Kahramanmaraş Depremlerinde Saha Etkisi Gözlemleri

Abstract

Characteristics of earthquake input motions are subjected to change when they travel through soil deposits towards ground surfaces. The influence of the soil deposits on the input motions is known as site effect, which has long been included in modern seismic design codes (e.g., EC8, ASCE 7 and TBDY). In this study, the site effect is investigated through the recorded input motions of two main Kahramanmaraş earthquake events that happened on February 6, 2023. The recorded input motions at seven earthquake stations in and around Kahramanmaraş City are considered. The effect of site conditions on the bracketed duration, peak ground acceleration values and spectral acceleration curves is discussed. In addition, damaged buildings at different soil conditions close to the earthquake stations are discussed. The PGA values at stations located on soil class C (with Vs, 30 of 280 m/s and 346 m/s) are greater than those recorded on soil class B (Vs, 30 ranging from 484 m/s to 715 m/s). Similarly, bracketed duration increases with the recording site getting relatively softer. Lastly, the spectral peaks occurring around the fundamental period of a soft soil site result in an increase in the seismic demand of buildings.

Keywords

• Kahramanmaraş depremleri
• saha etkisi
• maksimum yer ivmesi
• tasarım davranış spektrumu

Supporting Institution

Herhangi bir fon alınmamıştır.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma için etik kurul onayına veya özel bir izne gerek yoktur.

Thanks

Bu çalışmada sunulan deprem verileri, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Tahmini (AFAD) web sitesinden alınmıştır.

Site Effect Observations from the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes

Abstract

Characteristics of earthquake input motions are subjected to change when they travel through soil deposits to ground surfaces. The influence of the soil deposits on the input motions is known as site effect, which has long been included in modern seismic design codes (e.g., EC8, ASCE 7 and TBEC). In this study, the site effect is investigated through the recorded input motions of two main Kahramanmaras earthquake events that happened on February 6, 2023. The recorded input motions at seven earthquake stations within and around Kahramanmaras City are considered. The effect of site conditions on the bracketed duration and peak ground acceleration values is discussed. In addition, damaged buildings at different soil conditions close to the earthquake stations are discussed. Lastly, the performance of the equivalent linear approach in site response prediction is evaluated by simulating one of the soft soil sites.

Keywords

• Kahramanmaraş earthquake events
• site effect
• peak ground acceleration
• design response spectra

Supporting Institution

No funding is received.

Ethical Statement

The study does not require ethics committee approval or any special permission.

Thanks

The earthquake data presented in this study is taken from Disaster and Emergency Management Predicency (AFAD) website.

References

1. Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Education.
2. Scholl, R. E. (1989). Observations of the performance of buildings during the 1985 Mexico earthquake, and structural design implications. International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, 7(1), 69-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01552841
3. Seed, R. B., Dickenson, S., & Idriss, I. (1991). Principal geotechnical aspects of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 31(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.31.1
4. Cetin, K. O., Altun, S., Askan, A., Akgün, M., Sezer, A., Kıncal, C., Özdağ, Ö. C., İpek, Y., Unutmaz, B., Gülerce, Z., Özacar, A. A., Ilgaç, M., Can, G., Cakir, E., Söylemez, B., El-Sayeed, A., Zarzour, M., Bozyiğit, İ., Tuna, Ç., Köksal, D.,…Karaali, E. (2022). The site effects in Izmir Bay of October 30 2020, M7.0 Samos earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 152, Article 107051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107051
5. Kaiser, A., Holden, C., Beavan, J., Beetham, D., Benites, R., Celentano, A., Collett, D., Cousins, J., Cubrinovski, M., Dellow, G., Denys, P., Fielding, E., Fry, B., Gerstenberger, M., Langridge, R., Massey, C., Motagh, M., Pondard, N., McVerry, G., Ristau, J.,…Zhao, J. (2012). The Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake of February 2011: Preliminary report. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 55(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2011.641182
6. Mayoral, J. M., Asimaki, D., Tepalcapa, S., Wood, C., Roman-de la Sancha, A., Hutchinson, T., Franke, K., & Montalva, G. (2019). Site effects in Mexico City basin: Past and present. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 121, 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.02.028
7. Demirci, H. E., Karaman, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2022). A survey of damage observed in Izmir due to 2020 Samos-Izmir earthquake. Natural Hazards, 111(1), 1047-1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05085-x
8. Askan, A., Gülerce, Z., Roumelioti, Z., Sotiriadis, D., Melis, N. S., Altindal, A., Akbaş, B., Sopaci, E., Karimzadeh, S., Kalogeras, I., Theodoulidis, N., Konstantinidou, K., Özacar, A. A., Kale, Ö., & Margaris, B. (2022). The Samos Island (Aegean Sea) M7. 0 earthquake: Analysis and engineering implications of strong motion data. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 20(14), 7737-7762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01251-5

