Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107129
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn
An evaluation of seismic hazard and potential damage in Gaziantep, Turkey

using site specific models for sources, velocity structure and building stock
Arzu Arslan Kelam a, Shaghayegh Karimzadeh b, Karim Yousefibavil a, Haluk Akgün a,
Aysegul Askan c, M. Altug Erberik c, *, Mustafa K. Koçkar d, Onur Pekcan c, Hacer Ciftci e
a
Geotechnology Unit, Department of Geological Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE), University of Minho, Guimaraes, Portugal
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
e
Hcr Engineering & Consulting, Gaziantep, Turkey
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Assessment of potential seismic risk and losses in urban environments is necessary for several purposes ranging
Seismic hazard from risk mitigation to city and regional planning. It is well known that loss estimation should be performed
Regional velocity model within an interdisciplinary setting involving earth sciences and engineering. Field experience from recent events
Ground motion simulation
worldwide shows that the spatial variability of seismic damage is due to the combined effects of earthquake
Building vulnerability
Seismic damage
source properties, local site conditions and structural characteristics. In this study, a scenario-based multi-input
Gaziantep damage estimation framework in an urban region was utilized for the Gaziantep city center (southeastern
Turkey Turkey) that is located in a region of high seismic hazard with no large events in the instrumental era. Initially, a
thorough geological and seismo-tectonic assessment of the area was performed followed by estimation of two
critical scenario events with moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.5 and 6.6 on nearby active faults. Then, a regional
velocity model was compiled from regressions of existing regional geotechnical and seismic data in terms of the
VS30 parameter. As the next step, field surveys for the assessment and classification of buildings in the study area
were performed followed by vulnerability analyses. As the last step, the mean damage ratios were computed at
198 neighborhoods within the city center. The results indicate not only a high hazard but also high risk in the
Gaziantep area due to the combination of close proximity to the faults along with local site effects and building
fragilities.
1. Introduction tectonic structures of southeastern Turkey is attributed to the move

ments of the Eurasian, African, Arabian, Aegean, Anatolian and the
Densely populated urban regions with critical facilities and weak Black Sea plates [8,9]. The African and Arabian plates have moved to the
residential buildings located in regions of high seismic hazard require north relative to the Eurasian plate where these movements have forced
special attention in terms of risk mitigation. Recently, all over the world, the Anatolian plate to move towards the west. The relative movements
seismic hazard, risk and loss estimations have been performed by many of these plates have formed the fault zones and have led to destructive
researchers in seismically active regions with various techniques (e.g., earthquakes in Southeastern Turkey [10].
Refs. [1–7]. These studies nowadays are significant for critical purposes In this study, an interdisciplinary approach for seismic loss assess
including seismic risk mitigation and urban planning. ment in the Gaziantep city center is presented. Gaziantep is an indus
Turkey is a part of the Alpine-Himalayan orogenic belt and its tec trial, highly populated city that is located in southeastern Turkey. It is
tonic evolution continues as a consequence of the movements of the mainly surrounded by active fault systems including the Dead Sea Fault
tectonic plates that contain and surround it. The formation of the Zone (DSFZ), the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ), and the Bitlis-Zagros
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ararzu@metu.edu.tr (A. Arslan Kelam), shaghkn@civil.uminho.pt (S. Karimzadeh), yousefibavil.karim@metu.edu.tr (K. Yousefibavil), hakgun@
metu.edu.tr (H. Akgün), aaskan@metu.edu.tr (A. Askan), altug@metu.edu.tr (M.A. Erberik), mustafakockar@hacettepe.edu.tr (M.K. Koçkar), opekcan@metu.edu.tr
(O. Pekcan), ciftcihcr@gmail.com (H. Ciftci).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107129
Received 31 May 2021; Received in revised form 18 December 2021; Accepted 19 December 2021
Available online 28 December 2021
0267-7261/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
A. Arslan Kelam et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107129
The objective of this study is to assess the seismic hazard and po
tential losses anticipated in the existing building stock in Gaziantep city
of Turkey based on a regional evaluation ranging from seismic sources to
soil models; from hazard to structural response and damage. The scope
includes preparation of a future earthquake master plan for the evalu
ation of seismic hazard and vulnerability of the building stock within the
Gaziantep Central Districts. For this purpose, an interdisciplinary
approach has been proposed for the Gaziantep region, which has not
been studied in detail before. The fundamental steps of the approach
used herein are characterization of the faults, development of a regional
soil model, simulation of critical scenario earthquakes on nearby faults,
on-site evaluation and classification of the existing building stock and
estimation of potential seismic losses in the form of mean damage ratios,
respectively. Fig. 1 presents a flowchart that summarizes the approach
used in this study and its main components mentioned previously.
2. Geology and tectonics of the study area
Gaziantep, which is one of the metropolitan cities of Turkey, is

located in southeastern Anatolia and has borders with Syria in the
southeast. Although the city covers an area of 6222 km2, the study
presented herein has concentrated on the central districts of Gaziantep,
namely the 198 neighborhoods located within the two central districts
with an area of 193 km2 where the building stock is dense (Fig. 2).
The study region entails autochthonous units as well as allochtho
nous units. Allochthonous units that outcrop in Gaziantep are the Kar
adut Complex, the Koçali Complex and the Hatay Ophiolite Nappe that
tectonically overlies the Karadut and Koçali Complexes. The
Maastrihtiyen-Lower Miocene autochthonous units are represented by a
1800 m thick sequence. The autochthonous units are the Besni forma
tion, Germav formation, Gerciş formation, Ardıçlı Tepe formation, Hoya
formation and Upper Eocene-Oligocene aged Gaziantep formation. The
Oligocene-Lower Miocene aged Fırat formation, which is composed of
reef limestones, unconformably overlies these units. The Middle-Upper
Miocene Şelmo formation, Upper Miocene Yavuzeli Basalt and Plio
cene aged Harabe formation are emplaced over the older units with an
unconformity [18]. The units that crop out in the study area are the
Lower-Middle Eocene Aslansuyu formation composed of neritic lime
stone, the Middle-Upper Eocene Ardıçlıtepe formation, the Upper
Eocene-Lower Oligocene Gaziantep formation, the Oligocene-Lower
Miocene Fırat formation composed of reef limestone, the
Middle-Upper Miocene Yavuzeli Basalt and Quaternary Alluvium,
respectively [19].
As mentioned previously, Turkey has been a seismically active region
as a consequence of plate activity and the presence of active fault zones.
In Anatolia, a total of 1170 significant earthquakes have been gathered
from the historical catalogue (i.e., B.C. 2100-1900) [20]. In the eastern
part of Turkey, approximately 140 significant earthquakes (M > 5) have
been recorded during the instrumental period (i.e., 1908–2020) [21].
Examples of significant earthquakes that have occurred in the last 25
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the multidisciplinary loss assessment approach used in
years are the 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice Earthquake (Mw = 6.8), the 2011
this study.
Tabanlı-Van Earthquake (Mw = 7.2), the 2010 Elazığ-Karakoçan
Earthquake (Ml = 6.0), the 2007 Elazığ-Sivrice Earthquake (Ml = 5.9),
Suture Zone (BZSZ). Despite being in an active fault zone, particularly
the 2003 Bingöl Earthquake (Ms = 6.4), the 2003 Tunceli-Pülümür
due to the lack of large destructive earthquakes in the region within the
Earthquake (Ms = 6.2), the 1998 Adana-Ceyhan Earthquake (Ms = 6.2)
instrumental era, the regional seismic gap poses high seismic hazard.
and the 1992 Erzincan Earthquake (Ms = 6.8). The critical fault zones
Significant hazard levels have the potential to cause damaging events
that have had an impact in the study area are the Dead Sea Fault Zone
due to the poor construction quality of the building stock in the region.
