KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Coğrafya Dergisi / 2024 / Sayı: 49

Deprem Hasarını Etkileyen Parametrelerin CBS tabanlı Rastgele Ormanlar Makine Öğrenmesi Modeli Kullanılarak Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye’de 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremleri Örneği

Evaluation of Parameters Affecting Earthquake Damage Using a GIS-based Random Forests Machine Learning Model: The Case of the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquakes in Türkiye

Emre Özşahin(Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Geography Department)0000-0001-8169-6908
Mikayil Öztürk(Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences)0009-0009-6482-108X
Sayfa
43–63
Yayın Tarihi
2024-12-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Çalışma sonucunda, 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremlerinin bina yaşı, yerel zemin koşulları, fay hatlarına uzaklık, merkez üssüne uzaklık, zemin kayma hızı, maksimum zemin hızı ve zemin sıvılaşma etkisi faktörlerinin farklı kombinasyonları sonucunda yapısal hasara neden olduğu anlaşılmıştır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Türkiye, tektonik özellikleri nedeniyle sismik aktivitenin yoğun olduğu bir coğrafyada yer almaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu kadar yüksek deprem riskine rağmen, deprem hasarını etkileyen parametrelerin değerlendirilmesi Türkiye'de hala çok yetersizdir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Çalışma sonucunda, 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremlerinin bina yaşı, yerel zemin koşulları, fay hatlarına uzaklık, merkez üssüne uzaklık, zemin kayma hızı, maksimum zemin hızı ve zemin sıvılaşma etkisi faktörlerinin farklı kombinasyonları sonucunda yapısal hasara neden olduğu anlaşılmıştır.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2023 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Deprem · Deprem hasarı · CBS

Özet

Türkiye, tektonik özellikleri nedeniyle sismik aktivitenin yoğun olduğu bir coğrafyada yer almaktadır. Bu kadar yüksek deprem riskine rağmen, deprem hasarını etkileyen parametrelerin değerlendirilmesi Türkiye'de hala çok yetersizdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti tarihinde en fazla can kaybına neden olan 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremlerinde deprem hasarını etkileyen parametreleri değerlendirmektir. Bu nedenle, Türkiye'nin farklı bölgelerinde deprem tehlikesi durumunda yapıların davranışlarındaki farklılıkları anlamak için veri üretilmiştir. Çalışmada, depremin hissedildiği yerleşim bölgelerinde farklı yapısal hasar türlerine sahip 198.634 binadan alınan örnek veriler kullanılmıştır. Bu veriler ile yapısal hasara neden olan temel faktörler arasındaki ilişki Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) tabanlı Rastgele Ormanlar (RO) Makine Öğrenimi (MÖ) modeli kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda, 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremlerinin bina yaşı, yerel zemin koşulları, fay hatlarına uzaklık, merkez üssüne uzaklık, zemin kayma hızı, maksimum zemin hızı ve zemin sıvılaşma etkisi faktörlerinin farklı kombinasyonları sonucunda yapısal hasara neden olduğu anlaşılmıştır.

