Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Case study

Structural damages observed in buildings after the January 24,

2020 Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake in Türkiye
Naci Caglar a, Isa Vural b, Osman Kirtel b, Ali Saribiyik b, *, Yusuf Sumer b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Sakarya University, 54050 Sakarya, Türkiye
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Technology Faculty, Sakarya University of Applied Sciences, 54050 Sakarya, Türkiye

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Türkiye is located in the most active earthquake zones with the shortest return period. Conse­
Elazığ earthquake quently, it has exposed several destructive earthquakes that caused significant casualties and
Strong ground motion extensive structural damage during recent decades. Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake was one of them.
Structural damage
The earthquake had a magnitude of Mw 6.8. It occurred in the Sivrice district of Elazığ province
Reinforced concrete buildings
in eastern Türkiye on 24 January 2020. Many buildings were collapsed or severely damaged. A
Masonry buildings
total of 41 people died and at least 1607 people were injured. This study aims to present the
different types of structural damage observed immediately after the earthquake. Many structural
insufficiencies and errors such as non-seismic reinforcement detailing, non-conforming earth­
quake-resistant construction techniques, poor quality of concrete and poor workmanship are the
main reasons for the extensive damage observed in many past earthquakes in Türkiye. In addi­
tion, geotechnical inspections also indicated that soil settlement might be prevented by building
basement floors in the areas that were observed. The results of the study have shown that not
enough lessons have been learned from previous earthquakes. Because of this, structural engi­
neers must closely follow structures while they are built, and well-trained staff must be employed
during the construction process.

1. Introduction

Türkiye lies on the North Anatolian Fault (NAF), East Anatolian Fault (EAF), North East Anatolian Fault (NEAF) and West Anatolian
Fault (WAF). NAF and EAF are among the most seismically active faults in the world with the shortest return period. During recent
decades, these two faults have been responsible for many major and destructive earthquakes that caused significant casualties and
extensive structural damage ([1–3,4]). The most recent major earthquakes are the 1999 Marmara and the 1999 Düzce earthquakes on
the North Anatolian Fault and the 2003 Bingöl and 2011 Elazığ earthquakes on the East Anatolian Fault, [5] and [6]. Dindar et al. [7]
investigated the damages of reinforced concrete structures, masonry structures and mosques and the elements that caused these
damages in the earthquake region after the 2011 Van earthquake. In their studies, they emphasized that according to Türkiye
Earthquake Code in 2007 (TEC2007) there was an unsuitable reinforcement arrangement, especially in some new buildings. In
addition, they especially suggested that infill walls should not be preferred as two-layered brick walls. If such layered walls are used, it
is recommended that they should be connected mechanically. Yön et al. [8] studied the damage of reinforced concrete and masonry
structures due to the earthquakes that occurred in Türkiye and demonstrated the structural and material defects that caused these

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alisaribiyik@subu.edu.tr (A. Saribiyik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01886
Received 12 December 2022; Received in revised form 16 January 2023; Accepted 23 January 2023
Available online 25 January 2023
2214-5095/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

damages. They have made important evaluations in terms of damage types and solution methods, especially for masonry structures.
Işik et al. [9] have done a seismic risk assessment for Bitlis province which is located in the east of Türkiye. As a result of their analysis
for different earthquake scenarios, they revealed that there may be a large damage distribution, especially in shallow earthquakes.
When the European seismic hazard map is examined, especially the countries with a coast to the Mediterranean Sea are located in the
major earthquake belt. In the last three years, there has been a loss of life and property under the effects of earthquakes in countries in
the region (Türkiye, Greece, Albania, and Croatia). In the earthquake of 6.2 ML that occurred in Croatia on 29 December 2020, 4.8
billion euros of economic loss and damage to more than 57,000 buildings [10]. In the last 20 years, there have been earthquakes in
Türkiye that have caused a lot of loss of life and property. When the structural damage caused by these earthquakes is examined, the
main reasons are mostly poor material and workmanship quality, poor detailing, architectural features, etc. [11]. In addition to these
earthquakes in the Mediterranean region, 51 loss of life and 1.2 billion dollars in economic losses in the 6.4 Mw earthquake that
occurred in Albania on 26 November 2019. In the observations, it was seen that the presence of multi-story masonry structures
increased the damage percentage[12].
On January 24, 2020, at 20:55 local time (17:55 UTC), a magnitude of Mw 6.8 (ML=6.6) earthquake occurred in the Sivrice district
of Elazığ province in Eastern Türkiye. The Ministry of Interior Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency [13] reported the
earthquake’s epicenter as 38.3593 N–39.0630E with a depth of 8.00 km. The earthquake was felt strongly in the City Center of Elazığ
and Sivrice, Malatya-Kale, Pütürge, and Doğanyol districts and caused destruction and severe damage to the buildings in these dis­
tricts. According to official sources ([13,14]), a total of 41 people died and at least 1607 people were injured.
As observed in many past earthquakes in Türkiye, the earthquake revealed the common insufficiencies of existing reinforced
concrete buildings such as poor quality of concrete, poor workmanship, non-seismic reinforcement detailing and non-conforming
earthquake-resistant construction techniques once more.
In urban areas, an important part of the building stock of Türkiye has formed reinforced concrete (RC) buildings otherwise masonry
structures built commonly in rural areas. To reduce possible future earthquake damages in these structures, the lessons to be learned
from these earthquake damages will be very important. The 23 January 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice Earthquake damaged many reinforced
concrete buildings and masonry structures in Elazığ and Malatya provinces and their villages. In order to understand the behavior of
these buildings and to observe their performance during the earthquakes, affected regions were visited for a reconnaissance study.
Observations and evaluations in the earthquake regions have been presented in this paper. This paper outlines the geological and
geotechnical aspects of the region, the strong ground motion parameters, and the performances of the buildings due to the earthquake
based on-site assessments. Especially because most of the buildings in the city center of Elazığ are adjacent to multi-story reinforced
concrete buildings, it has been an important site investigation in order to see the dynamic behavior of these structures under the effect

Fig. 1. Fault map of Elazığ location and major earthquakes[20].

