Dedicated to the people who lost their lives and injuredby the 2023 Pazarcık and Ekinözü Earthquakes of Türkiye

A QUICK REPORTONPAZARCIK AND EKİNÖZÜ EARTHQUAKES(TÜRKİYE) OF FEBRUARY 6, 2023Ömer AYDAN* and Reşat ULUSAY*** University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan** Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye

15 February 2023

A QUICK REPORTONPAZARCIK AND EKİNÖZÜ EARTHQUAKES(TÜRKİYE) OF FEBRUARY 6, 2023Ömer AYDAN* and Reşat ULUSAY*** University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan** Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye
ATTENTION
Please note that this document is prepared with a sole purpose toprovide an overview of various aspects of the earthquake forresearchers, who would be involved with this earthquake.
The pictures and some figures are obtained from various sources with
due references available in various web-sites. The figures drawn by
the authors of this report are cited as (DbA) next to them.
The major source of the pictures relevant to the aspects of thisdocument are obtained from the web-sites of the mass media ofTürkiye and relevant institutes and they are gratefully acknowledged
for the information through images and data of the earthquake:https://www.aa.com.tr/tr
https://www.dha.com.tr/
https://www.trt.net.tr/
https://www.emsc-csem.org/#2
https://www.usgs.gov/
https://www.mta.gov.tr
https://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr
https://www.afad.gov.tr
https://www.maxar.com/open-data/turkey-earthquake-2023

CONTENT
LOCATIONS
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EARTHQUAKESTECTONICSGEOLOGY
PRE- AND POST- SEISMICITYFOCAL MECHANISMS AND ASSOCIATED STRESS FIELD
SURFACE DEFORMATION FROM GPS and DINSARSTRONG MOTION RECORDS
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIESRoadways
Tunnels
RailwaysPorts
GEOTECHNICAL DAMAGES
Soil Slopes
Rock Slopes
Rock Falls
Ground liquefaction and lateral spreading
DAMS
LIFELINESDAMAGED AND COLLAPSED STRUCTURESRC Buildings
Masonary Structures
Historical Structures
SEARCH AND RESCUEEVACUATION AND IMMEDIATE HOUSING
UNUSUAL OBSERVATIONS
References

LOCATIONSPAZARCIK EARTHQUAKE(from CSEM-EMSC)

EKİNÖZÜ EARTHQUAKE(from CSEM-EMSC)

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EARTHQUAKESThe Pazarcık earthquake occurred at 4:17 (TST) on February 6,2023 and the Ekinözü earthquake occurred at 13:24 on the same
day after about 9 hours. The earthquake involve rupturing on thesegments of East Anadolu Fault (EAF) and Dead-Sea Fault. The
initial total length of Pazarcık earthquake was about 210-230 km
and reach to a total length of 400-450 km. Ekinözü earthquake EW trending Çardak and Sürgü faults with a total length of 120-130
km. As of 15 February 2023,
Number of casualties is 35.418.
Number of injured people is more than 105.505.
Number of after shocks is more than 1.900.
10 provinces with a total population of 15 million people wereaffected.

Affected provinces
Black Sea

Mediterranean Sea

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EARTHQUAKESPAZARCIK EARTHQUAKEThe earthquake occurred at 4:17:35 (TST) (1:17:35 GMT) on
NE-SW trending fault with sinistral slip. This fault might be a
combined slip of East Anatolian Fault and Dead-Sea Fault.
Moment magnitude of this earthquake has been estimated bydifferent institutes and they range between 7.7 and 8.0.
Institute

Mw

LAT

LON

Depth
(km)

Fault Plane

Auxiliary Plane

StrikeDip

Rake

Strike

Dip

Rake

QCMT

7.8

37.6

37.5

15

54

70

11

320

80

160

USGS

7.9

37.4

37.8

33

234

79

14

142

76

169

KOERI

7.7

37.1

37.1

10

222

64

-27

324

65

-152

ERD

7.8

37.2

37.1

18

233

74

18

140

77

168

IPGP

8.0

37.2

37.0

13

230

81

-18

323

72

-171

Among all focal planesolutions, focal plane by
KOERI is close to theactual situations.

