Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanREPORT ON 2012 VAN (TURKEY) EARTHQUAKES
Mustafa ERDIK1, Yaver KAMER2, Mine B. DEMIRCIOGLU3, and Karin SESETYAN4
1

Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Res.
Institute,Istanbul, Turkey, erdik@boun.edu.tr, erdikm@gmail.com
2
Chair of Entrepreneurial Risks, Swiss Fedrral Institute of Technology,
Zurich, Switzerland, ykamer@ethz.ch, yaver.kamer@gmail.com
3
Research Associate, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake
Res. Institute,Istanbul, Turkey, minebd@gmail.com
4
Research Associate, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake
Res. Institute,Istanbul, Turkey, ksesetyan@gmail.com
ABSTRACT: An earthquake of Mw7.2 on 23 October 2011 occurred in the Van regionof Eastern Turkey. The mainshock and long series aftershocks caused significant damage
and claimed 644 lives. Particular features of the earthquake, damage, losses,
rehabilitation and the lessons learned are covered.
Key Words: Van Earthquake, strong ground motion, earthquake damage, earthquake
lossesINTRODUCTION
A magnitude Ml6.6 - Mw7.2 earthquake struck the Van province in eastern Turkey at 10:41 GMT(13:41 Local) on Sunday, October 23rd, 2011. Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute(KOERI, www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/indexeng.htm, www.kandilli.info) reports that the earthquake
originated at a depth of about 5km at the epicenter was located at 43.36 N 38.76 E, at the village ofTabanli, between the major cities of Van and Erciş.
On the basis of the data from Turkish Statistical Institute (http://www.turkstat.gov.tr), the Van
province has 2011 population of 1.022.532 (1.4% of the population of Turkey) with a population
density of 55 per km2 and average household size of 7. The major cities are Van with a population of363,419 (municipal) / 526.725 (total) and Erciş with a population of 76,473 (municipal) / 159,450(total). Both cities have doubled their population during the last 25 years, during which the majorbuilding population took place.
This earthquake caused significant damage in the cities of Van, Erciş as well as in many villages.
According to the information provided by Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management
Presidency (AFAD, www.afad.gov.tr) this earthquake caused 604 fatalities and 2,608 injuries.
Significant aftershock has been associated with this earthquake. The M5.6, Nov. 9, 2011 earthquake
resulted in additional damage and collapses in Van city with 40 additional fatalities. The earthquake isestimated to have caused around 1 – 2 billion USD in total economic losses.

1938

SEISMO-TECTONICS
Ambraseys (2009) reports that Van province was exposed to major damaging historicalearthquakes in 1276, 1648, 1715, 1896. The 1941 M5.9 Van-Erciş earthquake caused 192 casualties.

Fig 1. Earthquake located on the neo-tectonic map of Barka and Reilinger (1997)
The Mw7.2 (seismic moment Mo=1020 Nm) earthquake in Eastern Turkey on Sunday 23.10.2011,
13:41 local time hit the Eastern Turkey. The epicenter of the main shock was located in between Van
and Erciş (about 30km, respectively, north of Van and south of Erciş). The focal region of theearthquake and much of easternmost Turkey lie towards the southern boundary of the complex zone ofcontinental collision between the Arabian Plate and the Eurasian Plate. Part of the convergence
between these two plates takes place along the Bitlis-Zagros fold and thrust belt at a rate of
approximately 2.4cm/yr. As reported by KOERI, the earthquake rupture started as 38.75 E 43.36 N,
and propagated in Northeast and Southwest directions. The focal mechanism indicates oblique thrustfaulting, consistent with the expected tectonics in this region, with a fault surface area of about 60 km
x 30 km, as confirmed by the aftershock sequence.