Abstract

Türkiye is a geographical feature with intense seismic activity due to its tectonic features. Despite such a high earthquake risk, the evaluation of parameters affecting earthquake damage is still very inadequate in Türkiye. The aim of this study was to evaluate the parameters affecting earthquake damage in the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake, which caused the highest number of casualties in the history of the Republic of Türkiye. Therefore, data were produced to understand the differences in the behavior of structures in the case of an earthquake hazard in different parts of Türkiye. The study used sample data from 198,634 buildings with varying types of structural damage in residential areas where the earthquake had been felt. The relationship between these data and key factors causing structural damage was analyzed using a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based Random Forests (RF) Machine Learning (ML) model. As a result of this study, it was understood that the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquakes caused structural damage as a result of different combinations of building age, local soil conditions, distance to fault lines, distance to the epicenter, ground slip velocity, maximum ground velocity, and soil liquefaction effect factors.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Özşahin, E., Öztürk, M. (2024). Deprem Hasarını Etkileyen Parametrelerin CBS tabanlı Rastgele Ormanlar Makine Öğrenmesi Modeli Kullanılarak Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye’de 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremleri Örneği. Coğrafya Dergisi, Sayı: 49, 43–63. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2024-1432062

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (106)

  1. 2023 Turkey Earthquakes (2023). Building Damage Assessment Map. https://hasar.6subatdepremi.org. google scholar
  2. Abdelmeguid, M., Zhao, C., Yalcinkaya, E., Gazetas, G., Elbanna A. & Rosakis, A. J. (2023). Revealing the dynamics of the Feb. 6, 2023M7.8 Kahramanmaras/Pazarcik Earthquake: near-field records and dynamic rupture modeling. EarthArXiv. https://doi. org/10.31223/X5066R. google scholar
  3. AFAD (2023a). February 06, 2023, Kahramanmaraş (Pazarcık and Elbistan) Earthquake Preliminary Reconnaissance Report (February 24, 2023). Ministry of Interior, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Department of Earthquake. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/ assets/pdf/Arazi_Onrapor_28022023_surum1_revize.pdf. google scholar
  4. AFAD (2023b). February 06, 2023 Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) Mw 7.7, Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş) Mw 7.6 Earthquake Preliminary Assessment Report (February 9, 2023). Ministry of Interior, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Department of Earthquake. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/assets/pdf/Kahramanmaras%20%20 Depremleri_%20On%20Degerlendirme%20Raporu.pdf. google scholar
  5. AFAD (2023c). 06 February 2023 Pazarcık-Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş) Mw: 7.7 - Mw: 7.6 Earthquakes Report. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/ assets/pdf/Kahramanmara%C5%9F%20Depremi%20%20 Raporu_02.06.2023.pdf. google scholar
  6. Aggarwal, Y. & Saha, S. K. (2023). Improved rapid visual screening method for seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings in Indian Himalayan region. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 21, 319347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01537-2. google scholar
  7. Akbulut, M. & Ayfer, A. (2005). Proposed evaluation approach for determining earthquake vulnerability based on observations. Megaron, 1(1), 88-98. https://jag.journalagent.com/megaron/pdfs/ MEGARON-51423-ARTICLE-AKBULUT.pdf. google scholar
  8. Alpaslan, N. (2013). Soil liquefaction and mechanism. Batman University Journal of Life Sciences, 3(2), 67-89. https://dergipark. org.tr/tr/pub/buyasambid/issue/29820/320770. google scholar
  9. Alptekin, I. (2020). 1999 effect of 1999 gölcük earthquake on the region of avcılar and methods of ground improvement applied in the region of avcılar. (Publication No. 645012) [Master Thesis, Istanbul Gelisim University]. YÖK Thesis Center. https://hdl.handle.net/11363/2686. google scholar
  10. Ambraseys, N.N. & Jackson, J.A. (1998). Faulting associated with historical and recent earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean region, Geophysical Journal International, 133(2), 390-406. https:// doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.1998.00508.x. google scholar