(DSFZ), the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ), the Surgu Fault Zone and
Other than the large-scale seismic hazard studies in the region such as
the Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone (BZSZ). Approximately 337 earthquakes
the SHARE, EMME and GEM projects [5,6,11,12], there are only a few
possessing moment magnitudes larger than 4.0 and that took place be
local studies in the literature that have focused on the individual aspects
tween 1900 and 2020 were recorded as a result of the activity of these
in terms of either seismic hazard (i.e. [13,14], ground motion parame
fault zones. The epicenters of the recorded earthquakes within a 200 km
ters (i.e. [15,16], or seismic structural response [17]. Despite regional
radius buffer zone around the study area are presented in Fig. 3.
seismicity, the lack of detailed investigations in terms of anticipated
seismic losses makes the study area a critical candidate for the study
presented herein.
2
Fig. 2. a) Location map of Gaziantep city, b) provinces of Gaziantep, c) central provinces of Gaziantep and the study area.
Fig. 3. Mw > 4 earthquakes that have been recorded between 1900 and 2020 in the vicinity of the study area that is located in the Gaziantep region.
3. Assessment of seismic source characteristics and critical source map was prepared. However, it should be noted that these maps
scenario earthquakes of the study area display information that lead to inconsistencies in the fault geometry,
locations, fault models, identification and fault segmentation due to the
For seismic source characterization, areas were extracted from the differences in the scales utilized. Due to this scaling problem, where the
zones that revealed major seismic activities for the period ranging from scale varies depending on whether the study performed is local, regional
1900 to 2020 that is presented in Fig. 3. According to these seismic or country-wide, there tends to be differences in the fault geometry,
source zones, the available fault maps from the literature and the location, fault mechanism and fault segmentation as compiled and
authorized government institutions (i.e., the General Directorate of presented as an output. Therefore, for this study, several fault maps that
Mineral Research and Exploration of Turkey) were digitized, and a new exist within the study area [10,22–29] were considered and a database
3
Fig. 4. Active fault map that displays the major faults and their sub-segments (modified from Refs. [10,22–27].
was created by geo-referencing these maps. The database includes the

Table 1
fault names and fault mechanisms, given that the source map contained
Seismic source zones and their segments in the study area.
the information. Based on this information, a novel fault segmentation
Fault or Segment Seismic Source Zone procedure has been prepared (Fig. 4) and this fault model has been used
CELIKHAN-GOLBASI SEGMENT (01 and 02) EAFSZ for the detailed seismic hazard assessment and analysis that is presented
GOLBASI-TURKOGLU SEGMENT (01 through 05) in the following sections.
HAZAR-SINCIK SEGMENT (01 through 04 and 07)
After the definition of the fault geometries, the next process was the
MALATYA FAULT (01 through 03) MOSZ assignment of the suitable seismic source zones. In this process, the
DUZICI FAULT (01 and 02) MYSZ earthquake catalog of KOERI [21] was used. By the integration of the
CYPRUS ARC earthquake records in a GIS environment, the spatial distribution of the
MISIS CEYHAN FAULT (01 through 04) faults and earthquakes were investigated. According to such a proced
YUMURTALIK FAULT (01 through 03)
ure, seismic zones were defined by considering and comparing both the
AFRIN FAULT (01 through 03) DSSZ dip angles of the faults and the spatial and temporal distribution of the
AMANOS-FAULT (01 through 05) earthquakes. In particular, the temporal distribution of the earthquakes
ARMANAZ FAULT (01 and 02)
BABATORUN FAULT
enabled investigation of the mainshock - aftershock relations and
DEAD SEA FAULT (01 and 02)- APAMEA SEGMENT contributed to the identification of the seismic zones. A total of 73 line
EAST HATAY FAULT (01 through 05) sources were identified for the study area where 62 of them are located
GHAB FAULT within the borders of the 200 km buffer zone that are presented in
KIRKPINAR FAULT (01 through 04)
Table 1. The study area is divided into 6 seismic source zones (Fig. 5 and
LOGAN FAULT (01 and 02)
Table 1) by considering the temporal distribution of the earthquakes and
SURGU FAULT (01 through 05) SSZ seismic zones that were previously suggested in the literature [30–32].
YAKAPINAR-GOKSUN FAULT (01 through 07) YGSZ In this part of the study, the maximum credible earthquakes per each
nearby fault section is evaluated in order to select the critical scenarios
to be used in ground motion simulations. For this purpose, individual
Fig. 5. Developed seismic source zones of Gaziantep region and its surroundings.
4
Table 2
Expected moment magnitudes of the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) per each fault section that are calculated by the Wells and Coppersmith [35] relation for
each fault segment (N: Normal Fault; LS: Left-Lateral Strike-Slip Fault RS: Right-Lateral Strike-Slip Fault) and the shortest distances of the fault zones to the study area.
Seismic Source Zone Fault or Segment Length (km) Mechanism (Orientation) Mw of MCE (Average) Distance (km)
(Wells and Coopersmith, 94)
EAFSZ CELIKHAN-GOLBASI SEGMENT – 01 12.5 LS 6.4 113.4

EAFSZ CELIKHAN-GOLBASI SEGMENT – 02 30.1 LS 6.8 124.2
EAFSZ GOLBASI-TURKOGLU SEGMENT – 01 29.6 LS 6.8 43.7
EAFSZ HAZAR-SINCIK SEGMENT – 01 5.9 LS 6 151.4
EAFSZ HAZAR-SINCIK SEGMENT – 02 16.8 LS 6.5 158
EAFSZ HAZAR-SINCIK SEGMENT – 03 13.1 LS 6.4 172.6
EAFSZ HAZAR-SINCIK SEGMENT – 04 12 LS 6.4 190.3
EAFSZ HAZAR-SINCIK SEGMENT – 07 39.4 LS 6.9 222
MOSZ MALATYA FAULT – 01 28.5 LS 6.8 123.7
MOSZ MALATYA FAULT – 02 32 LS 6.8 152.3
MOSZ MALATYA FAULT – 03 23.4 LS 6.7 186.3
MYSZ DUZICI FAULT – 01 47.8 LS 7 52
MYSZ DUZICI FAULT – 02 24.4 LS 6.7 43.3
MYSZ CYPRUS ARC 26.3 LS 6.7 135.3
MYSZ MISIS CEYHAN FAULT – 01 26.6 LS 6.8 116.4
MYSZ MISIS CEYHAN FAULT – 02 32.4 LS 6.9 105
MYSZ MISIS CEYHAN FAULT – 03 28.4 LS 6.8 106.1
MYSZ MISIS CEYHAN FAULT – 04 24 LS 6.7 106.8
MYSZ YUMURTALIK FAULT – 01 19.4 LS 6.6 114.9
MYSZ YUMURTALIK FAULT – 02 13 LS 6.4 101.7
MYSZ YUMURTALIK FAULT – 03 21.7 LS 6.7 82.5
DSSZ AFRIN FAULT – 01 35 LS 6.9 98.6
DSSZ AFRIN FAULT – 02 40.7 LS 7 57.7
DSSZ AFRIN FAULT – 03 32.7 LS 6.9 27.7
DSSZ AMANOS-FAULT – 01 63.5 LS 7.2 138.3
DSSZ ARMANAZ FAULT – 01 36.6 LS 6.9 122.6
DSSZ ARMANAZ FAULT – 02 33.5 LS 6.9 87.3
DSSZ BABATORUN FAULT 32.1 LS 6.8 107.2
DSSZ DEAD SEA FAULT - 01 - APAMEA SEG 41.8 LS 7 159.2
DSSZ DEAD SEA FAULT - 02 - APAMEA SEG 25.6 LS 6.7 131.1
DSSZ EAST HATAY FAULT – 01 33.1 N (270) 6.9 70.9
DSSZ EAST HATAY FAULT – 02 21.1 LS 6.6 51.8
DSSZ EAST HATAY FAULT – 03 30.7 LS 6.8 40.9
DSSZ EAST HATAY FAULT – 04 33 N (345) 6.9 20.5
DSSZ EAST HATAY FAULT – 05 20.7 N (285) 6.6 24.2
DSSZ GHAB FAULT 50.5 LS 7.1 140.1
DSSZ KIRKPINAR FAULT – 01 15.7 LS 6.5 8.7
DSSZ LOGAN FAULT – 01 16.2 LS 6.5 12.0
DSSZ LOGAN FAULT – 02 18.3 LS 6.6 1.0
SSZ SURGU FAULT – 01 42.2 RS 7 125
SSZ SURGU FAULT – 02 23.9 RS 6.7 111.2
SSZ SURGU FAULT – 04 33.2 RS 6.9 119
YGSZ YAKAPINAR-GOKSUN FAULT – 01 17.4 LS 6.6 119.8
YGSZ YAKAPINAR-GOKSUN FAULT – 03 18.1 LS 6.6 137
YGSZ YAKAPINAR-GOKSUN FAULT – 07 44.9 LS 7 194.6
earthquake scenarios are developed for each seismic source zone. Coppersmith [35] relationships. The assigned magnitudes and the
However, the seismological data available regarding DSSZ is not suffi shortest distances to the identified faults are presented in Table 2.