2
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

earthquakes. In addition, the effect of the basement floor has also been taken into account in the field investigations, since the same
buildings have boilers in terms of the heating system and therefore they were built with basement floors. Finally, the damage types,
characteristics and causes that occurred in the structures are also presented in detail in this study.

2. Geological and geotechnical overview

Elazığ is located in a tectonically active region. Therefore, many geological studies were carried out and its geological cross-sections
were created [15]. In this geological formation, a continuous tectonic movement has been observed since the beginning of the
Mesozoic period. The origin of this activity is the beginning of the formation of the Tethys Ocean with rifting. This formation separated
the Anatolian Plate and the Arabian Plate from each other in the Late Triassic. The development of this ocean started from the Late
Triassic, reached its maximum opening at the beginning of the Late Cretaceous, and then it began to close to the north with a sub­
duction inclined towards the bottom of the Eurasian Plate [15]. In order to make a proper evaluation of the Elazığ earthquake, the
Eastern Anatolian Fault (EAF), which is the cause of the active earthquake source of the region, should be defined first. The Eastern
Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) is divided into different parts according to the geometric characteristics of the faults and the slip status.
The eastern part of the EAF exhibits a 295 km long narrow deformation zone. Except for jog structures, this zone takes the form of a
single fault trace. However, to the west it is divided into southerly and northerly fault strands and becomes a 65 km wide deformation
zone. The main fault is the southerly strand. The main EAF zone is 580 km long between Antakya and Karlıova which is divided into the
7 fault segments [16,17] and [18].
Based on the geological studies and investigations [19] on the historical process of the seismic activity, it was seen that Elazığ is
located in the impact area of the active fault lines on the EAF, and major earthquakes are expected here in the future like the ones in the
past (Fig. 1).
According to the epicenter determination and fault investigation studies, it was determined that the earthquake developed on the
Sivrice-Pütürge segment of the East Anatolian Fault, which is a left-lateral strike-slip fault, and the rupture occurred in an area of
40 km [13]. After the main shock of the earthquake, 23 aftershocks with magnitudes ranging from 4 to 5.1 were recorded (Fig. 2).
There have been 299 earthquakes of Mw≥ 4.0 in the region since 1900, the largest of which was 6.8. In addition, there are 40 historical
earthquake records for the region before 1900 [14].
Universite, Kültür, Nailbey, Olgunlar and Akpınar neighborhoods, located in the south of the center of Elazığ, are known as the
regions with soil liquefaction risk. The high ground water level in these neighborhoods increases the risks derived from earthquakes
[21] and [22]. When the buildings which were damaged during the 24 January Sivrice earthquake were examined for sampling, it was
observed that the damages were not directly related to soil behavior. In these buildings, no damage due to liquefaction was detected.
The faults around Elazığ are located near the geomorphological boundaries of the plain and the piedmont alluvial plain. Naturally, the
slopes extending to the mountainous regions begin after these borders. The south of the Sürsürü fault in the south of Elazığ and the
Elazığ new ring road and the slopes of Mount Meryem and Kekliktepe stand out as the new development areas of Elazığ. This new
residential area is close to the fault line. However, reasons such as lithological differences, soil resistance and bedrock factor decrease
the tectonic disadvantage due to lithology. Therefore, the researchers stated that the developing city should grow in this region after

Fig. 2. Aftershock activity greater than Mw 4 that occurred after the earthquake [13].

3
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

1960 despite being close to the fault line. However, Elazığ is just expanding towards this region. This region is considered a region far
from the earthquake amplification effect that causes the current earthquake acceleration emerging on alluvial soils to appear larger
and closer to the fault but with high lithological resistance [21].

3. Strong ground motions and response spectra

Seismic waves generated by the earthquake in Elazığ-Sivrice were recorded by the accelerometers in the region and Türkiye in
general. The locations of the accelerometer stations closest to the epicenter of the earthquake and the wave propagation map of the
Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake are shown in Figs. 3–4. Here, station 2308 (Elazığ / Sivrice) is the closest station to the epicenter and station
2301 (City Center of Elazığ) is the farthest station to the epicenter. Acceleration-time data of strong ground motion recorded by these
accelerometers are given in Fig. 5a for east-west (EW), north-south (NS) and vertical directions. When these records were examined, it
was seen that there was a decrease in the peak ground acceleration (PGA) values from close to far and since the earthquake happened
on a strike-slip fault, greater acceleration values appeared in the horizontal components (EW, NS) of the ground motion (Table 1).
In addition to the maximum value, the dominant frequency of the vibration effect also has a great impact on the behavior in terms
of structure. For this reason, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis was performed to obtain the frequency contents of these earthquake
records and Fourier amplitude spectra of all components at stations 2301 and 2308 were obtained (Fig. 5b). When the Fourier spectra
were examined, the dominant frequency at Sivrice (2308) was in a wide range between 0.5 and 5.0 Hz, while it appeared 1 Hz at
station 2301. These results showed that the soil medium significantly changes the vibration effects. In addition, the fact that the
dominant frequency at the City Center of Elazığ (2301) station was 1 Hz led to the conclusion that the earthquake effects could be seen
more in structures with a dominant vibration period close to this value. Thus, the field observation that multi-storey structures (6–8
storey structures) were significantly affected by the earthquake demonstrated the significance of taking resonance vibrations into
account once more.
In Türkiye, the earthquake codes are updated periodically. Acceleration spectra for the design of structures are defined in the
earthquake codes. Design spectra are of great importance in terms of accurate perception of earthquake effects and safe building
construction. In this study, response spectrum curves of earthquake records and design spectrum curves defined by earthquake codes
were compared. Most of the buildings in the earthquake zone were built according to the regulations revised in 1975 [23], 1998 [24]
and 2007 [25] Similar spectrum curves were given in these three regulations. Therefore, the design spectra defined in the TEC2007
representing these three were obtained for the region being a 1st and 2nd degree seismic zone in the relevant regulation and for the

Fig. 3. Locations of the accelerometer stations.

