MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023, Pazarcık Mw=7.7 and Elbistan
Mw=7.6, Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye Earthquakes

Edited by: Kemal Önder Çetin, Makbule Ilgaç, Gizem Can and Elife Çakır
February 20, 2023
REPORT NO: METU/EERC 2023-01

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Preface
The February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, affecting a total of eleven provinces, deeply
affected us all. I write to you today with a heavy heart, as our thoughts and prayers are with ourpeople in the aftermath of the devastating earthquakes that struck the country on February 6. The
earthquakes, which measured moment magnitudes 7.7 and 7.6 hit the provinces of
Kahramanmaraş, Adıyaman, Hatay, Osmaniye, Gaziantep, Kilis, Şanlıurfa, Diyarbakır, Malatya,
Adana, and Elazığ in eastern Turkiye, causing significant damage to buildings and infrastructure
and claiming the lives of dozens of our people. Our deepest sympathies go out to the families andloved ones of those who lost their lives or were injured in the earthquakes, and we offer our supportand solidarity as they begin the long process of recovery.

As a university community, immediately after the earthquakes, Middle East Technical University
faculty members and staff set out to conduct research in the region. Teams from Middle East
Technical University (METU), consisting of experts in fields such as civil engineering, geology,architecture, city planning, etc., have initiated to perform preliminary reconnaissance studies in
the cities of the region with the collaboration of experts of diverse fields from other university
members and institutions. We encourage our faculty, staff, and students to join us in these ongoing
efforts and to consider how they can contribute their skills, expertise, and resources to help thoseaffected by the earthquakes.

At times like these, it is important to remember the strength and resilience of the human spirit, andthe power of individuals and communities to come together. We are confident that the people of
the region will overcome this tragedy, and we stand with them in their efforts to rebuild andrecover.

Sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Mustafa Verşan Kök
President, Middle East Technical University

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center1

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
By:
Kemal Önder Çetin, Ahmet Yakut, Makbule Ilgaç, A. Arda Özacar, Gizem Can, Elife Çakır
CHAPTER 2 Regional Tectonics and Seismic Source
By:
A. Arda Özacar, Bora Uzel, Erdin Bozkurt, Taylan Sançar, Eyüp Sopacı, Nuretdin
Kaymakçı, Bora Rojay, Zeynep Gülerce, Cem Kıncal, Laura Gregory
CHAPTER 3 Preliminary Analysis of Strong Ground Motion Characteristics
By:
Zeynep Gülerce, Ayşegül Askan, Özkan Kale, Abdullah Sandıkkaya, Nihat Sinan Işık,Okan İlhan, Gizem Can, Makbule Ilgaç, A. Arda Özacar, Eyüp Sopacı, Kemal Önder Çetin,
Burak Akbaş, Abdullah Altındal, Mehmet Fırat Aydın, Baran Güryuva, Onur Kanun,
Kubilay Albayrak, Gamze Muratoğlu, Oguz Salih Okçu, Abdullah İçenCHAPTER 4 Geotechnical Findings and the Performance of Geo-Structures
By:
Kemal Önder Çetin, Candan Gökçeoğlu, Robb Eric Shedwick Moss, Makbule Ilgaç, Gizem
Can, Elife Çakır, Bilal Umut Aydın, Arda Şahin, Mehmet Türkezer, Berkan Söylemez,
Soner Ocak, Hayri Güzel
CHAPTER 5 Performance of Residential Structures
By:Barış Binici, Ahmet Yakut, Erdem Canbay, İsmail Ozan Demirel, Mevlüt Kahraman, Altuğ
Erberik, İsmail Özgür Yaman, Eray Baran, Afşin Canbolat, Koray Kadaş, Orkun Öztaşkın,Selin Aktaş

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center2

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

CHAPTER 6 Performance of Bridges and Tunnels
By:
Alp Caner, Kemal Önder Çetin, Candan Gökçeoğlu
CHAPTER 7 Coastal Structures in the Gulf of İskenderun Bay and Tsunami in the Eastern
Mediterranean
By:
Ahmet Cevdet Yalçıner, Gözde Güney Doğan, Işıkhan Güler, Bilge Karakütük, Furkan
Demir, Didem Cambaz, Vassilios Skanavi, Costas Synolakis
CHAPTER 8 Preliminary Reconnaissance Observations on Lifelines After 6 February 2023
Earthquakes in Türkiye
By:
Nejan Huvaj, Volkan Kalpakcı, Şevki Öztürk, Tamer Y. Duman, Eray Baran, Burak Talha
Kılıç, Ali Serdar Uysal, Suat Dalkılıç, Emre Dalkılıç, Onur Pekcan
CHAPTER 9 Preliminary Structural Performance Summary of Historic Structures
By:
Ahmet Türer
CHAPTER 10 Emergency Response and Community Impact
By:
Meltem Şenol Balaban, Ali Fırat Çabalar, A. Nuray Karancı, Canay Doğulu, Gözde İkizer,
Haldun Akoğlu, Müge Akın, Nil Akdede, Onur Karakayalı, Özlem Özdemir, Sarper
Yılmaz, Selin Güzel, Serkan Yılmaz, Sıdıka Tekeli Yeşil, Tolulope Ajobiewe, Yeşim ÜnalMETU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center3

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Table of Contents
Chapter 1. .................................................................................................................................................... 12
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 12
1. 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2. .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Regional Tectonics and Seismic Source ..................................................................................................... 17
2. 1. Regional Tectonics .......................................................................................................................... 18
2. 2. Major Earthquake History............................................................................................................... 18
2. 3. Seismic Source ................................................................................................................................ 18
2. 4. Surface Rupture and Geological Field Observations ...................................................................... 19
2. 5. Seismic Gaps and Static Stress Changes......................................................................................... 21
Chapter 3. .................................................................................................................................................... 24
Preliminary Analysis of Strong Ground Motion Characteristics ................................................................ 24
3. 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3. 2. Information on Recorded Strong Ground Motions at Selected Stations ......................................... 25
3. 3. Spatial Distribution of Peak Ground Parameters from February 6 Earthquakes ............................ 28
Chapter 4. .................................................................................................................................................... 30
Geotechnical Findings and the Performance of Geo-Structures ................................................................. 30
4. 1. Geotechnical Observations ............................................................................................................. 31
4. 1. 1. Seismic Soil Liquefaction Manifestations .............................................................................. 31
4. 1. 2. Residential Building Foundation Performance ....................................................................... 35
4. 1. 3. Deep Excavations.................................................................................................................... 36
4. 1. 4. Retaining Structures ................................................................................................................ 37
4. 1. 5. Rockfalls ................................................................................................................................. 38
4. 1. 6. Tunnels .................................................................................................................................... 39
4. 1. 7. Landslides ............................................................................................................................... 40
4. 1. 8. Ground Deformations ............................................................................................................. 41
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center4

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. 9. Faulting induced Pipeline breakage ........................................................................................ 42
Chapter 5. .................................................................................................................................................... 43
Performance of Residential Structures ........................................................................................................ 43
5. 1. Performance of Buildings ............................................................................................................... 44
5. 1. 1. Performance of RC Buildings Before 2000 ............................................................................ 45
5. 1. 2. Performance of RC Buildings After 2000 ............................................................................... 46
5. 1. 3. Performance of Precast Buildings ........................................................................................... 47
5. 1. 4. Performance of Non-Structural Elements ............................................................................... 48
5. 1. 5. Performance of Masonry Buildings ........................................................................................ 49
5. 1. 6. Performance of Strengthened Buildings ................................................................................. 50
5. 1. 7. Performance of Electrical Substation Buildings ..................................................................... 50
Chapter 6. .................................................................................................................................................... 52
Performance of Bridges and Tunnels .......................................................................................................... 52
6. 1. Bridge and Tunnel Condition Assessment ...................................................................................... 53
Chapter 7. .................................................................................................................................................... 58
Coastal Structures in the Gulf of İskenderun and Tsunami in The Eastern Mediterranean ........................ 58
7. 1. Coastal Structures in the Gulf of İskenderun and Tsunami in The Eastern Mediterranean ............ 59
Chapter 8. .................................................................................................................................................... 64
Preliminary Reconnaissance Observations on Lifelines After 6 February 2023 Earthquakes in Türkiye .. 64
8. 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 65
8. 2. Brief Information about the Critical Infrastructure in The Region ................................................. 65
8. 3. Field Observations on Lifelines ...................................................................................................... 68
Chapter 9. .................................................................................................................................................... 74
Preliminary Structural Performance Summary of Historic Structures ........................................................ 74
9. 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 75
9. 2. Visual Inspection of the Historic Structures ................................................................................... 75
Chapter 10. .................................................................................................................................................. 85
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center5

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Emergency Response and Community Impact ........................................................................................... 85
10. 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 86
10. 2. Emergency Response .................................................................................................................... 86
10. 2. 1. Coordination ......................................................................................................................... 86
10. 2. 2. Immediate Rescue and Response .......................................................................................... 87
10. 2. 3. Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 87
10. 2. 4. Health Services ..................................................................................................................... 87
10. 2. 5. Accommodation Response: Emergency and Temporary Shelter .......................................... 88
10. 2. 6. Psychosocial Support ............................................................................................................ 88
10. 3. Community Impact ....................................................................................................................... 88
10. 4. Overview of International Media Response .................................................................................. 88
10. 5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 89

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center6

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Map of Türkiye (Google Maps). The epicenter of the February 6, 2023,
Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Kahramanmaraş-Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes areshown with white pins. ................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2.1. Examples Seismotectonic map showing rupture planes and aftershocks (taken from
AFAD) along with global moment tensor solutions of recent major earthquakes. Ruptures arenumbered in time and arrows indicate the inferred rupture direction of the initial Pazarcık
earthquake (Mw7.8) which displays directivity and discontinuous rupture evolution. ................. 20
Figure 2.2. Photos of 2.4 m road offset near Pazarcık and 6.7 m fence offset along the SürgüÇardak fault segment (taken by Erdin Bozkurt and Taylan Sançar respectively). ....................... 20
Figure 2.3. Coulomb static stress change on the neighboring fault segments after the recent
earthquake sequence. Calculations were made for left-lateral strike-slip faults using finite fault
solutions computed by USGS. ...................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3.1. Distribution of the strong motion stations that are located within 200km of the rupture
plane for (a) Mw=7.7 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık and (b) Mw=7.6 Elbistan earthquakes. ............. 26
Figure 3.2. Recorded three-component ground accelerations, corresponding Fourier amplitude
spectra (FAS), and response spectra (with 5% damping) in comparison with the most recent
building code (TBEC, 2019) at selected stations due to Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) event ...................... 27
Figure 3.3. Spatial distribution of intensity measure of Pazarcık earthquake (a) PGA, (b) PGV 29
Figure 3.4. Spatial distribution of intensity measure of Elbistan earthquake (a) PGA, (b) PGV . 29
Figure 4.1. Seismic soil liquefaction-induced surface manifestation: sand boils in free field
conditions: a) Hatay (36.36446° N, 36.28147°E), b) Kumlu / Hatay (36.35628°N, 36.39360°E), c)
Fatih District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.78080°N, 37.62888°E), d) İskenderun / Hatay (36.59323°
N, 36.18542°E), e) Emiroğlu / Kahramanmaraş (37.33689°N, 37.04538°E), f) Çay District /İskenderun / Hatay (36.59133°N, 36.17888°E) g) Dörtyol / Hatay (36.81878°N, 37.17770°E) h)
Emiroğlu / Kahramanmaraş (37.33722°N, 37.04549°E) i) Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.78655°N,
37.63155°E) .................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 4.2. Seismic soil liquefaction induced lateral spreadings in a) Çay District / İskenderun /Hatay (36.59281°N, 36.185977°), b) Özerli District / Dörtyol / Hatay (36.81294°N, 36.18123°E),c) Fatih District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.78023°N, 37.62858°E), d) İskenderun Port Area / Hatay

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center7

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes(36.59991°N, 36.19274°E), e) İskenderun Port Area / Hatay (36.59991°N, 36.19274°E), f)İskenderun Port Area / Hatay (36.59991°N, 36.19274°E). ........................................................... 33
Figure 4.3. Seismic soil liquefaction-induced induced foundation problems in a) Çay District /İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N, 36.1790°E), b) Çay District / İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N,
36.1790°E), c) Çay District / İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N, 36.1790°E), d) Çay District /İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N, 36.1790°E) ................................................................................ 34
Figure 4.4. Poor foundation performance in a) Çay District / İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N,
36.1790°E), b) Hürriyet District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.778°N 37.628°E), c) Yavuz Selim
District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.788°N, 37.642°E), d) Yavuz Selim District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman(37.788°N, 37.642°E), e) Yavuz Selim District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.78827°N 37.64879°E)....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4.5. Examples of deep excavations in a) Bahçe / Osmaniye (37.18845° N, 36.56326° E), b)
Bahçe / Osmaniye (37.18939° N, 36.56402° E), c) Bahçe / Osmaniye (36.17313° N, 36.59912°
E), d) Bahçe / Osmaniye (36.17313° N, 36.59912° E) ................................................................. 36
Figure 4.6. Some examples of retaining structures in a) Gökçedere/ Gaziantep (37.16439°N,
36.70672°E), b) Gökçedere/ Gaziantep (37.16546° N, 36.69749°E), c) Bahçe/ Osmaniye(37.18853°N, 36.56389°E), d) Bahçe/ Osmaniye (37.18844° N, 36.56476° E) .......................... 37
Figure 4.7. Some examples of rockfalls in a) Bahçe / Osmaniye (37.17441°N, 36.65659°E), b)
Yolbağı District / Adıyaman (37.81795°N, 37.63311°E), c) Fevzi Paşa District / İslahiye/Gaziantep (37.09899° N, 36.65200 ° E), d) Fevzi Paşa District / İslahiye /Gaziantep (37.09713°
N, 36.65170 ° E) ........................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.8. Bahçe-Nurdağı railway tunnels under construction in Nurdağı/ Gaziantep(37.16989°N, 36.70806°E) ........................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.9. Some examples of slope stability problems in a) Gölbaşı/ Adıyaman (37.79783°N,
37.66232°E), b) Yolbağı District / Adıyaman (37.81806°N, 37.63297°E), c) Belen / Hatay(36.48363°N, 36.27158°E) ........................................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.10. Observation of surface rupture trace in a) Balkar / Adıyaman (37.73610°N,
37.56842°E), b) Erenler District / İslahiye / Gaziantep (37.03931°N, 36.62868°E), E), c) Yavuz
Selim District / Adıyaman (37.79645°N, 37.66021°E), d) Balkar / Adıyaman (37.73492°N,
37.56617°)..................................................................................................................................... 41

