Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Damages on reinforced concrete buildings due to consecutive

earthquakes in Van
Sevket Ates a,n, Volkan Kahya a, Muhammet Yurdakul b, Suleyman Adanur a
a
Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey
b
Bayburt University, Department of Civil Engineering, 69000 Bayburt, Turkey

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Consecutive earthquakes occurred on October 23rd, 2011 in Ercis and on November 9th, 2011 in Edremit
Received 2 February 2012 that are townships located 90 km and 18 km far from Van city in Turkey, respectively. A total of 28,000
Received in revised form buildings were damaged or collapsed in the city center and the surrounding villages after the Ercis
10 June 2013
earthquake. This number reached 35,000 after the Edremit earthquake. In the area where the
Accepted 23 June 2013
earthquakes occurred, almost all the reinforced concrete buildings were affected.
Available online 31 July 2013
This study presents field observations of damages on reinforced concrete buildings due to the
Keywords: consecutive earthquakes that occurred in Van, Turkey. Damages appearing in the buildings may occur
Damage due to several reasons such as site effect, poor construction quality, poor concrete strength, poor
Reinforced concrete buildings
detailing in beam-column joints, detailing of stronger beam than column, soft stories, weak stories,
Van earthquake
inadequate reinforcement, short lap splices, incorrect end hook angle, and short columns. Aftershocks
also caused progressive damages on the buildings within 17 days after the earthquakes. According to the
results of this study, most of the damaged buildings were not designed and constructed according to the
Turkish earthquake code, the so-called Specification for Buildings to be built in Seismic Zones.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Substantial research efforts have been devoted to investigating
the performance of engineering structures during earthquakes
such as reinforced concrete buildings, minarets, masonry and
wooden buildings. Watanabe et al. [2] introduced a study related
to damages to steel structures during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
earthquake. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during
the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake was evaluated by Sezen et al. [3].
Dogangun [4] made a detailed observation on the reinforced
buildings in the 2003 Bingol earthquake. Many structural defi-
ciencies were observed in the epicentral area. Bayraktar et al. [5,6]
presented the field investigations of masonry buildings during the
March 25th and 28th, 2004 Askale in Erzurum and July 2nd, 2004
Dogubayazit earthquakes in Agri. Mondal and Rai [7] studied the
performance of harbor structures in Andaman Islands during the
2004 Sumatra earthquake. Adanur [8] reported the performances
of masonry buildings during the December 20th and 27th, 2007
Bala (Ankara) earthquakes. The March 8th, 2010 earthquakes that
hit Kovancilar and Palu districts of Elazig province in Turkey and
their impacts on masonry and concrete buildings were studied by
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 462 377 26 61; fax: +90 462 377 26 06.
E-mail addresses: sates@ktu.edu.tr, sevket@hotmail.com (S. Ates),
volkan@ktu.edu.tr (V. Kahya), myurdakul@bayburt.edu.tr (M. Yurdakul),
sadanur@ktu.edu.tr (S. Adanur).
Celep et al. [9]. Saatcioglu and Bruneau [10] observed the perfor-
mance of structures during the 13 March 1992 Erzincan earth-
quake in Turkey. Bruneau [11] described the damage of reinforced
concrete, masonry, and steel structures during the 17 August 1999
Marmara earthquake in Turkey. Additionally, Arslan and Korkmaz
[12] discussed the performance of reinforced concrete buildings
during recent earthquakes in Turkey. Besides, theoretical
researches have been also made by many researchers on the
investigation of repeated earthquakes phenomena [15–23]. Some
reports and studies were also published after the Van earthquakes
[13,14,24,25].
Consecutive earthquakes occurred on October 23rd, 2011 in
Ercis and on November 9th, 2011 in Edremit townships of Van city
located in southeastern Turkey. A total of 28,000 buildings were
damaged or collapsed in the city center and its vicinity after the
Ercis earthquake. This number reached 35,000 after the Edremit
earthquake. In the area affected by the earthquakes, almost all the
reinforced concrete buildings were damaged/collapsed. It can be
seen from the literature that the field investigation of engineering
structures shortly after earthquakes to determine their perfor-
mance is very important, and study about the performance of
reinforced concrete buildings during the Van earthquakes in
Turkey is not sufficient. In order to understand the behavior of
collapsed/damaged reinforced concrete buildings and to observe
their performance during the earthquakes, some evaluations
based on the field observations are presented in this study.