4
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 4. Wave propagation map of the Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake.

Fig. 5. The closest acceleration records and frequency contents of the Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake.

5
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Table 1
Accelerometers and measured peak ground acceleration values.
Station PGA [g]

Code Province District NS EW U-D

2308 Elazığ Sivrice 0.243 0.298 0.194

2301 Elazığ City Center 0.122 0.144 0.068
4404 Malatya Pütürge 0.211 0.244 0.157

best and worst soil classes (Z1, Z4) (Fig. 6). Based on every single geographic coordinate, the elastic design spectrum specified within
Türkiye Building Earthquake Code (TBEC2018) is determined. The design map spectral acceleration coefficients were obtained from
the Seismic Hazard Map of Türkiye, depending on the earthquake levels and soil classes [26]. The risk map of the design earthquake of
Türkiye and the earthquake zone is given in Fig. 7. The map spectral acceleration values for the location of station 2308 were obtained
for all soil classes according to the TBEC2018, and design spectrum curves were created. Response spectrum curves were obtained
using the time-history records recorded by accelerometers and are given in Fig. 6 comparatively.
According to the 2018 earthquake regulation, the spectral acceleration values obtained from the earthquake hazard maps give the
fault type and soil properties. It turned out that the design elastic spectral acceleration values were predicted far above the response
spectrum values of the earthquake that occurred at all stations and for all components of vibration records. The fact that buildings were
affected by this earthquake could only be explained by the quality of the materials and the fact that the building was not built in
accordance with the project and construction rules. Moreover, by examining Fig. 6, it was seen that the spectral values of the vibration
effects caused by the earthquake at the station closest to the epicenter were much smaller than the elastic design spectral acceleration
values defined in the relevant codes for the buildings built according to the 1997 and 2007 earthquake codes.
The regions most affected by the earthquake are also depicted by the intensity of the earthquake waves in Fig. 8 [28].

Fig. 6. Horizontal elastic design spectra for accelerometer location and response spectrum curves for the 2020 Elazığ earthquake.

6
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 7. Türkiye Earthquake Risk Map (DD2 earthquake) and the earthquake risk of the region [27].

4. Structural failures of the reinforced concrete structures

Systematic, reliable and fast seismic damage assessment is a very important procedure for returning to normal life after the
earthquake as soon as possible. However, avoiding the destructive effects of aftershocks and preventing people from potential life
losses is also very important situation after an earthquake. For a large number of buildings, which requires damage assessment right
after the earthquakes, the seismic damage evaluation procedures, should be easily applicable in a short time objectively. For the easy
application of the developed damage assessment algorithm, a simple form is drafted and filled on-site by the damage assessment teams
appointed by the ministry. The seismic damage assessment procedure developed for both reinforced concrete and masonry buildings
was established on a concept of average structural damage level and estimated residual strengths of the structural members. The
relevant official units observed buildings from outside and inside to examine the structural element failures. If it is seen that the
building is fully or partially collapsed, the building is tagged as a severely damaged building. This means that the building should be
demolished. If the building has no damage except walls, the building is tagged as a less damaged building. Furthermore, if the building
has distinctive damages of vertical and horizontal structural members the building is tagged as moderately damaged building. This

7
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 8. Earthquake intensity map for Elazığ Earthquake [28].

means that the building must be strengthened according to the earthquake code.
Damage assessment studies made by the relevant official units were performed in a total of 61152 buildings and 202,765 residences
in these buildings in Elazığ city center, Sivrice and Maden districts and surrounding villages. 263 collapsed, 7698 severely damaged,
1540 moderately damaged, 15,671 less damaged, and 25,851 undamaged buildings were determined and 558 buildings in the area
were listed as “urgently demolish”. Investigations in the Elazığ city region after the earthquake revealed that the number of residences
in collapsed, severely damaged, and moderately damaged buildings were 33,688. Furthermore, the damage assessment studies were
carried out in a total of 14304 buildings in Malatya, Doğanyol, Pötürge, Battalgazi, Yeşilyurt and Kale districts. 370 collapsed, 2794
were heavily damaged, 621 were moderately damaged, 375 were slightly damaged and 7182 undamaged buildings were determined
in these buildings. The studies conducted throughout Malatya city showed that the number of residence in collapsed, heavily damaged,
and moderately damaged buildings were 9461 [29] and [30].
As a result of the investigations carried out in the field immediately after the earthquake, common insufficiencies such as poor
quality of concrete, poor workmanship, non-seismic reinforcement detailing and non-conforming earthquake-resistant construction
techniques stood out as the main causes of damage in the buildings. It was observed that a significant part of the buildings in the
earthquake zone did not meet the requirements of the earthquake codes in force today, and even the ones at the time of their con­
struction. When the design spectrum curves and the response spectrum curves of the earthquake records were studied, it was seen that
only the project, application and construction errors affected these results since the codes predicted a design earthquake far above than
this one.