cient to characterize the entire fault zone. Therefore, the seismic source Considering the probable earthquakes with largest Mw within the
characteristics along with the tectonic deformation of these faults were shortest distances to the fault zones, it is inferred that DSSZ and EAFSZ
considered [23,26] and the lengths of the fault segments were delin are the most critical seismic zones in the study area. The Dead Sea Fault
eated based on the suggestions of Slemmons [33] and dePolo and is an active N-S striking left-lateral transform fault that runs from the
Slemmons [34]. Then, the expected magnitudes of the maximum cred Gulf of Aqaba to Antakya in the northern part of the study area and
ible earthquakes were calculated for each segment with the Wells and extends approximately 1000 km [36–38] (Fig. 4). According to
5
Kirkpinar Faults which have the same orientation with the Afrin Fault,
are critical in terms of performing a seismic hazard assessment of the
study area. Although the historical activity of the DSSZ was not well
documented, particularly in the Gaziantep region, the evidence of the
earthquakes can be seen in several studies. Ambraseys and Barazangi
[43] have reported the historical destructive earthquakes in the Bekaa
valley in 1202 and 1759, along the Ghab Fault in 1170, 1404, 1796, and
1872, in the Karasu valley that have been created by the Amanos Fault in
1822.
The East Anatolian Fault Zone, which is the second critical zone in
the region, has a length of 580 km and has played a significant role on
the geodynamic evolution and seismicity of the area [8,22,43–46]
(Fig. 4). The fault zone runs from the east of Karlıova, where it crosses
the NAFZ, continues through Göynük Valley and reaches Antakya.
Westaway [26] calculated the slip rate of the EAFSZ as 8 mm/year.
However, according to McClusky et al. [40]; the slip rate is 9 ± 1
mm/year [24]. The most important earthquakes recorded along this
fault zone in the last several centuries are the 1513 Pazarcık Earthquake,
the 1822 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake, the 1866 Karlıova Earthquake,
the 1872 Antakya Earthquake, the 1874 Gezin Earthquake, the 1875
Sivrice Earthquake, the 1893 Çelikhan Earthquake, the 1905 Pötürge
Earthquake, the 1971 Bingöl Earthquake, the 1977 Palu Earthquake, the
June–July 1986 Sürgü Earthquakes [44], the 1998 Ceyhan Earthquake
and the 2020 Sivrice Earthquake [47].
Based on the fault segment characteristics of the DSSZ and the EAFSZ
that are presented in Table 2, it is observed that there are fault segments
capable of generating earthquakes greater than 7.0 in the proximity of
the study area. However, as far as the critical scenario earthquakes on
the entirety of the seismic source zones are concerned, these fault seg
ments are deemed to be distant (i.e., >50 km) and hence, the effects of
earthquakes which can occur on these distant segments is expected to be
relatively low in the Gaziantep city center. On the other hand, fault
Fig. 6. Active fault zones along with the fault segments that were used in the segments located at a closer distance (i.e., <10 km) that are capable of
scenario simulations in the study area. generating moderate size earthquakes with magnitudes of Mw = 6.5–6.6
have to be considered in this study since they can induce destructive
Garfunkel et al. [39] and McClusky et al. [40]; the average slip rate is effects due to their proximity to the study area. Along this line, the most
1.5 cm/year. In the south, the Dead Sea Fault has a border with the Red critical fault segment is the Logan-02 Fault Segment of DSSZ that has the
Sea [41]. In the north, it borders the southeastern part of Anatolia to the closest distance (around 1 km) and is capable of generating an earth
west and passes through the Amik plain that is located between Kırıkhan quake of Mw = 6.6. In addition, in the Dead Sea Seismic Region, the
and Hassa. The Dead Sea Fault evolves into a complex fault system with Kirkpinar-01 Fault Section which is only 9 km away from the study area
three parallel systems starting from the Turkish-Syrian border and that is capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude of Mw =
merges with the EAFZ in the north. These parallel systems are named as 6.5 can also cause devastating seismic effects in Gaziantep (Fig. 6). For
the Amanos Fault, East Hatay Fault and Afrin Fault [24,26,42]. The Kilis, these reasons, the worst possible scenarios with large magnitudes on two
Berent, Gaziantep and Logan Faults were formed following the Afrin nearby faults mentioned above, which have the highest potential in
Fault, where DSSZ branches to the east [23,26]. According to Coskun creating earthquake hazards, have been used to assess the potential
and Coskun [23]; DSSZ is the fault that has affected the structural damage in Gaziantep city. Based on two scenario earthquakes, the
development of the Gaziantep Basin, where especially the Logan and damage levels were evaluated depending on the spatial distribution in
the city, using local sources, soil models, ground motion simulations,
Fig. 7. Flowchart showing the successive steps followed to develop a regional VS30 model.
6
and fragility analyses. Table 3

Correlation between the SPT-N and Vs values according to depositional setting
4. Regional seismic velocity model developed for the study area and soil type.
Method Soil Type Vs value (From SPT-N)
The distribution of damage caused by earthquake ground shaking Ohta and Goto [59] Clay 85.6N0.34
commonly reflects spatial variation in local sediment characteristics. Fine sand 90.1N0.34
Hence, consideration of site conditions has become an important part of Medium-sized sand 81.3N0.34
the assessment of seismic hazards. In mapping geographic variations in Coarse sand 80.1N0.34
Gravel 104.6N0.34
ground shaking, quantitative soil and rock parameters are needed that
Sand-gravel 89.7N0.34
can be used to predict the variations in ground shaking due to the dif
Imai and Tonouchi [60] Clay 107.0N0.27
ferences in site geology [48]. Studies indicate that one of the essential
Sand 110.0N0.29
factors in establishing seismic design criteria for the geotechnical Gravel 75.4N0.35
earthquake engineering field is to measure the shear wave velocity (VS). Sand-gravel 91.7N0.26
In such studies, shear wave velocities are coupled with the other phys Sykora and Stokoe [62] Sand 100.6N0.29
ical properties of sediments assist in the determination of the dynamic
Pitilakis et al. [61] Clay 132.0N0.27
properties of soils and rocks, along with the characterization of local
Sand 145.0N0.18
geologic conditions [49–54]. Evaluations of local site conditions are
reflected in seismic code provisions. Recent seismic code provisions, Hasançebi and Ulusay [63] Clay 97.9N0.27
Sand 90.8N0.32
such as the Turkish Building Earthquake Code [55], Eurocode 8 [56] and
the International Building Code, IBC [57], adopt site classification sys Koçkar and Akgün [64] Clay-sand (Alluvial) 56.9N0.43
Clay (Fluvial) 37.1N0.57
tems that use the average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m (VS30)
as the sole parameter to classify a soil profile through utilizing one of the
site classes.