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.06.006
110 S. Ates et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118

2. Seismological aspects

Turkey is located on one of the most active earthquake zones

consisting of several tectonic plates approaching each other con-
tinuously. Turkey is on the Anatolian Tectonic Plate surrounded by
the Arabian, the Eurasian and the African Plates (Fig. 1). Movement
of these plates is still active today and results in hundreds of
earthquakes each month.
The first main earthquake with Mw ¼ 7.1 occurred on October Lake Van
23rd, 2011 at 10:41 UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) in Ercis
township of Van (Fig. 2). The earthquake took place at shallow
depth of 10 km on the shore of the Lake Van. The epicenter is
about 30 km north of Van city center and its coordinates are
reported as 38.68N–43.47E by the Earthquake Department of the
Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) [26]. The
depth of the earthquake is given as 19.02 km. Following the main
shock, approximately 650 aftershocks occurred in the first 2 days.
These aftershocks followed SW–NE direction. It was largely felt in Fig. 2. The location of Van, Ercis and Edremit.
Turkey and in the neighboring countries. The city of Ercis was
particularly affected. Rescue teams struggled to help the popula-
tion and to save victims from the rubbles (Fig. 3). The second main
earthquake with Mw ¼5.6 occurred on November 9th, 2011 at
18:23 UTC in Edremit township of Van (Fig. 2). Coordinates of the
epicenter of this earthquake are reported as 38.429N–943.234E by
the Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute [24],
and its depth is given as 5 km. This earthquake has a dominantly
strike–slip mechanism. Seven minutes later, an aftershock with
Mw ¼4.5 occurred in the same area. The earthquake and its
aftershocks destroyed 2 hotels and 25 buildings in Edremit.
According to Seismic Zone Map published by the Ministry of
Public Works and Settlement of Turkey, the whole country is
divided into five earthquake zones as shown in Fig. 4(a). As seen in
the map given by Fig. 4(b), Van city is in the first and second zones,
which are seismologically active. So far, many earthquakes over
the magnitude 5.0 have thus been recorded in the city of Van and
its vicinity. The distribution of the historical earthquakes that
occurred from 1990 to present in these regions is shown in Table 1
and Fig. 5. According to the latest data (December 9th, 2011), a Fig. 3. Rescue teams made every endeavor to save victims from the rubbles.

Fig. 1. Tectonic map of Turkey [1].

 S. Ates et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118 111

Fig. 4. Seismic zone map of Turkey (a) and Van (b).

Table 1 exceeding the effective peak ground acceleration of 0.3 –0.4 g is

History of earthquakes that occurred in Van and its vicinity [11]. 10% in 50 years. As can be seen in Figs. 7 and 8, a peak acceleration
value of 178.5 cm/s2 occurred in the N–S direction for the Ercis
Date Time Region Magnitude, M Latitude (N) Longitude (E)
earthquake and 245.90 cm/s2 in the E–W direction for the Edremit
(m/d/y) (Local)
earthquake. It should be noted these PGA values do not exceed the
09/10/1941 21:53 Ercis 5.9 39.45 43.32 seismic hazard limit (0.3–0.4g) according to the spectra of Turkish
11/20/1945 06:27 Van 5.2 38.63 43.33 Earthquake Code seen in Fig. 9. However, it is thought that soil
06/25/1964 00:11 Ercis 5.3 39.13 43.19 amplification may occur in the region. The computed response
01/17/1977 19:24 Ercis 5.1 39.27 43.70
spectra with damping ratio of 0%, 2%, 5% and 10% for the lateral
06/25/1988 15:38 Van 5.0 38.50 43.07
11/15/2000 05:34 Van 5.7 38.51 43.01 (N–S, E–W) and vertical components are given in Figs. 10 and 11
for the considered earthquakes. According to these figures, shak-
ing of both earthquakes would be most effective on structures
total of 6284 aftershocks of magnitude within a range from 1.7 to with a natural period of up to approximately 1.0 s.
5.8 occurred after the Ercis and Edremit earthquakes. A view of
Ercis and Edremit earthquakes and aftershocks distributions is
shown in Fig. 6. 4. Field observations

