## 5 Conclusions  
Structures under the influence of earthquakes may show structural system weaknesses due to design, construction defects, and environmental effects. In addition, the negative structural factors caused by a change in the building function also cause damage in earthquakes. Unsuitable design, using low-strength materials, poor workmanship, and lack of inspection constitute the destructive roles of damage. The appropriate structural features of the structures exposed to a possible earthquake will reduce the loss of life and property. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**District**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**TBEC-2007, Suggested**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**TBEC-2018, Suggested**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Measured PGA-2023**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **DL (m)** & **SD (m)** & **NC (m)** & **DL (m)** & **SD (m)** & **NC (m)** & **DL (m)** & **SD (m)** & **NC (m)** \\ \hline Center & 0.084 & 0.108 & 0.187 & 0.068 & 0.087 & 0.152 & 0.249 & 0.319 & 0.553 \\ \hline Besni & 0.084 & 0.108 & 0.187 & 0.091 & 0.117 & 0.202 & 0.003 & 0.004 & 0.006 \\ \hline Celikhan & 0.112 & 0.143 & 0.249 & 0.165 & 0.212 & 0.368 & 0.020 & 0.025 & 0.044 \\ \hline Gerger & 0.112 & 0.143 & 0.249 & 0.105 & 0.134 & 0.233 & 0.015 & 0.020 & 0.034 \\ \hline Golbasi & 0.112 & 0.143 & 0.249 & 0.143 & 0.183 & 0.317 & 0.008 & 0.010 & 0.019 \\ \hline Kahta & 0.084 & 0.108 & 0.187 & 0.067 & 0.086 & 0.150 & 0.015 & 0.020 & 0.034 \\ \hline Samsat & 0.084 & 0.108 & 0.187 & 0.050 & 0.064 & 0.111 & 0.009 & 0.011 & 0.020 \\ \hline Sincik & 0.112 & 0.143 & 0.249 & 0.171 & 0.219 & 0.380 & 0.031 & 0.039 & 0.068 \\ \hline Tut & 0.112 & 0.143 & 0.249 & 0.137 & 0.176 & 0.306 & 0.036 & 0.047 & 0.081 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The obtained target displacements of the sample RC model. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Limit State**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Description**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Return Period** (Year)**} & **Probability of** \\  & & & **Exceedance** \\  & & & **(in 50 Years)** \\ \hline Damage Limitation (DL) & \begin{tabular}{c} Only lightly damaged, damage to \\ non-structural components is \\ economically repairable \\ \end{tabular} & 225 & 0.20 \\ \hline Significant Damage (SD) & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Significantly damaged, some residual strength \\ and stiffness, non-structural components \\ damaged, uneconomic to repair \\ \end{tabular} & 475 & 0.10 \\ \hline Near collapse (NC) &
\begin{tabular}{c} Heavily damaged, very low residual strength \\ and stiffness, large permanent drift but \\ still standing \\ \end{tabular} & 2475 & 0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Suggested limit states in Eurocode 8 (Part 3) [(69; 70)]. In addition, obtaining the local soil conditions realistically will make the structural design and evaluation meaningful. It has been observed that the reinforced concrete structures which were examined in the settlements where fieldwork was carried out for damage assessment were damaged, especially due to low concrete strength, insufficient reinforcement, and low earthquake resistance. Especially in core concrete, crushing and segregation show that the concrete strength is very low. In addition, the use of plain reinforcement and the low adherence between concrete and reinforcement are the main causes of damage. One of the primary reasons for the high level of destruction in the city center housing was commercial structuring that led to the formation of soft floors. In order to avoid this situation in new settlements, commercial structures should be arranged independently from residences. Columns in frame structures may be stretched up to their plastic moment capacity when subjected to horizontal loads. An immense moment gradient and hence a significant shear force occur in the case of short columns with significant bending capacity. Before the plastic moment capacity is achieved, a shear fracture frequently occurs. Therefore, it is best to avoid using short columns.