(from CSEM-EMSC)

EKİNÖZÜ EARTHQUAKEThe earthquake occurred at 13:24:49 (TST) (10:24:49 GMT) on
almost E-W trending fault with sinistral slip. This fault might be a
combined slip of Çardak and Sürgü Faults. Moment magnitude ofthis earthquake has been estimated by different institutes andthey range between 7.6 and 7.7.
Institute

Mw

LAT

LON

Depth
(km)

Fault Plane

Auxiliary Plane

StrikeDip

Rake

Strike

Dip

Rake

QCMT

7.7

38.1

37.2

12

261

42

-8

358

84

-132

USGS

7.6

38.0

37.2

19

276

82

-6

6

85

-172

KOERI

7.6

38.0

37.3

10

273

67

-9

6

81

-157

ERD

7.6

38.0

37.2

16

174

90

13

358

73

174

IPGP

7.7

38.0

37.2

13

270

60

-9

5

82

-150

Earthquake occurred innorth dipping fault andlarge ground susidence
occurred on the northern
part.

(from CSEM-EMSC)

Estimation of the Earthquake Parameters
Estimation of the earthquake parameters from fault length (based onrelations of Aydan, 2012, 2023). AMAX and VMAX are computed fora hypocenter distance of 14 km and surface shear wave velocity of
300 m/s.
LengthMw

AMAX(gals)

VMAX(kines)

DMAX
(cm)

Tr
(s)

147

7.6

1020,3

72.9

506

35.6

195

7.8

1217.6

87.0

721

45.8

222

7.9

1320.7

94.3

848.4

51.4

255

8.0

1440.6102.3

1009.5

58.2

Initial fault length was
about 200-220 km and it
extended to about 400
km.

(Modified from Aydan, 2012)

TECTONICS(From Ulusay and Aydan (2005) based on the original drawing by
Gülen et al.(2002))(From Palutoğlu and Şaşmaz, 2017 )GEOLOGY
Regional Geology of the Affected Region(From MTA)

(Yılmaz et al.,1993)

Geology and Faults of Hatay (Antakya)(From Korkmaz, 2006)

Geology and Faults of Osmaniye(From MTA)

(From Emre et al., 2013)

Geology and Faults of Kahramanmaraş
(From Sandal and Karademir, 2013)(From Emre et al., 2013)

Geology and Faults of Malatya(From Önal, 2007)

PRE- AND POST-SEISMICITY(From Palutoğlu and Şaşmaz, 2015)(DbA, base map by Aydan, unpublished)(DbA, base map by
Aydan, unpublished)

The Pazarcık earthquake involved EAFZ (2 segments) and DSF-Death
Sea Fault (1 segment). The total length of the surface rupture could bein the order of 210-230 kms.

(DbA, base map by
Aydan, unpublished)

FOCAL MECHANISM AND ASSOCIATED STRESS FIELD
THE PAZARCIK EARTHQUAKEFOCAL MECHANISMASSOCIATEDSTRESS FIELD

Inferred crustal stresses of the epicentral area for focal plane solution by
KOERI using Aydan’s Method (Aydan 2000a, 2016, 2020). KOERI focal
mechanism involves normal component as observed in-situ (DbA).

THE EKİNÖZÜ EARTHQUAKEFOCAL MECHANISMASSOCIATEDSTRESS FIELD

Inferred crustal stresses of the epicentral area for focal plane solution by
KOERI using Aydan’s Method (Aydan 2000a, 2016, 2020). Pazarcık
earthquake greately altered the stress state. On the northern side, somedownward motions are reported (DbA)

CRUSTAL STRESSES

Annual pricipal stress rates of Türkiye (Aydan, 2000b)
inferred from GPS measurements

Maximum horizontal stress directions (Aydan, 2020)

SURFACE DEFORMATION FROM GPS & DINSARGPS
THE PAZARCIK EARTHQUAKETHE EKİNÖZÜ EARTHQUAKE

Displacement reflects the expected faulting movements(From Nevada Geodetic Laboratory/NVGeodeticLab/status/1625241970460491777/photo/1)

DINSAR(From Dr. C. Milliner, 2023, JPL, USA)

The Pazarcık earthquake caused about 5-6 m sinistral slip and the
distribution has a parabolic shape. While the Ekinözü earthquake has thesame sense of relative slip, the shape is triangularSurface Ruptures

Tevekkeli

Tevekkeli(Photos: Internet)(DbA)

Gölbaşı

Surface rupture traceŞekeroba
Kırıkhan

Hassa

Relative slip is generally more than 300 cm in many rupture observations
and the southern rupture has also normal component. This may also
explain why some part of İskenderun city subsided and immersed by
sea-water. Şekeroba – Kırıkhan segment is on Dead Sea fault.