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center8

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 4.11. Pipeline damages in a) Erenler District / İslahiye / Gaziantep (36.04621°N,
36.62936°E), b) Çay District / İskenderun / Hatay (36.59038°N, 36.17893°E)........................... 42
Figure 5.1. Building Collapse in Antakya and Kahramanmaraş ................................................... 45
Figure 5.2. Building Collapse in Malatya ..................................................................................... 46
Figure 5.3. Overturning due to soil liquefaction and insufficient joint reinforcement detailing .. 46
Figure 5.4. Heavily damaged new buildings in Adıyaman and İslahiye ...................................... 47
Figure 5.5. Performance of a tunnel form building ...................................................................... 47
Figure 5.6. Overview of precast industrial building connection damage in Kahramanmaraş ...... 48
Figure 5.7. Corbel damages in Gaziantep ..................................................................................... 48
Figure 5.8. Infill wall damage examples ....................................................................................... 49
Figure 5.9. Damage in masonry structures ................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.10. Performance of the strengthened building in Hatay ................................................. 50
Figure 5.11. PGA distribution and substation locations (Yellow: Strong motion instruments, Blueand Green: Substation Locations) ................................................................................................. 51
Figure 6.1. Abutment rotation due to seismic soil liquefaction induced foundation failure ......... 54
Figure 6.2. Joint movements ......................................................................................................... 54
Figure 6.3. Concrete spalling ........................................................................................................ 54
Figure 6.4. Bearing dislocation and movement ............................................................................ 55
Figure 6.5. Rail misalignment ....................................................................................................... 55
Figure 6.6. Shear key damage ....................................................................................................... 56
Figure 6.7. Abutment wall concrete spalling ................................................................................ 56
Figure 6.8. Bridge typical have no damage .................................................................................. 57
Figure 6.9. Tunnel portal movement and concrete spalling .......................................................... 57
Figure 7.1 a) The location of the possible source of small amplitude tsunami and the tide gauge
stations, and b) distribution of maximum water elevations computed from the possible source,
North of Cevlik ............................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 7.2 The comparison of the measured (black) and computed (blue) time histories of water
surface fluctuations at four tide gauge stations (first column) and computed time histories nearKarataş, Yumurtalık and Çevlik fishery ports, where only eyewitness observations (second
column) could be obtained. ........................................................................................................... 61
Figure 7.3 Coastal Inundation and traces, South of Samandağ-Çevlik Fishery Port .................... 62
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center9

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 7.4 Structural damage at İskenderun Fishery Port............................................................. 62
Figure 8.1 a) Parts of the state highway network in the region (source: State Highway Agency,
KGM website, https://www.kgm.gov.tr/SiteCollectionImages/KGMimages/Haritalar/b5.jpg), b)
Parts of the state railway network in the region (source: Turkish State Railway Agency website:
https://static.tcdd.gov.tr/webfiles/userfiles/files/genel/tcddharita.pdf ) ........................................ 66
Figure 8.2. Areal view of the surface fault rupture and examples of damages caused by the twoearthquakes on some of the lifelines: railway line, roads and water distribution network, near Narlı,
Kahramanmaraş (Satellite images are provided by Turkish General Directorate of Maps via
atlas.harita.gov.tr website) ............................................................................................................ 69
Figure 8.3. Referring to Figure 2 for locations of the photos: offset on the road due to surface fault
rupture, railway embankment slope instability, water pipeline repair works and a tilted electric polecan be seen, near Narlı, Kahramanmaraş. (Active fault data is taken from Emre et al. (2013)
published by the General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, MTA (Maden Tetkik
ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü)). ...................................................................................................... 69
Figure 8.4. Surface rupture, offset, cracks and damages on railway tracks and roads, as well as adamaged electric tower, near the surface rupture (Narlı, Kahramanmaraş). (Active fault data istaken from Emre et al. (2013)). ..................................................................................................... 70
Figure 8.5. A landslide and crack/damages on the road next to a water canal, causing significant
lateral displacement of a concrete retaining wall (pushed towards the water canal), a tilt on anelectric pole, in southern part of the city of Kahramanmaraş (active fault data from Emre et al.
(2013))........................................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 8.6. Surface rupture observations causing a 3.6 m offset on Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş
road, cracks on the asphalt road at several locations, road embankment instability and more than
250 m-long longitudinal cracks at the top of the road embankment as well as on the asphalt road,near Kapıçam, Kahramanmaraş (Satellite images are provided by Turkish General Directorate ofMaps via atlas.harita.gov.tr website)............................................................................................. 71
Figure 8.7. Referring to Figure 6 for the location: surface rupture observations and 3.6 m offset on
Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş road (active fault data from Emre et al. (2013))............................... 71
Figure 8.8. Landslides and surface cracks on the roads, near Kartal and Yarbaşı, Kahramanmaraş
(Active fault data from Emre et al. (2013)). ................................................................................. 72

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center10

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 8.9. Landslides, rockfalls and surface cracks on the roads, near Fevzipaşa, Gaziantep
causing disruption in the service (Active fault data from Emre et al. (2013)).............................. 72
Figure 9.1 World heritage sites in and around Türkiye ................................................................. 76
Figure 9.2 Cities affected by the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes including Malatya and Elazığ.... 76
Figure 9.3 Geographic location of the historic structures evaluated in Malatya and Elazığ. ....... 78
Figure 9.4 Yeni Cami (new mosque) before and after pictures and short anchorage. .................. 79
Figure 9.5 Gaziantep Castle before and after the earthquakes. ..................................................... 80
Figure 9.6 The Antakya Rum Orthodox and Protestant Churches before and after earthquakes . 83
Figure 9.7 The Antakya Rum Orthodox Church after the earthquake ......................................... 84
Figure 9.8 The Antakya Rum Protestant Church after the earthquake ........................................ 84
Figure 10.1. Map Trends of activities and casualties between February 6 to 14, 2023 ................ 89

List of Tables
Table 1.1. Characteristics of Mw=7.7 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık Earthquake .............................. 14
Table 1.2. Characteristics of Mw=7.6 Elbistan Earthquake.......................................................... 14
Table 5.1. Identified Building Damage Distribution (Ministry of Environment, Urbanization andClimate Change) ........................................................................................................................... 45

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center11

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 1.
Introduction
By:
Kemal Önder Çetin(a), Ahmet Yakut(a), Makbule Ilgaç(b), A. Arda Özacar,(a), Gizem Can(c),Elife Çakır(a)(a) Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Turkiye(b) University of California, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Berkeley, USA(c) Royal Haskoning DHV Resilience& Maritime-BL Maritime & Water, Netherlands

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center12

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

1. 1. Introduction
On February 6, 2023, at 04:17 (01:17 GMT), a moment magnitude (Mw) 7.7 (AFAD, Disaster, andEmergency Management Presidency www.afad.gov.tr), earthquake occurred on the East Anatolian
Fault. The epicenter of the Pazarcık-Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye Earthquake is located at N37.288°,
E37.043° and approximately 40 km north-west of Gaziantep, and 33 km south-east of
Kahramanmaraş, with a focal depth of 8.6 km (AFAD).
Following the first event, approximately 9 hours later, at 13:24 (10:24 GMT), an Mw 7.6
earthquake at Elbistan-Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye shook the region again. The epicenter of thesecond event is located at N38.089°, E37.239°, approximately 98 km north-west of Adıyaman, and
62 km north-east of Kahramanmaraş, with a focal depth of 7.0 km (AFAD). Both events took placeon the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ), one of Türkiye's two major active fault systems. Figure
1.1 presents the locations of the epicenters.

2023 Kahramanmaraş-Elbistan(Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

2023 KahramanmaraşPazarcık (Mw=7.7)
Earthquakes

Figure 1.1. Map of Türkiye (Google Maps). The epicenter of the February 6, 2023,
Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Kahramanmaraş-Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes areshown with white pins.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center13

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

The magnitude, depth, and source characteristics of these events are summarized in Tables 1.1 and
1.2, as reported by different national and international agencies. Consistent with the characteristicsof the East Anatolian fault (EAF), the fault mechanism of the earthquakes is left-lateral strike-slip.
T
Institutiona
Focal Mechanism

Depth (km)

MW

AFAD1

b

8.6

7.7

KOERI2

l

10

7.7

17.9

7.8

10

7.7

USGS3

e

EMSC4
1

Turkish Prime Ministry-Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency
Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute13
United States Geological Survey
4
European Mediterranean Seismological Centre
2

Table 1.2. Characteristics of. Mw=7.6 Elbistan Earthquake
Institution of M
Focal
Mechanism
Depth (km) Earthquake
MW. Characteristics
Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık
w=7.7
AFAD1

7

7.6

KOERI2

10

7.6

USGS3

10

7.5

10

7.5

EMSC4

NAV

1

Turkish Prime Ministry-Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency
Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute3
United States Geological Survey
4
European Mediterranean Seismological Centre
2

Both events mostly affected the cities of Kahramanmaraş, Adıyaman, Hatay, Osmaniye,
Gaziantep, Kilis, Şanlıurfa, Diyarbakır, Malatya, Adana, and Elazığ with residents of over 15
million. The events caused significant shaking and damage. As of 18.02.2023, the total number of
causalities exceeded 40,000, and 110,000 were injured. More than 100,000 buildings collapsed orwere heavily damaged.
A total number of 7451 aftershocks were recorded in the region as of 18.02.2023 within 200 km
epicenter distance. 433 number of these aftershocks have magnitudes exceeding Mw 5.0 and 6.0,
respectively. A total of 280 strong-motion stations, operated by AFAD, within 436 km from thezone of energy release, successfully recorded the February 6, 2023, Pazarcık-Kahramanmaraş
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center14

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes(Mw=7.7) earthquake. The maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) was reported as 1.23 g at
Station 3126: Antakya. A total of 244 strong-motion stations, operated by AFAD and located within
445 km from the zone of energy release, recorded the second earthquake shaking. Similarly, themaximum PGA was reported as 0.65 g at station 4612: Kahramanmaraş Göksun. These aftershocks
are also shown in Figure 1.1 along with the active fault lines and zones. A more detailed discussion
regarding strong ground motion records is available in Chapter 3.
In response to the event, as part of the reconnaissance studies, the members of Middle East
Technical University, Earthquake Engineering Research Center were mobilized to the region.
These ongoing reconnaissance studies have covered an area of approximately 450 km by 100 km,
including the mostly affected cities in Türkiye. The objective of this preliminary reconnaissancereport is to share the effects of the event on the natural and built environment.
The first team accessed the area on February 7, the next day after the events, to collect anddocument perishable data in the form of structural damage, fault rupture, ground deformations,liquefaction manifestations, possible failure or non-failure performances of soil and rock slopes,
buildings, retaining structures, ports, roads, bridges, airports, lifelines, hydraulic structures, andsocial impact. More specifically, the subsequent investigative efforts have mostly focused on
documenting the followings:
Background information related to the geology and seismo-tectonics of the region andgeological field observations,

Seismological background and processing of strong ground motions records,



Detailed field reconnaissance information,

Performance of residential structures,Performance of transportation systems including airports, railways, highways,



Performance of bridges and tunnels,

Foundation performance of buildings,



Information on soil and rock slopes, seismic soil liquefaction manifestations, rockfalls,
earth dams, harbors, lifelines, ports, deep excavations, retaining structures, industrial
structures,

Tsunami effects,Emergency response and community impact,

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center15

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

The preliminary reconnaissance findings regarding all these will be presented next. The opinions
and conclusions presented in the report are the responsibility of the individual chapter authors anddo not necessarily reflect the views of the entire report or the organization publishing it. A moredetailed presentation of these findings will be available as part of the final reconnaissance report.
As the authors, we are deeply sorry for the loss of lives and injured citizens. We would like toconvey our deepest condolences to the relatives of those who lost their lives during these events.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center16

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 2.
Regional Tectonics and Seismic Source
By:
A. Arda Özacar(a), Bora Uzel(b), Erdin Bozkurt(a), Taylan Sançar(c), Eyüp Sopacı(a), Nuretdin
Kaymakçı(a), Bora Rojay(a), Zeynep Gülerce(d,*), Cem Kıncal(b), Laura Gregory(e).
(a) Middle East Technical University, Geological Engineering Department, Ankara,
Türkiye(b) Dokuz Eylul University, Geological Engineering Department, Izmir, Türkiye(c) Munzur University, Geography Department, Türkiye(d) Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye,
currently in International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, Vienna)(e) University of Leeds, School of Earth and Environment, United Kingdom*

This is not an IAEA report and views expressed in any signed article do not represent
those of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the IAEA accepts no
responsibility for them.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center17

