SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

Seismic Risk, Structural Vulnerabilities, and Retrofitting Solutions: Lessons from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake

Sismik Risk, Yapısal Zafiyetler ve Güçlendirme Çözümleri: 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depreminden Çıkarılan Dersler

Osman Hansu(GAZİANTEP ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1638-4304
Aydın Oğuz(International Dublin University)0009-0003-6124-1844
Pages
1427–1452
Publication Date
2025-06-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings emphasize the need for integrating site-specific hazard assessments into Türkiye’s seismic codes and enforcing large-scale retrofitting programs to mitigate future earthquake risks.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, on February 6, 2023, exposed critical infrastructure deficiencies, particularly in areas near the East Anatolian Fault Zone.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study examines geological and structural factors that intensified the damage, including soil amplification reaching 2.5 in sedimentary basins, significantly increasing ground shaking.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings emphasize the need for integrating site-specific hazard assessments into Türkiye’s seismic codes and enforcing large-scale retrofitting programs to mitigate future earthquake risks.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sismik Tehlike Değerlendirmesi · Yapısal Zayıflık Analizi · Sismik Güçlendirme Stratejileri

Abstract

The 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, on February 6, 2023, exposed critical infrastructure deficiencies, particularly in areas near the East Anatolian Fault Zone. This study examines geological and structural factors that intensified the damage, including soil amplification reaching 2.5 in sedimentary basins, significantly increasing ground shaking. Structural assessments show that pre-1999 buildings had over 45% failure rates due to inadequate reinforcement and shear wall deficiencies. Using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and structural performance assessments, the effectiveness of retrofitting solutions like buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) and base isolation is evaluated. A comparative analysis with Japan, the U.S. (California), and New Zealand highlights best practices for seismic resilience. The findings emphasize the need for integrating site-specific hazard assessments into Türkiye’s seismic codes and enforcing large-scale retrofitting programs to mitigate future earthquake risks.

Özet

6 Şubat 2023’te Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye’de meydana gelen 7.8 büyüklüğündeki deprem, özellikle Doğu Anadolu Fayı’na yakın bölgelerde altyapıdaki ciddi eksiklikleri ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışma, alüvyonlu havzalarda 2.5’e varan zemin büyütmesi ile artan yer hareketi ve yapısal hasar gibi jeolojik ve yapısal faktörleri incelemektedir. Yapısal analizler, 1999 öncesi binaların yetersiz donatı ve kesme duvar eksiklikleri nedeniyle %45’in üzerinde hasar oranına sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Olasılıksal Sismik Tehlike Analizi (PSHA) ve yapısal performans değerlendirmeleri ile Burkulması Önlenmiş Çaprazlar (BRB’ler) ve taban yalıtımı gibi güçlendirme çözümlerinin etkinliği incelenmiştir. Japonya, ABD (Kaliforniya) ve Yeni Zelanda ile yapılan karşılaştırmalı analiz, sismik dayanıklılığı artırmaya yönelik en iyi uygulamaları vurgulamaktadır. Bulgular, Türkiye’de bölgeye özgü sismik tehlike değerlendirmelerinin yönetmeliklere entegre edilmesi ve geniş ölçekli güçlendirme programlarının zorunlu hale getirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Hansu, O., Oğuz, A. (2025). Seismic Risk, Structural Vulnerabilities, and Retrofitting Solutions: Lessons from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake. Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 1427–1452. https://doi.org/10.47495/okufbed.1573919