Fig. 7 presents a flowchart of the summary of the consecutive steps Table 4
that have been followed to develop a regional VS30 model for the project Mean, range and coefficient of variation (COV) of VS30 values compiled from the
site that has a footprint area of approximately 193 km2. Initially, a seismic measurements conducted directly in the field based on the ranges of the
lithological units for this study.
database has been built in an ArcGIS environment in terms of geology,
topography and slope gradient. For this purpose, geological information Lithology Age VS30 (m/s)
gathered from the 1/25.000 MTA Geology Map [18] and topographic Mean Range COV
elevation and slope gradient information obtained by utilizing ASTER Alluvium Quaternary 493 420–550 0.222
GDEM images have been digitized (Fig. 7 – Step 1). At the same time, Sandstone- Eocene 670 600–750 0.169
information regarding the engineering geological, geotechnical and conglomerate-
seismic data were compiled from 71 previous subsurface engineering limestone
Limestone Lower Oligocene- 810 760–850 0.087
studies conducted in the study region. The geotechnical and seismic
Lower Miocene
database was intended to evaluate the areal differences and to charac Basalt Upper Miocene 905 760–1050 0.227
terize the local site conditions of the sediments. Therefore, the lithol
ogies were spatially differentiated based on geotechnical and seismic
data obtained from the compiled boreholes (i.e., standard penetration (SPT-N) along with the near-surface geologic units and the soil type in
test results, SPT-N) and seismic measurements (i.e., shear wave veloc the region (Fig. 7 – Step 3) (Table 3). Then, the VS results have been
ity). For the site characterization study, the data from 1450 borings calculated based on these mentioned empirical correlations [59–64].
along with the standard penetration test results were classified as soil Consequently, the average shear wave velocity results in the upper 30 m
and rock information as a function of depth based on the characteristics (VS30) of the near-surface geologic units have been assessed to charac
of the depositional setting. Similarly, the near-surface seismic mea terize the lithological units according to the recent design codes of TBEC
surements of the shear wave velocities were compiled with existing data 2018 [55], Eurocode 8 [56] and IBC 2018 [57]. By this process, the
from 262 locations that were obtained from previous studies in Qua estimated VS30 values have been calculated based on the empirical
ternary alluvial to Upper Miocene sediments. Then, the VS30 results have correlations from reliable index measurements according to the SPT-N
been directly determined from these seismic field survey measurements (Table 3). The calculated VS30 values were verified with the VS30 re
(Fig. 7 – Step 2). Since the compiled field seismic survey measurements sults compiled from the seismic measurements in the field. In summary,
were generally located at points where the boring studies had been the estimated VS30 values compiled from the direct field measurement
conducted, these studies were also reliably used for the verification of locations in the project area have been cataloged considering the
the Vs measurements. It should be noted that a total of 190 seismic near-surface geologic units in the region where the mean, range and
profiles extended to at least 30 m, while 72 profiles penetrated between covariance of the VS30 values for each unit have been determined
20 and 30 m. The extrapolation method entitled ‘‘extrapolation (Table 4). Based on these results, it was inferred that these determined
assuming constant velocity’’ that has been proposed by Boore [58] was VS30 values compiled from the direct field measurements were consis
utilized for shear wave velocity data that did not penetrate a depth of 30 tent with the threshold values of the results obtained from the correla
m. tion relationships of the VS30 results, and have been satisfactorily
Regarding the processing of the boring data along with the SPT-N validated (Fig. 7 – Step 4). Additionally, based on these statistical re
values, the data from 1450 borings, including standard penetration sults, the VS30 for the Quaternary deposits and rock units have been
test results for depths equal to or greater than 20 m were assessed based compiled in Table 4. The mean value for the Quaternary deposits is 493
on the characteristics of the depositional setting (i.e., rock and soil li m/s and the coefficient of variation (COV) is 0.222. The mean values for
thology) (Fig. 7 – Step 2). It should be noted that most of the boring the rock units are 670, 810 and 905 m/s, respectively and the coefficient
profiles that extend to a depth of less than 30 m are rock mass after a of variation are 0.169, 0.087 and 0.227, respectively from younger to
certain depth (about one-third of the 470 profiles). By using this dataset, older rock units. These COV values represent relatively acceptable
various empirical prominent correlation relationships through regres variability, which indicates the credibility of the validated results when
sion analysis have been applied for calculating the shear wave velocity compared with the other statistical studies of VS30 by Wills and Clahan
from reliable index measurements of the Standard Penetration Test [65]. This study by Wills and Clahan [65] indicates that COV values of
7
Fig. 8. The VS30 velocity model of the 198 neighborhoods with an intense building stock. The model was prepared to serve as a basis for the central districts
of Gaziantep.
VS30 less than 0.25 indicate that the geologic units are constrained and the existing boring studies were particularly concentrated in certain
geographically. Therefore, the COV values estimated in the Gaziantep regions (i.e., Metro and light railway lines, parcel studies from large
Basin are consistent with the smaller values reported by Wills and Silva private companies, school and public building studies, highway studies,
[66]; Wills and Clahan [65] and Kockar et al. [48] because the meth etc.). In particular, the general distribution or deposition of lithology
odology of this study also focuses on geologic units that are geograph within the boring logs appeared to be relatively variable due to the
ically constrained. Finally, the calculated VS30 results have been presence of different units ranging from recent alluvial sedimentary
combined together with the directly determined seismic measurements units to competent rock in the central districts of Gaziantep. Because of
of the field survey to develop an extended, consistent and these reasons, after the digitizing process, to clarify the availability of
well-distributed database to prepare a regional VS30 model. Then, all of data, a grid system of 500 m × 500 m in size was introduced into a GIS
these VS30 results of the study area that have been combined together environment in the study area (Fig. 7 – Step 6). Initially, each gridded
were digitized (Fig. 7 – Step 5). area has been considered based on the available VS30 data points. The
In the evaluation of these digitized data in a large area of this scale, it most reliable and descriptive results have been selected and this process
should be stressed that the spatial distribution of VS30 values was not as was used in the development of the seismic velocity model. It should be
homogeneous as desired in the project area. Moreover, the available noted that the thickness of alluvium varies between 5 and 15 m within
data points of the VS30 results were mostly located in different rock units the boring logs that are 30 m deep. Therefore, contrary to the expected
8
results, the calculated Vs results possess relatively higher values based Table 5
on the boreholes put down in these younger alluvium units due to the Input parameters for the simulation of scenario earthquakes on the Logan and
coarser particle size and the shallow depositional characteristics of this Kirkpinar faults.