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

2. 1. Regional Tectonics
East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) is about 450 km long, NE-trending left-lateral strike-slip fault
system that lies between Karlıova and Hatay (Figure 2.1). The EAFZ is a major plate boundary,where the Arabian plate is moving towards the northeast with respect to the Anatolian plate at
approximately 10-11 mm/yr (Çetin et al., 2003; Reilinger et al., 2006) with a total offset of 15-30
km (Şaroğlu et al., 1992; Westaway, 1994; 2003; Rojay et al. 2001; Moreno et al., 2011). It has
been mostly neglected because it was seismically quiet for the last several decades. Some studies
highlighted that this silence may be a manifestation of future events (e.g. Duman and Emre, 2013;
Yönlü et al., 2013; Mahmoud et al., 2013; Karabacak and Altunel., 2013; Bayrak et al., 2015;
Gülerce et al., 2017; Yönlü et al., 2017), its real seismic hazard potential has been seriously
discussed by a vast of studies after the Mw=6.8 Elazığ earthquake in 2020 (e.g. Pousse-Beltran etal., 2020; Ragon et al., 2020; Tatar et al., 2020; Akgün and İnceöz, 2021; Doğru et al., 2021;
Güvercin et al., 2022; Kelam et al., 2022; Akbayram et al., 2022).
2. 2. Major Earthquake History
The historical earthquakes along the EAFZ are partly synchronous, such that some of the segments
slipped with similar magnitude earthquakes around the 19th century (Duman and Emre, 2013). The
Mw=7.8±0.1 Pazarcık and Mw=7.7±0.1 Elbistan earthquakes have occurred on the EAFZ andcaused devastating effects in the surrounding cities of Kahramanmaraş, Gaziantep, Malatya,
Adıyaman, Hatay and Osmaniye. Based on historical data, fault segments ruptured during thisearthquake sequence were seismic gaps with tectonic stress accumulating for at least 500 years(Ambraseys, 1989; Duman and Emre, 2013).
2. 3. Seismic Source
On February 6, 2023, 01:47 UTC, a large earthquake (Mw: 7.8) occurred near Pazarcık,
Kahramanmaraş. The event hypocenter is located south of the EAFZ at 37.1123N, 37.1195E
according to KOERI (Figure 2.1). Moment tensor solution revealed almost pure left-lateral strikeslip motion on a nearly vertical NE-SW trending fault. According to seismic data, this earthquake
initiated on a smaller Narlı fault in the south jumped to the north and ruptured the Pazarcık-Erkenek
fault segments towards NE and the Amanos segment towards SW with some time delay. This
earthquake displays directivity effects over the edges of the rupture and discontinuous time
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center18

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

evolution along multiple fault segments and thus is a unique example of complex rupture
displaying multi-event nature. The spatial distribution of aftershocks indicates that the earthquake
rupture reached Antakya (Hatay) in the south and come to an end in the north at the Pütürge
segment close to the Doğanyol, Elazığ earthquake in 2020 (Figure 2.1). The total rupture length isjust over 300 km with major surface displacements on the order of 3 – 7 m. Ten minutes after themainshock, a strong aftershock with Mw6.8 occurred just west of the mainshock’s hypocenter,
which may ruptured the Salçagöz fault.
Nine hours later (10:24 UTC), the Elbistan earthquake (Mw7.7) occurred along the Çardak-Sürgü
fault segment, exhibiting a unique example of short-term earthquake triggering. The event
hypocenter is located south of Elbistan near Ekinözü at 38.0717N, 37.2063E by KOERI (Figure2.1). Like the previous event, the moment tensor solution suggested almost pure left-lateral strikeslip motion. Seismic data indicate that the earthquake initially ruptured the ~E-W trending Çardak
fault which strike more southwards in the west and continued eastward towards Malatya on the
NE-SW trending Doğanşehir fault zone. It is also worth noting that aftershocks on the western
rupture tip are curving further down towards the south and imply possible activation of faults withdifferent orientations (Figure 2.1). The total rupture length is around 160 km with major surface
displacements on the order of 2 - 8 m.
2. 4. Surface Rupture and Geological Field Observations
Just after the earthquake sequence, surface ruptures were observed and mapped with open-accesssatellite images, aerial photographs provided by the General Directorate of Mapping (Türkiye),and field studies by geoscientists. Figure 2.2 displays left-lateral offsets observed on the roads at
Güzelyurt and Pazarcık where displacement is about 2.4 m. Figure 2.3 shows displaced railway
tracks near İslahiye along the Amanos segment and 6.7 m left-lateral fence offset documented
along the Sürgü Segment.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center19

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 2.1. Examples Seismotectonic map showing rupture planes and aftershocks (taken from
AFAD) along with global moment tensor solutions of recent major earthquakes. Ruptures arenumbered in time and arrows indicate the inferred rupture direction of the initial Pazarcık
earthquake (Mw7.8) which displays directivity and discontinuous rupture evolution.

Figure 2.2. Photos of 2.4 m road offset near Pazarcık and 6.7 m fence offset along the SürgüÇardak fault segment (taken by Erdin Bozkurt and Taylan Sançar respectively).

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center20

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

2. 5. Seismic Gaps and Static Stress Changes
This earthquake sequence displays a great example of short temporal seismic clustering, with twolarge earthquakes occurring closely in space and less than 10 hours apart in time. The estimatedstatic stress changes using Coulomb failure along with historical earthquake records can point out
the fault segments that become closer to failure. After the 2023 earthquake sequence, seismic gaps
of EAFZ remain along the Savrun, Ceyhan, Kyrenia, Türkoğlu, Karataş, and Orontes fault
segments in the south and on Gökdere push-up (Gülerce et al. 2017) located SW of Bingöl in thenorth. Preliminary static stress change calculations indicate noticeable stress increases, especiallyalong Malatya, Savrun fault, and Orontes (Antakya) fault segments where tectonic stress has notbeen released by a large earthquake for a long time (Figure 2.3). Unfortunately, this earthquake
sequence resulted in the greatest seismic tragedy to strike Türkiye in several decades, and future
understanding using further data analysis will be critical for realistic seismic hazard assessment in
Türkiye and worldwide.

Figure 2.3. Coulomb static stress change on the neighboring fault segments after the recent
earthquake sequence. Calculations were made for left-lateral strike-slip faults using finite fault
solutions computed by USGS.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center21

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

References
Akbayram, K., Bayrak, E., Pamuk, E., Özer, Ç., Kıranşan, K., and Varolgüneş, S., 2022. Dynamic
sub-surface characteristic and the active faults of the Genç District locating over the Bingöl
Seismic Gap of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Eastern Turkey. Natural Hazards, 114(1),825-847.
Akgün, E., and İnceöz, M., 2021. Tectonic evolution of the central part of the East Anatolian Fault
Zone, Eastern Turkey. Turkish J Earth Science, 30, 928-947, doi:10.3906/yer-2104-15.
Ambraseys, N.N., 1989. Temporary seismic quiescence: SE Turkey. Geophysical JournalInternational, 96(2), 311–331.
Bayrak, E., Yılmaz, Ş., Softa, M., Türker, T., and Bayrak, Y., 2015. Earthquake hazard analysis for
East Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey. Natural Hazards, 76, 1063–1077, doi:10.1007/s11069014-1541-53.
Çetin, H., Güneyli, H. &Mayer, L. (2003) Paleoseismology of the Palu-Lake Hazar segment of theEast Anatolian Fault Zone,Turkey.Tectonophysics, 374, 163-197.
Doğru, A., Bulut, F., Yaltırak, C., and Aktuğ, B., 2021. Slip distribution of the 2020 Elazığ
Earthquake (M w 6.75) and its influence on earthquake hazard in the Eastern Anatolia.
Geophysical Journal International, 224(1), 389-400.
Duman, T.Y., Emre, Ö., 2013. The East Anatolian Fault: Geometry, segmentation and jog
characteristics. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ., 372, 495–529. doi:10.1144/SP372.14.
Gülerce, Z., Shah, S.T., Menekşe, A., Özacar, A.A., Kaymakci, N., and Çetin, K.Ö., 2017.
Probabilistic seismic-hazard assessment for east anatolian fault zone using planar fault
source models. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 107, 2353–2366, doi:10.1785/0120170009.
Güvercin, S. E., Karabulut, H., Konca, A. Ö., Doğan, U., and Ergintav, S., 2022. Active
seismotectonics of the East Anatolian Fault. Geophysical Journal International, 230(1), 5069.
Karabacak, V., and Altunel, E., 2013. Evolution of the northern Dead Sea Fault Zone in southernTurkey. J. Geodynamics, 65, 282–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2012.04.012.
Kelam, A.A., Karimzadeh, S., Yousefibavil, K., Akgün, H., Askan, A., Erberik, M.A., Koçkar,M.K., Pekcan, O., and Ciftci, H., 2022. An evaluation of seismic hazard and potential
damage in Gaziantep, Turkey using site specific models for sources, velocity structure andbuilding stock. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 154, 107129.
Mahmoud, Y., Masson, F., Meghraoui, M., Çakır, Z., Alchalbi, A., Yavasoglu, H., Yönlü, O., et al.,2013. Kinematic study at the junction of the East Anatolian Fault and the dead sea fault
fromGPS
measurements.
Journalof
Geodynamics,
67,
30–39,
doi:10.1016/j.jog.2012.05.006.
Moreno, D.G., Hubert-Ferrari, A., Moernaut, J., Fraser, J.G., Boes, X., Van Daele, M., Avsar, U.,Çağatay, N. and De Batist, M. (2011). Structure and recent evolution of the Hazar Basin: astrike-slip basin on the East Anatolian Fault, EasternTurkey. Basin Research 23, 191-207.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center22

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Pousse-Beltran, L., Nissen, E., Bergman, E.A., Cambaz, M.D., Gaudreau, É., Karasözen, E., andTan, F., 2020. The 2020 Mw 6.8 Elazığ (Turkey) Earthquake Reveals Rupture Behavior of
the East Anatolian Fault. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL088136,
doi:10.1029/2020GL088136.
Ragon, T., Simons, M., Bletery, Q., Cavalié, O., and Fielding, E., 2021. A Stochastic View of the2020 Elazığ M w 6.8 Earthquake (Turkey). Geophys. Res. Lett., 48,
doi:10.1029/2020gl090704.
Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Cakmak, R. et al. (2006) GPS
constraints on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collisionalzone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Solid Earth, 111(B5), B05411.
Rojay, B., Heimann, A., and Toprak, V., 2001. Neotectonic and volcanic characteristics of the
Karasu fault zone (Anatolia, Turkey): the transition zone between the Dead Sea transformand the East Anatolian fault zone. Geodinamica Acta, 14, 197–212.
Şaroğlu, F., Emre, Ö. & Kuşçu, İ. (1992) The East Anatolian Fault zone of Turkey. Ann.Tecton.,
6,99-125 (Special Issue-Supplement).
Tatar, O., Sözbilir, H., Koçbulut, F., Bozkurt, E., Aksoy, E., Eski, S., Özmen, B., Alan, H., andMetin, Y., 2020. Surface deformations of 24 January 2020 Sivrice (Elazığ)–Doğanyol(Malatya) earthquake (Mw= 6.8) along the Pütürge segment of the East Anatolian Fault
Zone and its comparison with Turkey’s 100-year-surface ruptures. Mediterranean
Geoscience Reviews, 2, 385-410.
Westaway, R. (1994). Present-day kinematics of the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. J.
Geophys. Res., 99, 12071-12090.
Westaway, R. (2003).Kinematics of theMiddle East and Eastern Mediterranean Updated. Turkish
J. Earth Sci., 12, 5-56.
Yönlü, Ö., Altunel, E., Karabacak, V., and Akyüz, S.H., 2013. Evolution of the Gölbaşı basin andits implications for the long-term offset on the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey. Journalof Geodynamics, 65, 272-281.
Yönlü, O., Altunel, E., and Karabacak, V., 2017. Geological and geomorphological evidence forthe southwestern extension of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett., 469, 1–14, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2017.03.034.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center23

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 3.
Preliminary Analysis of Strong Ground Motion
Characteristics
For the expanded version of this chapter please visit
https://eerc.metu.edu.tr/en/system/files/documents/CH4_Strong_Ground_Motion_Report_202302-20.pdf
By:
Zeynep Gülerce(a,*), Ayşegül Askan(b), Özkan Kale(c), Abdullah Sandıkkaya(d), Nihat SinanIşık(e), Okan İlhan(f), Gizem Can(g), Makbule Ilgaç(h), A. Arda Özacar(b), Kemal Önder
Çetin(b)Burak Akbaş(b), Abdullah Altındal(b), Eyüp Sopacı(b), Mehmet Fırat Aydın(b), Baran
Güryuva(d), Onur Kanun(b), Kubilay Albayrak(b), Gamze Muratoğlu (b), Oguz Salih Okçu(d),Abdullah İçen(j)(a) Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye,
currently in International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, Vienna)(b) Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(c) TED University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(d) Hacettepe University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(e) Gazi University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(f) Yildirim Beyazit University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(g) Royal Haskoning DHV Resilience& Maritime-BL Maritime & Water, Netherlands(h) University of California, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Berkeley, USA(i) Atilim University, Civil Engineering Department Ankara, Türkiye(j) Munzur Universitesi, Civil Engineering Department Tunceli, Türkiye*

This is not an IAEA report and views expressed in any signed article do not represent
those of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the IAEA accepts no
responsibility for them.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center24