Fig 2. (a) and(b)Van fault, aftershock distribution (KOERI) and simplified fault model

The finite fault model developed by Dr.Gavin Hayes of USGS (Fig 2b)(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usb0006bqc/finite_fault.php) indicate anorth-dipping fault plane at 45-51 degrees and with a strike of 241 degrees. These findings correlate
well with the InSAR results, and information from geologists mapping surface rupture in the field. The
rupture surface is 20 km along strike and 20 km down-dip. The peak fault displacement is at about 4m
at 16km depth. The moment rate indicates rupture duration of about 30s with a peak rate at 4s.

1939

Focal mechanism solution and the fault model of the Van earthquake reveals an east-west trending
reverse fault with a” north-dipping fault plane. East-West oriented thrust fault mechanism. Since
there were no evidence of thrust faulting in the field as only very small (in centimeters) surface rupture
has been observed. The Van earthquake was associated with fault that was not previously recognized
as active. Morphological indicators, point the east-west oriented thrust fault, so called Van or Everek
Fault, as the primary source of this event. Similarly, Nov. 9, 2011, M5.6 earthquake on anotherpreviously unrecognized active fault.
Van earthquake is associated with intense aftershock activity compared to the similar magnitude
strike-slip earthquakes that took place in Turkey. The number of aftershocks above M4.0 and M5 arerespectively 80 and 10. So far the largest aftershock had a magnitude of 5.7 (Ml). The reason of therelatively intense post-earthquake activity appears to be the tectonically complexity of the affectedarea and the existence of several faults with different characteristics. The main shock could have also
served to activate this system of small scaled faults.
Following the main shock KOERI have deployed 16 additional seismic instruments to theearthquake area to enable recording of the strong ground motion and the determination the accurate
fault geometry. This deployment will enable KOERI scientists better locate the aftershocks and to
determine the fault geometry more accurately. KOERI is continuously monitoring the aftershock
activity and updated evaluations are disseminated (www.koeri.boun.edu.tr, www.kandilli.info).

GEOTECHNICAL EFFECTS
Site response and ground failure are the two major geotechnical effects that could aggravate thedamage to buildings, infrastructure and lifelines.
Both in Van and Erciş cities there exist pockets of severely damaged areas that may be taken as
manifestation of site amplification. However, the lack of properly classified building damage
distribution, lack of adequate strong ground motion data and site specific geotechnical data does notallow for any conclusion at this stage. The data from the post-earthquake deployment of strong motion
recorders in the field by KOERI and AFAD can serve to quantify the site response effects associatedwith aftershocks.
Limited slope failures, mostly in the form cracks in natural slopes and road embankment failures
were observed in the epicentral region of the Van earthquake. Some of these failures may also be
associated with clay softening (Çelebi et al. 2011).
Small scale liquefaction took place at several locations along the river beds and at the delta of the
Karasu Creek. Liquefactions were associated with sand boils and lateral spreading. The damaged thewater line supplying Yüzüncü Yıl University, located in the northern outskirts of Van, is associatedwith liquefaction (DM&AYE (2011).

STRONG GROUND MOTIONDistribution of Intensities
Fig 3a and Fig 3b provides shake maps of the Oct. 23 and Nov.9 earthquakes in terms of EMS’98
intensities using the ELER routine (Erdik et al., 2010). As it can be assessed the cities of Van and Erciş
are located in VII+ in Oct. 23 and in VIII and IV calculated intensity zones in Nov.9 events.

1940

Fig 3. (a), (b). Shake maps of the Oct. 23 Mw7.2 and Nov.9 Ml5.6earthquakes
Accelerometric Data
The strong motion stations operated by AFAD have produced 22 strong motion records for the Oct.
23, 2011, Mw7.2 Van earthquake most of them at large distances beyond 100km. Unfortunately, nostrong motion data is available for the cities of Van and Erciş (EQE-KOERI, 2011; METU-AFAD,
2011),.
The peak ground acceleration at Muradiye Station in Oct. 23, 2011 earthquake is 0.18g. Since
Muradiye City is about at the same distance from the epicenter at least the same ground motion levels
can also be assumed for the cities of Van and Erciş. It should also be noted that Erciş City is located on
the moving block of the thrust rupture that may imply higher levels of ground motion than Van City.
This fact is also manifested by the somewhat greater damage in Erciş compared to Van city.
Strong motion data from the existing and the additionally installed stations exist for the
post-earthquake activity. The peak ground acceleration value recorded at Van Station in Nov. 09, 2011
earthquake is 0.25g. It appears that during the Nov. 09 earthquake the Van City was in the forward
directivity of rupture and as expected, the fault normal motion is dominant.
Fig 4 illustrates the peak ground acceleration distribution map obtained from shake maps with bias
adjustment with recorded ground motion. Fig 5 provides a comparison of peak ground accelerations
with the NGA ground motion prediction relationships (EQE-KOERI, 2011).