4.1. Concrete quality

The rules regarding concrete strength have been applied in all TECs since 1975. The minimum concrete compressive strength had to
be 18 MPa for the first and second-degree seismic zones according to TEC1975 [23], and these values were upgraded to 20 MPa in
TEC1997 [24] for the same seismic zones. In addition, minimum concrete compressive strength was accepted for all seismic zones as
20 MPa in TEC2007 [25], upgraded as 25 MPa in TBEC2018 [26]. The strength of the concrete used in reinforced concrete structures
was determined by taking concrete core samples from the columns and/or walls on the outer surfaces of the buildings according to the
code TS EN 12504–1 (2019) [31]. Concrete core samples were tested in the TS EN 12390–3 (2019) [32] laboratory environment and

8
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

the strength of the concrete used was determined. Concrete core sample results show that the concrete classes in these buildings range
from C6 to C12. Moreover, the majority of the samples’ concrete strengths were too poor to be assessed in accordance with the
standards [33]. Investigations revealed that almost all of the earthquake-damaged structures were constructed with very subpar
concrete that was manually poured on the worksite using conventional techniques. Many negative factors were observed in the
concrete, such as aggregates with poor granulometry, tuvanan aggregate, cement in insufficient dosage, and heterogeneous mixture
(Fig. 9). In the examinations made on reinforced concrete columns, it was observed that there were wooden waste materials and river
aggregate with a diameter of 5–7 cm in the concrete. Additionally, it was found that the cement dosage in concretes was kept very low,
the concrete did not mix well, and the concrete fractures occurred at the cement-aggregate interface. (Fig. 10).
The concrete samples that were not correctly settled in the beams and slab elements were observed, and it was determined that the
reinforcements were exposed and corroded as a result of inadequate mixing of the concrete on the worksite, inappropriate concrete
composition, and incorrect granulometry (Fig. 11). Segregation was observed in the bearing elements in most structures examined in
Elazığ and Malatya provinces due to the poor concrete mixture, poor mold work and concrete placement without vibrator.

4.2. The use of stirrup

Stirrups are reinforcement elements used in reinforced concrete structures for supplying shearing force, increasing ductility,
decreasing longitudinal reinforcement buckling length and increasing the compressive strength of core concrete with confinement
effect. In all 1975 [23], 1997 [24], 2007 [25] and 2018 [26] Türkiye earthquake codes, using 135º curved hooks and creating special
confinement zones at the lower and upper ends of the columns were obligatory (Fig. 12). In the observations, it was determined that in
many buildings in the City Center of Elazığ, Sivrice and Malatya-Pütürge, suitable stirrups arrangement was not applied. There was no
stirrup tightening at the lower and upper ends of the column, there were no stirrups in the column-beam joints and stirrups were
positioned in a horizontally angled figure in the plane. (Fig. 13).

4.3. Reinforcement arrangements

In addition to poor concrete material used in reinforced concrete structures in the region, significant problems were observed in
reinforcement applications. One of these was the use of the “hooked clamping method” for longitudinal reinforcement clamping at the
lower end of the ground floor columns (Fig. 14b). It is a known fact that if a hook is made at the end of the longitudinal reinforcement,
there will be a risk of buckling in the reinforcement and a break may occur in the concrete cover layer with this effect. (Fig. 14a). It was
observed that mild steel reinforcement was used in most of the structures in the region and hooks were used in compression rein­
forcement. However, it was determined that there was not enough starter bar length left at the lower ends of the columns and column
stirrups were not continued in the column-beam connection area. In addition, reinforcement corrosion was observed as a result of the
concrete cover not being provided during the casting of the concrete and the reinforcement being exposed to outside weather con­
ditions. (Fig. 14). Shear damage, buckling of longitudinal reinforcements, separation in the concrete cover and plastic joint formation
at the end of the element were also observed as a result of the spacing distance of the stirrup being much higher than the values
specified in the Earthquake Code (Fig. 15).

4.4. The effect of weak storey, soft storey and short column

When the collapsed and heavily damaged buildings in the region were examined, it was determined that the columns received

Fig. 9. Non-granulometry aggregate, insufficient dosage and poor-quality concrete samples in columns.

9
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 10. Crusher-run aggregate and wood waste materials detected in columns.

Fig. 11. Examples of beams produced with poor-quality concrete which exposed to moisture and corroded.

greater shear forces than the values predicted in the design because of some reasons such as the use of lower floors as shops, the use of
large heavy cantilevers, and the intensive use of band windows on the ground floor. Shear failures occurred in the columns under the
effect of these forces and caused the structures to collapse completely. (Fig. 16). Moreover, in the investigations, it was seen that heavy
cantilevers caused great damage to the buildings and such planning should be avoided in earthquake zones. (Fig. 17).
It was determined that there were 70 flats in Mavi Göl Apartments consisting of A and B blocks in Gezin town of Elazığ-Maden
district and there were 7 shops under the building. When the building before the earthquake was examined, it was seen that there was a
weak and soft storey formation because of the shops and there were heavy cantilevers in the buildings. (Fig. 18). Moreover, it was
observed in many buildings that in addition to structural damage, the plumbing pipes were laid unconsciously by giving harm to the
structural elements. (Fig. 19).