STRONG MOTION RECORDS(DbA)

Turkish Strong Motion Network (TADAS) has recorded the motions
induced by Pazarcık and Ekinözü earthquakes. In this report, the strong
motion caused by the Pazarcık earthquakes are reported anddiscussed. The stations along the faut rupture and Arabian Plate
recorded much higher ground motions and duration of shaking wasmore than 70 seconds and it was about more than 220 seconds at Şanlı
Urfa. Next figures show strong motion records for selected 16 cities.
Response spectra of 12 cities are plotted. The response spectra
generally exceed the seismic design spectra of Türkiye. Furthermore,maximum ground accelerations in affected cities exceed the maximum
ground acceleration assumed in the seismic code particularly at
locations near earthquake rupture. This simply implies that the designcode should be revised.

0
NS
EW
UD

-800
0

20

40
TIME(s)ACCELERATION (gals)

NS
EW
UD

800

40
TIME(s)

60

80

0

NS
EW
UD

20

40
TIME(s)60

80

40
TIME(s)60

80

Turkoglu
Vs=390 m/s; Re=20.54 km

0

NS
EW
UD

-800
0

20

40
TIME(s)60

803138 Hassa
Vs=618 m/s; Re=71.7 km

0

NS
EW
UD

-1300
0

20

40
TIME(s)

60

80

400

NS
EW
UD

ACCELERATION (gals)

800

100

-400
0

3142 Kirikhan
Vs=539 m/s; Re=106.49 km

0

-800
0

20

1300

2718 Islahiye
Vs= --- m/s; Re=48.3 km

-800
0

NS
EW
UD

800

0

20

2712 Nurdagi
Vs=--- m/s; Re=19.79 km

0

-700
0

80

Narli
Vs=--- m/s; Re=15.35 km-800
0

ACCELERATION (gals)

60

ACCELERATION (gals)

ACCELERATION (gals)

800

ACCELERATION (gals)

700

4615 Pazarcik
Vs=484 m/s; Re=13.83 km

ACCELERATION (gals)

ACCELERATION (gals)

800

20

40
60
TIME(s)804624 K.Maras
Vs=280 m/s; Re=29.73 km

0

NS
EW
UD

20

40
TIME(s)

60

80

300

3124 Hatay
Vs=283 m/s; Re=140.11 km

0

NS
EW
UD

-700
0

20

40
60
TIME(s)80

100

ACCELERATION (gals)

ACCELERATION (gals)

700

10
TIME(s)100

ACCELERATION (gals)

20

2101 Diyarbakir
Vs= 519 m/s; Re=287.35 km

50
0
-50

ACCELERATION (gals)

50
TIME(s)

NS
EW
UD

40

80
TIME(s)1200123 Adana-Yuregir
Vs= 519 m/s; Re=153.9 km

0

NS
EW
UD

50
TIME(s)1002703 Gaziantep
Vs=758 m/s; Re=37.34 km

NS
EW
UD

20

40
TIME(s)60

80

253304 Mersin
Vs=297 m/s; Re=294.21 km

0

NS
EW
UD

-25
0

160

100

0

-200
0

ACCELERATION (gals)-9000

ACCELERATION (gals)

NS
EW
UD

Power Failure

50

150

ACCELERATION (gals)

ACCELERATION (gals)

0

-50
0

NS
EW
UD

200

0201 Adiyaman
Vs= 391 m/s; Re=120.12 km

50

0

-300
0

900

-100
0

3115 Iskenderun
Vs=424 m/s; Re=113.57 km

100
TIME(s)150

Ceyhan
Vs=208 m/s; Re=114.62 km

0

-150
0

NS
EW
UD

20

40
60
TIME(s)80

100

NORMALISED ACCELERATION

4

Pazarcik 4615
Shaking Direction

EW (582.210)
NS (583.648)
UD (664.181)

