## 1 Introduction  
Eastern Turkiye, influenced by a protracted history characterized by significant seismic activity and evolving architectural practices, has once more faced the catastrophic impacts of earthquakes during the Kahramanmaras incidents on 6 February 2023. These seismic events, registering magnitudes of Mw 7.7 (Pazarcik) and Mw 7.6 (Elbistan), inflicted extensive damage across numerous provinces and highlighted the vulnerabilities inherent in the current building inventory. Compounding the situation, there was a seismic event of magnitude Mw 6.4 occurred in Hatay just two weeks after, exacerbating the destruction of buildings that had already been compromised due to the preceding tremors [1]. The earthquake series affected eleven provinces, including Kahramanmaras, Hatay, Gaziantep, Malatya, Diyarbakur, Kilis, Sanluurfa, Adyaman, Osmaniye, Adana, and Elazg. A quick territorial damage assessment in rural villages was conducted by the author. These evaluations' approach depended on the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) [2]. Damage to masonry structures is classified by the EMS-98 [2] into five successive stages. Usually confined to superficial hairline fractures in plaster with minimal structural consequences, Grade 1 denotes little to minor damage. Grade 2 is substantial damage without affecting structural integrity; it includes noticeable wall fractures or mild plaster separation. Grade 3 shows significant-to-severe deterioration, with broad fractures, local masonry disintegration, and early indications of structural instability. Reflecting major structural damage, Grade 4 corresponds to extremely severe damage, with partial failure or collapse of considerable wall portions. Grade 5 indicates whole or near-total building devastation, including the collapse of load-bearing components and total structural failure. Figure 1 shows the geographic range of seismic effect across 11 provinces during the 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake series and offers the related distribution of damage in masonry dwellings. As shown in Figure 1, field evaluations conducted by the author classified damage in 2568 masonry buildings using EMS-98 [2]. The results indicate that approximately 51.56% of the masonry buildings surveyed had Grade 4 or 5 damage using the EMS-98 [2] classification, indicating extremely significant damage or destruction. About 29.38% matched Grade 3, which indicated significant structural degradation with indications of instability. While only 3.36% of the structures were classified as Grade 1, indicating minor damage, another 15.70% fell under Grade 2, indicating considerable cracking without complete structural weakening. This figure draws attention to the great vulnerability of the area masonry building stock, much of which was built without following current seismic design guidelines. The concentration of damage in Grades 3-5 supports the conclusion that occupant-driven expansions, poor mortar quality, and the lack of ring beams were the major causes of general structural collapse in the impacted area. A pivotal aspect of the eastern Anatolian framework is the longstanding inclination towards unreinforced masonry (URM). Within both rural and peri-urban settings, residential structures are predominantly constructed from stone, earthen materials, or low-fired clay bricks, frequently with negligible involvement from professional engineers. Over time, these structures are modified by the inhabitants themselves, resulting in irregular shapes, the elimination of essential walls, or unfinished upper levels that further compromise lateral load resistance. As highlighted by [PERSON] et al. [3], modifications made by occupants in earthen masonry (adobe) homes may utilize local soils with deficient tensile strength, substantially increasing the likelihood of corner detachment, diagonal fractures, and out-of-plane collapses. Previous research, including that of [PERSON] [4] and [PERSON] et al.