5. Structural failures of the masonry structures

It was observed that masonry structures in the earthquake zone were generally in rural areas. The masonry structures were built on
one or two floors using adobe, stone, briquette, blend brick, wood materials or a combination of these provided by the construction site
[34]. These materials can be obtained easily and cheaply so this type of building is quite popular in the region. Masonry walls were
constructed with poor binding materials such as lime mortar and adobe mortar (soil mortar) as binders. Most of these buildings were
destroyed or severely damaged in the earthquake because they did not receive engineering services, were not built according to
masonry construction rules and bases, and weak binders were used. Many collapsed masonry structures built from stone materials were
observed in the earthquake zone. Işik et al. (2020) [35] and Dogan et al. (2021) [36] also pointed out that the failure of the buildings to
receive engineering services caused damage.
Horizontal bonding beams were used on the walls, roof and window tops of the masonry structure, which was built using rubble

10
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 12. TBEC2018 Special earthquake stirrups and crossties [26].

stone and adobe mortar, but it was seen that the beams were not placed in the thickness of the wall. For this reason, a part of the walls
in which bonding beams were not used was collapsed (Fig. 20). It was determined that the vertical joints were overlapped on the walls
of some masonry structures, adobe mortar was used, and the roof was built by placing wooden beams on the walls and laying soil on it.
No rigid diaphragm arrangement (reinforced concrete timber beam etc.) was found, to keep the walls in their own plane and connect
them with neighboring walls, at the roof and floor level in most of the masonry structures that were damaged or collapsed. For this
reason, it was observed that the walls were damaged as they went out of their plane independently. Roof collapse (Fig. 21) and wall
overturning (Fig. 22) cases were observed in buildings with such deficiencies.
In the earthquake zone, buildings which were constructed using adobe materials were also observed in rural areas. Adobe brick
masonry materials are produced by pouring a mixture of clay mortar and straw fiber into molds and drying them. In some adobe
buildings, it was observed that no fiber was added to the adobe wall material. The same material was used as a binder for masonry
walls. It is known that deformations occur in adobe wall material and joints over time as a result of the negative effects of atmospheric
conditions such as temperature and precipitation. The fact that adobe structures were produced with low-strength materials due to
their nature, the use of soil cover material to coat roofs, and insufficient connections of the walls to each other with beams at the floor
level weakened the adobe structure. Therefore, it was observed that wall damages occurred, and many adobe buildings collapsed
during the earthquake (Fig. 23). The ground floor of the building, which was built adjacent to the adobe structure given in Fig. 23, was
made of reinforced concrete and the upper floor was built with an adobe wall and reinforced concrete horizontal beam was used on the
wall. Since the horizontal beam was not connected with other wall bond beams, the wall moved out of its plane and fell to the ground
after separating from the wall. The partial use of a lightweight roof system in the building reduced the earthquake damage. It was
observed that the roofs of some old adobe buildings were built with a wooden roof and corrugated galvanized sheet metal instead of a
heavy earthen roof, which reduced the damage. However, the absence of a beam element to hold the walls together at the floor and
roof levels, and the use of poor workmanship and materials caused the walls to be damaged in these structures (Fig. 24). In the
earthquake zone, there were also masonry structures built with load-bearing masonry bricks and blend bricks. These structure types
were generally seen in rural areas. Lime-cement mortar and adobe mortar were used as joint materials on the walls. Demolition and
wall damage was observed in some of the structures built with bricks. It was observed that blend bricks and masonry bricks were used

11
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 13. Stirrup application errors and damages.

in a partially destroyed building wall. A part of the outer wall was demolished due to reasons such as not connecting the walls with
horizontal beams and having a weak structural bearing (Fig. 25). In a two-storey building constructed using blend bricks, seating
damage due to cantilevers (Fig. 26a), horizontal joint breaks (Fig. 26b) and shear fractures (Fig. 26c) were observed. It was also
observed that in the area where the shear cracks occurred, the blend bricks were also broken together with the joint breaks along the

12
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 14. Application errors in compression reinforcement.

Fig. 15. Structural damage due to insufficient stirrup applications.

Fig. 16. Malatya Doğanyol band window and short column damages.

shear crack (Fig. 26c).

Some masonry structures built with briquettes and damaged in the earthquake were also found in the area. It was observed that the
briquette walls were built with a mixture of cement and lime mortar. The structures were heavily damaged in the earthquake because
the bearing capacity of the briquette in the structures was very low and the walls were not supported with beams at the floor and roof
level. (Fig. 27). Another demolished building type in the region was the wooden masonry structure with soil mortar. The ground floor
walls of the building were laid with stone and soil mortar was used as binding material. The ground floor walls were built with wood,

13
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 17. City Center of Elazığ, heavy cantilever damage.

Fig. 18. Mavi Göl Apartment in Gezin/Maden.

and adobe mortar was used as a joint between the wooden materials (Fig. 28).

6. Classification of the structural damages and causes

Türkiye is located on the boundaries of some active faults such as the North Anatolian Fault, East Anatolian Fault, and West
Anatolian Fault. In the last couple of decades earthquakes, which were greater than magnitude 6.0, occurred in different areas of
Türkiye, especially near the mentioned faults. These earthquakes caused many damages to the buildings either heavily or moderately
and resulted in the loss of many people’s lives. The presence of these active faults makes Türkiye one of the most vulnerable countries

14
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 19. Passing the plumbing pipes from the structural elements.