  11. Barbot, S., Luo, H., Wang, T., Hamiel, Y., Piatibratova, O., Javed, M. T., Braitenberg, C., & Gurbuz, G. (2023). Slip distributions of February 6, 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey earthquake sequence in the East Anatolian Fault Zone. Seismica, 2(3). https:// doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.502. google scholar
  12. Bektaş, N. & Kegyes-Brassai, O. (2023). Development of fuzzy logic-based rapid visual screening method for seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings. Geosciences, 13(1), 6. https://doi. org/10.3390/geosciences13010006. google scholar
  13. Biljecki, F., Chow YS. & Lee, K. (2023). Quality of crowdsourced geospatial building information: A global assessment of OpenStreetMap attributes. Building and Environment, 237, 110295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110295. google scholar
  14. Bozdoğan, Y.E. (2023). Earthquake risk assessment in Kahramanmaraş province. (Master Thesis). Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University Institute of Social Sciences, Kahramanmaraş. google scholar
  15. Bozkurt, E. (2001). Neotectonics of Turkey-a synthesis. Geodinamica Acta, 14(1-3), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2001.11432432. google scholar
  16. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forest. Machine Learning, 45, 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324. google scholar
  17. Bulut Üstün, A., Altuntaş, G., Demirörs, U. & Karayazı, O. (2023). February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquakes and February 20, 2023 Defne (Hatay) Earthquake, resulting in Liquefaction Structures Field Observations and Evaluations. MTA Department of Geological Surveys, Ankara. https://www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0/sayfalar/bilgi-merkezi/deprem/pdf/sivilasma-yapilari-sahagozlemleri.pdf google scholar
  18. Mohammadi, C., Nazmfar, H. & Asghari Saraskanrood, S. (2023). An analysis of the vulnerability of Kermanshah’s city to earthquake risk with an emphasis on. Journal of Environmental Science Studies, 8(2), 6338-6350. https://doi.org/10.22034/jess.2022.355794.1852. google scholar
  19. Cabalar, A. F., Canbolat, A., Akbulut, N., Tercan, S. H. & Isik, H. (2019). Soil liquefaction potential in Kahramanmaras, Turkey. Geomatics, Natural hazards and Risk, 10(1), 1822-1838. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2019.1629106. google scholar
  20. Carrera-Cevallos, A. & Carrera-Cevallos, D. (2023). Hit of two earthquakes in Turkey-Syria: Mw=7,8 Gaziantep-Mw=7,5 Kahramanmaras (March 17, 2023). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4392215 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4392215. google scholar
  21. Chadha, R. K. (2023). An mw 7.8 earthquake occurred on February 6, 2023, on the east anatolian fault, Turkey. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 99, 449-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-023-2331-z. google scholar
  22. Coskun, O. & Aldemir, A. (2023). Machine learning network suitable for rapid seismic risk estimation of masonry building stocks. Natural Hazards, 115, 261-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05553-y. google scholar
  23. Çalım, G., Bal, İ.E. & Gülay, G. (2019). Probabilistic calculation of earthquake risk in transmission lines and a case study. Dicle University Journal of Engineering, 10(1), 397-408. https://doi. org/10.24012/dumf.538436. google scholar
  24. Çoban, V. & Yerel Kandemir, S. (2023). Rating factors affecting the dimension of vulnerability from earthquake. European Journal of Science and Technology, (49), 61-67. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/ download/article-file/2987937. google scholar
  25. DEU (2023). 06 February 2023, 04:17, Mw=7.7, h=9 km Pazarcık (Kahramanmaras) Earthquake, 06 February 2023, 13:24, Mw=7.6, h=7 km Elbıstan (Kahramanmaraş) Earthquake, 20 February 2023, 20:04, Mw=6.4, h=22 km Defne (Hatay) Earthquake Earthquake Report. https://haberler.itu.edu.tr/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2023_itu_subat_2023_deprem_son_raporu. pdf?sfvrsn=1583fe76_2. google scholar
  26. Dinçer, İ., Akın, M.K., Akın, M., Orhan, A., Varol, O.O., Başer, M. & Benlioğlu, T. B. (2023). February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaras Earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and 7.6) in Adana City Center, Preliminary Assessment Report on the Relationship of Building Damages and destruction with Geological Conditions. https://doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.2.35770.26565. google scholar