The Ercis and Edremit earthquakes caused significant damage

3. Ground motions and response spectra
Reported parameters for October 23rd and November 9th, 2011
Ercis and Edremit earthquakes are given in Table 2. Three compo-
nents of ground acceleration records for both earthquakes are
shown in Figs. 7 and 8. From Fig. 7, the peak ground accelerations
(PGAs) are 178.5 cm/s2 in the N–S direction, 169.5 cm/s2 in the
E–W direction, and 79.5 cm/s2 in the vertical direction for the Ercis
earthquake. From Fig. 8, the PGAs for the Edremit earthquake are
148.08 cm/s2 in the N–S direction, 245.90 cm/s2 in the E–W
direction, and 150.54 cm/s2 in the vertical direction. The seismic
zone of Van city is classified as 1 and 2, where the probability of
to Van and its vicinity. These two earthquakes struck the buildings
for 17 days. The majority of reinforced concrete buildings com-
pletely collapsed or were heavily damaged as shown in Figs. 12
and 13.
Concrete quality is very important for reinforced concrete
structures to obtain the assumed behavior in design phase. It is
observed that the quality of the concrete used was very poor and
its characteristic compressive strength in some buildings in the
city center was smaller than half of the expected strength. In
addition, aggregate dimensions used in the concrete were larger
than the allowable aggregate diameter. It is interesting that one
of the authors crumbled a piece of concrete from a collapsed
112 S. Ates et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118

Fig. 5. Historical and instrumental seismicity of the Eastern Turkey. (Major tectonic boundaries: subduction zones—purple, ridges—red and transform faults—green) [27].
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 6. The view of Ercis and Edremit earthquakes and aftershocks distributions. (a) Ercis earthquake and aftershocks (pink 5.0≤M≤5.8, green 4.0≤M≤4.9, cyan 3.0≤M≤3.9,
purple 2.0≤M≤2.9, yellow 1.7≤M≤1.9) (b) Edremit earthquake and aftershocks (red 4.6≤M≤5.6, green 4.1≤M≤4.5, blue 3.6≤M≤4.0, pink 3.1≤M≤3.5, dark blue 2.6≤M≤3.0,
yellow 1.7≤M≤2.5) [27]. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 2
Parameters of the Ercis and the Edremit earthquakes.

Station Name Date (m/d/y) Time (Local) Depth (km) NS (cm/s2) EW (cm/s2) Vertical (cm/s2) Latitude (N) Longitude (E) Region

6503 10/23/2011 13:41 19.02 178.5 169.5 79.5 38.680 43.470 Ercis
6501 11/09/2011 21:23 5.00 148.08 245.90 150.54 38.429 43.234 Edremit

reinforced concrete building into dust by his own hand in the field.
All these show that the main problem in damaged/collapsed
reinforced concrete buildings in the area may be poor quality of
concrete. Examples of the use of low strength concrete observed in
the reinforced concrete buildings are shown in Fig. 14.
The use of smooth reinforcing bars was also observed within
the reinforced concrete buildings as shown in Fig. 15. This was
another source of damage that may cause weaker bond between
concrete and steel. Some photographs of the damaged beam–
column joints are given in Fig. 16. It can be seen that the
 S. Ates et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118
Fig. 7. Three components of ground accelerations of the Ercis earthquake recorded
at Muradiye station.
Fig. 8. Three components of ground accelerations of the Edremit earthquake
recorded at Van Central Department of Public Works and Settlement station.
113
Fig. 9. The design spectra of the Turkish Earthquake Code for the different soil
types (5% damping) [28].
Fig. 10. Response acceleration of the components of the Ercis earthquake.
confinement reinforcement was not constituted at these joints
correctly. Thus, the required ductility in these regions cannot be
maintained. In addition, reinforcing bars in these joints are
inadequate and no transverse ties are presented. According to
the field observations, one of the most important reasons of
damage in the reinforced concrete buildings is existence of short
lap splices and incorrect end hook angle. The lap splice length at
the base body was observed to be approximately 25 cm. Also, the
longitudinal reinforcement steel bars had nearly 1801 end hooks.
Lack of transverse reinforcement was observed in the most
damaged columns. These ties had 901 end hooks. It can be said
that the concrete covering the ties spilled or fell off; thus, the ties
opened up when the earthquake struck.
Special care must be given to the design of transverse reinfor-
cement because lateral loads cause an increase in the shear force
in columns, beams, structural walls and beam–column joints
during earthquake. Inadequate replacement of transverse reinfor-
cement was observed in most of the damaged columns. The wide
spacing of ties resulted in shear failures, buckling of longitudinal
rebar and poor confinement of the core concrete. In addition to
inadequate transverse reinforcement for the confinement zone,
114 S. Ates et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118
insufficient column cross sectional dimensions were another reason
of the damage. Combinations of smooth reinforcing bars, inadequate
lab splice length and incorrect end hook angle caused non-rigid and
sensitive regions in the reinforced concrete buildings. Some photos
Fig. 11. Response acceleration of the components of the Edremit earthquake.
Fig. 12. Collapsed reinforced concrete buildings.
for the column failures and damages due to the inadequate trans-
verse reinforcements are given in Fig. 17.
Strong beam–weak column connections have been frequently
observed in reinforced concrete buildings that collapsed/were
damaged due to the recent earthquakes in Turkey. Some views
of failures related to strong beam–weak column mechanism are
given in Fig. 18.
A soft storey is a relatively flexible storey in which its relative
horizontal displacement is much larger than the corresponding
displacements of other stories. These floors can be especially
dangerous in earthquakes because they cannot cope with the
lateral forces caused by swaying of the building during an earth-
quake. Presence of soft stories results in increased deformation
demands significantly, and puts the burden of energy dissipation
on the first storey columns. Many failures and collapses can be
attributed to the increased deformation demands caused by soft
stories as well as the lack of deformability of poorly designed
columns. Therefore, any sudden changes in the lateral stiffness and
strength must be avoided. Soft storey buildings are characterized
by having a storey with too much open space. A large number of
residential and commercial buildings in Turkey had soft stories at
the first floor level on two sides of main streets because they have
been often used as shops and commercial areas. In addition, multi-
storey car parks often include soft stories, which have large retail
spaces or floors with many windows. These areas are generally
enclosed with glass windows instead of brick infill walls to be used
as commercial areas. Heavy masonry infill starts immediately
above the soft storey. Resistance of weak ground storey to total
horizontal earthquake force is less than those of the stories above.
Examples related to the weak storey observed in the field area are
shown in Fig. 19.
5. Conclusions
The aim of this paper is to investigate the failures of reinforced
concrete buildings during the Ercis (October 23rd, 2011) and
Edremit (November 9th, 2011) earthquakes in Turkey based on
 S. Ates et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118 115