Fig 4. PGA shake map with bias adjustment with recorded motion. (EQE-KOERI, 2011)

1941

Fig 5. Comparison of recorded PGA with the NGA-GMPEs (EQE-KOERI, 2011).

LOSSES
Building Damage
Van earthquake caused considerable damage to buildings and to public facilities with substantial
casualties. The building stock in the major cities of Van, Erciş and vicinity consists mainly of
non-engineered low rise buildings and engineered mid-rise reinforced concrete framed buildings with
infill walls. The predominant structural system used for reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey
consists of reinforced concrete frames with a symmetric floor plan and with unreinforced masonry
infill walls. Except for some industrial plants or assemblages steel construction is rare.
In villages, the dominant building type consists of adobe and stone masonry buildings minimallyreinforced with timber lintel beams. The roofs are constructed mostly with galvanized steel sheets.
Livestock shelters generally have heavy earthen roofs. Those buildings with heavy earth roof
experienced heavy damage and collapse as it has also been experienced in previous rural earthquakes
in Turkey.
Many modern buildings in urbanized areas did quite well but typically older ones collapsed. There
have been weak first storey collapses (soft storey collapse) as well as pancake collapses that have been
seen. Many buildings that appeared undamaged outside, revealed signs of critical structural damage
once inspected carefully. Some reinforced concrete framed buildings have been constructed with
sufficient earthquake resistance (tunnel-form construction, shear walls and post tensioning) performed
well. It should also be noted that these damage observations in Van and Erciş relate to a building stockthat has been exposed only to about 50% of the reference (or design) acceleration of 0.3g -0.4g level.
As such, any nearby aftershock (M5.5+) that can create ground motion above 0.15g-0.2g level cancause additional damage and collapses as evidenced in Van City by the Nov.9, 2011 M5.7 Edremit
earthquake.
KOERI estimates for the distribution of buildings in the Van Province are provided in Table 1(www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/News/23%20October%202011,%20Mw=7.2%20Van,%20Turkey%20Eq._16_204.depmuh )Table 1 Building Inventory in Van Province

Number of Buildings
Reinforced Concrete Percentage
Unreinforced Masonry Percentage

Van City
35,2005%82%Adobe Percentage
Rubble Stone Percentage

9%
4%

1942

Erciş City Van Province
10.70078,000
27%
12.7%
63%
75%
8%
2%

9.5%
2.8%

KOERI has provided the following estimations of the building damage in terms of geo-cell based
distribution of buildings in EMS’98 (Grünthal, 1998) damage states, immediately after the earthquake
using the ELER routine (Erdik et al., 2010).
•
Damaged beyond repair (EMS’98 damage states: D3+D4+D5) = 3,927 (Fig 6)•
Medium Damage (EMS’98 damage state D2) = 9,956•
Light Damage (EMS’98 damage state D1) = 24,582