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

3. 1. Introduction
The mainshocks of February 6, 2023, Mw=7.7 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık and Mw=7.6 Elbistan
earthquakes and their aftershock sequences were recorded in a large region by the strong motion
stations operated by AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Presidency of Turkiye). The recordings andstation metadata are disseminated through AFAD’s website, soon after both earthquakes (1st eventat https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/event-detail/15499 and 2nd event at https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/eventdetail/15512, last accessed on February 12, 2023). The reconnaissance team downloaded the raw
strong motion data immediately after they were available. However, sharing the responsibility ofproviding accurate data sets to the scientific and earthquake engineering community, updates indata by AFAD’s personnel are being carefully monitored and changes have been implemented inthis report as much as possible. It is clear that these recordings are currently evaluated by AFAD
and improvements in data quality are expected in near future.
The longer version of this mini-chapter with detailed analyses of the full dataset from two events
can be found at here. In this preliminary report, selected ground motions from the first event arepresented.
The data from February 6, 2023 earthquakes were compiled, analyzed for data quality, andprocessed with the procedures given in Akkar et al. (2014). After the visual quality control anddata processing, 245 recordings from the first earthquake and 244 recordings from the second
earthquake have remained in the database. Figures 3.1(a) and (b) show the spatial distribution ofthese recordings for both events, respectively. Figure 3.1 also presents the location of the epicenters(yellow stars) and the surface projections of the estimated rupture planes for each earthquake (fordetails, please refer to Chapter 2).
3. 2. Information on Recorded Strong Ground Motions at Selected Stations
Peak ground motion amplitudes, significant duration, and Arias as well as Housner intensity valuesof these recordings within RRUP<100km are provided in here. Figure 3.2 display the data from thefirst event at the selected stations which are shown with red triangles in Figure 3.1. The 5%damped acceleration response spectra in these figures are compared against the design spectra
defined in the current seismic code of Türkiye (TBEC, 2019) for 475 and 2475-year return periods.
For the other stations please see here.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center25

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.1. Distribution of the strong motion stations that are located within 200km of the rupture
plane for (a) Mw=7.7 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık and (b) Mw=7.6 Elbistan earthquakes.
Station 2708 is located in İslahiye, Gaziantep, on a site with NEHRP site class C (site class ZC of
TBEC, 2019) with a rupture distance of 4 km. We note that multiple wave packets are observed in
the recorded accelerogram. Both the FAS and response spectra are computed based on the entire
time series including all wave packets provided by AFAD. The maximum horizontal PGA isrecorded in the EW direction as 1089 cm/s2. The vertical PGA value is recorded to be 977 cm/s2.
The broadband nature of the response spectrum is attributed to multiple wave packets observed inthis large event. Response spectra from both horizontal components show peaks in the short period
range. Despite being located on stiff soil conditions; the response spectra of the EW component
show clear amplifications also in the longer periods with a particular peak around 1.2 seconds. The
geometric mean of two horizontal response spectra exceeds the design spectrum corresponding toa return period of 475 years at almost all periods. The same geometric mean exceeds the design
spectrum for a return period of 2475 years for periods longer than 0.7 seconds. We note that there
are severe damages and collapses around this region based on the first observations in the field.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center26

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 3.2. Recorded three-component ground accelerations, corresponding Fourier amplitude
spectra (FAS), and response spectra (with 5% damping) in comparison with the most recent
building code (TBEC, 2019) at selected stations due to Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) event
Station 3126 is located in Antakya, on a site with NEHRP site class D (site class ZD of TBEC,
2019) with a rupture distance of 15.4 km. The maximum horizontal PGA is recorded in the NS
direction as 1210 cm/s2. The vertical PGA value is 1070 cm/s2. We observe that the accelerations
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center27

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

recorded in the vertical direction are similar to the horizontal ones in terms of frequency andamplitude contents. The response spectra of both EW and NS components indicate amplifications
around 0.3 seconds and they both exceed the design spectrum for a return period of 475 years. The
geometric mean is above the design spectrum for a return period of 2475 years for periods lessthan 0.4 seconds and below for longer periods.
Station 3138 is located in Hassa, Hatay on a site with NEHRP site class C (site class ZC of TBEC,
2019) with a rupture distance of 2 km. The acceleration records point out potential directivity
effects. When velocities are investigated, this record indicates forward directivity effects
characterized by short duration and high amplitude two-sided long-period velocity pulses. The
geometric mean of horizontal response spectra indicates broadband period content and exceeds thedesign spectrum for a return period of 475 years for periods longer than 0.4 seconds.
Station 4615 is located in Pazarcık on a site with NEHRP site class C (site class ZC of TBEC,
2019) at a rupture distance of 10.3 km. This record also displays broadband response spectra
possibly due to the multiple wave packets. The maximum PGA value is recorded in the verticalcomponent as 664 cm/s2. The geometric mean spectrum is observed to exceed the 475-year design
spectrum at periods larger than 0.5 s, and it is shown to be similar to the 2475-year design spectrum
at periods larger than 1 s.
3. 3. Spatial Distribution of Peak Ground Parameters from February 6 Earthquakes
Figure 3.3 and 3.4 summarizes the spatial distribution of peak ground acceleration and velocity
values from the Pazarcık and Elbistan earthquakes, respectively. When Figure 3.3 is investigated,
it is observed that the highest PGA values are recorded in Antakya, while very high PGA values
between 500-1000 cm/s2 are observed generally in the North-South direction, covering theprovinces of Kahramanmaraş, Gaziantep, Osmaniye, Kilis, and Hatay. The distribution of PGVvalues is more homogeneous compared to the PGA, with very high intensities at all stations close
to the rupture. The second event, Elbistan earthquake (Mw=7.6), is not as densely-recorded as the
Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) event. As the rupture is located to the north of the first event (Figure 3.4), theeffects of this event are felt more noticeably in the northern provinces in addition to
Kahramanmaraş, such as Adıyaman, Malatya, and Kayseri. The highest ground motion intensities
are generally observed in Kahramanmaraş.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center28

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes(a)(b)
Figure 3.3. Spatial distribution of intensity measure of Pazarcık earthquake (a) PGA, (b) PGV(a)(b)
Figure 3.4. Spatial distribution of intensity measure of Elbistan earthquake (a) PGA, (b) PGV
Finally, for detailed analyses of recorded strong ground motion data at other stations, information
on felt intensity values, comparisons against ground motion models, and initial analyses on site
amplifications please see here.
References
Akkar, S., Sandıkkaya, M.A., Şenyurt, M., Azari Sisi, A., Ay, B.Ö., Treversa, P., Douglas, J.,
Cotton, F., Luzi, L., Hernandez, B., Godey, S. 2014. “Reference Database for Seismic Ground
Motion in Europe (RESORCE)”. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 12:311–339.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9506-8
Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBEC) 2019. Ministry of Interior, Disaster and Emergency
Management Presidency (AFAD), Ankara, Turkiye.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center29

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 4.
Geotechnical Findings and the Performance of GeoStructures
By:
Kemal Önder Çetin(a), Candan Gökçeoğlu(b), Robb Eric Shedwick Moss(c), Makbule
Ilgaç(d), Gizem Can(e), Elife Çakır(a)Bilal Umut Aydın(a), Arda Şahin(a), Mehmet Türkezer(a), Berkan Söylemez(a), Soner Ocak(a),Hayri Güzel(a),(a) Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(b) Hacettepe University, Geological Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(c) California Polytechnic State University, Civil and Environmental Engineering, San
Luis Obispo, USA(d) University of California, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Berkeley, USA(e) Royal Haskoning DHV Resilience& Maritime-BL Maritime & Water, Netherlands

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center30

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. Geotechnical Observations
This chapter presents the preliminary findings of ongoing geotechnical reconnaissance studies
after the earthquakes. Several geotechnical reconnaissance teams were mobilized to the field tocollect and document perishable data. More specifically, these discussions will focus on the
documentation and preliminary assessments of geotechnical aspects, which are listed as i) seismic
soil liquefaction, ii) foundation performance, iii) deep excavations, iv) retaining structures, v)
rockfall, vi) tunnel performance, vii) slope stability, and viii) ground deformations, and ix) faulting
induced pipeline breakage.
4. 1. 1. Seismic Soil Liquefaction Manifestations
Seismic soil liquefaction-induced surface manifestations in the form of ejecta, lateral spreading,and subsidence were observed, as displayed in Figure 4.1 through Figure 4.3. Some of thesemanifestations were observed as in Figure 4.1 at free field sites. In addition to free field sites,
liquefaction surface manifestations were also observed in the vicinity of building foundations.
Figure 4.3 display the ejecta observed at the edges of residential building foundations.
The liquefaction phenomena were widely observed in Hatay-Paşaköy, Hatay-İskenderun,
Adıyaman-Gölbaşı, Adıyaman-Türkoğlu regions. Lateral spreading and subsidence wereaccompanied to liquefaction triggering at these sites.

(a)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center

(b)

(c)

31

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

Figure 4.1. Seismic soil liquefaction-induced surface manifestation: sand boils in free field
conditions: a) Hatay (36.36446° N, 36.28147°E), b) Kumlu / Hatay (36.35628°N, 36.39360°E), c)
Fatih District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.78080°N, 37.62888°E), d) İskenderun / Hatay (36.59323°
N, 36.18542°E), e) Emiroğlu / Kahramanmaraş (37.33689°N, 37.04538°E), f) Çay District /İskenderun / Hatay (36.59133°N, 36.17888°E) g) Dörtyol / Hatay (36.81878°N, 37.17770°E) h)
Emiroğlu / Kahramanmaraş (37.33722°N, 37.04549°E) i) Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.78655°N,
37.63155°E)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center32

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 4.2. Seismic soil liquefaction induced lateral spreadings in a) Çay District / İskenderun /Hatay (36.59281°N, 36.185977°), b) Özerli District / Dörtyol / Hatay (36.81294°N, 36.18123°E),c) Fatih District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.78023°N, 37.62858°E), d) İskenderun Port Area / Hatay(36.59991°N, 36.19274°E), e) İskenderun Port Area / Hatay (36.59991°N, 36.19274°E), f)İskenderun Port Area / Hatay (36.59991°N, 36.19274°E).

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center33

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 4.3. Seismic soil liquefaction-induced induced foundation problems in a) Çay District /İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N, 36.1790°E), b) Çay District / İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N,
36.1790°E), c) Çay District / İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N, 36.1790°E), d) Çay District /İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N, 36.1790°E)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center34

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. 2. Residential Building Foundation Performance
Many residential building foundations in Hatay-İskenderun, and Adıyaman-Gölbaşı regions were
subjected to excessive settlements and bearing capacity failures due to seismic soil liquefaction
initiation. The extent of these foundation settlements varies in the range of a couple of centimeters
to an excess of 80 cm. Moreover, differential settlements reach 30 cm, causing 5 to 10 degree
tilting of buildings. An extreme case of liquefaction-induced bearing capacity failure and topplingof a residential building in Adıyaman-Gölbaşı is shown in Figure 4.4 (e). Raft foundation thicknessof this building is measured as 80 cm.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)
Figure 4.4. Poor foundation performance in a) Çay District / İskenderun / Hatay (36.5911°N,
36.1790°E), b) Hürriyet District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.778°N 37.628°E), c) Yavuz Selim
District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.788°N, 37.642°E), d) Yavuz Selim District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman(37.788°N, 37.642°E), e) Yavuz Selim District / Gölbaşı / Adıyaman (37.78827°N 37.64879°E)
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center35

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. 3. Deep Excavations
The performance of deep excavation systems on the route was also investigated. Figure 4.5 (a) and(b) display Osmaniye-Bahçe underpass, which was supported by cantilever reinforced concrete
pile elements. No significant deformations were observed in the deep excavation support system.
Next to the site, there exists a tunnel portal structure. Figures 4.5 (c) and (d) show the portal
structure supported by reinforced concrete piles and strut elements.

(a)

(b)

(c)
(d)
Figure 4.5. Examples of deep excavations in a) Bahçe / Osmaniye (37.18845° N, 36.56326° E),b) Bahçe / Osmaniye (37.18939° N, 36.56402° E), c) Bahçe / Osmaniye (36.17313° N, 36.59912°
E), d) Bahçe / Osmaniye (36.17313° N, 36.59912° E)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center36

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. 4. Retaining Structures
A limited number of tilted and/or partially collapsed and collapsed walls were also observed. Somestone walls supporting highway cuts and fills were deformed or fully collapsed as shown in Figures
4.6 (a) and (b). However, mechanically stabilized earth fill walls widely used as approach fills forbridges perform extremely well under peak ground acceleration levels in excess of 1 g in Fevzipaşa
as shown in Figures 4.6 (c) and (d).

(a)

(b)

(c)
(d)
Figure 4.6. Some examples of retaining structures in a) Gökçedere/ Gaziantep (37.16439°N,
36.70672°E), b) Gökçedere/ Gaziantep (37.16546° N, 36.69749°E), c) Bahçe/ Osmaniye(37.18853°N, 36.56389°E), d) Bahçe/ Osmaniye (37.18844° N, 36.56476° E)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center37

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. 5. Rockfalls
Several rockfalls were observed by the benches of highways and some examples are shown in
Figures 4.7 (a) through (d).

(a)

(b)

(c)
(d)
Figure 4.7. Some examples of rockfalls in a) Bahçe / Osmaniye (37.17441°N, 36.65659°E), b)
Yolbağı District / Adıyaman (37.81795°N, 37.63311°E), c) Fevzi Paşa District / İslahiye/Gaziantep (37.09899° N, 36.65200 ° E), d) Fevzi Paşa District / İslahiye /Gaziantep (37.09713°
N, 36.65170 ° E)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center38

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. 6. Tunnels
Tunnel structures in general performed well during and after the event. Except for minor damage
observed in Erkenek tunnel lining, no major deformations were mapped. Some pictures fromongoing Bahçe-Nurdağ railway tunnel construction site are shown in Figure 4.8. The structuraland geotechnical performance of them is reported to be superior. More about tunnels will be
discussed in Chapter 6.