  27. Emre, Ö., Duman, T.Y., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, Ş. & Şaroğlu, F. (2013). Active Fault Map Series of Türkiye (Scale: 1:250.000). Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Özel Yayın Serisi-30, Ankara-Türkiye. ISBN: 978-605-5310-56-1. https://www.mta.gov. tr/v3.0/bilgi-merkezi/turkiye-diri-fay-haritasi-sayisal. google scholar ESRI (2023a). The base map. Available at: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/ pro-app/latest/help/mapping/map-authoring/author-a-basemap.htm google scholar
  28. ESRI (2023b). Near (Analysis). Available at: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/ pro-app/latest/tool-reference/analysis/near.htm. google scholar
  29. ESRI (2023c). Forest-based classification and regression (Spatial Statistics). Available at: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-statistics/forest-basedclassificationregression.htm. google scholar
  30. ESTU (2023). 06 February 2023, 04:17, Mw 7.7, Kahramanmaras (Pazarcık, Türkoğlu), Hatay (Kırıkhan), and 13:24, Mw 7.6 Kahramanmaraş (Elbistan, Nurhak) Earthquakes, Preliminary Assessment Report on the Identification of Destroyed Buildings and Disaster Management Processes in Elbistan District Center. https://www.eskisehir.edu.tr/Uploads/www/files/ESTU%CC%88_ ELBI%CC%87STAN_RAPORU_V3(1).pdf google scholar
  31. European Environment Agency Corine Land Cover (2000). Version 2020_20u1. Available online: https://land.copernicus. eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc-2000. google scholar
  32. Eyidoğan, H. (2022). An example of public seismology “earthquake testimony” in determining earthquake intensity. TUBITAK Science and Future, 218, 54-57. google scholar
  33. Fischer, E., Barreca, G., Greco, A., Martinico, F., Pluchino A. & Rapisarda, A. (2023). Seismic risk assessment of a large metropolitan area with simulated earthquakes. Natural Hazards, 118, 117-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-05995-y. google scholar
  34. Goldberg, D.E., Taymaz, T., Reitman, N.G., Hatem, A.E., Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., Barnhart, W.D., Irmak, T.S., Wald, D.J., Öcalan, T., Yeck, W.L., Özkan, B., Thompson Jobe, J.A., Shelly, D.R., Thompson, E.M., DuRoss, C.B., Earle, P.S., Briggs, R.W., Benz, H., Erman, C., Doğan, A.H. & Altuntaş, C. (2023). Rapid Characterization of the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, Earthquake Sequence. The Seismic Record, 3(2), 156-167. https:// doi.org/10.1785/0320230009. google scholar
  35. Görüm, T., Tanyas, H., Karabacak, F., Yılmaz, A., Girgin, S., Allstadt, K.E., Süzen, M.L. & Burgi, P. (2023). Preliminary documentation of coseismic ground failure triggered by the February 6, 2023, Türkiye earthquake sequence. Engineering Geology, 327, 107315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2023.107315. google scholar
  36. GTU/MARTEST (2023). February 6, 2023, Maraş Earthquakes (Pazarcık Mw7.7 and Elbistan Mw7.6) Aftermath of Strong Ground Motion, Geotechnical, Superstructure, and Infrastructure Field Observations Preliminary Investigation Report. https://www.gtu. edu.tr/fileman/Files/UserFiles/insaat_muhendisligi_bolumu/GTU_ Maras%20Depremleri%20Deg%CC%86erlendirme%20Raporu_ Final_07.03.2023.pdf. google scholar
  37. Güler, E. & Canbaz, M. (2017). Determination of the earthquake risk of structures using a street screening method. In: Muammer Tün, Emrah Pekkan, Özgür Avşar (Eds.), 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology Proceedings (pp.1-8), Turkish Earthquake Engineering Society. https://www.tdmd.org. tr/4UDMSK/pdf2017/3834.pdf. google scholar
  38. Güllü, H. (2013). Prediction of shear wave velocity at local sites of strong ground motion stations: An application using artificial intelligence. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 11(4), 969-997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9425-8. google scholar
  39. Gündüz, A., Türkmen, S., Eryiğit, U., Karaca, Y. & Aydın M. (2013). Is Turkey an earthquake country?. Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 12, 33-37. https://cms.eajem.com/Uploads/Article_22069/ EAJEM-12-33-En.pdf. google scholar
  40. Hu, J. & Szymczak, S. (2023). A review of longitudinal data analysis with random forest. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 24 (2), bbad002. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbad002. google scholar
  41. Hu, J., Liu, M., Taymaz, T., Ding, L. & Irmak, T.S. (2024). Characteristics of strong ground motion in the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01844-2. google scholar
  42. ITU (2023). 06 February 2023, 04:17, Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş (Pazarcık, Türkoğlu), Hatay (Kırıkhan), and 13:24, Mw 7.7 Kahramanmaraş (Elbistan, Nurhak-Çardak) Earthquakes Final Report. https://haberler. itu.edu.tr/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2023_itu_ subat_2023_deprem_son_raporu.pdf?sfvrsn=1583fe76_2. google scholar