Fig 6. Estimated Distribution of buildings damaged beyond repair (EQE-KOERI, 2011)
Past earthquakes in Turkey have shown that at computed EMS’98 intensity levels of VII (as is thecase in Van and Erciş) about 10% of the mid-rise R/C buildings and about 5% of low-rise R/C ormasonry buildings receives damage beyond repair. These statistics are in conformity with the figures
provided in Table 1.
On the basis of UN Situation Report No. 7, October 30, 2011 (http://reliefweb.int/ ) AFAD
declared that in the Province of Van 861 buildings collapsed (probably EMS’98 damage states:
D4+D5) and 3713 buildings (5270 housing units) are damaged-uninhabitable (probably EMS’98
damage states: D2+D3). It is furthermore reported (AFAD) that in the October 23, 2011 Mw7.2 main
shock the numbers of heavily damaged and totally collapsed (D4+D5) buildings in Van and Erciş arerespectively 36 (6 total collapse) and 1095 (65 total collapse). After the November 9, 2011 M5.6
earthquake this number increased 100 (27 total collapse) in Van. As it can be assessed the rapid
estimations of building damage provided with KOERI are in agreement with the field observations.
The official damage assessment conducted by AFAD refers to housing units (instead of buildings)
and is essentially conducted to sort out families (rather, property owners) that the government willlegally provide housing units (to ones with damage beyond repair, at very low interest levels) andcredit for repair (to ones with medium damage) and cash assistance (to those with light damage).
The results of this damage assessment are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 Official Household Based Damage Assessment
Locality

Van
Province
City of Van
City of Erciş

Total
Inspected
HousingUnits117, 700

Housing
Units
BeyondRepair
28,532

Repairable
Housing
Units

Housing Units
with Light
Damage11,31743,40367,73814,482

13,250
4,547

9,308
1,503

25,9206,607

1943

It should be noted that, these damage assessments are not tied to the EMS’98 damage classes andincorporate the subjective opinion of about 1000 inspectors. Please compare that the number ofhousing units beyond repair was only 66,441 at 1999 M7.4 Kocaeli earthquake which has effected apopulation of about 10 times more than the Van earthquake and caused 17,480 fatalities.
Leaving, if any, the site response problems aside, poor earthquake performance of most buildings
is essentially due to the noncompliance with the earthquake resistant design codes. The contrasting
performance between similar buildings that survived and those that failed provides evidence that
conformity with the design code and good construction practices can limit damages during strong
earthquakes. The damage to reinforced concrete buildings can be attributed to one or more of thefollowing reasons:•
Poor building material quality: The strength of the concrete was in general well below thevalues specified in the building codes. The use of smooth reinforcing bars (as opposed to the deformedbars) was also common.
•
Soft stories: Soft stories increased deformation demands, P-Delta effects and forced thefirst-story columns to dissipate the all the energy. This effect has caused a large portion of the building
collapses. Although, there were many cases where the first story collapsed and the upper stories
remained relatively undamaged.
• Strong beams and weak columns: Deep beams used with flexible columns have contributed to theearly failure of columns.
• Poor detailing: Insufficient anchorage, splice lengths and confinement have severely limited theductile response of the reinforced concrete frames.
• Short Columns: In many cases improperly designed infill walls limited the height of the columns,
leading to shear failures.
For R/C buildings typically hollow clay tiles are used with inadequate mortar at the joints.
Although not intended, these walls form the first line of resistance against the earthquake forces and,in many cases, control the lateral drift. Once the infill walls fail, the lateral resistance is to be provided
by the reinforced concrete frames alone, with usually have low concrete quality, inadequate
reinforcement and poor detailing. Extensive inelastic action at the critical regions has caused varying
degrees of building damage that, in extreme cases, lead to formation of hinge mechanisms andpancake-type collapses. As such the effect of infill wall performance to the structural performance ofthe building is of importance and should reflect in the future revisions of the earthquake resistantdesign codes.
Due to (now outdated) heat insulation regulations the infill walls were constructed in two
unconnected layers with insulation sheets located in between. Such a construction has created even
weaker infill walls that become easily dethatched and collapsed in Van earthquake. Although, there
was no structural damage the loss of walls in a cold climate rendered the buildings inhabitable andcaused great strains for the supply of emergency accommodation. This would necessitate thedevelopment of construction guidelines for proper infill walls.
There were several earthquake retrofitted school buildings in the region. One of those has beeninspected (METU, 2011) revealed adequate earthquake performance with limited damage. Apart fromcracks in the infill walls, there was localized minor structural damage consisting of some shear cracks
in shear walls (imparted to the existing frame for retrofit) and at doweling interface under the firstfloor beam. These damages highlight the importance of shear wall and shear wall anchorage designs
and construction in retrofit applications.
Fig 7 to Fig 8 provides a general illustration of damages in the cities of Erciş and Van and in the
Tevekli village.