Figure 4.8. Bahçe-Nurdağı railway tunnels under construction in Nurdağı/ Gaziantep(37.16989°N, 36.70806°E)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center39

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. 7. Landslides
Several landslides with dimensions varying from a scale of a couple of meters to hundreds ofmeters were documented as part of reconnaissance studies. Some of these are shown in Figures
4.9 (a) through (c).

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 4.9. Some examples of slope stability problems in a) Gölbaşı/ Adıyaman (37.79783°N,
37.66232°E), b) Yolbağı District / Adıyaman (37.81806°N, 37.63297°E), c) Belen / Hatay(36.48363°N, 36.27158°E)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center40

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. 8. Ground Deformations
Along the route, several ground deformations either due to primary, secondary, or tertiary faulting
or due to seismic soil liquefaction were mapped. Figures 4.10 (a) through (d) display these grounddeformations.

(a)

(b)

(c)
(d)
Figure 4.10. Observation of surface rupture trace in a) Balkar / Adıyaman (37.73610°N,
37.56842°E), b) Erenler District / İslahiye / Gaziantep (37.03931°N, 36.62868°E), E), c) Yavuz
Selim District / Adıyaman (37.79645°N, 37.66021°E), d) Balkar / Adıyaman (37.73492°N,
37.56617°)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center41

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

4. 1. 9. Faulting induced Pipeline breakage
Pipelines were observed to be damaged after the earthquakes and some examples of the damaged
pipeline and cables are shown in Figures 4.11 (a) and (b).

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.11. Pipeline damages in a) Erenler District / İslahiye / Gaziantep (36.04621°N,
36.62936°E), b) Çay District / İskenderun / Hatay (36.59038°N, 36.17893°E)

Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge the funding provided for the fieldwork by The
Scientific and Technological Research Institution of Turkiye (TÜBİTAK) “1002-C Natural
Disasters-Focused Fieldwork Emergency Support Program (Doğal Afetler Odaklı Saha Çalışması
Acil Destek Programı)”.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center42

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 5.
Performance of Residential Structures
By:Barış Binici(a), Ahmet Yakut(a), Erdem Canbay(a), İsmail Ozan Demirel(a), Mevlüt
Kahraman(b), Altuğ Erberik(a), İsmail Özgür Yaman(a), Eray Baran(a), Afşin Canbolat(c),Koray Kadaş(c), Orkun Öztaşkın(c), Selin Aktaş(a)(a) Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(b) Bilkent University, Construction works, Ankara, Türkiye(c) Middle East Technical University, Offıce of Revolving Funds (DSIM), Ankara,
Türkiye

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center43

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

5. 1. Performance of Buildings
Pazarcık and Elbistan-Kahramanmaraş earthquakes were one of the most destructive earthquakes,
if not the most, experienced in Türkiye in the last century. Unlike previous earthquakes for which
the damage has usually concentrated in a certain city, the building damage spread to eleven cities.
The building damage inventory collected as of February 16, 2023, is given in Table 5.1. Based on
this inventory, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Gaziantep, Adıyaman and Malatya experienced extensive
damage due to the proximity of these cities to the faults, whereas the number of buildings collapsedin Kilis, Adana, Diyarbakır, Osmaniye, Şanlıurfa and Elazığ is smaller.
The intensity of the ground motion, the structural system, design, and construction quality were
decisive in the building performance. The acceleration response spectra for the recorded motionsin Göksun, Kahramanmaraş, Narlı, Hatay, Fevzipaşa, Malatya are presented in Chapter 3. It canbe observed that design response spectra for residential buildings (i.e. maximum design earthquakewith a return period of 475 years) are exceeded for a wide period range, whereas the maximum
credible earthquake level (return period of 2475 years) response spectra is generally exceeded forlong periods especially in soft soils, in certain regions. This implies that in Gaziantep (İslahiye andNurdağı districts), Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, and Adıyaman the buildings were subjected to seismic
actions larger than Turkish Earthquake Code design levels.
The building damage inventory in the region can be divided into two, based on their construction
periods. A significant change is believed to occur in Türkiye between 1998 and 2001 due to thefollowing four factors:- A modern earthquake code was put into effect on September 2, 1998,- Two destructive earthquakes occurred on August 17, and November 12, 1999, in Kocaeli andDüzce awakening awareness for seismic resistance,- A modern reinforced concrete design guideline (TS-500) come to force on October 12, 2000,
making ready mix concrete and ductile low carbon content steel as reinforcement,- Building Inspection Law enacted on July 13, 2001, for 19 pilot cities including Gaziantep andHatay. This law was extended to the whole country in 2010.
We divided our reconnaissance into two groups: reinforced concrete (RC) buildings constructed
before and after 2002, based on the information collected at the building sites.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center44

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Table 5.1. Identified Building Damage Distribution (Ministry of Environment, Urbanization andClimate Change)

5. 1. 1. Performance of RC Buildings Before 2000
Typical deficiencies of the frame buildings constructed before 2000 were the use of smoothreinforcing bars, insufficient steel reinforcement detailing and possibly low concrete strength
resulting in heavy damage and collapse (Figure 5.1). The presence of soft story in the ground levelor above the plinth was one of the key reasons of collapse in many buildings. The use of the groundfloors as commercial stores with little or no infill walls were responsible for plastic hinging incolumns occurred resulting in pancake type collapse as observed in previous earthquakes (Kocaeli
1999, Van 2011). This is displayed in Figure 5.2. Several buildings have experienced beam-column
joint failures. Another interesting type of failure was the overturning of the building from its basedue the inability of transferring lateral forces to the foundation (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.1. Building Collapse in Antakya and Kahramanmaraş

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center45

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 5.2. Building Collapse in Malatya

Figure 5.3. Overturning due to soil liquefaction and insufficient joint reinforcement detailing5. 1. 2. Performance of RC Buildings After 2000
These buildings presumed to be designed and constructed according to the codes performed better
than the older buildings. However, more than 1000 buildings constructed after 2000 were heavily
damaged or collapsed violating the code given performance objective. This appears to be an
important observation demanding further investigations on the design and construction quality of
those buildings. Some examples of these heavily damaged buildings are shown in Figure 5.4. The
possible reasons for these damages can be attributed to i) the use of flexible joist slabs as
diaphragms, ii) insufficient engineering design to distribute lateral forces to vertical load bearing
elements perhaps due to the blind use of building design softwares, iii) possible detailing errors onbuilding construction site, iv) underestimation of seismic demands, iv) insufficient investigations
geotechnical site investigations prior to building construction and poor foundation design
especially in Hatay and Gölbaşı regions. Such heavy damage observed in new buildings bringconcerns about the target seismic performance of residential buildings nearly in compliant withthe current seismic code. The significant disruption of city life, heavy monetary loss, and long
recovery times may require reassessing the performance targets of buildings.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center46

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Tunnel form buildings in the region performed in an outstanding manner (Figure 5.5) with somedamage in the coupling beams and infill walls due to the following key reasons: i) the use of moreshear wall area more than usually 2.5% of the floor area, ii) siting at stiff soil or rock sites, iii) midrise construction ranging from (4 to 8 stories). This performance provided further confidence inthe use of significant shear wall area for the buildings constructed in high seismic zones.

”
Figure 5.4. Heavily damaged new buildings in Adıyaman and İslahiye

Figure 5.5. Performance of a tunnel form building
5. 1. 3. Performance of Precast Buildings
Industrial Regions in Kahramanmaraş and Gaziantep have many precast concrete buildings with
one or two stories. Typical main direction of the buildings has a span of about 20 m, and the otherdirection has a span of 7.5 m. The story heights vary between 7 to 10 m. The building frame
columns are fixed at the base with a socket connection, whereas the prestressed (for long spans)roof girders are pinned to the column corbels usually with two grouted anchors embedded into thecorbels. Typical buildings are shown in Figure 5.6. Two buildings that were under construction
collapsed due to overturning of the girders. The failure is assumed to be initiated at the pin
connections under the lateral force demands. Interestingly no indication of column base hinging
was observed. In Gaziantep, most of the prefabricated buildings showed satisfactory performance.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center47

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

In a few lightly damaged buildings, the typical damage was observed in column corbels due to thegirder rotations causing local crushing of concrete, which is repairable (Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.6. Overview of precast industrial building connection damage in Kahramanmaraş

Figure 5.7. Corbel damages in Gaziantep
5. 1. 4. Performance of Non-Structural Elements
One of the most important non-structural damage in the region was observed in the infill walls.
Several levels of damage events were observed depending on the strong ground motion levels(Figure 5.8). At low ground motion levels (< 0.1 g), the infill wall-column/beam interfaces cracked.
At moderate levels, the infill walls sustained inclined cracks with varying widths (0.5-2 mm).
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center48

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Under such damage, despite the absence of any structural damage, the occupants safely left thebuilding and were reluctant to occupy the building after the earthquake. Similar to our pastobservations after 2011 Van earthquake, the infill walls are observed to be the key components toestablish the damage state of a building affecting the psychology of the occupants. The infill wallconstruction technique suggested in the latest seismic code in 2019 did not seem to be applied inany of the recent buildings. For regions that have experienced accelerations well over the design
values, the infill walls were severely damaged and failed under combined in and out of plane. Infill
wall damage was observed in buildings constructed both before and after year 2002 exhibiting no
significant difference in their performance. Furthermore, the damage was similar in all the infill
walls made of hollow clay brick, autoclaved aerated concrete or bims blocks, indicating that noneof the block materials showed superior seismic performance.

Figure 5.8. Infill wall damage examples
5. 1. 5. Performance of Masonry Buildings
Masonry construction constitutes the second largest type in Turkish building inventory. Although
the percentage of masonry buildings in urban areas is low, it is more common in rural areas. Similar
to the other buildings, non-engineered masonry building stock in the region either sufferedsignificant damage or collapsed under the two earthquake motions (Figure 5.9). However, thecollapse of masonry buildings constructed with relatively better materials having 1-3 stories wasless compared to 8-10 story RC buildings. It appears that the height and rigidity of the buildings
played an important role. Besides, many historical masonry buildings suffered heavy damage orcollapse due to strong shakings that they experienced.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center49

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 5.9. Damage in masonry structures
5. 1. 6. Performance of Strengthened Buildings
One building strengthened in 2008 by the METU team with the addition of shear walls, fiber
reinforced polymers was visited in Hatay. None of the strengthened buildings collapsed whilesome damage was observed, as shown in Figure 5.10. These observations that will be extended infurther site visits seem to encourage the wider spread application of building strengthening.

Figure 5.10. Performance of the strengthened building in Hatay
5. 1. 7. Performance of Electrical Substation Buildings
Service buildings (typically 1-2 stories) in twenty-three substations were visited to check thedamage levels. The locations of the substations are shown in Figure 5.11. It can be observed thatsome of the substations are located in close proximity to strong ground shaking. However, none of
the switch yard or control buildings were heavily damaged to disrupt the operation of thesubstations. It can be stated that the successful building performance of the substation buildings
allowed continuous electricity transmission in the earthquake region.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center50

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 5.11. PGA distribution and substation locations (Yellow: Strong motion instruments, Blueand Green: Substation Locations)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center51

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 6.
Performance of Bridges and Tunnels
By:
Alp Caner(a), Kemal Önder Çetin(a), Candan Gökçeoğlu(b)(a) Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(b) Hacettepe University, Geological Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center52

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

6. 1. Bridge and Tunnel Condition Assessment
In the successive major earthquakes, no collapse or loss of lives was observed or reported
associated with poor bridge and tunnel performances. In the disaster region, there are more than
1000 bridges. Only 15 bridges were affected by these events, and about 50% were opened to traffic
within a day after the shakings. One railway tunnel, near Ozan village, Gölbaşı was severely
damaged by the earthquakes. This tunnel was constructed in the 1940s, and it is a stone-lining
tunnel. Except this tunnel, the remaining tunnels performed well with some minor damages.
Linings experienced some concrete spalling, and some minor portal damages were observed.
More specifically, no serious damages were observed in the tunnels constructed in the last three
decades. The Nurdağı Portal of the Bahçe-Nurdağı Tunnel twin tunnels, the longest railway tunnels
of Türkiye with a length of approximately 10 km, is near the active fault. The portals and thesegments experienced no damage. However, some rockfalls were observed in the Nurdağı Portalof this tunnel. Additionally, the Tarsus-Gaziantep Motorway Tunnels between Bahçe and Nurdağı
showed a good performance. Visible signs of damage were not observed, and they were open to
traffic. It can always be expected that damaged structures in the region may collapse undersubsequent earthquakes in the future. For example, it has been observed several times that someof the damaged structures after the first earthquake collapsed in the second earthquake
The typical observed engineering problems are:-

Bearing and joints movements-

Expansion joint movements-

Abutment approach fill settlement-

Pounding at expansion joints-

Shear key damage-

Soil liquefaction-

Column concrete spalling and start of plastic hinges

Examples of bridges and tunnels can be seen in the following figures.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center53

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 6.1. Abutment rotation due to seismic soil liquefaction induced foundation failure

Figure 6.2. Joint movements

Figure 6.3. Concrete spalling

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center54

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 6.4. Bearing dislocation and movement

Figure 6.5. Rail misalignment

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center55

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 6.6. Shear key damage

Figure 6.7. Abutment wall concrete spalling

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center56

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 6.8. Bridge typical have no damage

Figure 6.9. Tunnel portal movement and concrete spalling

Figure 6.10. Nurdağı portal of Bahçe-Nurdağı railway tunnels
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center57

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 7.
Coastal Structures in the Gulf of İskenderun andTsunami in The Eastern Mediterranean
By:
Ahmet Cevdet Yalçıner(a), Gözde Güney Doğan(a), Işıkhan Güler(a), Bilge Karakütük(a),Furkan Demir(a), Didem Cambaz(b), Vassilios Skanavis(c), Costas Synolakis(c,d)(a) Middle East Technical University, Ocean Engineering Research Center, Ankara,
Türkiye(b) Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Insitute, İstanbul,
Türkiye(c) Academy of Athens, Greece(d) University of Southern California, USA