  43. İnel, M., Özmen, H.B. & Çaycı, B.T. (2013). Evaluation of reasons for damage after Simav and Van (2011) earthquakes. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 19(6), 256-265. https:// dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/pajes/issue/20499/218246. google scholar
  44. Zhu, J., Baise, L.G. & Thompson, E. M. (2017). Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160198. google scholar
  45. Jia, H., Lin, J. & Liu, J. (2019). Earthquake Fatalities Assessment Method Based on Feature Importance with Deep Learning and Random Forest Models. Sustainability, 11(10), 2727. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11102727. google scholar
  46. Jia, H., Lin, J. & Liu, J. (2020). Bridge Seismic Damage Assessment Model Employing Artificial Neural Networks and the Random Forest Algorithm. Advances in Civil Engineering, Article ID 6548682. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6548682. google scholar
  47. Sajan, K. C., Bhusal, A., Gautam, D. & Rupakhety, R. (2023). Earthquake damage and rehabilitation intervention prediction using machine learning. Engineering Failure Analysis, 144, 106949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106949. google scholar
  48. Karabacak, V., Özkaymak, Ç., Sözbilir, H., Tatar, O., Aktuğ, B., Özdağ, Ö.C., Çakir, R., Aksoy, E., Koçbulut, F. & Softa, M. (2023). The 2023 Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye) earthquake (Mw 7.7): implications for surface rupture dynamics in the East Anatolian Fault Zone. Journal of the Geological Society, 180(3), jgs2023-020. https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2023-020. google scholar
  49. Karabulut, H., Güvercin, S.E., Hollingsworth J. & Konca, A.Ö. (2023). Long silence on the east anatolian fault zone (Southern Turkey) ended with devastating double earthquakes (6 February 2023) over a seismic gap: implications for the seismic potential in the eastern mediterranean region. Journal of the Geological Society, 180(3), jgs2023-021. https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2023-021. google scholar
  50. Karalar, M. & Çavuşli, M. (2020). Seismic effects of earthquake epicenter distance on the 3D damage performance of CG dams. Earthquakes and Structures, 18(2), 201-213. https://doi. org/10.12989/eas.2020.18.2.201. google scholar
  51. Karasözen, E., Büyükakpınar, P., Ertuncay, D., Havazlı, E., & Oral, E. (2023). A call from early career Turkish scientists: seismic resilience is only feasible with “earthquake culture”. Seismica, 2(3). https:// doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.1012. google scholar
  52. Kassem, M.M. & Mohamed Nazri, F. (2023). Integrated approach between seismic resilience and vulnerability indexes with regularity index for vertical irregularity planar frames risk assessment. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 21, 1903-1941. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10518-022-01588-5. google scholar
  53. Kazemi, F., Asgarkhani, N. & Jankowski, R. (2023). Machine learning-based assessment of seismic fragility and vulnerability in reinforced concrete structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 166, 107761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107761. google scholar
  54. Korkmaz, H. (2006). Relationship Between Ground Conditions and Earthquake Effect In Antakya. Turkish Journal of Geographical Sciences, 4(2), 49-66. https://doi.org/10.1501/Cogbil_0000000066. google scholar
  55. Kurcer, A., Elmacı, H., Özdemir, E., Güven, C., Güler, T., Avcu, İ., Olgun, Ş., Avcı, H., Aydoğan, H., Yüce, A., Çetin, F.E., Ayrancı, A., Akyol, Z.S.Ö., Altuntaş, G., Demirörs, U., Karayazı, O., Bayrak, A. & Özalp, S. (2023). 06 Şubat 2023 Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) Depremi (Mw 7,8) Saha Gözlemleri ve Değerlendirmeler. MTA Genel Müdürlüğü, Rapor No: 14138, 187 s., Ankara. google scholar
  56. Lee, S.J., Liu, T.Y. & Lin, T.C. (2024). Abnormal clear superheat rupture with discontinuous jumping propagation during the 2023 Türkiye M7.8 earthquake. Communications Earth & Environment, 5, 331. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01481-w. google scholar
  57. Li, S.Q. (2023). Comparison of empirical structural vulnerability prediction models considering typical earthquakes. Structures, 49, 377-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.01.130. google scholar
  58. Li, S.Q., Chen, Y.S., Liu, H.B. & Del Gaudio, C. (2023). Empirical seismic vulnerability assessment model of typical urban buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 21, 2217-2257. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10518-022-01585-8. google scholar