3

2

1

1

2
PERIOD (s)

5

3

4

NORMALISED ACCELERATION

0

Narli NAR
Shaking Direction

4

EW (619.707)
NS (784.569)
UD (947.680)

3
2
1

0

1

4

2
PERIOD (s)34Islahiye 2718
Shaking Direction

EW ( 644.970)
NS (702.422)
UD (585.788)

3

2

1

0

1

2
PERIOD (s)34

NORMALISED ACCELERATIONNORMALISED ACCELERATIONNORMALISED ACCELERATIONNORMALISED ACCELERATION

Response Spectra of the selected stations
4

Nurdagi 2712
Shaking Direction

EW (602.658)
NS (554.850)
UD (346.122)

3

2

1

0

1

2
PERIOD (s)

5

3

4

Turkoglu 4616
Shaking Direction

4

EW (502.870)
NS (652.757)
UD (1492.823)

3
2
1

0

1

2
PERIOD (s)34

Hassa 3138

4

Shaking Direction

EW (746.664)
NS (888.730)
UD (1296.273)

3
2
1

0

1

2
PERIOD (s)34

NORMALISED ACCELERATION

Shaking Direction

4

EW (319.957)
NS (357.602)
UD (161.716)

3
2
1

0

1

2
PERIOD (s)34Iskenderun 3115

4

Shaking Direction

EW (241.500)
NS (286.723)
UD (214.805)

3
2
1

0

1

5

2
PERIOD (s)34

Diyarbakir
Shaking Direction

EW (71.424)
NS (77.079)
UD (33.527)

4
3
2
1

0

1

2
PERIOD (s)NORMALISED ACCELERATION

K. Maras 4624

3

4

NORMALISED ACCELERATIONNORMALISED ACCELERATIONNORMALISED ACCELERATIONNORMALISED ACCELERATION

5

Hatay 3124

4

Shaking Direction

EW (638.321)
NS (572.632)
UD (578.080)

3
2
1

0

1

2
PERIOD (s)

5

3

4

Osmaniye 8003
Shaking Direction

EW (185.738)
NS (559.938)
UD (185.738)

4
3
2
1

0

1

5

2
PERIOD (s)34

Gaziantep
Shaking Direction

4

EW (165.064)
NS (156.634)
UD (80.105)

3
2
1

0

1

2
PERIOD (s)34Response spectra of selected acceleration records near the fault

TSC: Turkish Seismic Code

Response spectra of acceleration records at the selectedheavily damaged cities

TSC: Turkish Seismic Code

Attenuation of Strong Motions with Distance

Orginal drawings from Aydan 2012, DbA)

(DbA)

Orginal drawings from Aydan 2012, DbA)

(DbA)The vertical component of strong motions near the fault rupture isquite high and it decades with distance(Aydan 2023)

Most of RC buildings has 5 to 14 stories. The estimated natural
frequency for the first mode ranges between 0.3 to 0.9 seconds, thismight have an influence on their collapses. If the design andconstruction were properly done according to the Turkish Seismic
Code, this scale damage would not occur

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIESRoadways

Bu hasarlara ait yer
adları yazılabilir mi?

The map of Damaged Roadways from KGM (General Directorate ofHighways of Turkey) (yellow lines indicates roadways closed to traffic
due to damage)
Damage occurred due to1) Separation or collision of bridge deck with abutments
2) Faulting induced deformations
3) Retaining wall failures4) Deformation of pavement (separation or buckling=)
5) Fall of bridge decks6) Tunnel damage
7) Embankment failures
The above damages occurred along Tarsus-Adana-Gaziantep
Highway, Malatya Adıyaman Highway, Kahramanmaraş-Malatya
highways.

Roadways

Separation or collision of bridge deck with abutments

Bridge deck fall
(Photos: Internet)

Hatay Airport road

(Photos: Internet)

Damage of Tarsus Adana Gaziantep (TAG) near Islahiye by
the fault rupture(Photos: Internet)

Toppled stationary vehicles

Adıyaman-Malatya highway(Photos: Internet)

Tunnel Damages
Rockfalls at the portal and spalling of concrete lining of the Erkenek
Tunnel occurred as reported by KGM. One of Erkenek Tunel tubes isclosed to traffic while the other is utilised for traffic despite somespalling location of the lining were reported at some locations. The
tunnel was almost on the activated Erkenek fault.