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center58

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

7. 1. Coastal Structures in the Gulf of İskenderun and Tsunami in The Eastern
Mediterranean
After the 06 February 2023 01:17 (UTC) event, as the Tsunami Service Provider, KOERI issued
four tsunami messages with a tsunami warning 15 min (after the earthquake) with expectedtsunami amplitudes above 0.5 m along the southern coast of Türkiye. As one of the UNESCO IOCNEAMTWS (UNESCO, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Northeast Atlantic,
Mediterranean, and the connected seas Tsunami Warning System) Tsunami Service Provider,Boğaziçi University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI) issued four
tsunami messages according to the decision matrix based on earthquake magnitude and location,with a tsunami warning 15 min (after the earthquake) with expected tsunami amplitudes above 0.5
m along the southern coast of Türkiye. Although the epicenter is ~90 km inland, the earthquake
generated a tsunami, which is measured at four tide gauge stations, (İskenderun-Arsuz, Erdemli,Gazimagusa (Famagusta), and Girne (Kerinya) in the Eastern Mediterranean. The recorded water
motions have been analyzed after deciding to distinguish the arrival time of the wave and the
profile of the water level fluctuations. The tide gauge record in Arsuz shows a ~14 cm positive and~10 cm negative tsunami amplitude with approximately a 10 min wave period. The arrival timesof the first and maximum waves are around 25 min and 33 min after the earthquake, respectively.
The first wave arrivals are around 36 min at Gazimagusa (Famagusta) and 48 min at Erdemli and
Girne (Kerinya) stations. The maximum tsunami amplitudes are measured as 13 cm at Erdemli (54min), and 17 cm at Gazimagusa (Famagusta) (65 min).
Although the tsunami event is small-scale, scientific investigation and understanding of the source
location and the generation mechanism are important for possible future tsunami events andpreparedness. The tsunami has also been a test for the effective working and communication of
the early warning system in the area. For the assessment of the 6 February 2023 small amplitude
tsunami, numerical simulations are performed using the tsunami numerical model NAMI DANCE.
For topography and bathymetry EMODnet (https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en/bathymetry, ~105 m
resolution) and ASTER (https://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/gdem.asp, ~30 m resolution) data are used.
The modeling database is established as a 100 m grid size covering the Eastern Mediterranean.
The arrival times of the waves at the four tide gauges indicate a possible tsunami origin North of
Samandağ near Kale cape with a source of bipolar elliptical subsidence and uplift shape (Figure
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center59

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

7.1 (a)). Mass movements are possible atypical (nonseismic) tsunami sources but those hypotheses
regarding this event need more data and further analysis. The distribution of the maximum water
elevations computed by 120-minute simulations of the possible source considered in the North ofÇevlik is given in Figure 7.1 (b).
The February 6, 2023, tsunami needs to be well understood in terms of the source areas andgeneration mechanisms. A field survey is performed on February 11-13, 2023, to investigate thetsunami traces, conduct eyewitness interviews, identify the types and locations of the possible
sources, and investigate the damage to the coastal structures. The field survey covered the coast of
the Gulf of Iskenderun from Karatas (West) to Samandağ-Çevlik (East).

(a)

(b)

Figure 7.1 a) The location of the possible source of small amplitude tsunami and the tide gauge
stations, and b) distribution of maximum water elevations computed from the possible source,
North of Cevlik
Simulations are performed using the survey findings and the numerical results are compared withthe tide gauge measurements. Figure 7.2 shows the comparison of the measured (black) andcomputed (blue) time histories at four tide gauge stations. The additional time histories ofmodeling results are presented for the localities near Karataş, Yumurtalık, and Çevlik fishery ports,
where the eyewitness observations are collected from the fishermen or coast guard staff. The
arrival times of the first wave nearly fit with the measured data. However, more detailed modelingstudies are required to determine the location and type of the source when new data is collected by
new field studies.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center60

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 7.2 The comparison of the measured (black) and computed (blue) time histories of water
surface fluctuations at four tide gauge stations (first column) and computed time histories nearKarataş, Yumurtalık and Çevlik fishery ports, where only eyewitness observations (second
column) could be obtained.
Some of the pictures taken during the field survey are also presented in Figures 7.3 and 7.4. Figure
7.3 shows the traces of the coastal inundation observed in the morning after the earthquake near
the Samandağ fishery port at Çevlik village. Figure 7.4 shows the damages to the coastal structure
and the pier of İskenderun fishery port, which are the results of the coastal subsidence at thereclamation area, backside of the fishery port, and nearby coastal region.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center61

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 7.3 Coastal Inundation and traces, South of Samandağ-Çevlik Fishery Port

Figure 7.4 Structural damage at İskenderun Fishery Port
Days after the earthquake, considerable water inundation has been observed behind and on theeastern side of the İskenderun Fishery port, which has drawn the attention of the general public toconsider the tsunami as a reason. However, the observations and evidence obtained during the fieldsurvey clearly identified that the reason was the subsidence of the coastal area behind the fishery
port during the earthquake shaking most probably due to the liquefaction or similar means. Duringhigh tide (because of full moon days), seawater gradually invaded the subsided area and could not
be drained because of collapsed surface water drainage system. Therefore, the phenomenon that
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center62

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

occurred in the area is the gradual invasion of seawater by the high tide during the full moon phaseto the area, where the ground subsided considerably.
The report will be updated with new data from the field and with new simulations using a higherresolution database and other possible source alternatives.

Acknowledgments: This study is supported by TUBITAK 1002 C Quick Support Grant, METU,
Bogazici University and European Commission European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid
Operations DG-ECHO funded UNESCO-CoastWAVE Project. Headquarter of General Commandof Turkish Coast Guard and commanders of Coast Guard in the bases of Iskenderun Bay facilitatedthe survey significantly. Zülfikar İnönü Tümer, Saffet Aslan, Erdinç Altıok, Emin Bilen Tümer
are acknowledged for their valuable support and logistics. Semih Taş, Ömür Küçükkör andMustafa Ünlü are also acknowledged for their collaboration and valuable eyewitness information.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center63

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 8.
Preliminary Reconnaissance Observations on Lifelines
After 6 February 2023 Earthquakes in Türkiye
By:
Nejan Huvaj(a), Volkan Kalpakcı(b), Şevki Öztürk(c), Tamer Y. Duman(d), Eray Baran(a),Burak Talha Kılıç(a), Ali Serdar Uysal(d), Suat Dalkılıç(e), Emre Dalkılıç(e), Onur Pekcan(a)(a) Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(b) GEOCE, Ankara, Türkiye(c) Çankaya University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, Türkiye(d) Fugro Sial, Ankara, Türkiye(e) EMAD Enerji Harita, Ankara, Türkiye

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center64

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

8. 1. Introduction
Lifelines provide flow of resources and services that sustain communities and they are typicallycomposed of linear, connected networks such as transportation corridors (highways, roads,
railways, tunnels), water distribution pipelines, electric power transmission systems, gas and liquid
fuel, communication networks/systems as well as other critical infrastructure such as airports,
ports, and harbors. Lifeline systems have different, and perhaps more complex, vulnerabilities toearthquakes as compared to individual buildings and industrial structures. Disruptions in lifelines
can lead to regional, national social, and economic impacts. Lifelines are constructed over broad
geographical areas and they are interdependent, i.e. the disruption of one lifeline system may affectthe performance of another. For example, water pumping stations or equipment control in liquid
fuel and natural gas pipeline systems may use the energy provided by electric power networks.
When multiple different lifelines gather or pass through the same area, all are vulnerable todisruption from a single cause, such as an earthquake.
In this section, we briefly describe the preliminary observations on the performance of lifeline
system infrastructure in the region after the 6 February 2023 earthquakes in Türkiye. The
preliminary fieldwork was conducted on 10-12 February 2023 (during 13-14 February 2023 somemembers of the team continued the field survey) in Kahramanmaraş and Gaziantep by a teamcomposed of Nejan Huvaj, Volkan Kalpakcı, Şevki Öztürk, Eray Baran, Tamer Y. Duman, Burak
Talha Kılıç, Ali Serdar Uysal, Suat Dalkılıç, and Emre Dalkılıç. We would like to acknowledge
the funding provided for the fieldwork by The Scientific and Technological Research Institutionof Turkey (TÜBİTAK) “1002-C Natural Disasters-Focused Fieldwork Emergency Support
Program (Doğal Afetler Odaklı Saha Çalışması Acil Destek Programı)”. The preliminary objectiveof the reconnaissance efforts was to document the effects of the earthquakes on lifelines including
the performances of railway systems, highways, water and gas pipelines as well as electrictransmission systems, and to collect and document perishable data.
8. 2. Brief Information about the Critical Infrastructure in The Region
The lifelines in the study area support eleven cities with a total population of 14,013,196 people,
constituting 16.4% of the 2022 population of Türkiye, which is 85,279,553 (data from Turkish
Statistical Institute, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-SistemiMETU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center65

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Sonuclari-2022-49685, accessed on 17.02.2023). Some of the biggest cities (in terms of their 2022
population) that are significantly impacted by the earthquakes in the region are: Adana 2,274,106
population; Gaziantep 2,154,051; Hatay 1,686,043, Kahramanmaraş 1,177,436; Adıyaman
635,169; Malatya 812,580.
In order to demonstrate the size and distribution of the lifeline networks in the region, few
examples of critical infrastructure maps (highways and railways) are provided (Figure 1). State
Highway Agency, KGM, and State Railway Agency (TCDD) are the national authorities
responsible for highways and railways, respectively. These maps, when considered together with
their proximity to the epicenters of both earthquakes (approximately placed as star symbols in
Figure 1), as well as the active fault lines in the region, can help visualize the scale of the possible
impact on the lifelines over a large geographic area.

(a)

(b)

F
i
g
u
r
As for the state of damage and serviceability of the airports, railways and roads as well as gas andeelectricity services in the region after the two earthquakes, the information from National Disaster
Agency (AFAD), provided on 06.02.2023, at 15:35 local time (few hours after the 2nd earthquake),8
published at The Press Bulletin No. 6 (https://www.afad.gov.tr/kahramanmaras-pazarcikta1 a) Parts of the state highway network in the region (source: State Highway Agency, KGM
website,https://www.kgm.gov.tr/SiteCollectionImages/KGMimages/Haritalar/b5.jpg),b) Parts
66
METU- Earthquake
Engineering Research Center
Centerof the state railway network in the region (source: Turkish State Railway Agency website:
https://static.tcdd.gov.tr/webfiles/userfiles/files/genel/tcddharita.pdf )Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

meydana-gelen-deprem-hk-basin-bulteni6) noted that Kahramanmaraş, Gaziantep, Hatay airports
were closed to operation due to damages caused by the earthquakes and electricity could not beprovided to 27 communities/neighborhoods in the region (including Kahramanmaraş city,
Osmaniye Bahçe-Düziçi, and some parts of Malatya city) due to earthquake-caused damages.
Emergency repair works were carried out and alternative electricity resources were put into service
and electricity was provided to Kahramanmaraş city within twenty-four hours after the 1st
earthquake. As time went by, further checks were carried out by relevant state and local agencies
and updates were given by AFAD on the state of lifelines. Information from National Disaster
Agency (AFAD), on 07.02.2023, at 12:10 local time, published at The Press Bulletin No.10 of
AFAD(https://www.afad.gov.tr/kahramanmaras-pazarcikta-meydana-gelen-deprem-hk-basin-

bulteni10) noted that Kahramanmaraş and Hatay airports were closed to service due to damages
caused by the earthquakes; Gaziantep and Şanlıurfa airports were open to aid flights; and Malatya,
Adana, Diyarbakır, Adıyaman airports were open to service. Railway service through FevzipaşaNarlı, Narlı-Gaziantep, Narlı-Malatya railway lines were closed to service; Malatya-Çetinkaya,
Malatya-Yolçatı railway lines were open to emergency use, and Ulukışla-Adana, Adana-Mersin,
Adana-Toprakkale, Yolçatı-Diyarbakır, Yolçatı-Elazığ, Elazığ-Tatvan railway lines were open torail traffic. In terms of roads, Adıyaman-Çelikhan road, Osmaniye-Gaziantep direction, HatayReyhanlı state highway, Hatay Kırıkhan-Topboğaz roads were closed to traffic; AdıyamanÇelikhan-Sürgü Road Balık Burnu bridge has collapsed; Adıyaman Gölbaşı-Malatya Sürgü roadwas closed due to landslides and Şanlıurfa-Gaziantep road was open to traffic. Soon after,
emergency repair and recovery operations were carried out by all relevant state agencies.
BOTAŞ Petroleum Pipeline Corporation is the state-owned crude oil and natural gas pipelines andtrading company in Türkiye, which provides natural gas service in the region. TEİAŞ, Turkish
Electricity Transmission Corporation, a government-owned corporation, is the transmission
system operator for electricity in Türkiye. According to the State National Television TRT’s press
quotes of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources of Türkiye, Mr. Fatih Dönmez, published
on 06.02.2023, there were some damages and disruptions in the electricity and natural gas
infrastructure on the day of the earthquakes (https://www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/bakandonmez-deprem-bolgesinde-enerji-hatlarinda-hasarlar-var-743813.html,

accessedon

17.02.2023), however, immediate repair efforts and utilization of alternative solutions helped a