  59. Liu, C., Lay, T., Wang, R., Taymaz, T., Xie, Z., Xiong, X., Irmak, T.S., Kahraman, M. & Erman, C. (2023). Complex multi-fault rupture and triggering during a 2023 earthquake doublet in southeastern Türkiye. Nature Communications 14, 5564. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-023-41404-5. google scholar
  60. Maden, S. (2023). February 6, 2023, Earthquakes in Kahramanmaraş and an Overview of Earthquake Journalism in Turkey: An Interview with Prof. Dr. Süleyman İrvan. Etkileşim, 11, 406-420. https://doi. org/10.32739/etkilesim.2023.6.11.202. google scholar
  61. Mai, P.M., Aspiotis, T., Aquib, T.A., Cano, E.V, Castro-Cruz, D., Espindola-Carmona, A., Li, B., Li, X., Liu, J., Matrau, R., Nobile, A., Palgunadi, K.H., Ribot, M., Parisi, L., Suhendi, C., Tang, Y., Yalcin, B., Avşar, U., Klinger, Y. & Jönsson, S. (2023). Destructive earthquake doublet of 6 February 2023 in south-central Türkiye and northwestern Syria: initial observations and analyses. The Seismic Record, 3(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1785/0320230007. google scholar
  62. Mangalathu, S., Sun, H., Nweke, C.C., Yi Z. & Burton, H. V. (2020). Classify earthquake damage to buildings using machine learning. Earthquake Spectra, 36(1), 183-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019878137. google scholar
  63. Mavrouli, M., Mavroulis, S., Lekkas E. & Tsakris, A. (2023). Emerging health crisis in Turkey and Syria after the earthquake disaster of 6 February 2023: risk factors, prevention, and management of infectious diseases. Healthcare, 11(7), 1022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ healthcare11071022. google scholar
  64. Melgar, D., Taymaz, T., Ganas, A., Crowell, B., Öcalan, T., Kahraman, M., Tsironi, V., Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., Valkaniotis, S., Irmak, T. S., Eken, T., Erman, C., Özkan, B., Dogan AH. & Altuntaş, C. (2023). Sub- and super-shear ruptures during the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquake doublet in SE Türkiye. Seismica, 2(3). https://doi. org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.387. google scholar
  65. METU DMAM (2023). February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık Mw=7.7 and Elbistan Mw=7.6 Earthquakes Preliminary Assessment Report (Report No: METU/EERC 2023-01). https://eerc.metu.edu. tr/tr/system/files/documents/DMAM_2023_Kahramanmaras-Pazarcik_ve_Elbistan_Depremleri_Raporu_TR_final.pdf. google scholar
  66. MEUCC. (2023a). Damage Assessment Search. https://hasartespit.csb. gov.tr/. google scholar
  67. MEUCC. (2023b, February 23). Minister Kurum announced 98% of the demolished buildings were constructed before 1999. Sabah. https:// www.sabah.com.tr/gundem/2023/02/23/bakan-kurum-acikladi-yikilan-binalarin-yuzde-98i-1999-oncesine-ait. google scholar
  68. Mertol, H. C. (2023). Explanation of the Problems in Reinforced Concrete Buildings Observed in the February 6th, 2023 Earthquakes with a Hierarchical Triangle. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 13(4), 2717-2729. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.1263348. google scholar
  69. MTA (2002). 1:500.000 Scaled Turkish Geology Map Series. https:// www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0/hizmetler/500bas. google scholar
  70. Okuwaki, R., Yagi, Y., Taymaz, T. & Hicks, S. P. (2023). Multi-scale rupture growth with alternating directions in a complex fault network during the 2023 south-eastern Türkiye and Syria earthquake doublet. Geophysical Research Letters, 50, e2023GL103480. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL103480. google scholar
  71. Özel, G., Türkan, S., Ünal, C. (2022). Tubitak 2237-A evaluation of statistical modeling methods and applications training in natural sciences. Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research, 6(1), 20-28. http://doi.org/10.30516/bilgesci.1037043. google scholar
  72. Özşahin E. & Eroğlu, İ. (2019). Impact of local soil conditions on earthquake sensitivity in Erzincan City. Journal of Natural Hazards and Environment, 5(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.428012. google scholar
  73. Özşahin, E. & Kaymaz, Ç.K. (2013). An Example for the Evaluation of Disaster Culture: Antakya City. In: Cemal Geneş (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Turkish Earthquake Engineering and Seismology Conference (pp. 1-8), Turkish Earthquake Engineering Society. https://www.tdmd.org.tr/pdf/TDMSK039.pdf. google scholar
  74. Özşahin, E. (2010). Discussion of Geographical Survey In Respect of Geomorphologic Characteristics And Natural Risks In Antakya (Hatay). Balıkesir University the Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 13(23), 1-16. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/857049. google scholar
