building

in the island of Cephalonia, Greece (Design effective A = 0.36 g) 62
VISUAL COMPARISON with an UNDER-CONSTRUCTION 2-STORY
BUILDING in CEPHALONIA, after two Earthquakes in 2014
Large shear walls, strong beams, brick masonry well-confined (with

RC ties around openings and at mid-height).
(See Garini et al, 2017)
63
A woman sits on the rubble of a destroyed building in Nurdagi town on the outskirts of Osmaniye city
southern Turkey, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2023. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra) 64
VERY FEW REBARS OF VERY SMALL DIAMETER
65
Photo: SUHAIB SALEM
Credit: REUTERS
66
NO BEAMS,
POOR JOINTS !
THICK SLAB
NO SLAB–COLUMN JOINT
NO BEAMS
67
https://www.worldvision.org.uk/about/blogs/whats-happening-in-turkey-and-syria/
68
THIN COLUMNS
Forget about transverse
reinforcement !!!
69
Finally, a purely GEOTECHNICAL Failure :
Overturning of a building apparently due to bearing-capacity

failure on soft soil (perhaps with a high water table) under
strong seismic moment. No evident damage in the structure.
The glass windows remain unscathed ! Similarly intact appears
to be the foundation slab.
This is reminiscent of ADAPAZARI in the 1999 Kocaeli (Izmit)

Earthquake !!!
70
Structure seems intact.
Glass windows: unbroken
71
Some critical reasons for the collapse of a huge number of buildings
EXTREMELY STRONG GROUND SHAKING, PERHAPS LOCALLY SOIL-AMPLIFIED (see Part B)
DEFFECTIVE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS WITH SEVERAL FATAL TECHNICAL FAULTS, as follows:
1. Very thin columns, but rather thick slabs
2. Very inadequate steel reinforcement (in size and number of longitudinal bars)
3. Transverse reinforcing bars of inadequate density and improperly tied)
4. NO beams !! Slabs directly on columns, without continuity of Rebars, and no proper
connection
5. Nowhere to be seen Shear Walls, even in > 10 story buildings
72
Our SOURCES
1) https://en.armradio.am
2) www.worldvision.org.uk
3) Associated Press: Ghaith Alsayed via AP, Ahmet Akpolat/DIA, Khalil Hamra
4) Reuters: Umit Bektas, Mahmoud Hassano, Suhaib Salem, WHITE HELMETS
5) Getty Images: Mohammed Al-Rifai/AFP, Anas Alkharboutli, Aydin Arik/Anadolu Agency,
Aaref Watad/AFP, AFP via Getty Images,
6) https://kazibaonline.com
7) The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/
8) https://en.as.com
9) Shutterstock: Ymphotos/Shutterstock
10) https://www.rescue.org
11) USGS website: www.usgs.gov
12) Twitter: @PAOK_FC, The_Georgios
13) Garini E., Gazetas G., and Anastasopoulos I. (2017) "Evidence of Significant Forward
Rupture Directivity Aggravated by Soil Response in an MW6 Earthquake, and the Effect on
Monuments ", Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 46: 2103–2120. 73
PART C
Recorded Accelerograms and their Response Spectra
Disclaimer: The data utilised are taken from the AFAD website, as they are published on 10 February 2023.
Mistakes on baseline corrections or other issues are noticed by the Authors but are not solved here.
We are thankful to our Turkish colleagues for the immediate and open publishing of the huge number of
accelerograms.
74
The recorded motions of this M7.8
event are of relatively limited
duration (for such a huge magnitude)
due to the bilateral propagation of
the fault rupture.
Moreover, in the southern part (in

Rupture propagation in the region of Antakya) the records
two opposite directions exhibit strong forward-rupture
directivity effects as you can see in
the acceleration and velocity time
histories.
Source: USGS
75
Records from the MW7.8 event with PGA > 0.5 g
Code Repi PGANS PGAEW PGAUD

[km] [g] [g] [g]
2708 41 1.788 1.110 1.003
3129 146 1.353 1.210 0.826
3126 144 1.211 1.030 1.071
3117 112 0.969 1.093 1.111
3141 125 0.961 0.869 0.723
3138 72 0.889 0.747 1.296
3125 142 0.823 1.122 1.152
3135 142 0.741 1.372 0.589
2718 48 0.702 0.645 0.586
3123 143 0.656 0.594 0.868
4616 21 0.653 0.503 0.397
3142 106 0.647 0.750 0.506
NAR 15 0.647 0.579 0.399
3145 91 0.600 0.696 0.663
4615 14 0.588 0.556 0.665
3139 96 0.577 0.505 0.379
3124 140 0.573 0.638 0.578
2712 30 0.555 0.603 0.346
3136 148 0.534 0.402 0.220
3132 143 0.515 0.515 0.354
201 120 0.474 0.880 0.319
3137 82 0.453 0.848 0.502 76
Earthquake MW7.8
PGAHORIZONTAL : g
PGAVERTICAL : g
Epicentral Distance : km
77
Earthquake MW7.8 Station 2708: at Gaziantep city, İslahiye District
Station at Free field, VS30 = 523 m/s (EC8 Type B)
Exact Location: 36.648373 (Long.) 37.09933 (Lat.)
Location field of the station