Location of Erkenek tunnel

Traces and Rockfalls above the portals of Erkenek tunnel(Photo: Internet)

Spalling of concrete linings in Erkenek Tunnel(Photos: Internet)

Railways

Locations of the damaged railway lines (from TCDD)
Damage was mainly caused by deformation of rails whereever
earthquake faults crossed. In addition, trains and wagons were derailed
or toppled. Rockfalls and slope failures also caused obstructions.

Şekeroba

Narlı(Photos: Internet)

Derailed and toppled wagons at Gölbaşı Train Station(Photos: Internet)

Deformed rails in Gölbaşı

(Photos: Internet)

Islahiye-Fevzipaşa Train Station(Photos: Internet)

Airports

Airports of Türkiye. The circle indicates the airports in the epicentral
area(Photos: Internet)

Gaziantep Airport at the time of Pazarcık earthquake occurred. Notethe small pieces of debris falling from the suspended ceilings.
Similar situation occurred at Malatya Airport.

Hatay Airport

Ground settled around theterminal building at Hatay Airport(Photos: Internet)

Runway buckled at Hatay Airport

Under reparation

Runway was repaired on
February 11, 2023

Test flight on February 11, 2023

First flight was done on February 12, 2023

PortsIskenderun Port

(Photos: Internet)

Fire at Iskenderun Port

(Photos: Internet)

GEOTECHNICAL DAMAGES
Rockfalls(Photos: Internet)
Tevekelli

Kartalkaya Dam

Tevekelli
Kartalkaya Dam

Fevzipaşa

Kartalkaya Dam
Fevzipaşa
Fevzipaşa

Slope Failures (Landslides)Kuşkayası

Kahramanmaraş-Adıyaman
Highway

TevekelliIslahiye

TepehanIslahiye(Photos: Internet)

Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading

Antakya-Reyhanlı Highway

Near Çöçelli village

Gölbaşı

(Photos: Internet)

Sinkholes

Gaziantep Yavuzlar
District(Photos: Internet)

Kartalkaya Dam

DAMS

Sultansuyu Dam

Sürgü Dam

Sürgü Dam

(Photos: Internet)

Atatürk Dam
The third largest rockfill dam in the world. 169 m high and epicentral
distance is about 90 km. No damage was reported.

Areal view after the earthquakes

Aerial inspection by the minister(Photos: Internet)

Landslide Dams

Islahiye

Tepehan(Photos: Internet)

LIFELINES
Toppled Pylon

Toppled Pylon

Repair of water pipe

(Photos: Internet)

DAMAGED AND COLLAPSED STRUCTURES
Reinforced Concrete (RC) Building Damages
The totally collapsed or heavily damaged school, residential and office buildings
had mainly 3-14 stories. These structures are designed as moment-resistant frame
structures with in-fill walls made of hollow bricks. The failure of RC structures wasdue to soft-story (weak-floor) situation as it is a common problem resulting in highcasualties in earthquakes since 1960. The ground floors of collapsed buildings
were mostly used as either shops, depots or garages. As a result, this type ofusage constitutes a weak(soft)-floor situation. Furthermore, many buildings had
heavy balconies of cantilever type.
The causes of the damage were almost the same as those seen in the previous
earthquakes of Turkey. The causes listed below are taken from the reports by the
first author on March 13, 1992 Erzincan Earthquake with few amendments andadditions from the reports of the Turkish earthquakes occurred after 1992 (Aydan
et al., 1998: Aydan et al., 2000a, b; Ulusay et al., 2002; Aydan et al., 2003; Aydan
et al., 2012):
Poor workmanship: There are two kinds of poor workmanship. One of them isthat the connections of columns and beams were very weak since the connectionsof steel bars were not properly done. The second one is that the granulometry of
the sand and gravel of concrete was very poor and the range was wide. In addition,
big chunks of gravel blocked the concrete during casting at locations where steel
connections were dense and this resulted in very porous and weak connections.
During shaking, it seems that concrete at the connections first failed and thissubsequently caused the buckling of steel bars at such locations and rupturing infill hollow brick walls in a brittle sense. As a result, the collapse of buildings ended
up in a pancake mode.
Construction negligence and lack of moral: One of the most striking
construction negligence was the confinement of concrete at the beam-column
connections in-spite of the Turkish design code for seismic regions. As stir-ups
were very few at such locations, the failure of concrete was very brittle and it
could not absorb the work done by the earthquake forces.
Resonance: Natural periods of collapsed buildings mostly coincided with thoseof the input waves and this resulted in the resonance-like shaking of structures
and their subsequent collapses.