  75. Papazafeiropoulos, G. & Plevris, V. (2023). Kahramanmaraş-Gaziantep, Türkiye Mw 7.8 earthquake on February 6, 2023: strong ground motion and building response estimations. Buildings, 13(5), 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051194. google scholar
  76. Peek-Asa, C., Ramirez, M., Seligson, H. & Shoaf, K. (2003). Seismic, structural, and individual factors associated with earthquake-related injury. Injury Prevention, 9, 62-66. https://injuryprevention.bmj. com/content/injuryprev/9/1/62.full.pdf. google scholar
  77. Pourghasemi, H.R., Pouyan, S., Bordbar, M., Golkar F. & Clague, J. J. (2023). Flood, landslides, forest fires, and earthquake susceptibility maps using machine learning techniques and their combination. Natural Hazards, 116, 3797-3816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-05836-y. google scholar
  78. Qu, Z., Wang, F., Chen, X., Wang X. & Zhou, Z. (2023). Rapid report of seismic damage to hospitals during the 2023 Turkey earthquake sequences. Earthquake Research Advances, 100234. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eqrea.2023.100234.100234. google scholar
  79. Rashidian, V. & Baise, L. G. (2020). Regional efficacy of a global geospatial liquefaction model. Engineering Geology, 272, 105644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105644. google scholar
  80. Sadeghi, J., Oghabi, M., Sarvari, H., Sabeti, M.S., Kashefi, H., Chan, D.W.M. & Lotfata, A. (2023). Hybrid risk assessment approach for assessing earthquake risks in worn-out urban fabrics: a case study in Iran. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 14(2), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-09-2021-0128. google scholar
  81. Reitman, N.G., Briggs, R.W., Barnhart, W.D., Hatem, A.E., Thompson Jobe, J.A., DuRoss, C.B., Gold, R.D., Mejstrik, J.D., Collett, C., Koehler, R.D. & Akçiz, S. (2023). Rapid Surface Rupture Mapping from Satellite Data: The 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Turkey (Türkiye), Earthquake Sequence. The Seismic Record, 3(4), 289-298. https:// doi.org/10.1785/0320230029. google scholar
  82. SBB (2023). 2023 Kahramanmaraş and Hatay Earthquakes Report. Presidency of the Republic of Turkey, Presidency of Strategy and Budget. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Kahramanmaras-ve-Hatay-Depremleri-Raporu.pdf. google scholar
  83. Selçuk, L. & Aydın, H. (2012). Effect of quaternary alluvium on strong ground motion: 2011 Van earthquakes. Journal of Geological Engineering, 36(2), 75-98. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jmd/ issue/28181/295927. google scholar
  84. Sengör, A.M.C. & Yazıcı, M. (2020). The etiology of the geotectonic evolution of Turkey. Mediterranean Geoscience Reviews, 2, 327339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42990-020-00039-0. google scholar
  85. Sengör, A.M.C., Gorur, N. & Saroglu, F. (1985). Strike-slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study. In: Biddle, K., & Christie-Blick, N. (Eds)., Strike-slip Faulting and Basin Formation. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 37, Tulsa, OK. google scholar
  86. Sönmez, M.E. (2014). An analysis of earthquake damage risk based on geographic ınformation system (GIS) as example: Zeytinburnu (Istanbul). Turkish Geographical Review, 56, 11-22. https:// dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tcd/issue/21225/227787. google scholar
  87. Stein, R.S., Toda, S., Özbakir, A. D., Sevilgen, V., Gonzalez-Huizar, H., Lotto, G. & Sevilgen, S. (2023). Interactions, stress changes, mysteries, and partial forecasts of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye earthquakes. Temblor. http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.299. google scholar
  88. Şen, S. (2023). The effects of the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes on the economy. The Journal of Diplomacy and Strategy, 4, 1-55. https:// dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3049226. google scholar
  89. Şen Z. (2011). Supervised fuzzy logic modelling for building earthquake hazard assessment. Expert Systems With Applications, 38, 1456414573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.05.026. google scholar
  90. Şengezer, B., Ansal A. & Bilen, Ö. (2008). Evaluation of parameters affecting earthquake damage using decision tree techniques. Natural Hazards, 47, 547-568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9238-2. google scholar