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center67

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

quick recovery in the infrastructure system. For example, electricity was brought to the city of
Kahramanmaraş within 24 hours of the first earthquake.
One of the significant damages was observed in the main natural gas transmission line, in Türkoğlu
county, which is located near the epicenter of the one of the earthquakes, and serves the cities of
Kahramanmaraş, Gaziantep, Hatay according to the Ministry of Energy’s TRT news quote.
According to the Information Note released by BOTAŞ, the gas supply was remotely cut-off rightafter the earthquakes. Critical facilities in the region were immediately supplied with CNG and
LNG while repair works were ongoing. According to the press quotes of the Ministry of Energy
and Natural Resources of Türkiye published on 11.02.2023, this natural gas transmission line was
repaired and put back into service on 11.02.2023 (https://www.dunya.com/gundem/bakandonmez-acikladi-deprem-bolgesindeki-evlere-elektrik-verilecek-mi-haberi-685515, accessed on
17.02.2023). However, in areas where building damages were significant, gas supply is notconnected to buildings unless the building safety level and the safety of the gas transmission
system are confirmed. Finally, as part of precautionary measures, controls on the pipelines
designed according to ASME Standart B31.8 continue uninterruptedly in the fault approachregions or inevitable crossings due to the faults.
8. 3. Field Observations on Lifelines
The region has been particularly affected by ground rupturing (left-lateral slip motion) of the faults
and intense seismic shaking, demonstrated by typically observed damages such as:-

Surface fault rupture-induced deformations, offset, buckling, uplift and subsidence onasphalt roads, highways, railway tracks as well as on unpaved roads and farmlands-

Landslides and rockfalls triggered by the earthquakes disrupting the road and railway
networks-

Ground deformation-triggered damage and partial disruption of the water pipeline systems-

Cracks, tilt, lateral displacement and damages on retaining walls-

Damages caused by ground deformations on airport pavements and access roads-

Tilt and damages on electric poles, buried utilities, broken underground pipelines

Examples of such damages can be seen in the following figures.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center68

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 8.2. Areal view of the surface fault rupture and examples of damages caused by the twoearthquakes on some of the lifelines: railway line, roads and water distribution network, near Narlı,
Kahramanmaraş (Satellite images are provided by Turkish General Directorate of Maps via
atlas.harita.gov.tr website)

Figure 8.3. Referring to Figure 2 for locations of the photos: offset on the road due to surface fault
rupture, railway embankment slope instability, water pipeline repair works and a tilted electric polecan be seen, near Narlı, Kahramanmaraş. (Active fault data is taken from Emre et al. (2013)
published by the General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, MTA (Maden Tetkik
ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü)).
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center69

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 8.4. Surface rupture, offset, cracks and damages on railway tracks and roads, as well as adamaged electric tower, near the surface rupture (Narlı, Kahramanmaraş). (Active fault data istaken from Emre et al. (2013)).

Figure 8.5. A landslide and crack/damages on the road next to a water canal, causing significant
lateral displacement of a concrete retaining wall (pushed towards the water canal), a tilt on anelectric pole, in southern part of the city of Kahramanmaraş (active fault data from Emre et al.
(2013)).

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center70

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 8.6. Surface rupture observations causing a 3.6 m offset on Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş
road, cracks on the asphalt road at several locations, road embankment instability and more than
250 m-long longitudinal cracks at the top of the road embankment as well as on the asphalt road,near Kapıçam, Kahramanmaraş (Satellite images are provided by Turkish General Directorate ofMaps via atlas.harita.gov.tr website)

Figure 8.7. Referring to Figure 6 for the location: surface rupture observations and 3.6 m offset
on Gaziantep-Kahramanmaraş road (active fault data from Emre et al. (2013)).

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center71

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 8.8. Landslides and surface cracks on the roads, near Kartal and Yarbaşı, Kahramanmaraş
(Active fault data from Emre et al. (2013)).

Figure 8.9. Landslides, rockfalls and surface cracks on the roads, near Fevzipaşa, Gaziantep
causing disruption in the service (Active fault data from Emre et al. (2013)).
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center72

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge the funding provided for the fieldwork by The
Scientific and Technological Research Institution of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) “1002-C Natural
Disasters-Focused Fieldwork Emergency Support Program (Doğal Afetler Odaklı Saha Çalışması
Acil Destek Programı)”.

References:
Emre, Ö., Duman, T.Y., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, Ş. ve Şaroğlu, F., 2013, Açıklamalı Türkiye
Diri Fay Haritası. Ölçek 1:1.250.000, Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, Özel Yayın
Serisi-30, Ankara-Türkiye. ISBN: 978-605-5310-56-1), published by the General Directorate ofMineral Research and Exploration, MTA (Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü)).
ASME Standart B31.8 (Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center73

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 9.
Preliminary Structural Performance Summary ofHistoric Structures
By:
Ahmet Türer(a)(a) Middle East Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering, Ankara, Türkiye

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center74

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

9. 1. Introduction
Structural evaluation of historic structures which are part of architectural heritage in Türkiye isimportant with regards to i) restoration maintenance related issues from conservation ofarchitectural heritage point of view and ii) earthquake performance of historic masonry structures
as a part of civil engineering practice. A site visit to Malatya and Elazığ cities was carried out as ateam effort together with T.R. Directorate General of Foundations - Republic of Türkiye Ministryof Culture and Tourism. Some of the mosques and mausoleums were visited after the earthquake;
this chapter summarizes the preliminary performance evaluation of visited sites (historic mosques,minarets, and mausoleums) as well as gathered information on Gaziantep Castle and a church
performance from Hatay.
9. 2. Visual Inspection of the Historic Structures
Southeastern Türkiye has a rich cultural heritage structure stock that is in the form of houses,
bridges, earliest churches, synagogues, mosques, castles, and listed UNESCO World Heritage Sites(Figure 9.1)1. The eleven cities that are affected by the recent earthquakes (Figure 9.2)2 are listed
as Kahramanmaraş (520), Gaziantep (906), Malatya (685), Diyarbakır (1113), Kilis (420),Şanlıurfa (1764), Adıyaman (144), Hatay (1099), Osmaniye (161), Adana (874), Elazığ (301) 3
and contains about 8 thousand registered cultural heritage. Malatya and Elazığ cities were selected
for evaluation of historic structures since cities closer to the epicenter were more difficult to accesssince the survivor rescue missions were given the priority. About a dozen structures in Malatya
and about 20 sites in Elazığ were visually investigated on site. Additional few historic structures
were also evaluated based on visual information obtained from the internet using satellite imaging
and photos on the news. These are the Gaziantep Castle, Antakya Rum Orthodox Church, andAntakya Protestant Church. Damage patterns are investigated and briefly reported.

https://globalheritagefund.org/places/mena/https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4892096,35.1985455,7z/data=!4m2!21m1!1s%2Fg%2F11shww_tpt
3
Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Culture and Tourism data, gathered by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nurdan Kuban, Kocaeli
Univ.
1
2

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center75

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

9

Figure 9.2 Cities affected by the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes including Malatya and Elazığ.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center76

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

The first earthquake’s epicenter distance to Malatya and Elazığ cities is about 165 km and 250 km,
respectively; while, the second earthquake epicenter to Malatya and Elazığ is about 100 km and
190 km, respectively (Figure 9.3) and has been more damaging for these two cities than the firstone. Malatya being about half distance closer to both earthquakes with respect to Elazığ, thedamage is expected to be larger in Malatya. Most devastating damage was observed at central
Malatya, a relatively large mosque with the name Yeni Cami (new mosque, about 100 years old)
suffered significant damage and major collapse. Before and after earthquake pictures (Figure 9.4)
of Yeni Cami show the level of damage; which raised concerns since the mosque was recently
renovated and strengthened. Although a thorough investigation is necessary before any
conclusions can be drawn, the collapsed newly added buttress and insufficient anchorage to theexisting walls seem to be one of the factors that went wrong.
Other historic structures in Malatya region were investigated in the Eski (old) Malatya part of thecity, which resided most of the historic structures. About 12 mosques and mausoleums wereobserved in this area with minor to medium damage, but total collapse was not observed. The
common damage and failure types may be listed as:a) Minaret top cracked and slightly moved,b) Minaret body had a horizontal crack towards the bottom but remained in position,c) Perpendicular wall connection had a slight crack which is minor and may be fixed withpaint,d) Vaults were cracked at the top crest indicating compression levels exceeding material
capacity,e) Some newly constructed buttresses failed because of insufficient anchorage length and lackof interlocking between wall and buttress stones.
In addition to these mentioned damage mechanisms, some of the walls have been noticed to crack
diagonally and compression failure by dislocated stones and cracking at the mortar level wereobserved. However, only one mosque had total collapse (relatively new and stone masonry), butolder historic structures have proved to be worthy to survive centuries and still in good condition.
The historic structures in Elazığ region showed lesser amount of structural damage from the recent
earthquakes. Minor cracking (if any) in the historic masonry mosques and masonry buildings suchas hamam (Turkish bath) indicated that the buildings remained in linear elastic range. If properly
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center77

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

maintained and water damage is prevented, the historic structures have proven themselves tosurvive centuries without any significant earthquake damage. It was observed that tension rods
were added in some of the smaller mosques at the arch level and may have some positive impact
on the overall earthquake performance of masonry buildings, which are sturdy in general withrelatively small rooms and thick walls. Two reinforced concrete mosques in Elazığ city had minor
cracks in the 2020 Elazığ Earthquake and the same cracks remained intact with small amount of
cement dust on the carpets but no major or minor damage. Corners of the mosques that suffered
humidity from the roof had also some flakes on the ground, which was told to be a regular cleaningtask with or without earthquakes.

Eski (old) Malatya

HarputFigure 9.3 Geographic location of the historic structures evaluated in Malatya and Elazığ.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center78

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 9.4 Yeni Cami (new mosque) before and after pictures and short anchorage.
An important historic heritage located in south eastern Türkiye is Gaziantep Castle (Figure 9.5.).
Unfortunately, Gaziantep to the epicenter of the first earthquake is only about 32 km and the second
earthquake is about 115 km distance. The orientation of the castle walls to the earthquake epicenter
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center79

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

may be the reason for south-west castle walls to suffer the largest damage when the first impact
must have pushed these walls and sending wall stones towards the slope towards the city. It is
fortunate that the castle wall stones did not cause major damage to people, houses, businesses atthe skirts of the castle. The castle being located at the top of a hill may also had lens action
amplifying the pga and damaging effects of the earthquakes.

Figure 9.5 Gaziantep Castle before and after the earthquakes.
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center80

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Last examples of historic structures were selected from Hatay region. The Antakya Rum Orthodox
Church (Antioch Greek Orthodox Church) and Antakya Protestant Church are located very close
to each other within 150 meters, and both suffered significant damage during the earthquakes. The
distances between the churches and the first and second earthquakes are about 135 km and 225 km
respectively. Satellite images before and after the earthquakes (Figure 9.6.) 4 indicate that both
structures suffered immense damage. The after-earthquake picture of the Antakya Rum Orthodox
Church (Figure 9.7.) shows total roof collapse while only west wall and partial south cylindricalwalls are standing. The collapsed picture of the Antakya Rum Orthodox Church also shows roof
collapse with probably south wall collapse. The epicenter to the historic structures distances iscomparable between Malatya and Hatay, both cities with significant damage to their historicbuildings. Majority of the mosques showed acceptable performance in Malatya (exception of Yeni
Cami) while both studied churches suffered major damage in Hatay.
The level of damage to historic structures depend on many parameters other than the distance tothe epicenter as many times discussed here. Some of the other significant parameters controlling
damage to historic structures may be listed as a) poor ground conditions, groundwater level, soilstructure interaction, foundation type and properties, earlier relative settlement of the structure, tiltof columns and walls, b) presence of tension-shear elements such as wooden lintels inside andcorner of the walls and tension rings around the domes, c) discontinuous (before the edge wall)arches and vaults, d) buttresses that are not fully integrated with the wall, e) poor or weakened
material and workmanship quality, frequency of maintenance of the structure and water damage –excessive moisture, f) interlocking mesh at walls connections and free (unsupported out of plane)
spacing between orthogonal walls, g) past war, earthquakes damages; quality of repair andrestorations; adding or removing sections from the walls, h) the symmetry of the building, i) the
minaret being inside the wall or independent of the building, j) the bell towers and minarets being
too slender and the whipping effect for the bell and minaret balcony, k) the presence of tension
rods on the arches and vaults, their quality to column and wall connection, l) slenderness of walls
and columns, m) spacing and dimensions of window and door openings in walls, minarets, anddomes, n) ratio of wall thickness to height and unsupported length perpendicular to the plane, o)dimensions of cut stone, quality of rubble masonry, p) the match between the earthquake response

4

Google Earth images.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center81

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

spectrum and the natural modal frequencies of the structure, q) the earthquake magnitude, thedistance to the earthquake epicenter, the movement type of the fault, the presence of mountains
that will reflect earthquake waves, r) the presence and quality (rusting and expansion) of horizontal
and vertical locking metal braces between stones, s) the stair overlap ratios and the number ofoverlaps in a minaret, t) vertical joints between stones in a wall being aligned (not staggered), u)
vandalism and treasure hunting etc should be mentioned. Existing historical building performanceand damage observations have been made in the form of rapid preliminary assessment. Some ofthe structures that require a comprehensive examination must be re-evaluated with a closer andmore detailed look considering most of the items listed above.