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management Authority). 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake report: Seismic Impact, Structural Failures, and Policy Recommendations. Retrieved from https://tdth.afad.gov.tr. 2023.
  2. AFAD. Türkiye Deprem Tehlike Haritaları İnteraktif Web Uygulaması. https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/. 2024
  3. Akıncı AC., Ünlügenç UC. 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremleri: Sahadan jeolojik veriler, değerlendirme ve Adana için Etkileri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi 2023; 38(2): 553–569. https://doi.org/10.21605/cukurovaumfd.1334155
  4. Akkuş HT., Kışlalıoğlu V. Investigating the effects of natural disasters on the stock market on a sectoral basis: The case of 2023 Kahramanmaraş/Türkiye Earthquake. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies 2023; 5(2): 141–151. https://doi.org/10.54821/uiecd.1296562
  5. Alnajjar A. Seismic bracing for earthquake resistant design: Architectural integration strategies. Journal of Design and Built Environment 2024; 13(1): 25–42. Anwar GA., Dong Y. Seismic resilience of retrofitted RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 2020; 19(3): 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0580-z
  6. Balkaya M., Özden S., Akyüz HS. Morphometric and morphotectonic characteristics of Sürgü and Çardak faults (East Anatolian Fault Zone). Journal of Advanced Research in Natural and Applied Sciences 2021; 7(2): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.28979/jarnas.939075
  7. Bilham R. The amplification of seismic shaking by soft sediments: Lessons from Mexico City and Kathmandu. Seismological Research Letters 2019; 90(2A): 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180232
  8. Bozorgnia Y., Abrahamson NA., Atik LA., Ancheta TD., Atkinson GM., Baker JW., Youngs RR. NGA West2 research project. Earthquake Spectra 2014; 30(3): 973–987. https://doi.org/10.1193/072113EQS209M
  9. Cárdenas M., Chávez García FJ., Gusev A. Regional amplification of ground motion in central Mexico: Results from coda length magnitude data and preliminary modeling. Journal of Seismology 1997; 1(4): 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009738406881
  10. Chamlagain D., Gautam D. Seismic hazard in the Himalayan intermontane basins: An example from Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. In: Nibanupudi H., Shaw R., editors. Mountain Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. Springer; 2015. p. 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55242-0_5
  11. Çelebi M., Dietel C., Prince J., Onate M., Chavez G. Site amplification in Mexico City (Determined from 19 September 1985 strong motion records and from recordings of weak motions). In: Cakmak AS, editor. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering. Elsevier; 1987. Vol. 44, pp. 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-98956-7.50013-1
  12. Cilek A., Ergün M. The impact of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake on BIST100 and BIST bank index: Evidence from Toda Yamamoto causality test. Pressacademia 2023; 10(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2023.1760
  13. Coy BB. Buckling restrained braced frame connection design and testing. In: Proceedings of a Conference; 2007. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Buckling-Restrained-Braced-Frame-Connection-Design-Coy/9f485c3ebcb9a6198fc076a1072f7275ade01d58
  14. Ferraioli M., Mandara A. Base isolation for seismic retrofitting of a multiple building structure: Design, construction, and assessment. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4645834
  15. Güneş O., Tümer R. Performance based seismic retrofit design for RC frames using FRP composite materials. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi 2024; 12(4): 627–642. https://doi.org/10.21923/jesd.1372646
  16. Güzel F., Sarp G. Evaluation of the tectonic activity of faults with mineral alterations: A case of the East Anatolian Fault Palu segment, Türkiye. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration 2024; 171: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.19111/bulletinofmre.1518855
  17. Hayes GP., Sundstrom ASB., Barnhart WD., Blanpied ML., Davis LA., Earle PS., Wolfe CJ. U.S. geological survey earthquake hazards program decadal science strategy, 2024–33. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1544 2024. https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1544
  18. Kaatsız K., Alıcı FS., Erberik MA. Seismic assessment of electrical equipment in power substations: A case study for circuit breakers. Turkish Journal of Civil Engineering 2024; 35(4): 49–68. https://doi.org/10.18400/tjce.1241107
  19. Mazanec M., Valenta J., Málek J. Does VS₃₀ reflect seismic amplification? Observations from the West Bohemia Seismic Network. Natural Hazards 2024; 120: 12181–12202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06679-x Midorikawa S., Matsuoka M., Sakugawa K. Site effect on strong motion records observed during the 1987 Chiba ken toho oki, Japan earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 9th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium; 1994. 3: 85–90. Retrieved from https://iisee.kenken.go.jp/lna/download.php?cid=S1-090-2012andf=20130319cdbec86d.pdfandn=1_geomorphology_Vs₃₀.pdf