1944

Fig 7. Damaged Reinforced Concrete buildings in Erciş (AA Press)

Fig 8. Damaged Reinforced Concrete buildings in Erciş (AA Press)

Fig 9. Damaged Reinforced Concrete buildings in Erciş (AA Press)

1945Fig 10. Damaged Reinforced Concrete buildings in Van (AA Press)

Fig 8. Damaged rural buildings in Tevekli village (AA Press)
Hospitals and Schools
In past earthquakes the performance of public hospital and school buildings has been on the
average much better than the general building stock. The main reason behind this is the 50% increasein earthquake design loads for these buildings (i.e. importance factor=1.5) and simple symmetricstructural layout with no soft stories.
Several hospitals were damaged (structural, non-structural and equipment) in the Van earthquake
both in the cities of Van and Erciş. Due to severely limited hospital capacity, temporary field hospitals
were deployed in the region. Yüzüncü Yil University – Faculty of Medicine Hospital, Maternal Healthand Pediatric Hospitals, İpekyolu State Hospital and Erciş State Hospital are closed (or partiallyoperating for emergency cases).
The Ministry of Education has terminated the educational activities in the affected region for about
70 days since many schools in the area collapsed or were seriously damaged. On the basis of theinvestigations conducted by the Ministry of Education, it has been announced that about 2000
classrooms out of the total 7100 classrooms in primary and high schools were unusable due to thedamage. It should be noted that, although the damage was widespread, as no children were at school
on Sunday (day of earthquake), a high death toll of students were avoided. The lacking class space wascared for by the deployment of prefabricated buildings and the education has restarted in the beginningof January 2012
Historical and Cultural Property
There are important historical monuments in Van, such castles, mosques and churches. In Oct. 23
and Nov.9 earthquakes several mosques were damaged in Ercis and Van and the minaret damage waswidespread in cities and throughout the villages. In addition, the Van Museum and its famous Urartu
collections were damaged. Damages to Sheikh Abdurrahman Mosque and Hüsrev Pasha Mosque,located on the outskirts of Van Castle, were light. The minaret of the Kaya Çelebi Mosque (also1946located nearby the Van Castle) collapsed on the dome causing extensive damage. The historicalchurch (Yedi Kilise or Vank Monastery), located in Bakraçlı village of Van, was partly damaged andthe front entrance has collapsed. Except a renewed crack in the dome of Akdamar Church (a 10th
century Armenian monument), no damage was reported.
Lifelines
Van earthquake caused limited damage to electric and water systems. There was almost no damage
to the transportation network and the natural gas supply network (Van city).
Damage to electric distribution networks was mostly due to transformer damage. About 80% of
the Van city received power after 2 hours. The restoration period for Erciş city was about 2 days
for %70 of the consumers.
The water supply at Van city was interrupted for about a week due to the repair of damages atsome pumps and pipes. Significant damage to water supply system to Yüzüncü Yıl University, to thenorth of Van City, took place due to liquefaction induced settlement.
With the exception of minor cracks on the Van-Erciş highway (that was repaired almost
immediately) the transportation system (including railroads) fared wary well. Field studies indicatethat the damage in to highway bridges in the epicentral generally consists of limited movement (fewcms) of elastomeric bearings under the deck beams. Very limited cracks in few piers and stopper
blocks were also observed. No damage was reported in the regional dams and hydro-electric facilities.
Casualties
Stemming from the poor earthquake performance of the buildings, past earthquakes in Turkey
have shown that the death rate in earthquakes has been about an order of magnitude higher than thosein California. This was no exception also in the Van earthquake.
KOERI has successfully provided the rapid estimation fatality as 714 and their geo-cell based
distribution (Fig 9) using the ELER routine (Erdik et al., 2010). In contrast, the median fatalities
reported by the first issue of the USGS-PAGER system stood in excess of 10,000 and 32% wereassigned to fatalities between 10,000 and 100,000. This was possibly due to the USGS location
earthquake epicenter (CEDIM reports at www.cedim.de and http://earthquake-report.com ).
The actual number of fatalities was 604 in the October 23, 2011 Mw7.2 main shock. The serious
injuries were about 2000 and about 230 people were saved alive from the collapsed buildings, due tothe much improved and developed search and rescue efforts. After the November 9, 2011 M5.6
earthquake 40 people have lost their lives in the collapsed Bayram Hotel in Van, bringing the total
number of fatalities to 644. About 75% of the fatalities were in urban areas.