Horizontal EW Source: AFAD Horizontal NS Vertical
component component component
1.74 g
A:g A:g A:g
1.12 g
0.94 g
t:s t:s t:s
V : m/s 0.98 V : m/s

V : m/s 1.35
0.49 m/s
ΔV = 2.50 m/s ΔV = 1.87 m/s
1.09
t:s 0.89 t:s t:s
78
Notice that the EW horizontal spectral

values are over 1 g for the period
range of [0, 1.5 s] !
SA : g
T:s
79
NO soil data available
Horizontal EW Horizontal NS Vertical

A:g 0.63 g A:g A:g 0.59 g
t:s
0.67 g t:s
t:s
0.93 V : m/s V : m/s

V : m/s 0.59 m/s
0.31
ΔV = 1.82 m/s
ΔV = 1.12 m/s
0.89 0.81 t:s

t:s t:s
80
NO soil data available
SA : g
T:s
81
Earthquake MW7.8 Station 3123: at Hatay city, Antakya District

0.85 g
A:g A:g A:g
0.62 g 0.61 g
t:s t:s t:s
V : m/s
V : m/s 1.71 V : m/s
0.76 m/s
0.51 m/s
ΔV = 3 m/s
ΔV = 1.86 m/s
1.10
1.32 t:s
t:s t:s
82
Notice that BOTH horizontal

components give spectral values over
1 g for a very long period range !
SA : g
1.3 s 2.1 s
T:s
83
Horizontal EW Source: AFAD Horizontal NS Vertical

1.21 g
A:g A:g A:g
1.18 g 0.83 g
t:s t:s t:s
V : m/s V : m/s
1.14 m/s
V : m/s
0.84
ΔV = 1.88 m/s
ΔV = 1.54 m/s
0.67 m/s
0.74 0.70 t:s t:s
t:s
84
SA : g
T:s
85
Station at Free field, VS30 = 350 m/s (EC8 Type C)

component Source: AFAD component component
A:g 1.03 g A:g A:g 1.05 g
t:s 1.22 g t:s t:s
V : m/s V : m/s
0.86 m/s 0.89
V : m/s
ΔV = 1.54 m/s
ΔV = 1.91 m/s
0.65 m/s
0.68
1.02 t:s t:s
t:s
86
SA : g
T:s
87
Earthquake MW7.8 Station 3129: at Hatay city, Defne District

Source: AFAD
A:g A:g A:g

0.75 g
1.21 g t:s 1.37 g t:s t:s
V : m/s 1.55
V : m/s V : m/s
0.79 m/s ΔV = 2.79 m/s

ΔV = 1.57 m/s
0.51 m/s
0.78 1.24 t:s
t:s t:s
88
Earthquake MW7.8 Station 3129: at Hatay city, Defne District

1 g for a very long period range !
SA : g
0.85 s 1.6 s
T:s
89
Earthquake MW7.8 Station 3135: at Hatay city, Arsuz District

component Source: AFAD component component
A:g A:g 0.73 g A:g 0.61 g
1.39 g t:s t:s

t:s
V : m/s 0.89 m/s V : m/s

V : m/s
0.54
ΔV = 1.25 m/s
ΔV = 0.88 m/s
0.36 0.41 0.37 m/s

t:s t:s t:s
90
Earthquake MW7.8 Station 3135: at Hatay city, Arsuz District
SA : g
T:s
91
Earthquake MW7.8 Station 3138: at Hatay city, Hassa District

A:g A:g A:g 1.29 g
0.72 g t:s 0.93 g t:s

t:s
V : m/s 1.23 m/s V : m/s

V : m/s
1 m/s
0.63
ΔV = 2.95 m/s ΔV = 1.99 m/s
1.72 1.36 t:s

t:s t:s
92
Earthquake MW7.8 Station 3138: at Hatay city, Hassa District

SA : g 1 g for a very long period range !
1.56
1.67
T:s
93

A:g A:g A:g 0.77 g
0.85 g 0.97 g
t:s t:s t:s
V : m/s 1.07 m/s V : m/s

0.68 V : m/s
ΔV = 2 m/s 0.43 m/s
ΔV = 1.26 m/s
0.58
0.89 t:s t:s t:s
94
SA : g
T:s
95
All the elastic response spectra
of the 10 stations of earthquake MW7.8 (presented herein)
SA : g
T:s
96
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Μ 7.8 and Μ 7.5 Earthquakes in Turkey and Syria
PART D: Emergence of the Fault Rupture on the Ground Surface
and SOIL LIQUEFACTION
Evangelia GARINI and George GAZETAS
13 February 2023
School of Civil Engineering,

National Technical University of Athens
97
98
Anadolu Agency
99
Fault offset observed in Kahramanmaraş
≈ 3.5 m
Source: Cengiz Zabcı @CengizZabci 100