  20. Mokarram V., Banan MR., Kheyri A. A critical evaluation of the coefficient method, capacity spectrum method, and modal pushover analysis for irregular steel buildings in seismic zones. Turkish Journal of Civil Engineering 2025; 36(1): 75–108. https://doi.org/10.18400/tjce.1422919
  21. Nakamura Y., Hanzawa T., Hasebe M., Okada K., Kaneko M., Saruta M. Report on the effects of seismic isolation methods from the 2011 Tohoku–Pacific earthquake. Seismic Isolation and Protection Systems 2011; 2(1): 57–74. https://doi.org/10.2140/siaps.2011.2.57
  22. Okumuş V., Mangır A. Earthquake performance analysis of a masonry school building’s retrofitted state by the equivalent frame method. Turkish Journal of Civil Engineering 2025; 36(1): 29–49. https://doi.org/10.18400/tjce.1392529
  23. Özyazıcıoğlu M., Hancılar U., Selçuk SS. Site response analysis for Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye: A seismic hazard study. Journal of Seismology 2020; 24(1): 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-019-09884-7
  24. Pala M., Başsürücü M. 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremler sonrasında Adıyaman İlindeki betonarme yapılarda oluşan hasarların malzeme ve işçilik problemlerine bağlı olarak incelenmesi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 2024; 11(24): 415–427. https://doi.org/10.54365/adyumbd.1550346
  25. Palermo A., Wotherspoon L., Wood J., Chapman H., Scott A., Hogan L., Chouw N. Lessons learnt from 2011 Christchurch earthquakes: Analysis and assessment of bridges. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 2011; 44(4): 319–333. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.44.4.319-333
  26. Parker GA., Stewart JP., Boore DM., Atkinson GM., Hassani B. NGA subduction global ground motion models with regional adjustment factors. Earthquake Spectra 2022; 38(1): 456–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211034889
  27. Reilinger R., McClusky S., Vernant P., Lawrence S., Ergintav S., Özgür E. GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa–Arabia–Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 2006; 111(B5): B05411. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004051
  28. Semblat JF., Duval AM., Dangla P. Seismic site effects in a deep sedimentary basin: Numerical analysis and field experiment results. Journal of Seismology 2005; 9(2): 107–131. Retrieved from https://hal.science/hal-00107884/document
  29. Stein RS. The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. Nature 1999; 402: 605–609. https://doi.org/10.1038/45144
  30. Tan A., Eyidoğan H. The kinematics of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Eastern Turkey and seismotectonic implications. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2019; 11(4): 494–506. https://doi.org/10.24107/ijeas.649330
  31. Tesfamariam S., Saatcioglu M. Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using hierarchical fuzzy rule base modeling. Earthquake Spectra 2010; 26(1): 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3280115
  32. U.S. Geological Survey. Vs₃₀ Models and Data. USGS 2019. Retrieved from https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/vs30
  33. U.S. Geological Survey. Seismic hazard assessment and site response analysis methods. U.S. Geological Survey Publications 2024. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70041709
  34. VEX Education. San Francisco and seismic isolators. VEX Robotics Education [no date]. Retrieved from https://education.vex.com/stemlabs/iq/stem-labs/tallest-tower/san-francisco-and-seismic-isolators Wikipedia. 1999 İzmit earthquake. Wikipedia 2025. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_%C4%B0zmit_earthquake
  35. World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. SHAKE2000: Equivalent linear site response analysis and its applications. 16WCEE, Paper #798. 2017. Retrieved from https://www.wcee.nicee.org/wcee/article/16WCEE/WCEE2017-798.pdf
  36. Wu K., Wei G., Lin C., Zhang L., Yu W., Lan X. Experimental study on the seismic performance of buckling restrained braces with different lengths. Buildings 2025; 15(2): 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15020154
  37. Yıldırım S., Tonguç Yİ. An innovative retrofitting technique of an industrial prefabricated building without evacuation. Academic Platform Journal of Natural Hazards and Disaster Management 2024; 5(1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.52114/apjhad.1328346
  38. Yilmaz DG. Geçmiş depremlerden 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremlerine: Neden afete karşı hazır değiliz? Afet ve Risk Dergisi 2023; 6(3): 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1258947
  39. Yolcu A., Tanırcan G., Tüzün C. Acceleration displacement response spectra for design of seismic isolation systems in Turkey. Teknik Dergi 2021; 32(2): 10629–10644. https://doi.org/10.18400/tekderg.511798
  40. Alnajjar A. Seismic bracing for earthquake resistant design: Architectural integration strategies. Journal of Design and Built Environment 2024; 13(1): 25–42.