Soft Story: Many buildings had shops at their ground floor. As there are
generally no shear-walls to take up the load during earthquakes, the total load istransferred onto the columns. The super structure acts as a top-heavy structureon the columns and in-fill walls, which are in poor contact with columns andbeams, has no effect against the earthquake loading and they fail subsequently.
Pounding of adjacent structures: Buildings at the corners of streets were
mostly collapsed as a result of pounding with the adjacent building.

Adıyaman

Hatay

Gaziantep

Hatay

Buildings with problematic issues mentioned above(Photos: Internet)

Views of Building Damages(Photos: Internet)

Kahramanmaraş

Antakya (Hatay)

Diyarbakır

Gaziantep

Gaziantep(Photos: Internet)

Kahramanmaraş

Diyarbakır
BeforeAfter

AntakyaAdıyaman(Photos: Internet)

MalatyaAdıyaman

Antakya

Antakya

AntakyaSEARCH AND RESCUE(Photos: Internet)

(Photos: Internet)

Turkish Ambassador thanking toJapanese Rescue Team

Korean Rescue Team

Turkish governmental airplanes played
great role in transferring injured people
to the hospitals in non-affected cities

Turkish Army, Miners and AFAD played
great role in rescue operations

EVACUATION AND IMMEDIATE HOUSING

TCG for evacuation peoples

Tent village at Gaziantep

Traditional Turkish Tents ‘Yurts’ by Kırgızistan
Kızılay (Red Crescent) offers
hot meal.

Field hospital(Photos: Internet)

UNUSUAL OBSERVATIONS
Earthquake lights occurred during the fault rupture process. The authors
also observed the same phenomenon during 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake(Aydan et al., 2000a) and in laboratory experiment on rocks.

Barking dogs just before the erathquake

Blue lightning in Hatay

Blue lightning in Adıyaman(Photos: Internet)

Earthquake lights in Kahramanmaraş

Just Before earthquake

City lights are partially off due to automatic
shutdown of power system

During earthquake(Photos: Internet)

(Photos: Internet)

Before the earthquake transparent
Balıklıgöl, Şanlı Urfa

After the earthquake muddy Balıklıgöl,Şanlı Urfa

Before the earthquake transparent Gökpınar Lake, Gürün, Sivas (124 km
from M7.8 epicenter

After the earthquake muddy Gökpınar Lake, Gürün, SivasReferences
AFAD- TADAS Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Deprem Dairesi Başkanlığı, Türkiyeİvme Veri Tabanı ve Analiz Sistemi, https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/
Aydan, Ö., 1997. The sesimic charactersitics and the occurence pattern of Turkish
Erathquakes. Turkish ErathquakeFoundation, Publication No. TDV/TR 97-007, 40 p.
Aydan, Ö., 2000a. A new stress inference method for the stress state of earth’s ceust and its
application. Yerbilimleri, 22, 223-236.
Aydan, Ö., 2000b. Assessment of annual strain rate distributions of Turkey frım GPS
measurements. Yerbilimleri, 22,. 21-31 (Makalenin başlığı hatalı yazılmış, düzelttim)
Aydan, Ö., 2012. Ground motions and deformations associated with earthquake faulting andtheir effects on the safety of engineering structures. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Scienceand Technology, Springer, R. Meyers (Ed.), pp. 3233-3253.
Aydan, Ö., 2016. An integrated approach for the evaluation of measurements and inferencesof in-situ stresses. RS2016 Symposium, 7th Int. Symp. on In-situ Rock Stress, Tampere, pp.
38-57.