unit. In addition, the COV values of VS30 for Quaternary deposits support Model parameter Logan-02 scenario Kirkpinar-01 scenario
the argument that these deposits are geographically constrained to the Moment 6.6 6.5
Gaziantep Basin. magnitude (Mw)
In the final step, based on the distribution of the available data into Upper edge of the 36.9929 N, 37.1818 E 37.1731 N, 37.2187 E
grids, a hierarchical VS30 mapping strategy has been used (Fig. 7 – Step fault plane
Distance to the top 2 km 2 km
7). By combining different constraints with the VS30 such as geological
of the fault
unit, topography, and slope gradient, a more consistent and well- Fault geometry 43 and 90
◦ ◦
11◦ and 90◦
distributed database for the seismic zonation map has been developed. (Strike and dip,
In the literature, similar assessments have been mentioned by various respectively)
researchers [48,50,51,67,68]. Regarding these studies, it can be inferred Fault dimensions 18 km × 10 km 16 km × 10 km
(Length x width)
that systematic geomorphological (i.e., topography and slope gradient), Crustal S-wave 3500 m/s 3500 m/s
geological, and geospatial data along with logical prediction variables velocity
can be used as a reasonable method for the estimation of the VS30. These Rupture velocity 3000 m/s 3000 m/s
variables are referred herein as the “geology-based” variables which rely Crustal density 2800 kg/m3 2800 kg/m3
Stress drop 56 bars 56 bars
on the premise that the mapped near-surface geologic units can be
Pulsing percentage 40% 40%
reliable indicators of VS30 values within that unit wherever they are Quality factor Q = 59.7f 0.87 Q = 59.7f 0.87
mapped. Additionally, by considering the gradient of the topography Geometric R− 1.1 , R ≤ 30 km R− 1.1 , R ≤ 30 km
and choosing ranges for the slope maximizes the correlation with spreading factor R− 1 , R > 30 km R− 1 , R > 30 km
shallow shear-velocity observations. In other words, topography and Duration model T = T0 + 0.05R T = T0 + 0.05R
slope gradient should be a diagnostic indicator of VS30 since more Site filters Kappa model (κ0 = 0.035) Kappa model (κ0 = 0.035)
competent (i.e., high-velocity) materials are more likely to maintain a Amplification factors of Amplification factors of
steep slope whereas deep basin sediments are deposited primarily in Boore and Joyner [75] as a Boore and Joyner [75] as a
environments with very low gradients [53]. In this respect, Wald et al. function of Vs30 values function of Vs30 values
obtained from the regional obtained from the regional
[53] have proposed a hierarchical VS30 mapping strategy, combining
velocity model developed in velocity model developed in
different constraints on VS30 values such as geological unit and topo this study this study
graphic slope. Thompson et al. [69] have also created a similar
geo-statistical method that defines an average VS30 for each geological
unit. Consequently, the methodology followed in the central districts of the region in order to compute potential damage rates. These faults are
Gaziantep is a hierarchical model similar to these studies. Then, a displayed in the regional map of the study area in Fig. 6.
regional zonation map for local seismic velocities was prepared by In this study, a stochastic finite fault method using a dynamic corner
applying the Kriging method through evaluating the VS30 results that frequency [70] was used to obtain ground motions from the scenario
was measured in the central districts of Gaziantep (Fig. 7 – Step 8). This events. This method has been previously verified against records of past
methodology may be helpful in differentiating the characteristics of the earthquakes in various regions in the world both in time and frequency
generalized local seismic velocity that is almost always consistent with domains (e.g., Refs. [71–74].
the near-surface geological age, soil type, and depositional character. Finite fault models are composed of smaller subfaults which are all
As a consequence of the required model steps that were discussed in assumed to be point sources with ω-2 displacement spectrum repre
this section, a local seismic velocity model of the central districts of senting the earthquake source. Among various available source models,
Gaziantep that possesses a footprint area of 193 km2 and intense the stochastic point-source assumes ω-2 model where the source spec
building stock has been prepared. In order to evaluate this building stock trum at high frequencies falls off proportional to ω-2. One of these point
on a neighborhood scale, the VS30 values of 198 neighborhoods in the sources on the fault plane is considered to be the hypocenter from which
central districts was determined, and a regional shear wave velocity map waves are radiating. While the point sources are modeled in the fre
was created (Fig. 8). All these results were used as the main parameters quency domain as a function of source, path and site filters, their
in the seismic hazard analysis and scenario earthquake simulations since contribution in an acceleration time history recorded at an observation
local site conditions have a direct impact on the distribution of damage point is computed in the time domain kinematically with appropriate
rates that are likely to occur as a result of possible earthquakes in the delays.
structures located in the study area. It should be noted that the regional In this study, due to lack of strong motion data from large events in
seismic velocity model prepared for this study is a spatial distribution the region, initially alternative generic and regional quality factor and
(seismic zonation) map prepared as a base map for this study which geometrical spreading models from the literature were tested in the
indicates the general situation. The methodology for the integrated simulation of ground motions. Then, the parameters which provide the
analysis presented is suitable for seismic hazard analysis on a regional closest fit to the ground motion models (GMMs) were selected as
scale to present the general estimates of the potential damage distribu preferred parameters. Since there is no instrumental-era earthquake
tions and to indicate areas that require more detailed investigations. with finite-fault effects and a slip model in the region, we have preferred
to use random slips to encounter the slip variability on the fault in our
5. Ground motion simulations of selected scenario earthquakes simulations. The amplification factors of Boore and Joyner [75] were
used as a function of VS30 values obtained from the regional velocity
It is important to assess the ground motions for past and potential model developed in this study. Next, the simulation parameters used for
events in a hazardous region. Since, there is no large earthquake in the the scenario events on the Logan and Kirkpinar faults that are presented
instrumental era in Gaziantep, in this study simulations to obtain ground in Table 5 were determined.
motions which could occur during potential earthquakes have been Stochastic finite fault method produces a random single horizontal
utilized. In this study, critical scenario events of Mw = 6.6 and Mw = 6.5 component at each observation point. For each selected scenario, one set
have been modeled on two segments of the Dead Sea Fault zone which of simulation is performed. A horizontal ground motion record was
are the Logan-02 and Kirkpinar-01 faults, respectively. These simulated computed at each of the 198 nodes in the study area for each of the
records were then used to estimate the seismic forces on the structures in Logan and Kirkpinar scenarios. It should be noted that the spatial scale
9
Fig. 9. A comparison of the attenuation of the simulated peaks with the ground motion models for the Logan-02 (Mw = 6.6) scenario earthquake (To be consistent
with the governing site class in the study region, Vs30 = 620 m/s is used in GMMs).
for the ground motions was the neighborhood level. The soil model was data including long-period motions. Finally, overall the simulated data
initially constructed at a 500-m grids but then to be consistent and to with the GMMs reveal that the simulation models yield peak motions,
provide input to the ground motion and building models, the VS30 data which remain within ±1 standard deviation of the median values ob
was lumped at the neighborhood centers. tained from the GMMs. It is also observed that the uncertainty of
It is necessary to validate simulated motions against observed re simulated PGA and PGV is lower than those of the GMMs. This is mostly
cords. However, there are no recorded earthquakes in the region during attributed to the region-specific character of simulated ground motions
the instrumental era. Thus, the simulated peak ground motions are which are well-constrained with accurate source, path and site
compared against empirical ground motion relations in this study. Since modeling.
the simulated motions are single horizontal component per node, their Next, the simulated waveforms were determined at 5 dummy sta
peaks are compared against the median from the GMMs. For this pur tions in the region with varying source-to-site distances and local site
pose, one regional and one global prediction equation which are the conditions as presented by Fig. 11. These dummy stations are located in
models by Boore and Atkinson [76] and Akkar and Cagnan [77] were the Ogumsogut, Beykent, Yaprak, Kucukkizilhisar, and Osmanli neigh
selected for both scenarios as presented in Figs. 9 and 10. The compar borhoods. For both scenarios, it was observed that the ground motion
isons are made in terms of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), Peak amplitudes were larger at softer soil sites located at closer distances to
Ground Velocity (PGV) and also Spectral Acceleration (SA) at T = 0.33 the fault planes. However, the Logan scenario yields larger amplitudes
as well as T = 1 s. The last spectral parameter represents the demand due to its proximity to the site.