9. Rossi, A., Tertulliani, A., Azzaro, R., Graziani, L., Rovida, A., Maramai, A., Pessina, V., Hailemikael, S., Buffarini, G., Bernardini, F., Camassi, R., Del Mese, S., Ercolani, E., Fodarella, A., Locati, M., Martini, G., Paciello, A., Paolini, S., Arcoraci, L., …Stucchi, M. (2019). The 2016–2017 earthquake sequence in central Italy: Macroseismic survey and damage scenario through the EMS-98 intensity assessment. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17, 2407-2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00556-w
10. Kelam, A. A., Karimzadeh, S., Yousefibavil, K., Akgün, H., Askan, A., Erberik, M. A., Koçkar, M. K., Pekcan, O., & Ciftci, H. (2022). An evaluation of seismic hazard and potential damage in Gaziantep, Turkey using site specific models for sources, velocity structure and building stock. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 154, Article 107129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107129
11. Pamuk, E., & Ozer, C. (2020). The site effect investigation with using horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio method on earthquake data, South of Turkey. Geotectonics, 54, 563-576. https://doi.org/10.1134/S001685212004010X
12. Ilhan, O., Indır, O., Muratoğlu, G., İçen, A., Albayrak, K., Sandıkkaya, M. A., Askan, A., Arduino, P., & Taciroğlu, E. (2024). Local site effects at the selected stations affected by the February 6 2023 Türkiye earthquake sequences. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 178, Article 108454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108454
13. Dogan, A., & Dikmen, Ü. (2024). Site response analysis by generating a new 3D mesh design with surface topography: A 3D site response analysis of northwest Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 22(11), 5571-5597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01977-y
14. Ilhan, O., Zulfikar, A. C., Taskiran, T., Eroglu, K. N., Akcan, S. O., & Ugurlu, H. A. (2024). The observed and simulated site effects at the selected regions influenced by 2023 Turkey earthquake sequences: A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 29(16), 3283-3302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2024.2336197
15. Guzel, Y. (2025). The 06.02.2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquake events: The characteristics of the recorded input motions at different sites and their effect on Structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 29(2), 497-524. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2024.2431062
16. Guzel, Y., & Guzel, F. (2023). Investigation of local site effect considering the recordings of the 08.11.2021 earthquake event in Konya, Turkey. Natural Hazards, 116(1), 619-636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05691-3
17. Guzel, Y., & Guzel, F. (2023). Evaluation of EC8 and TBEC design response spectra applied at a region in Turkey. Earthquakes and Structures, 25(3), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2023.25.3.199
18. Ozener, P., Monkul, M. M., Eseller Bayat, E., Ari, A., & Cetin, K. O. (2024). Liquefaction and performance of foundation systems in Iskenderun during 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Turkiye earthquake sequence. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 178, Article 108433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108433
19. Wang, H. W., Qiang, S. Y., Wen, R. Z., & Ren, Y. F. (2024). Characteristics and simulations of ground motions in Turkey Mw7.8 and Mw7.6 great earthquakes on 6 February 2023. Chinese Journal of Geophysics-Chinese Edition, 67(8), 2990-3003. https://doi.org/10.6038/cjg2023R0092
20. Yan, K., Miyajima, M., Kumsar, H., Aydan, Ö., Ulusay, R., Tao, Z., Chen, Y., & Wang, F. (2024). Preliminary report of field reconnaissance on the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in Turkiye. Geoenvironmental Disasters, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-024-00272-x
21. Fan, X. Q., Zhang, L. B., Wang, J. K., Ren, Y. F., & Liu, A. W. (2024). Analysis of faulting destruction and water supply pipeline damage from the first mainshock of the February 6, 2023 Türkiye earthquake doublet. Earthquake Science, 37(2), 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eqs.2023.11.004
22. Moss, R. E. S., Altunel, E., Bassal, P., Bray, J. D., Buckreis, T. E., Cetin, K. O., Clahan, K., Duman, E., Frost, D., Hashash, Y., Koehler, R. D., Kozaci, O., Lozano, J. M., Macedo, J., Moug, D., Nichols, E., Pehlivan, M., Pretell, R., Stewart, J. P., Ulmer, K. J.,…Yildirim, C. (2025). Geotechnical and geological reconnaissance observations of the 6 February 2023 Türkiye earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 41(1), 219-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241281007
23. Altunsu, E., Gunes, O., Ozturk, S., Sorosh, S., Sari, A., & Beeson, S. T. (2024). Investigating the structural damage in Hatay province after Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye earthquake sequences. Engineering Failure Analysis, 157, Article 107857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107857
24. Akar, F., Işık, E., Avcil, F., Büyüksaraç, A., Arkan, E., & İzol, R. (2024). Geotechnical and structural damages caused by the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Gölbaşı (Adıyaman). Applied Sciences, 14(5), Article 2165. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14052165
25. Altıok, T. Y. (2025). Structural performance analysis of a retrofitted school building collapsed in Kahramanmaraş earthquakes and evaluation of applied retrofitting methods. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 23(11), 4943-4974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-025-02239-1