in the world.
The building stock in Türkiye has a large number of housing stock consisting of RC buildings in urban areas and masonry structures
in rural areas. On the other hand, a considerable percentage of the buildings such as hospitals, schools and public buildings were
constructed as RC moment-resisting frame buildings in Türkiye. These buildings’ design and construction mistakes resulted in damage
or collapses. The authors made observations that most affected areas by the earthquake. For this purpose, earthquake damages were
investigated in the city center of Elazığ and districts which are Sürsürü, Abdullahpaşa, Mustafapaşa, Rüstempaşa, Rızaiye, İcadiye,
Nailbey, İzzetpaşa and Sivrice province. In addition to this, field investigations were carried out in the Kale, Doğanyol and Pötürge
provinces of Malatya. In these site observations, approximately sixty masonry structures and around ninety reinforced concrete
buildings were examined. Based on the on-site field investigation conducted after the Sivrice-Elazığ earthquake on January 24, 2020,
the main errors determined during the design and construction stages on RC buildings are given in Table 2.
Masonry is one of the oldest construction practices still in use, particularly in rural areas where it is simple to construct using local
materials which have high thermal advantages, and is less expensive to build. These structures typically perform poorly under hor­
izontal loads like earthquakes or wind, especially when they are built in violation of seismic code regulations. The material used in
construction changes according to the construction territory in walls, roofs and slabs of these structures in Türkiye. In earthquakes the
performance of masonry structures usually depends on the strength and integrity of structural elements. The integrity of the structure
depends on the connection between the inside and outside walls. According to all Türkiye Earthquake Codes, at places where slabs are
supported by walls, the integrity of the structure must be determined with the RC horizontal bond beams. However, the distance

15
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 20. An example of a heavily damaged masonry building with stone walls, a part of whose walls on the same plane collapsed.

Fig. 21. An example of a stone masonry structure whose roof was destroyed and walls were damaged.

between the corner of the wall and the opening, also the distance between two openings is limited by the Codes. Field observations
showed that the limits and application practices mentioned above did not apply to masonry buildings and using of different materials
together in the construction caused the collapse or damage of masonry buildings. The observed failures and their causes for masonry
buildings can be find in Table 2.
In their studies after the 2011 Van earthquake Dindar et al. find that according to TEC2007 there was an unsuitable reinforcement
arrangement and improper reinforcement applications in the damaged place in Van City. Unfortunately, our observations showed
similar results in the Elazığ and Malatya in the damaged buildings. These results show that implementation errors often exist in older
RC buildings in Türkiye. In their study Yön et al. emphasized that the cause of damages in RC and Masonry buildings are structural and
material defects such as soft and weak stories, short column, and low quality of structural materials, poor workmanship and con­
struction with insufficient detailing in the earthquakes occurred in Türkiye. Although these results support our findings, these damages
proved that there is a general lack of engineering services or inadequate engineering services in these structures. In their study for the
2011 Van, Türkiye, earthquake, Bayraktar et al. (2013), determined several reasons such as poor construction quality, poor concrete

16
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 22. Heavy earthen roof masonry damage.

Fig. 23. Adobe building debris.

Fig. 24. Damage of a masonry structure with a wooden seating roof.

17
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 25. The debris of a building built with masonry bricks and blend bricks.

Fig. 26. Damages of masonry structures built with blend bricks.

strength quality, un-ribbed reinforcement steel bars, poor detailing in beam-column joints, strong beam–weak columns, soft and weak
stories, inadequate transverse reinforcement and inadequate safe distance between buildings. As indicated in the previous chapters
there are such structural errors were observed in our field observations in Elazığ. On the other hand, it was noted that although there
was an extensive damage to the RC structures in the region, the number of buildings that collapsed did not exceed five and these
buildings were also single buildings. In the field observations it has been concluded that adjacent buildings with similar dynamic
properties acted as a whole during the earthquake and prevented collapse even though they were damaged. In addition, these
structures also have been built with basements traditionally in the survey field, we also observed that they were less damaged and
prevented from total collapse.

7. Conclusion and recommendation

This study includes reconnaissance observations and geotechnical and structural investigations carried out in the earthquake zone
immediately after the January 24, 2020 Elazığ Earthquake. The conclusion and some of the lessons learned from damage and failure
are summarized below:

18
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Fig. 27. Masonry structure damage built with briquette.

Fig. 28. Masonry wooden structure debris.

1. The fact that the existing building stock in Türkiye is not ready for earthquakes has once again been revealed in the investigations
made after this earthquake. Almost all of the casualties in earthquakes in Türkiye are caused by the collapse of buildings. For this
reason, the most important step in reducing earthquake damages is to make existing buildings safe against earthquakes and to
construct new earthquake resistance buildings.
2. It was seen that in the investigated area there was no geotechnical effect in the damages. It was observed that the existing damages
were caused by the building quality and the fact that such structures were not subjected to weak soil or earthquake amplification
effects prevented greater losses. The observations of the damaged structures and fields in the earthquake zone showed that spread
footings and combined footings applications were common in building foundation selection. In this region with high seismic ac­
tivity, it was observed that basement application was widely used in many places while building foundation systems were arranged.
It was thought that the widespread use of basement storey buildings was effective in the absence of problems such as soil
settlements.
3. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) value for the structures in the investigated earthquake zone has been given as at least 0.4 g
since the earthquake code dated 1998 (TEC1997). The peak ground acceleration value recorded during the Elazığ Earthquake was
measured as 0.298 g. Therefore, considering the buildings built after 1998, Elazığ Earthquake had a lower force than the earth­
quake loads envisaged in the design of these buildings. The collapse or heavy damage of the new buildings due to this earthquake
can only be explained by the fact that they were not built according to the design projects and construction rules.