around the fundamental period of the low rise residential buildings Finally, the spatial distribution of the peak ground motion values in
which constituent the common typology of the building stock in the terms of PGA, PGV, 5% damping SA (T = 0.33 s) and SA (T = 1 s) were
region. Comparison of simulated data against the GMMs show that for determined for both scenarios in the study region as displayed in Figs. 12
both scenarios, the simulated data in terms of PGA, PGV and SA (T = and 13. It was observed that the scenario event with Mw = 6.6 on the
0.33 s) are slightly above the median GMM values. For SA (T = 1 s), the Logan fault yielded large ground motion amplitudes that reached 0.8 g
simulations are below the median. This is mostly due to the fact that the and 60 cm/s in terms of PGA and PGV, respectively. This was more
region is not laid on very soft soils with lower VS30 values. Thus, the site evident for the northwestern residential districts. On the other hand, the
amplifications factors used in the simulations do not exhibit long period spectral accelerations at T = 0.33 s and T = 1 s in the eastern region were
amplifications. Another reason is that EXSIM models only the S-waves around 0.3 g and 0.1 g, respectively. For the western region that is close
and not surface waves, which are rich in terms of long-period content. to the Logan fault, these values were 1 g and 0.4 g, respectively. For the
Thus, the simulated spectral amplitudes at longer periods, SA (T = 1 s), Kirkpinar fault with Mw = 6.5, the peak ground motion amplitudes were
are lower in amplitude than the median GMM which employ empirical lower due to the larger distance from the causative fault and relatively
10
Fig. 10. A comparison of the attenuation of the simulated peaks with the ground motion models for the Kirkpinar-01 (Mw = 6.5) scenario earthquake (To be
consistent with the governing site class in the study region, Vs30 = 620 m/s is used in GMMs).
lower Mw value. Hence, the maximum simulated PGA, PGV, SA (T = Detailed information from the districts of interest reveals the
0.33 s) and SA (T = 1 s) reached 0.4 g, 25 cm/s, 0.5 g and 0.2 g, following statistical data: Percentages of masonry and RC residential
respectively. buildings in the first central district are 73% and 27%, respectively. Most
of the masonry buildings are 1–2 story structures whereas RC buildings
6. Characteristics of building stock in the study region generally have 1-4 stories. Most of these buildings that were observed to
be built between 1980 and 2000 may be regarded as none or low-
One of the most important ingredients of seismic risk assessment is engineered structures. The characteristics of the buildings in the sec
the collection of building inventory data. It is especially important in ond central district are not much different: The percentages are 67% and
generating new fragility functions or employing existing ones that are 33% for masonry and RC buildings, respectively. However, the number
suitable for local building classes. The accuracy of regional seismic risk of mid-rise RC buildings (i.e., with 4–8 stories) are higher in the second
estimation directly depends on the resolution of the collected data. Thus, district. There are also few high-rise buildings in both districts which
a hybrid approach was pursued in this study to obtain the characteristics were constructed within the last decade.
of the building stock in the study region. The building data has been Next, building information was collected in the field. The TSI data
gathered from two different sources: data from the Turkish Statistical base yielded general information about the type of construction, year of
Institute (TSI) in the city and district levels as well as data from a field construction, number of stories and the construction material but it did
study. not give any information about the spatial distribution of these buildings
The residential and non-residential building data for the two districts within the region. Therefore, it was necessary to conduct a walk-down
that has been considered in this study is based on the values from the survey type rapid screening procedure to observe the district-wise dis
2000 Building Census [78] report and the extracted data from the TSI tribution of the building characteristics.
digital database after 2001 [79]. According to this data, 78% of the The field survey was conducted as follows: First, the satellite maps of
buildings in Gaziantep (i.e. 115,941 buildings) reside in two central the case study districts were examined to detect the distribution of the
districts. The number of buildings in the first central district is nearly building stock and to divide the study area that contained 198 neigh
twice of those in the second central district. In addition, 91% of the borhoods into 12 grids. An ID number was assigned to each neighbor
buildings in the first district and 86% of the buildings in the second are hood and this number was referred during the field study. Fig. 14 shows
used for residential purposes. Hence, giving consideration to the resi the street map along with a labelled version with neighborhood ID
dential buildings in these two central districts has provided invaluable numbers of a typical grid in the study region. The existing buildings in
information for the regional seismic risk assessment of Gaziantep City. the labelled districts were investigated using the prepared survey path.
11
Fig. 11. Simulated waveforms at 5 dummy stations in Gaziantep due to the Logan (Mw = 6.6) and Kirkpinar (Mw = 6.5) scenario earthquakes.
At some locations, the TSI data was verified and at some other locations, earthquake codes in use during the construction era, whereas no
brand new building information was collected. After the street survey, a compliance stands for the case in which the building had been con
general picture of the building stock was obtained. It should be noted structed in a traditional manner without engineering skills. Then, the
that, similar to the ground motion simulations, the spatial scale of the percentages of building subclasses within each district were determined
building analyses is the neighborhood level. using the TSI data, satellite maps and field data. All the building classes
Accordingly, the central part of the study region, that is close to the with their abbreviations, properties and percentages in the total building
boundary between the two districts, is the old urban center of Gaziantep stock are presented in Table 6.
City. It is attractive with many touristic spots, but the buildings in this
area are rather old and in poor conditions. They are generally low-rise 7. Seismic fragility identification of the building stock in the
brick masonry structures, which have been constructed side by side study region
(Fig. 15a). The city seems to be expanding towards the south, where
there are mid-rise and high-rise RC frame structures with structural The final phase was to identify the neighborhood-level fragility of the
walls. The buildings in this region are new and are in good condition building stock in the study region by matching the building sub-classes
(Fig. 15b). The western side of the city is also composed of rather new, with the corresponding fragility sets. The fragility functions used herein
isolated, mid-rise apartment buildings. It is observed that both con are based on Karimzadeh et al. [3] where simulated full waveforms were
struction types (i.e., RC frame and masonry) have been used in this part used in equivalent single degree of freedom (ESDOF) analyses for the
of the city (Fig. 15c). The industrial center of the city is in the eastern derivation of regional fragility curves for Erzincan, Turkey. A validation
part. The buildings in this region have characteristics that are very of the simulated motions against records was possible in Karimzadeh
similar to the ones in the central part of Gaziantep. They are generally et al. [3] since damaging events occurred during the instrumental era
low-rise masonry buildings with ground floors for commercial use and with available strong motion data. In this study, since there were no data
upper floors for residential use (Fig. 15d). from an instrumental-era earthquake in Gaziantep, the simulated full
The next phase after the field survey was to classify the buildings waveforms were not used to derive fragility curves. Herein, only the
according to some major construction types. The common building simulated peak ground motion parameters (PGA and PGV) which were
construction typologies in Turkey have already been obtained in pre validated against ground motion models were used in existing fragility
vious studies [3,80–82]. The field survey in the Gaziantep provinces curves to obtain damage probabilities per each ground motion level. It
revealed that the properties of the residential buildings in the region needs to be noted that both regions show similar faulting type and
were in accordance with some of these predefined building sub-classes. building type characteristics.