Acknowledgments: The author acknowledges kind help and collaboration received from the T.R.
Directorate General of Foundations - Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Culture and Tourism
regarding this work.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center82

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 9.6 The Antakya Rum Orthodox and Protestant Churches before and after earthquakes

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center83

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Figure 9.7 The Antakya Rum Orthodox Church after the earthquake 5

Figure 9.8 The Antakya Rum Protestant Church after the earthquake 6
5

https://www.ntv.com.tr/galeri/turkiye/deprem-antakyadaki-tarihi-kiliseleriyikti,MFWsAiJ73UqDkzS2avW3_A/XTLZYWkAQkKjGWjO0SLVCw
6
https://haberortakoy.com/deprem-antakyadaki-tarihi-kiliseleri-yikti/

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center84

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Chapter 10.
Emergency Response and Community Impact
By:
Meltem Şenol Balaban(a), Ali Fırat Çabalar(b), A. Nuray Karancı(c), Canay Doğulu(d), Gözdeİkizer(e), Haldun Akoğlu(f), Müge Akın(g), Nil Akdede(h), Onur Karakayalı(i), Özlem
Özdemir(j), Sarper Yılmaz(k), Selin Güzel(l), Serkan Yılmaz(m), Sıdıka Tekeli Yeşil(n),Tolulope Ajobiewe(o) , Yeşim Ünal(p) (in alphabetical order)(a) Middle East Technical University, Department of City and Regional Planning,
Ankara, Türkiye(b) University of Gaziantep, Geotechnical Engineering, Gaziantep, Türkiye(c) TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Department of Psychology, Ankara,
Türkiye(d) TED University, Department of Psychology, Ankara, Türkiye(e) TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Department of Psychology, Ankara,
Türkiye(f) Marmara University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine,İstanbul, Türkiye(g) Abdullah Gül University, Department of Civil Engineering, Kayseri, Türkiye(h) Atılım University, Department of Architecture, Ankara, Türkiye(i) Sakarya University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine,
Sakarya, Türkiye(j) Middle East Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Ankara,
Türkiye(k) University of Health Sciences Dr Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Education and Research
Hospital, Department of Emerging Medicine, İstanbul, Türkiye(l) Middle East Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences,
Geodetic and Geographic Information Technologies, Ankara, Türkiye(m) Kocaeli University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine,
Kocaeli, Türkiye(n) Fraunarzt Praxis Rheinfelden, Rheinfelden, Switzerland(o) Middle East Technical University, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Urban Policy
Planning and Local Governments, Ankara, Türkiye(p) Haliç University, Department of Psychology, İstanbul, Türkiye

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center85

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

10. 1. Introduction
The "Emergency Response and Community Impact" section of the reconnaissance report was
prepared by evaluating the period from the first earthquakes on February 6 to February 14, basedon daily or even hourly preliminary data collected across the region. When this report is published,
many of the problems pointed out here in the days and hours after the earthquake might probably
be solved for many parts of the region. The main purpose of this section of the report is to reveal
the actual situation in the emergency response and the effects of this situation on the communities
in the period that lasted for 9 days after the major destructive earthquakes. An expanded versionof this section is available on the METU-EERC website.
10. 2. Emergency Response
The preliminary evaluations of the possible impacts show the extent of the damages across theaffected area covering 10 cities, with a population of approximately 14 million people. Together
with the Syrian population living in the devastated area, the total affected population reached 15.8
million (TÜİK, 2022. See table 10.1 in the extended report). According to Türkiye’s Emergency
Response Plan (TAMP) which has been activated by the Turkish authorities at central andprovincial level, search and rescue teams have been deployed to the region. The Turkish President
announced a 3-month state of emergency on February 7, for the 10 provinces affected by theearthquake. Additionally, a Level-4 emergency has been declared in the country – which
essentially entails a call for international assistance, initially focused on search and rescue support.
10. 2. 1. Coordination
The extensive damages on highways, roads, air and seaports, railways, accessibility problems
created difficulties in transferring supportive search and rescue groups from other parts of Türkiye
as well as foreign countries. On February 13th, Minister of Interior declared that “the total numberof AFAD staff is 7300. It is not possible to manage such a great disaster or any disaster in Turkiye
with such a limited number of staff.” There are approximately 300 thousand employees in the field
as a total number of people who work for immediate rescue and response activities as the Ministerhighlighted.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center86

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

10. 2. 2. Immediate Rescue and Response
Immediate rescue and response teams tried to reach disaster-stricken region. However, time lags
occurred due to reasons like accessibility. Another issue on the site of collapsed buildings was thatthe necessary equipment for rescue operations, cranes, and trucks were scarce. During night times
electricity blackouts at early stages of the events slowed down the S&R activities. It can beobserved that emergency services including search and rescue teams, subsistence and medical aid
were provided to the disaster-stricken region within the first 24 hours but not for all cities andvillages simultaneously. On the other hand, evacuation of earthquake survivors started after within
72 hours.
10. 2. 3. Infrastructure
At 10:00 am on February 6, according to the first information received from disaster energy
sources, natural gas cannot be supplied to Hatay/Hassa and Kırıkhan regions. BOTAŞ crude oil
has been stopped as a precaution. As another precautionary measure, gas is cut from the entrance
natural gas power plants of Gaziantep Nurdağı and İslahiye districts. 27 centers cannot be suppliedwith electricity. With the freezing winter conditions in the affected area, for about 3 to 4 days
heating options were not possible. Another critical infrastructure is potable water system. The
disaster-stricken area has no water supply for drinking and cleaning purposes due to damages onlines of potable water infrastructure.
10. 2. 4. Health Services
Voluntary and assigned healthcare personnel could only start to provide support to the region at
the end of the second day. By the third day, a total of 2,101 ambulances, 296 UMKE vehicles, 5
air ambulances, 7 helicopter ambulances, and 14,429 emergency health personnel, including local
and dispatched teams, were serving in the disaster area. As of February 12, 2023, a total of 21,631
patients rescued from the rubble were transferred to cities outside the region, 1,174 by air vehicles,
20,130 by land ambulances, and 327 by sea vehicles. As of February 14, 2023, 105,505 earthquake
victims were rescued from the rubble as injured, and the number of casualties was announced as35,418. It was reported that the number of public and private search and rescue personnel working
in the region was 35,249, and 9,456 of them were international aid teams' personnel.

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center87

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

10. 2. 5. Accommodation Response: Emergency and Temporary Shelter
By February 13, 2023, 41,791 buildings had collapsed in these 10 cities (T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik veİklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı, 2023c). The following day, February 14, 2023, nearly 195,962 people
had to abandon their residences and leave their hometowns temporarily or permanently (AFAD,
2023a). Besides sports halls, educational buildings, and other governmental buildings, dormitories
had opened their doors to the earthquake victims with the capacity of 850,000 beds in 81 cities(AFAD, 2023b). The latest updates as of 13 February 2023 by AFAD (2023a) show that the numberof established family tents reached 155,379.
10. 2. 6. Psychosocial Support
The Ministry of Family and Social Services dispatched psychosocial support personnel to affected
provinces. The Ministry of National Education (MEB, 2023a) also announced a Psychosocial
Support Action Plan on February 10th, 2023. On February 13th, 2023, the Turkish Red Crescent(2023) released a statement that 53 psychosocial support teams (including psychologists,
psychological counselors, social workers, and guidance specialists) have begun providing
psychological first aid to earthquake survivors. Over 5,000 mental health professionals volunteered
to provide psychological support to survivors in affected provinces.
10. 3. Community Impact
The impact of the devastating earthquakes on the community following the first week can beaddressed mainly with respect to emergency response in relation to various decisions and activities
bearing on education, rescue and relief efforts, and communication. Overall, it can be said that the
emergency response decisions and activities following the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes did notconsider the psychosocial needs of the affected people in the region at a desired level and that thislack of consideration seemed to have worsened the negative impact of the earthquakes on thecommunity.
10. 4. Overview of International Media Response
A number of criticisms was levied against the emergency response activities and efforts of theTurkish authorities in the wake of the earthquake. Some of the criticisms were curated frompublished news reports and articles by international news agencies such as the BBC, CNN,
Aljazeera, and the Financial Times. For example, for the initial days after the earthquakes the
METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center88

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

Austrian Forces Disaster Relief Unit reported that Austrian Army suspended rescue operations atsome point due to an “increasingly difficult security situation”, they however declared to resume
their work as soon as government officials deems the situation to be safe.
10. 5. Conclusion
Emergency response activities as a part of relief activities and initial recovery services are coveredin the detail in this section as much as the data available. It is worth mentioning that, in the days,
weeks and months ahead, there will be enough time to observe and report immediate
macroeconomic impact of the earthquake.
The temporal graph of the emergency medical staff and services that have been transferred to theregion after the earthquakes together with the number of casualties and injuries, has been produced
as follows.

Figure 10.1. Map Trends of activities and casualties between February 6 to 14, 2023
Source: AFAD and Ministry of Health as of 14.02.2023 13:30 (GMT+3) (drawn by the authors)

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center89

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

References:
AFAD. (2023a). Duyurular. T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı.
https://www.afad.gov.tr/duyurular
AFAD. (2023b, February 6-14). AFAD. https://twitter.com/AFADBaskanlik
AFAD. (2023c, February 13). AFAD press bulletin about the earthquake in Kahramanmaraş - 28.
https://en.afad.gov.tr/press-bulletin-28-about-the-earthquake-in-kahramanmaras
Anadolu Ajansı. (2023a, February 6). Geçici Barınma Merkezleri. Retrieved February 14, 2023,
from https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/info/infografik/32142
Anadolu Ajansı. (2023b, February 12). Malatya'da 10 bin 500 kişilik konteyner kent kurulması
için çalışmalar başladı. Retrieved February 14, 2023, from https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/asrinfelaketi/malatyada-10-bin-500-kisilik-konteyner-kent-kurulmasi-icin-calismalar-basladi/2816807
Railly News. (2023, February 7). Psychosocial support personnel were dispatched to 10 provinces
affectedbytheearthquake.

https://www.raillynews.com/2023/02/Psychosocial-support-

personnel-were-dispatched-to-10-provinces-affected-by-the-earthquake./
Reuters. (2023, February 8). Twitter restricted in Turkey two days after quake, says NetBlocks.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/twitter-restricted-turkey-netblocks-2023-0208/
The Türkiye Emergency Response Plan (TAMP). (2022). Retrieved February 14, fromhttps://www.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/afad.gov.tr/e_Kutuphane/Planlar/TAMP.pdf#page=18&zoom=
100,80,876
T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. (2023a, February 10). Bakan Kurum:"10ilimizde Cumhuriyet tarihinin en büyük afet konut seferberliğini başlatmış olacağız". Retrieved
February 14, 2023, from https://csb.gov.tr/bakan-kurum-10-ilimizde-cumhuriyet-tarihinin-enbuyuk-afet-konut-seferberligini-baslatmis-olacagiz-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-38419
T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. (2023b, February 11). Gazı̇ antep'te 532
köyün tamamindakı̇ depremzedelere yardim malzemesı̇ gönderı̇ ldı̇ . Retrieved February 14, 2023,
fromhttps://www.csb.gov.tr/gaziantep-te-532-koyun-tamamindaki-depremzedelere-yardim-

malzemesi-gonderildi-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-38421
T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. (2023c, February 13). Bakan Kurum: "10ı̇ lde 41 bin 791 binanın yıkık, acil yıkılacak ve ağır hasarlı olduğunu tespı̇ t ettik". Retrieved

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center90

Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on
February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık (Mw=7.7) and Elbistan (Mw=7.6) Earthquakes

February 14, 2023, from https://www.csb.gov.tr/bakan-kurum-10-ilde-41-bin-791-binanin-yikikacil-yikilacak-ve-agir-hasarli-oldugunu-tespit-ettik-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-38426
The Ministry of National Education [MEB]. (2023, February 10). Psikososyal destek eylem planıve psikososyal destek programları yayımlandı.

https://www.meb.gov.tr/psikososyal-destek-

eylem-plani-ve-psikososyal-destek-programlari-yayimlandi/haber/29014/tr
The Ministry of National Education [MEB]. (2023b, February 6). Education is suspended until 13
Februaryin

Türkiye.

https://www.meb.gov.tr/education-is-suspended-until-13-february-in-

turkiye/haber/28950/en
The Ministry of National Education [MEB]. (2023c, February 14). Depremden etkilenen 10 ildeeğitim öğretime 1 Mart'a kadar ara verildi. https://www.meb.gov.tr/depremden-etkilenen-10-ildeegitim-ogretime-1-marta-kadar-ara-verildi/haber/29029/tr
Turkish Red Crescent. (2023, February 13). Kızılay’ın psikososyal destek ekipleri deprem
psikolojik

bölgesinde

ilkyardımveriyor.

https://www.kizilay.org.tr/Haber/KurumsalHaberDetay/7202
TURKSTAT. (2022). https://www.tuik.gov.tr/
Türk Mühendis ve Mimar Odaları Birliği [TMMOB]. (2023a, February 9). TMMOB öndeğerlendirmeraporuyayımlandı.

https://www.tmmob.org.tr/icerik/tmmob-degerlendirme-raporu-yayimlandi
Türk Mühendis ve Mimar Odaları Birliği [TMMOB]. (2023b, February 14). TMMOB
Kahramanmaraş

DepremiGüncelDurum

Tespiti

-2-

(14

Şubat

2023).

http://www.tmmob.org.tr/icerik/tmmob-kahramanmaras-depremi-guncel-durum-tespiti-2-14subat-2023
Türk Tabipleri Birliği. (2023, February 11). 6 şubat 2023 Depremi Bilgi Notu - 9: Geçici Barınma
Yerlerininşematik

Yerleşim

Biçimi.

Retrieved

February

14,

2023,

from

https://www.ttb.org.tr/haber_goster.php?Guid=706d3bfa-aa11-11ed-b4b5-486b41055497
World Health Organization [WHO]. (2023, February 10). WHO flash appeal: Earthquake
responseinTürkiye

and

whole

of

Syria.

https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-

source/documents/emergencies/2023/who_flashappeal_earthquakeresponse_11-feb2023.pdf?sfvrsn=94d4de2a_1

METU - Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Center91