Fig. 13. Damaged reinforced concrete buildings.

Aggregate dimension

Fig. 14. Examples of the use of low quality concrete with insufficient strength.

Fig. 15. Examples of the use of smooth reinforcing bars and unconfined lap splices.
116 S. Ates et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118

Fig. 16. Examples of damages at the beam-column joints.

Fig. 17. Some examples of inadequate transverse reinforcement.

Fig. 18. Some failures related to the strong beam-weak column mechanism.
 S. Ates et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118
Fig. 19. Failures and damages of reinforced concrete buildings due to the weak stories.
the field observations. According to the observations made, the
following conclusions can be reached.
 A majority of the reinforced concrete buildings in the area
affected by the earthquakes completely collapsed or were
heavily damaged.
 Concrete quality was generally poor in the affected area, which
may decrease the structural performance during the earth-
quakes. In addition, aggregate dimensions were larger than the
allowable aggregate diameter for concrete.
 The use of smooth reinforcing bar was another source of the
damage that may cause to weaker bond between concrete
and steel.
 The confinement reinforcement was not correctly constituted
at the beam–column joints. Thus, the required ductility in these
regions cannot be maintained. Additionally, reinforcing bars in
these joints are inadequate and no transverse ties are
presented.
 Damages and failures related to strong beam–weak columns
mechanism were observed. This kind of mechanism has been
very common in Turkey.
 A large number of residential and commercial buildings in
Turkey had soft stories at the first floor level because the first
stories have been often used as shops and commercial areas.
Failures and damages of reinforced concrete buildings due to
the soft stories were also observed.
 Damages and failures related to weak ground stories were
observed. In this case, total horizontal earthquake force resisted
at the ground storey level is significantly less than those of the
stories above.
 Deficiency of transverse reinforcement was observed in most of
the damaged columns. The wide spacing of the ties resulted in
shear failures, buckling of longitudinal rebar and poor confine-
ment of the core concrete. In addition to unsuitable transverse
reinforcement for the confinement zone, inadequate cross
section dimensions of column were another reason of the
damage.
 Short lap splices and incorrect end hook angle were the
another reasons of the damage. These ties had 901 end hooks.
It can be said that the concrete covering the ties spilled or fell
off, and the ties opened up during the earthquake. Thus, the
combination of smooth reinforcing bars, inadequate lap splice
length and incorrect end hook angle caused non-rigid and
sensitive regions in the reinforced concrete buildings.
References
[1] Okay A, Demirbag E, Kurt H, Okay N, Kuscu I. An active, deep marine strike–
slip basin along the North Anatolian fault in Turkey. Tectonics 1999;18:129–47.
117
[2] Watanabe E, Suglura K, Nagata K, Kitane Y. Performances and damages to steel
structures during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake. Engineering Struc-
tures 1998;20(4–6):282–90.
[3] Sezen H, Whittaker AS, Elwood KJ, Mosalam KM. Performance of reinforced
concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and
seismic design and construction practice in Turkey. Engineering Structures
2003;25(1):103–14.
[4] Dogangun A. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the
May 1, 2003 Bingol Earthquake in Turkey. Engineering Structures 2004;26
(6):841–56.
[5] Bayraktar A, Coskun N, Yalcin A. Performance of masonry stone buildings
during the March 25 and 28, 2004 Askale (Erzurum) earthquakes in Turkey.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities ASCE 2007;21(6):432–40.
[6] Bayraktar A, Coskun N, Yalcin A. Damages of masonry buildings during the July
2, 2004 Dogubayazit (Agri) earthquake in Turkey. Engineering Failure Analysis
2007;14(1):147–57.
[7] Mondal G, Rai DC. Performance of harbour structures in Andaman Islands