  91. Şenol, C. (2023). Turkey from the Perspective of the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes (2023). In Assoc. Prof. Dr. Doğa Başar SARIIPEK, 5th International Palandoken Scientific Studies Congress Congress Book (ss.699-711). https://www.isarconference.org/_files/ ugd/6dc816_89d95311c142494bb9313d95eaa3c4e6.pdf. google scholar
  92. Taftsoglou, M., Valkaniotis, S., Papathanassiou G. & Karantanellis, E. (2023a). Satellite Imagery for Rapid Detection of Liquefaction Surface Manifestations: A Case Study of Türkiye-Syria 2023 Earthquakes. Remote Sensing, 15(17), 4190. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174190. google scholar
  93. Taftsoglou, M., Valkaniotis, S., Karantanellis, E., Goula E. & Papathanassiou. (2023b). Preliminary mapping of liquefaction phenomena triggered by the February 6, 2023 M7.7 earthquake, Türkiye/Syria, based on remote sensing data. Zenodo. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.7668401. google scholar
  94. Taştan, B. & Aydınoğlu, A.Ç. (2015). Requirement analysis to determine hazard and vulnerability in multiple disaster risk management. Marmara Geographical Review, 31, 366-397. https://doi. org/10.14781/mcd.83405. google scholar
  95. Tan, O. & Taymaz, T. (2006). Active tectonics of the Caucasus: Earthquake source mechanisms and rupture histories obtained from inversion of teleseismic body waveforms. Special Paper of the Geological Society of America, 409, 531-578. https://doi.org/10.1130/2006.2409(25). google scholar
  96. Taymaz, T., Ganas, A., Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., Vera, F., Eken, T., Erman, C., Keleş, D., Kapetanidis, V., Valkaniotis, S., Karasante, I., Tsironi, V., Gaebler, P., Melgar D. & Öcalan, T. (2021). Source mechanism and rupture process of the 24 January 2020 MW 6.7 Doganyol-Sivrice earthquake obtained from seismological waveform analysis and space geodetic observations in the East Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey). Tectonophysics, 804, 228745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tecto.2021.228745. google scholar
  97. Tokgöz, H. & Bayraktar, H. (2015). In determining buildings risk of Duzce-Kaynasli district Using Street scanning methods. Düzce University Journal of Science & Techology, 3(1), 107-116. https:// dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/dubited/issue/4809/66236?publisher=duzce. google scholar
  98. U.S. Geological Survey (2023a). M 7.8 Pazarcik earthquake, Kahramanmaras earthquake sequence, Turkey (Türkiye) on February 6, 2023. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/executive. google scholar
  99. U.S. Geological Survey (2023b). M 7.5 - Elbistan earthquake, Kahramanmaras earthquake sequence, Turkey (Türkiye) on February 6, 2023. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jlqa/executive. google scholar
  100. Utkucu, M., Durmuş, H., Uzunca, F. & Nalbant, S. (2023). Evaluation of the February 6, 2023 Gaziantep (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.5) Earthquakes. Sakarya University Disaster Management Application and Research Center and Department of Geophysical Engineering. http://www.aym.sakarya.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/Rapor_Son.pdf. google scholar
  101. Uyanık, O. (2015). Predicting Heavy Earthquake Damage Areas and Importance of Macro and Microzoning for Urban Planning. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Natural and Applied Science 19(2), 24-38. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sdufenbed/ issue/20807/222263. google scholar
  102. Yalçın, H., Gülen L. & Utkucu, M. (2013). Active fault database and assessment of earthquake hazards in Turkey and surrounding regions. Yerbilimleri, 34(3), 141-168. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/ pub/yerbilimleri/issue/13653/165234. google scholar
  103. Yıldız, A. (2023). Geographical analysis of assembly areas before and after the 06 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes and earthquake park proposal: Antakya and its surroundings. (Master Thesis). Hatay Mustafa Kemal University Institute of Social Sciences, Hatay. google scholar
  104. Yılmaz, A. (2012). Disaster related problems in Turkey. Manas Journal of Social Studies, 1(1), 61-81. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mjss/ issue/40475/484882. google scholar
  105. Yön, B., Sayin, E. & Onat, O. (2017). Earthquakes and Structural Damages. Chapter:13, Earthquakes - Tectonics, Hazard and Risk Mitigation, InTech, 319-339, https://doi.org/10.5772/65425. google scholar
  106. Zhang, Y., Tang, X., Liu, D., Taymaz, T., Eken, T., Guo, R., Zheng, Y., Wang J. & Sun, H. (2023). Geometric control of cascading rupture of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake doublet. Nature Geoscience, 16, 1054-1060. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01283-3. google scholar