19
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

Table 2
Observed structural failures and failure reasons in buildings.
Damage Type/Case Explanation Observation Consequences Supporting
document

RC BUILDINGS
Concrete manufacturing Changing standards have recommended a improper concrete mix causes to local damage or total See
defects minimum of 18–25 MPa for this region decreased concrete strength and collapse of the Figs. 9–10
bond resistance structure
Improper reinforcement Regulations do not permit hooking for visible shear cracks on the local damage or total See
applications and longitudinal reinforcement at the lower and forces columns and brittle type of collapse of the Figs. 13–14
workmanship errors using the 135º curved hooks at the confinement column shear damage structure
zones
Inadequate transverse Min value (shall not be less than) is 5 cm, Max decreasing ductility and shear local damage or total See Fig. 15
reinforcement in value (shall not be more than) 1/3 of the smaller force resistance collapse of the
columns cross section dimension or 10 cm according to structure
codes up to 2007 for spacing of stirrups
Short columns In order to avoid the short column effect, the Brittle cracking and shear damage local damage or total See Fig. 16
design codes have some requirements to be of column collapse of the
followed during the design phase up to TEC 2018 structure
Soft and weak storey All earthquake regulations suggests that in the Typical design practice in the local damage or total See
mechanism vertical direction, irregularities, which create a conventional building stock of collapse of the Figs. 16–17
weak or soft storey, should be avoided. Türkiye that causes brittle structure
cracking
MASONRY BUILDINGS
Weak binding materials According to the TEC 1998, natural stone, solid Inadequate material properties local damage or total See
brick or bricks with vertical holes can be used for failure the transmit horizontal collapse of the Figs. 20–22
the construction of the wall and the compressive and vertical loads to the structure
strength of these materials cannot be lower than foundation
50 kg/cm2.
Lack of bond beam TEC of 1968, 1975, 1998, 2007 and 2018, has Either a rigid diagram is not local damage or total See
rules and regulations about RC horizontal bond provided or is inadequate in collapse of the Figs. 23–25
beam many structures structure

4. In the south of Elazığ, there are regions with high groundwater levels and soil liquefaction risk. However, when the damaged
structures in the earthquake zone were examined, it was determined that the structures were not damaged due to liquefaction and
the damages were not directly related to the soil behavior.
5. It was observed that in almost all buildings that were destroyed and severely damaged during the earthquake had concrete out of
standards and regulations. It was determined that the production of concrete did not comply with the standards, and it was pro­
duced with traditional methods in the construction site with low cement content. Therefore, the strength of the concrete was mostly
around 8 and 10 MPa in the observed area.
6. According to the observations, almost all of the insufficiencies encountered in investigations made after many earthquakes in our
country were also seen in this earthquake zone. Concrete strength was very low, material and workmanship were quite insufficient,
column stirrups were not generally applied in column-beam joints, longitudinal reinforcement laps were limited, and columns were
weaker than beams. Moreover, irregular structural detailing such as a 90-degree hook at hoop ends, wide spacing of hoop rein­
forcement and plain bars as longitudinal reinforcement were noticed. For instance, shear failure in columns was observed in the
major principle direction because of the lack of lateral reinforcement that did not meet the demand shear forces. Therefore, it was
concluded that the engineering services were not received at a sufficient level in both the design and construction stages, and also
the necessary controls were not carried out adequately.
7. Material strength of the masonry structures built in rural areas was insufficient and they were not built according to the con­
struction rules and principles. As a result, serious damage was observed in this kind of buildings. On the other hand, in masonry
structures, it is crucial to ensure that the masonry courses interlock well at junctions and employing horizontal bands at different
levels, particularly at the lintel level. In addition, smaller openings in the walls will increase the structure seismic resistance.
8. The irregularities that may lead to the collapse of buildings such as weak or soft story, short columns, supporting element dis­
continuities, and large projections in the plan must be avoided in the newly constructed buildings in the seismic zones.

According to these results following recommendations for future earthquakes will be important to avoid similar damages:

1. It is understood that the majority of the damaged or collapsed buildings were not built according to the current earthquake reg­
ulations. For these reasons, new buildings should be closely supervised by civil engineers during the construction process, and well-
educated construction workers should be employed in the construction industry.
2. Existing reinforced concrete and masonry structures that are undamaged and less damaged should be analyzed and made resistant
to possible earthquakes.
3. In the design of structures, effects such as short columns and torsional irregularities should be limited. In addition, there should be a
limit on heavy overhung applications.

20
N. Caglar et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01886

4. However, it should be ensured that the structures are built with materials according to the defined requirements of codes and
qualified workmanship under strict supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