during 2004 Sumatra earthquake. Engineering Structures 2008;30(1):174–82.
[8] Adanur S. Performance of masonry buildings during the 20 and 27 December
2007 Bala (Ankara) earthquakes in Turkey. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences 2010;10(12):2547–56.
[9] Celep Z., Erken A., Taskin B., Ilki A., 2011. Failures of masonry and concrete
buildings during the March 8, 2010 Kovancilar and Palu (Elazig) earthquakes
in Turkey. Engineering Failure Analysis.
[10] Saatcioglu M, Bruneau M. Performance of structures during the 1992 Erzincan
earthquake. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1993;20(2):305–25.
[11] Bruneau M. Building damage from the Marmara, Turkey earthquake of August
17, 1999. Journal of Seismology 2002;6(3):357–77.
[12] Arslan MH, Korkmaz HH. What is to be learned from damage and failure of
reinforced concrete structures during recent earthquakes in Turkey? Engi-
neering Failure Analysis 2007;14(1):1–22.
[13] Bayraktar, A, Altunişik, A, Muvafik, M. Field Investigation on the Performance
of Masonry Buildings during the October 23 and November 9, 2011 Van
earthquakes in Turkey. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000383.
[14] Ural A, Doğangün A, Sezen H, Angın Z. Seismic performance of masonry
buildings during the 2007 Bala, Turkey earthquakes. Natural Hazards 2012;60:
1013–26.
[15] Hatzigeorgiou G, Beskos D, Theodorakopoulos D, Sfakianakis M. A simple
concrete damage model for FEM applications. International Journal of Com-
putational Engineering Science 2001;2:267–86.
[16] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF struc-
tures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Engineering Structures 2009;31
(11):2744–55.
[17] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault
earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2010;30(4):170–83.
[18] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Ductility demands control under multiple earthquakes
using appropriate force reduction factors. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami
2010;4(3):231–50.
[19] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Behavior factors for nonlinear structures subjected to
multiple near-fault earthquakes. Computers and Structures 2010;88(5–
6):309–21.
[20] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA. Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under
repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
2010;30(10):1010–25.
[21] Loulelis D, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Moment resisting steel frames under
repeated earthquakes. Earthquakes and Structures 2012;3(3–4):231–48.
[22] Faisal A, Majid TA, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Investigation of story ductility demands
of inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 2013;44:42–53.
[23] Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Structural pounding between
adjacent buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Part II: The effect of
multiple earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics—
Early view 2013.
118 S. Ates et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 53 (2013) 109–118

[24] Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI). The Novem-
ber 09, 2011 Edremit-Van, Turkey earthquake (ML ¼ 5.6). Preliminary report.
Istanbul, Turkey: Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazici University,
2011.
[25] Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Processed mainshock accelero-
metric recordings of the 23 October 2011 Van earthquake.Report No. METU/
EERC 2011-02. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University; 2011.
[26] Earthquake Department of the Disaster and Emergency Management Pre-
sidency (AFAD). Ankara, Turkey, 2012. http:www.deprem.gov.tr.
[27] United States Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 〈http://earth
quake.usgs.gov/earthquakes〉; 2012.
[28] Turkish Earthquake Code: Specifications for structures to be built in disaster
areas. Ankara, Turkey: Earthquake Research Department, General Directorate
of Disaster Affairs, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement; 2007.