## 3 Results
### Application of the Rapid Assessment Method to Damaged Buildings  
Within the scope of the study, five RC building examples taken into consideration from Adiyaman, Hatay, and Kahramanmaras, the three provinces most affected by earthquakes, are shown in Figure 14. To compare the damage conditions obtained as a result of field investigations, pre-earthquake images of these buildings were obtained with the help of the Google Street application [72]. Taking into account the geographical location obtained for each structure as a result of field investigations, the design spectral acceleration coefficient that should be used in the rapid evaluation method is obtained with the help of the Turkiye Earthquake Hazard Map Interactive Web Earthquake Application [73]. These values are obtained by taking into account the standard design ground motion level, geographical location, and local soil class. Peak Ground Acceleration (\(PGA\)) and \(\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{DS}}\) values obtained from the application for different exceedance probabilities in 50 years for each reinforced concrete structure in this study are shown in Table 5.  
Figure 14: Before and after earthquake images of the RC structures. (RC structures examined in Adiyaman between A1–A5; in Hatay between H1–H5 and in Kahramanmaras between K1–K5). Regarding earthquake hazard, the highest _PGA_ values among the three provinces were obtained for Hatay Province, while the lowest _PGA_ value was obtained for Adiyama. Hatay has _PGA_ values approximately two times larger than Adiyama Province. When instrumental and historical earthquake activities are examined, Hatay Province stands out among these provinces in terms of seismicity. The values observed for each RC structure for the hazard zone obtained by taking into account the number of storeys, _SDS_, local ground conditions, and the presence of parameters to be used in the rapid assessment method are shown in Table 6.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**No** & \(S_{DS}\) & \begin{tabular}{c} **Number** \\ **of Storeys** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Hazard** \\ **Zone** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Visual** \\ **Quality** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Soft/Weak** \\ **Storey** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Heavy** \\ **Overhang** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Plan** \\ **Irregularity** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Short** \\ **Column** \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **Building** \\ **Status** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Hill/Slope** \\ **Effect** \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline A1 & 0.782 & 6 & II & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline A2 & 0.763 & 4 & II & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline A3 & 0.753 & 3 & II & 2 & 1  
While there are one or more irregularities in the buildings examined, there is no structural irregularity in the building numbered K5 in Kahramanmaras Province. In 87% of the buildings examined, the ground storeys are used for commercial purposes while the upper storeys are used as residences, and as a result, relatively soft/weak-storey irregularity is observed. This damage situation was observed in all of these structures after the earthquake. The classification of irregularities found in the examined reinforced concrete structures is given in Table 7.  
The result performance scores obtained by taking into account the base score obtained as a result of the earthquake danger zone and the reduction scores corresponding to the negative parameters for each RC building, taking into account the number of storeys and \(S_{DS}\) value, are shown in Table 8.  
The performance scores obtained for all buildings are shown in Figure 15. The average performance score of the RC structures considered was obtained as \(-8.2\). The scores of a total of seven buildings are above this score and the others are below the average value. While the building with the highest risk is K1 in Kahramanmaras Province, the building with the lowest risk priority is A5 in Adiyaman Province.