Thus, these typologies could be safely used for building classification in The specific fragility generation approach is based on non-linear
this study. Accordingly, 21 different building sub-classes have been time history analyses of equivalent single-degree-of-freedom simula
considered for the existing RC and masonry buildings in the study region tions which are obtained from the idealized capacity curves of actual
in terms of three major parameters: construction type (RC frame, RC multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) models for that specific building sub-
shear wall, RC dual, i.e., frames with shear walls, masonry), number of class. In order to carry out the dynamic analyses of ESDOF systems, a
stories (low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise for RC and 1, 2, 3 for masonry) multi-parameter hysteretic model [83] has been employed, which was
and building status, i.e., compliance with earthquake resistant design capable of simulating a wide range of structural components and sys
and construction (full, partial or no compliance). Full compliance im tems. This model has been verified previously with various experimental
plies that the building had been fully designed and constructed ac data [84].
cording to the general principles of seismic design enforced by the In this study, the major parameters of the ESDOF model (i.e., period,
12
Fig. 12. Spatial distribution of simulated PGA, PGV, SA (T = 0.33 s) and SA (T = 1 s) for the Logan (Mw = 6.6) scenario earthquake.
13
Fig. 13. Spatial distribution of simulated PGA, PGV, SA (T = 0.33 s) and SA (T = 1 s) for the Kirkpinar (Mw = 6.5) scenario earthquake.
14
strength ratio and ductility) were considered as random variables, for

which the sampling was carried out by using the “Latin Hypercube
Sampling Approach”. Then non-linear time-history analyses were con
ducted by using the sampled ESDOF systems in order to obtain the
response statistics. Fragility curves have been generated by comparing
the pre-defined limit (or damage) states with the seismic demand ob
tained from the dynamic analyses and to compute the probabilities of
exceeding these limit states in terms of a pre-selected ground motion
parameter. This parameter has been selected as PGV and PGA for RC
frame and masonry structures, respectively. Fragility curve sets for
sample building sub-classes are shown in Fig. 16. The three limit states
that have been used were no/slight damage, moderate damage and se
vere damage/collapse (green, blue and red colored curves in Fig. 16,
respectively), which were determined by considering the previous
studies [80,81,85]. Further details for fragility analysis of the considered
building sub-classes can be found in Askan et al. [82] and Karimzadeh
et al. [3]. A thorough discussion regarding uncertainty in estimation of
seismic response can be found in Iervolino [86].
Fig. 14. Satellite map (left) and labelled map (right) versions of a typical grid from the study region.
The fragility curve sets for various building types (RC frame, RC
shear-wall, RC dual and unreinforced masonry with prefixes RF, RW, RH
and MU, respectively) in Fig. 16 were observed to be very different from
each other. This was an anticipated observation since these building
types exhibit totally different behavior under seismic action with their
inherent superiorities and deficiencies. For instance, old and deficient
masonry buildings (MU3C in Fig. 16) are significantly more vulnerable
than earthquake resistant urban type masonry buildings (MU1A). In
addition, the limit states of masonry typologies are observed to be very
close to each other, indicating that their nonlinear behavior is limited
and these buildings reach failure state rapidly after they start to expe
rience damage. For RC frame buildings (RF1A and RF2C in Fig. 16), the
limit states are more distinct and separate from each other. These
fragility curves clearly reflect the importance of earthquake code con
formity. The fragility curves for RC shear wall (RW2A in Fig. 16) and RC
dual, i.e. frame + wall (RH2B in Fig. 16) building typologies seem to
reflect the inherent structural characteristics of these construction types.
8. Estimation of seismic damage
The main objective in this step is to estimate potential losses in the

central districts of Gaziantep at a neighborhood-level using entirely
local information regarding seismic sources, soil models, potential
ground motions, and building stock properties obtained in this study.
The approach used herein is summarized as follows: estimation of the
peak ground motion parameters (PGA and PGV) for each scenario event
at nodes located in the center of the selected neighborhoods, classifi
cation of buildings in each neighborhood, prediction of anticipated
damage though fragility curves for each building class with the PGA and
PGV values, estimation of the discrete Damage Probability Matrix (DPM)
for each neighborhood per each building class, and finally, computation
of a single Mean Damage Ratio (MDR) per each neighborhood for each
scenario earthquake by combining the MDRs of different building clas
ses [87]. Table 7 displays a sample DPM with the definition of damage
states and CDR values for buildings in Turkey [88]. Since each fragility
curve set is generated for three limit states, the corresponding DPM has
four DSs including none (DS1), light (DS2), moderate (DS3), and severe
(DS4). In this study, the heavy and collapse DSs of Gurpinar et al. [88] as
given in Table 7 were combined to represent a single DS (severe) with a
Central Damage Ratio (CDR) of 85%.
In this matrix, Pr (DS,I) represents the probability of occurrence of
damage state DS that is assigned an intensity of I and CDR corresponding
to each damage state. In this study it is computed as the ratio of the
number of buildings in DS state to the total number of buildings in each
neighborhood. Each damage state corresponds to a physical damage
level in the structure of interest while CDR is a single number that
represents the average replacement cost to the initial cost of construc
tion. In this study, the main ground motion intensity parameters used in
15
Fig. 15. Views of building stock in the a) central part (top left), b) southern side (top right), c) western side (bottom left), d) industrial part (bottom right), of the
study region.
Table 6
Building classes with their abbreviations, properties and percentages in the total building stock.
No Class Code Material Construction Type No. of stories Building Status Percent in total population (%)
1 RW1A RC Wall 1–3 Full compliance 0.00

2 RW2A RC Wall 4–8 Full compliance 1.99
3 RH1A RC Dual (wall + frame) 1–3 Full compliance 0.06
4 RH1B RC Dual (wall + frame) 1–3 Partial compliance 0.06
5 RH2A RC Dual (wall + frame) 4–8 Full compliance 3.30
6 RH2B RC Dual (wall + frame) 4–8 Partial compliance 4.09
7 RF1A RC Frame 1–3 Full compliance 1.19
8 RF1B RC Frame 1–3 Partial compliance 11.68
9 RF1C RC Frame 1–3 No compliance 9.60
10 RF2A RC Frame 4–8 Full compliance 4.09
11 RF2B RC Frame 4–8 Partial compliance 16.93
12 RF2C RC Frame 4–8 No compliance 9.66
13 MU1A Masonry Unreinforced Masonry 1 Full compliance 0.00
14 MU1B Masonry Unreinforced Masonry 1 Partial compliance 0.28
15 MU1C Masonry Unreinforced Masonry 1 No compliance 0.43
DPMs are PGA and PGV since the fragilities are defined in terms of these neighborhood.
parameters. Each DPM corresponds to a building class as a function of Figs. 17 and 18 demonstrate the spatial distribution of MDR values of
various ground motion intensity levels. In order to express the DPM in scenario earthquakes on the Logan and Kirkpinar faults, respectively.
terms of a single value, MDR is defined as the weighted average of each The MDR distributions for the Logan-02 scenario indicate that medium
column of DS probabilities where CDR values are the weights. In this to severe damage states are anticipated at most locations in the city
study, initially, MDR values are computed for each existing building center, with MDR values around 50%–65%. These high values indicate
class at all neighborhoods. Then, a single MDR value is computed per anticipated high levels of damage at these locations in probable large
each neighborhood center by combining the individual MDR values earthquakes and point out that urgent assessment and intervention
according to the percentage of different building classes in that measures are necessary to avoid these potential losses. However, for the
16
Fig. 16. Example fragility curve sets for the selected building sub-classes with their abbreviations: RF1A; high-code low-rise RC frame building, RF2C; low-code mid-
rise RC frame building, RH2B; moderate-code mid-rise RC dual building, RW2A; high-code mid-rise RC shear wall building, MU1A; high-code 1 story masonry
building, MU3C; low-code 3 story masonry building.