Fig 9. Estimated distribution of fatalities (EQE-KOERI, 2011)1947

Economic Losses
Total economic loss is estimated about 1-2 billion USD (CEDIM reports at www.cedim.de andhttp://earthquake-report.com/ ). Our economic loss estimate amounts to about 1.5 billion USD,
consisting of 1.2 billion USD physical damage and 0.3 billion indirect losses. On the basis of thedata from Turkey’s Statistical Yearbook 2010 (Turkish Statistical Institutute, www.tuik.gov.tr ), thegross value added (GVA) of Van Province can be assumed to be around 3 billion USD (2011), this loss
would represent around 1/3 of the GVA of Van (and about 0.2% of the national GVA). Although thisloss is about 5% to 10% of the losses suffered in 1999 Mw7.4 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey. However,it should be noted that this earthquake is in a region about 4 times poorer than the Kocaeli region.
Micro and small enterprises will eventually be the hardest hit group by the earthquake, losing mostof their customers due to outmigration and government subsidies of food and other items toearthquake effected population. The loss of capacity in small and micro enterprises has additional
adverse socio-economic effects due to loss of unemployment, production and economic linkages withlarger firms. However, the job losses especially for the self-employed are expected to recover in thenear future with government credit incentives, debt rescheduling and assistance for re-building.
REHABILITATION
Several NGO’s, Turkish Red Crescent-American Red Cross, FEMA and other concerned agencies
are working with local offices of emergency management, universities, neighborhood groups andbusiness partners to increase community preparedness levels through training and education. The
number of search and rescue teams amounted to 476 encompassing 3503 persons. 222 people were
rescued alive from the collapsed buildings. This evidences the highly improved SAR system after the1999 Kocaeli earthquake.
As reported by Emergency Appeal Operation Update Turkey: Van Earthquake – Jan. 9, 2012(www.ifrc.org), due to damaged housing and fear of aftershocks about two hundred thousand people
are residing in temporary shelters (Fig 10), consisting of about 3,800 prefabricated Mevlana houses,
about 2700 container houses and tents (14 tent cities and individual tents amounting to 72,500). Heath
services are provided by about 3000 medical personnel in the sound hospitals and in 11 mobile field
hospitals.
About 16,500 container houses (9000 in Erciş City, 2500 in Van City and rest in villages) areplanned to be deployed as part of the shelter phase before the permanent reconstruction is realized.
The reconstruction activities in the affected areas have already started in November. The preparationsof foundations for the permanent reinforced concrete buildings that would eventually encompass about
30,000 housing units are currently en route and the reconstruction is foreseen to be completed within ayear, at a cost of about 1 billion USD. For the total physical rehabilitation of Van Province thegovernment plans to spend about 2 billion USD.
Earthquake Insurance
Total insured loss estimates made by EQECAT (www.eqecat.com) and by AIR Worldwide(www.air-worldwide.com) varied respectively between 100‐200 million USD and between 55- 170
million USD.
A government-sponsored Turkish Catastrophic Insurance Pool (TCIP) is created in 2000 with theessential aim of absorbing the government’s financial burden of replacing earthquake-damaged
housing (www.tcip.gov.tr). As of January 2012, the number of sold policies is 3.757.000 that
represents about 23% annual penetration. The annual average premium is USD 57 for an average
insurance coverage of about US$36,000 per house, with 2% deductible. In Van province the number ofpolicies sold was 7,318 (about 9% penetrations). The TCIP payment is expected to amount about 40
million USD.