Picture of a bent railway due to Fault rupture
Source: Cengiz Zabci @CengizZabci 101

The strike slip fault as emerges at surface
102
Source: Cengiz Zabci @CengizZabci
New aerial images show a tens of km long surface rupture associated with the M7.8 Turkey
earthquake near Tevekkelli, Kahramanmaraş. Credit: @trthaber
103
Source: https://twitter.com/ziyadin/status/1623288689894871046 104
Surface rupture at Hassa, southernmost
extent of the rupture observed by
OzdemirAlpay @geodesist_a
Fault offset
105
Surface rupture at Hassa Town
Source: Ozdemir Alpay 106

Source: https://twitter.com/Panthalassa_Z/status/1623040975848280107
107
Surface rupture observed in Tevekkelli,
Tevekkelli Village Road, 46090
Source: Twitter Zeliş @Panthalassa_Z108

6.7 m fence offset along the Sürgü-Çardak Fault
6.7 m
109
Source: Taylan SANÇAR and Kokum Mehmet
Offset at SE of Şekeroba 3.5±0.2 m
@ActiveTectonic
@CengizZabci
@HNK390978941
Gursel Sunal, Erdem Kirkan, Nurettin
Yakupoglu, Asen Sabuncu
110
NE-SW orientated fracture systems formed within the deformation zone of the Malatya
Source: Taylan SANÇAR 111

The fault rupture at the surface
in the east of Türkoglu.
Source: Gürsel Sunal, Erdem Kırkan,

Nurettin Yakupoğlu, Asen Sabuncu112
Source: Ömer Gür
113
Soil Liquefaction
114
Liquefaction at the edge of Hatay city [Location: Lat:36.2459410,Long: 36.2045409)]
Source: Ozdemir Alpay115

116
Source: Ozdemir Alpay 117
Soil liquefaction in northern Syria after the M7.8 earthquake
Source: http://yourweather.co.uk.
118
Source: http://yourweather.co.uk.
119
Source: http://yourweather.co.uk. 120

Turkey EQ 2023-Preliminary Report by GARINI and GAZETAS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turkey EQ 2023-Preliminary Report by GARINI and GAZETAS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turkey EQ 2023-Preliminary Report by GARINI and GAZETAS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The 2 earthquakes of February 6th 2023 in Turkey

Seismological Data of the M 7.8 and M 7.5 earthquakes

Tectonic setting-Intensity maps

Source: BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY

Nine hours after the first earthquake of M 7.8

Source: Duman and Emre (2013)

The first mainshock broke along an

Graphic courtesy of P. Martin Mai and

Failures of Multistorey Buildings

PART B: Structural Collapse and Interpretation

PART C: Recorded Accelerograms, Response Spectra

Evangelia GARINI and George GAZETAS

School of Civil Engineering,

Some Remarks on the

* and one purely GEOTECHNICAL Failure

1. Very thin columns, but rather thick slabs

3. Transverse reinforcing bars of inadequate density and improperly tied

4. NO beams !! Slabs constracted directly on columns, without continuity of the

longitudinal Rebars, and no proper joints

5. Nowhere to be seen Shear Walls, even in > 10 story buildings

See next slide for details

Numerous buildings without any beam, with small size columns

See next slide for details 25

See next slide for details

See next slide for details

See next slide for details

See next slide for details

See next slide for details 38

The next one

Photo: WHITE HELMETS /REUTERS

See next slide for details

Photo: WHITE HELMETS /REUTERS

See next slide for details

See next slide for details 47

Inadequate columns cannot

VERY FEW Longitudinal

See next slide for details 55

Rubbles of a collapsed building in Idlib, Syria, on February 6. (Aaref Watad/AFP/Getty Images)

Source: The New York Times 59

VERY THIN COLUMNS

See next slide for comparison with a well-designed 2-story building

Large shear walls, strong beams, brick masonry well-confined (with

Overturning of a building apparently due to bearing-capacity

This is reminiscent of ADAPAZARI in the 1999 Kocaeli (Izmit)

EXTREMELY STRONG GROUND SHAKING, PERHAPS LOCALLY SOIL-AMPLIFIED (see Part B)

DEFFECTIVE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS WITH SEVERAL FATAL TECHNICAL FAULTS, as follows:

1. Very thin columns, but rather thick slabs

3. Transverse reinforcing bars of inadequate density and improperly tied)

4. NO beams !! Slabs directly on columns, without continuity of Rebars, and no proper

5. Nowhere to be seen Shear Walls, even in > 10 story buildings

Recorded Accelerograms and their Response Spectra

Moreover, in the southern part (in

Code Repi PGANS PGAEW PGAUD

Location field of the station

V : m/s 0.98 V : m/s

Notice that the EW horizontal spectral

Horizontal EW Horizontal NS Vertical

A:g 0.63 g A:g A:g 0.59 g

0.93 V : m/s V : m/s

0.89 0.81 t:s