[1] A. Doǧangün, Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 Bingöl Earthquake in Turkey, Eng. Struct. vol. 26 (6) (2004) 841–856,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.02.005.
[2] E. Sayin, B. Yön, Y. Calayir, M. Karaton, Failures of masonry and adobe buildings during the June 23, 2011 Maden-(Elaziǧ) earthquake in Turkey, Eng. Fail.
Anal. vol. 34 (2013) 779–791, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.10.016.
[3] A. Doǧangün, B. Yön, O. Onat, M. Emin Öncü, S. Saǧlroǧlu, Seismicity of east anatolian of turkey and failures of infill walls induced by major earthquakes,
J. Earthq. Tsunami vol. 15 (4) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793431121500172.
[4] B. Yön, Identification of failure mechanisms in existing unreinforced masonry buildings in rural areas after April 4, 2019 earthquake in Turkey, J. Build. Eng.
vol. 43 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102586.
[5] B. Yön, O. Onat, M. Emin Öncü, A. Karaşi˙n, Failures of masonry dwelling triggered by east anatolian fault earthquakes in Turkey, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. vol. 133
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106126.
[6] B. Yön, O. Onat, M.E. Öncü, Earthquake damage to nonstructural elements of reinforced concrete buildings during 2011 Van Seismic sequence, J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. vol. 33 (6) (2019), https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001341.
[7] Y.H. Coşgun, Cumhur Dindar, Ahmet Anıl, Seçkin Eedip, Önen, Analysis of building damage caused by earthquakes in Eastern Turkey, J. Croat. Assoc. Civ. Eng.
vol. 65 (8) (2013) 743–752, https://doi.org/10.14256/jce.892.2013.
[8] B. Yön, E. Sayin, O. Onat, Earthquakes and structural damages, Earthq. - Tecton., Hazard Risk Mitig. (2017), https://doi.org/10.5772/65425.
[9] E. Işik, M. Kutanis, I.E. Bal, Estimated loss and rating of earthquake risk in eastern Turkey, Gradjevinar vol. 69 (7) (2017) 581–592, https://doi.org/10.14256/
JCE.1242.2015.
[10] A. Salaman, M. Stepinac, I. Matorić, M. Klasić, Post-earthquake condition assessment and seismic upgrading strategies for a heritage-protected school in
Petrinja, Croatia, Buildings vol. 12 (12) (2022) 1–28, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122263.
[11] A. Yakut, et al., Performance of structures in İzmir after the Samos island earthquake, Bull. Earthq. Eng. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01226-6.
[12] H. Bilgin, N. Shkodrani, M. Hysenlliu, H. Baytan Ozmen, E. Isik, E. Harirchian, Damage and performance evaluation of masonry buildings constructed in 1970s
during the 2019 Albania earthquakes, Eng. Fail. Anal. vol. 131 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105824.
[13] Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (DEMP) (in Turkish), 2020. 〈https://deprem.afad.gov.tr〉.
[14] Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (DEMP), 〈https://www.afad.gov.tr/afet-istatistikleri〉, (in Turkish)., 2020.
[15] M. PALUTOĞLU and E. TANYOLU, Seismicity of Elazığ city center settlement area, Fırat Univ. J. Sci. Eng. Sci., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 577–588, 206AD.
[16] Ö. Emre, et al., Active fault database of Turkey, Bull. Earthq. Eng. vol. 16 (8) (2018) 3229–3275, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0041-2.
[17] A. Kürçer, H. Elmacı, N. Yıldırım, and S. Özalp, “January 24, 2020 Sivrice (Elazığ) Depremi (Mw = 6.8) Field Observation and Evaluation Report, Mineral
Research and Exploration Institute, Ankara (in Turkish),” 2020.
[18] E. Sayın, et al., 24 January 2020 Sivrice-Elazığ, Turkey earthquake: geotechnical evaluation and performance of structures, Bull. Earthq. Eng. vol. 19 (2) (2021)
657–684, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-01018-4.
[19] M. Sunkar, “Major Earthquakes in The Historical and Instrumental Periods on Palu (Elazığ) and Effects on Settlements,” in Application and Research Center, Int.
Palu Symp. . Proc. Book (2018).
[20] Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (DEMP), Elazıg/Sivrice Report (in Turkish), 2020.
[21] D. Akdemı˙r, I.˙ O. Ç ağ lıyan, A. Dağ lı, The geographic information in urban planning: the application of Elazig, Fırat Univ. J. Harput Stud. vol. 2 (1) (2018)
53–76.
[22] K.O. Cetin, et al., Geotechnical aspects of reconnaissance findings after 2020 January 24th, M6.8 Sivrice–Elazig–Turkey earthquake, Bull. Earthq. Eng. vol. 19
(9) (2021) 3415–3459, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01112-1.
[23] Türkiye Earthquake Code (1975)(in Turkish),Minist. Public Work. Settl., 1975.
[24] Türkiye Earthquake Code (1997) (in Turkish), Minist. Public Work. Settl., 1997.
[25] TÜrkiye Earthquake Code, (in Turkish), (In Turkis. Ankara, 2007.
[26] Türkiye Building Earthquake Code, (in Turkish),Minist. Public Work. Settl., 2018.
[27] TDTH, An Interactive Web Application Prepared for Earthquake Hazard Maps of Türkiye - Türkiye Prime Ministry Disaster & Emergency Management Authority
(2018). https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/ Ankara, Türkiye, (in Turkish).
[28] 21. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 〈https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us60007ewc/map〉.
[29] Ö.F. Nemutlu, B. Balun, A. Sarı, Damage assessment of buildings after 24 January 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake, Earthq. Struct. vol. 20 (3) (2021) 325–335,
https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.20.3.325.
[30] Turkey Interior Ministry. 〈https://www.icisleri.gov.tr/elazig-depremi-sonrasi-yapilan-tum-yardimlar〉. 20.02.2020,(in Turkish).
[31] TS EN 12504–1, Testing concrete in structures - Part 1: Cored specimens - Taking, examining and testing in compression, Türkiye Standards Institution, Turkey,
2019.
[32] TS EN 12390–3, Testing hardened concrete - Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens, Türkiye Standards Institution, Türkiye, 2019.
[33] TRMCA. Türkiye Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Elazığ earthquake reconnaissance report (in Turkish).
[34] M. Günaydin, et al., Seismic damage assessment of masonry buildings in Elazığ and Malatya following the 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake, Turkey, Bull. Earthq.
Eng. vol. 19 (6) (2021) 2421–2456, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01073-5.
[35] E. Işik, M.C. Ayd, A. Büyüksaraç, 24 January 2020 Sivrice (Elaziğ) earthquake damages and determination of earthquake parameters in the region, Earthq.
Struct. vol. 19 (2) (2020) 145–156, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.19.2.145.
[36] G. Dogan, A.S. Ecemis, S.Z. Korkmaz, M.H. Arslan, H.H. Korkmaz, Buildings damages after Elazığ, Turkey Earthquake on January 24, 2020, Nat. Hazards vol.
109 (1) (2021) 161–200, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04831-5.

21