Aydan, Ö., 2020. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering: Fundamentals, Vol.1, CRC Press,
Taylor and Francis Group, 412 p.
Aydan, Ö., 2023. Earthquake Science and Engineering, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group,
499 p.
Aydan, Ö., Ulusay, R., Kumsar, H., Sönmez, H., Tuncay, E., 1998. A site investigation of
Adana-Ceyhan Earthquake of June 27, 1998. Turkish Earthquake Foundation, Publication No.
TDV/DR 006-30 November 1998, 131 p (in English)

Aydan, Ö., Ulusay, R., Hasgür, Z., Taşkın, B., 2000a. A site Investigation of Kocaeli
Earthquake of August 17, 1999. Turkish Earthquake Foundation, Publication No. TDV/DR 0849, 180 p (in English).
Aydan, Ö., Ulusay, R., Kumsar, H., Tuncay, E., 2000b. Site Investigation and Engineering
Evaluation of the Düzce-Bolu Earthquake of November 12, 1999. Turkish Earthquake
Foundation, TDV/DR 09-51, 300 p (in English and Turkish).
Aydan, Ö., Ulusay, R., Miyajima, M., 2003. The Bingöl earthquake of May 1, 2003. Report of
the Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, Japan, 103 p.
(http://www.jsce.org.jp/report/19/frame.htm) (in English)
Aydan, Ö., Ulusay, R., Kumsar, H., 2012. Site investigation and engineering evaluation of the
Van earthquakes of October 23 and November 9, 2011. Turkish Earthquake Foundation,
Report No. TDV/DR 015-92, March 2012, İstanbul, 190 p (English and Turkish).
Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Kandilli Rasathanesi ve Deprem Araştırma Enstitüsü (KRDAE), Bölgesel
Deprem-TsunamiİzlemeVeDeğerlendirme
Merkezi(BDTİM)http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/tr/.

Emre, Ö., Duman, T.Y., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, Ş., Şaroğlu, F., 2013, Açıklamalı
Türkiye Diri Fay Haritası, Ölçek 1:1.250.000. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, ÖzelYayın Serisi-30, Ankara. ISBN: 978-605-5310-56-1.
Gulen, L., Pınar, A., Kalafat, D., Ozel, N., Horasan, G., Yılmazer, M., Isıkara, A.M., 2002.
Surface fault breaks, aftershock distribution and rupture process of the 17 August 1999
Izmit, Turkey earthquake. Bull. Seismological. Soc. Am. 92 (1), 230–244.
Korkmaz, H. 2006. The Relationship Between Ground Conditions and Earthquake
Effect In Antakya. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 2006, 4 (2), 49-66 (in Turkish).

MTA, 2023.
06 Şubat 2023 Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) (Mw 7,7) ve Elbistan(Kahramanmaraş) (Mw 7,6) depremleri bilgi notu. MTA Jeoloji Etütleri Daiesi Başkanlığı,Ankara 10 s.
Önal, M, 2007. Malatya ve dolaylaronın depremeselliği. Unpublished presentation.
Palutoğlu, M. and Şaşmaz, A. 2017. 20 November 1795 Kahramanmaraş earthquake,Southern Turkey. MTA Dergisi (Bulletin) 155: 191-206 (in Turkish).
Sandal, E.K., and Kandemir, N., 2013. The Relationship between Ground Conditions andEarthquake Based on Seismicity in Kahramanmaraş. 3rd International Geography
Symposium - GEOMED 2013, 474-488.
USGS, United States Geological Survey, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes
Ulusay, R., Aydan, Ö., 2005. Characteristics and geo-engineering aspects of the 2003 Bingöl(Turkey) earthquake. Journal of Geodynamics, 40, 334-346.
Ulusay, R., Aydan, Ö., Erken, A., Kumsar, H., Tuncay, E., Kaya, Z., 2002. Site Investigationand Engineering Evaluation of the Çay-Eber Earthquake of february 3 2022,. Turkish
Earthquake Foundation Research Project No. 02-AP-119, Publication No. . TDV/DR 012-79,
213 s (in Turkish).
Ulusay, R., Tuncay, E., Sönmez, H., Gökçeoğlu, C., 2004. An attenuation relationship basedon Turkish strong motion data and iso-acceleration map of Turkey. Engineering Geology, 74,
265-291.
Wells, D.L., Coppersmith, K.J., 1994. New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude,
Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area and Surface Displacement. Bulletin of
Seismological Society of America, 84 (4), 974-1002.
Yılmaz, Y., Yiğitbaş, E., and Genç, C., 1993. Ophiolitic and metamorphic assemblages ofsoutheast Anatolia and their significance in the geological evolution of the orogenic belt.
Tectonics, 12, p. 1280–1297.