26. Altıok, T. Y., Şevik, M., & Demir, A. (2025). Seismic performance of retrofitted and non-retrofitted RC school buildings after the February 6th, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 23(3), 1017-1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01941-w
27. Mertol, H. C., Tunç, G., Akis, T., Kantekin, Y., & Aydin, I. C. (2023). Investigation of RC buildings after 6 February 2023, Kahramanmaraş, Turkiye earthquakes. Buildings, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071789
28. Yilmaz, Z., Altunişik, A. C., Taciroglu, E., Günaydin, M., Okur, F. Y., Sunca, F., Şişman, R., Aslan, B., & Sezdirmez, T. (2024). Regional building damage survey data on the 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, earthquakes. Multidisciplinary Journal of Civil Engineering, 2(1), Article 04024009. https://doi.org/10.1061/AOMJAH.AOENG-004
29. Oz, I., & Omur, M. (2025). Evaluating the seismic fragility and code compliance of Turkish reinforced concrete buildings after the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake. Applied Sciences, 15(10), Article 5554. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15105554
30. European Committee for Standardization (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
31. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority. (2018). Principles for the design of buildings under earthquake effect (Turkish Building Earthquake Code). Official Gazette. Ministry of Interior in Turkish.
32. Ministry of Public Works and Housing. (2007). Regulation on buildings to be built in seismic zones (Turkish Building Earthquake Code). Ministry of Interior in Turkish.
33. American Society of Civil Engineers (2017). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures.
34. Bulut, F., Bohnhoff, M., Eken, T., Janssen, C., Kilic, T., & Dresen, G. (2012). The East Anatolian Fault Zone: Seismotectonic setting and spatiotemporal characteristics of seismicity based on precise earthquake locations. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth, 117(B7), Article B07304. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jb008966
35. Yavasoglu, H., Tari, E., Tuysuz, O., Cakir, Z., & Ergintav, S. (2011). Determining and modeling measurements. Journal of Geodynamics, 51(5), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2010.07.003
36. Duman, T. Y., Çan, T., Emre, Ö., Kadirioğlu, F. T., Başarır Baştürk, N., Kılıç, T., Arslan, S., Özalp, S., Kartal, R. F., Kalafat, D., Karakaya, F., Eroğlu Azak, T., Özel, N. M., Ergintav, S., Akkar, S., Altınok, Y., Tekin, S., Cingöz, A., & Kurt, A. İ. (2018). Seismotectonic database of Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16, 3277-3316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9965-9
37. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority. (2023). Turkish accelerometric database and analysis system. https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/map
38. Kuzucuoglu, C., Sengor, A. M. C., & Ciner, A. (2019). The Tectonic control on the geomorphological landscapes of Turkey. In C. Kuzucuoglu, A. Ciner, & N. Kazanci (Eds.), Landscapes and landforms of Turkey (pp. 17-40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03515-0_3
39. Emre, Ö., Duman, T., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, Ş., & Şaroğlu, F. (2013). 1/1.125. 000 ölçekli Türkiye diri fay haritası. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü Özel Yayınlar Serisi, 30.
40. CNNTurk. (2023). 134. gün! Depremde ölü sayısı ne kadar oldu, güncel yaralı sayısı kaç? Hangi ilde kaç bina yıkıldı, kaç kişi öldü? https://www.cnnturk.com/turkiye/106-gun-depremde-olu-sayisi-ne-kadar-oldu-guncel-yarali-sayisi-kac-hangi-ilde-kac-bina-yikildi-kac-kisi-oldu
41. Manesh, M. R., & Saffari, H. (2020). Empirical equations for the prediction of the bracketed and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion using the Iran database. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 137, Article 106306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106306
42. Chandramohan, R., Baker, J. W., & Deierlein, G. G. (2016). Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthquake Spectra, 32(2), 927-950. https://doi.org/10.1193/122813eqs298mr2
43. Freeman, S. A. (2007). Response spectra as a useful design and analysis tool for practicing structural engineers. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 44(475), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.63898/STKU4210
44. Jeong, G. D., & Iwan, W. D. (1988). The effect of earthquake duration on the damage of structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 16(8), 1201-1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290160808
45. Iervolino, I., & Manfredi, G. (2007, June 18-22). A review of ground motion record selection strategies for dynamic structural analysis. In CISM Courses and Lectures: Modern testing techniques for structural systems: Dynamics and control. International Course on Modern Testing Techniques for Structural Systems.
46. Guzel, Y., & Güzel, F. (2024). Considerations of design response spectrum involving site effect: Application to the Kocaeli Region, Türkiye. Necmettin Erbakan University Journal of Science and Engineering, 6 (1), 40-57. https://doi.org/10.47112/neufmbd.2024.31
47. Cabalar, A. F., Canbolat, A., Akbulut, N., Tercan, S. H., & Isik, H. (2019). Soil liquefaction potential in Kahramanmaraş, Turkey. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 10(1), 1822-1838. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2019.1629106
48. Naji, D. M., Akin, M. K., & Cabalar, A. F. (2021). Evaluation of seismic site classification for Kahramanmaraş City, Turkey. Environmental Earth Sciences, 80(3), 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09396-x