1948

Fig 10. Post earthquake temporary housing
REFERENCES
EQE-KOERI (2011), The October 23, 2011 Van, Turkey Earthquake (Mw=7.2),
www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/News/23%20OCTOBER%202011,%20Mw=7.2%20VAN,%20TURKEY%20E
ARTHQUAKE_16_204.depmuhÖzden, Ş., E.Akpınar and H.M.Atalay (2011), Reconnaissance Report on Van Earthquake of October
2011, Kocaeli University.
Barka, A. and R. Reilinger, Active Tectonics of Eastern Mediterranean region: deduced from GPS,
neotectonic and seismicity data, Annali Di Geofisica, X2(3), 587–610, 1997.
Erdik,M., K.Sesetyan, M.B.Demircioğlu, U.Hancılar and C.Zulfikar (2010), Rapid earthquake loss
assessment after damaging earthquakes, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.
DM&AYE (2011), 23 Ekim 2011 M7.2 Tabanlı - VAN Depremi, İTÜ Deprem Mühendisliği ve Afet
Yönetimi Enstitüsü
Grünthal, G., (ed.), (1998). "European Macroseismic Scale 1998", Cahiers du Centre Européen de
Géodynamique et de Séismologie Volume 15, Luxembourg.
METU-AFAD (2011), Processed Mainshock Accelerometric Recordings of the 23 October 2011 Van
Earthquake, Report prepared by Earthquake Engineering Research Center (EERC)-Middle East
Technical University and Earthquake Department Disaster Management and Emergency Presidency(AFAD), Ankara Turkey.
Çelebi, M., T.L.Holzer and K.M.Scharer (2011), Van, Turkey, M7.1 Earthquake of October 23, 2011,
Report to USAID/OFDA, USGS, Dec., 2011.
AFAD (2011), Van Depremi (23 Ekim 2011) Raporu, Deprem Dairesi Başkanlığı, Aralık 2011
Koçyigit, A., Yilmaz, A., Adamia, S. ve Kuloshvili, S. (2001). “Neotectonics of East Anatolian Plateau(Turkey) and Lesser Caucasus: implication for transition from thrusting to strike-slip faulting,”
Geodinamica Acta, 14, 177–195.
Akyüz, S., C.Zabcı and T.Sancar (2011), Preliminary Report on the 23 October 2011 Van Earthquake,İstanbul Technical University.
Ambraseys N. (2009), Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, Cambridge University
Press, 947 pp.
Erdik, M. and N.Aydınoğlu (2004), Earthquake Performance and Vulnerability of Buildings in Turkey,
The World Bank Group - Disaster Management Facility
Utkucu, M., E. Budakoğlu, H. Yalçın, H. Durmuş, H. Kalkan And L. Gülen (2011), 23 Ekim 2011 Van
Depremi (Mw=7.2) Hakkında Ön Rapor, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Ekim, 2011
METU (2011), 23 Ekim 2011 Mw7.2 Van Depremi Sismik ve Yapisal Hasara İlişkin Saha Gözlemleri,
Middle East Technical University, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Kasim 2011 Ankara).
CEDIM (2011), Comparing the current impact of the Van Earthquake to past earthquakes in Eastern
Turkey. CEDIM Forensic Earthquake Analysis Group – Report #4.
Emre, Ö., D.Y.Duman, S.Özalp and H.Elmacı (2011), 23 Ekim 2011 Van Depremi Saha Gözlemleri ve
Kaynak Faya İlişkin Ön Değerlendirmeler, MTA, Ankara.

1949