9. Conclusions
Table 7
A sample Damage Probability Matrix (DPM). In this study, seismic damage assessment for potential earthquakes
Damage State Central Damage Ground Motion Intensity Parameter (PGA, was performed in the central districts of Gaziantep using regional
(DS) Ratio (CDR %) PGV, Microseismic Intensity Values etc) seismic, geological and structural information. In this evaluation,
None 0 Damage Probabilities, Pr (DS,I) initially a regional velocity model was obtained from existing borehole
Light 5 data in the form of a VS30 map. Next, two potential scenario earthquakes
Moderate 30
with Mw = 6.6 and 6.5 were simulated, respectively on the Logan-02
Severe 70
Collapse 100 and Kirkpinar-01 segments of the Dead Sea Fault Zone. Then, the local
building stock was assessed in the field and categorized into various
seismic vulnerability classes. Finally, the mean damage ratios for the
same scenario event, MDR values of 0%–5% are obtained at some neighborhoods that are located in the two central districts were
neighborhoods despite the closest source-to-site distances. This obser computed by combining the simulated ground motion records of the
vation is attributed to the high-quality of construction at these locations scenario events and the building fragility information. The main find
with significantly less vulnerability despite the high ground motion ings of this study are summarized as follows:
levels. When the scenario event on the Kirkpinar-01 segment is
considered, at most neighborhoods, none to light damage states are • For the first scenario on Logan fault (about 1 km to the nearest site of
anticipated while the maximum MDR values indicate moderate damage interest) where most of the nodes have short source-to-site distances,
at the closest distances from the fault plane. The latter observation is uniform site conditions would yield a uniform distribution of ground
attributed to the relatively lower VS30 values and weaker structures in motions radiating from the rectangular fault. However, we observed
the northern parts of the city. irregularities in the spatial distributions of ground motion
17
amplitudes in terms of PGV and SA (T = 0.33 s) which are consistent

with the changes in local soil conditions.
• For the second scenario on the Kirkpinar fault zone, distant than the
Logan fault with a different orientation, the variations in source-to-
site distances start to govern the spatial distribution of the ground
motions. Finally, the region does not exhibit soft soil conditions,
where the lowest VS30 is 420 m/s. Thus, the local site conditions are
not the most dominant factor on the spatial distribution of ground
motion amplitudes.
• For the Logan-02 scenario, at most locations in the city center, MDR
values of 50–65% were computed which indicate medium to severe
damage states. However, at some neighborhoods closest to the
source, MDR values of 0–5% were observed, most probably due to
the high-quality of construction at these locations.
• For the scenario event on the Kirkpinar-01 segment, at most loca
tions, none to light damage states were observed while the maximum
MDRs indicated moderate damage at the closest distances from the
corresponding fault plane.
• Even though both scenario events have close Mw values on sites with
similar local site conditions, the ground motions and mean damage
ratios were observed to be different. These different ground motion
amplitudes and resulting damage ratios for the two scenarios pin
pointed the significance of fault location in hazard estimations.
• In this study, ground motion simulations were used instead of GMMs.
The general advantage of the simulations is that they provide region-
specific full acceleration time series compared to the peak or spectral
accelerations as in the case of GMMs.
• The results indicated high levels of seismic risk as a result of mod
erate to high seismic hazard in the region coupled with significant
vulnerability of existing structures at some locations in Gaziantep
city center. Before a potential moderate to large earthquake, it is
Fig. 17. Spatial distribution of MDR values for a Mw = 6.6 scenario earthquake important to start a detailed risk screening in the area. The results of
on the Logan-02 fault. the presented study in terms of spatial distribution MDRs can provide
input to local municipalities for identifying and prioritizing the set
tlements with high risk.
• The assumptions regarding sources, selected scenarios, soil infor
mation, ground motion simulations, and building vulnerability
assessment naturally influence the resulting MDRs. In future studies,
consideration of the corresponding uncertainties is recommended.
• A major advantage of simulations is the full waveforms which could
be used in ESDOF analyses for the derivation of regional fragility
curves for the region of interest. In the future studies, regarding risk
and loss assessments, simulated waveforms could be employed
directly in structural analyses.
Author statement (Contributor roles taxonomy)
Arzu Arslan Kelam: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing original

draft, revised draft, review and editing, Visualization.
Shaghayegh Karimzadeh: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing
original draft, revised draft, review and editing, Visualization.
Karim Yousefibavil: Writing original draft, revised draft, review
and editing, Visualization.
Haluk Akgün: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing original draft,
revised draft, review and editing.
Aysegul Askan: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing original draft,
revised draft, review and editing.
M. Altug Erberik: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing original
draft, revised draft, review and editing.
Mustafa K. Koçkar: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing original
draft, revised draft, review and editing.
Onur Pekcan: Project administration, Supervision.
Hacer Ciftci: Funding acquisition, Project administration.
Fig. 18. Spatial distribution of MDR values for Mw = 6.5 scenario earthquake
on Kirkpinar-01 fault.
18
Declaration of competing interest [23] Coskun B, Coskun B. The Dead Sea fault and related subsurface structures,
Gaziantep Basin, southeast Turkey. Geol Mag 2000;137:175–92.
[24] Gursoy H, Tatar O, Piper JDA, Heimann A, Mesci L. Neotectonic deformation
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial linking the east Anatolian and Karataş-Osmaniye intracontinental transform fault
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence zones in the Gulf of Iskenderun, Southern Turkey, deduced from paleomagnetic
the work reported in this paper. study of the Ceyhan-Osmaniye volcanics. Tectonics 2003;22:1067–79. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2003TC001524.
[25] Tatar O, Piper JDA, Gursoy H, Heimann A, Koçbulut F. Neotectonic deformation in
Acknowledgements the transition zone between the Dead Sea transform and the East Anatolian Fault
zone, Southern Turkey: a palaeomagnetic study of the Karasu rift volcanism.
Tectonophysics 2004;385:17–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2004.04.005.
This project has been funded by the Gaziantep Municipality with a [26] Westaway R. Kinematic consistency between the Dead Sea fault zone and the
grant number 2018/495179. We acknowledge the financial aid and the Neogene and quaternary left-lateral faulting in SE Turkey. Tectonophysics 2004;
logistic support of the Gaziantep Municipality in the field. We also thank 391:203–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2004.07.014.
[27] Koc A. Remote sensing study of Sürgü Fault Zone (Malatya, Turkey). M.S. Thesis,
Selim Cambazoglu for his invaluable contribution to the scenario-based Department of Geological Engineering. Ankara: Middle East Technical University;
seismic hazard analyses. 2005.
[28] Emre Ö, Duman TY, Olgun Ş, Elmacı H, Özalp S1. 250.000 scale active fault map
series of Turkey, Gaziantep (NJ 37-9) Quadrangle. Ankara: General Directorate of
References
Mineral Research and Exploration; 2012. Serial Number:38.
[29] Emre Ö, Duman TY, Olgun Ş. 1:250.000 scale active fault map series of Turkey,
[1] Ugurhan B, Askan A, Erberik MA. A methodology for seismic loss estimation in Antakya (NJ 37-13) Quadrangle. Ankara: General Directorate of Mineral Research
urban regions based on ground motion simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2011;101 and Exploration; 2012. Serial Number:39.
(2):710–25. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100159. [30] Erdik M, Biro YA, Onur T, Sesetyan K, Birgoren G. Assessment of earthquake
[2] Sørensen MB, Lang DH. Incorporating simulated ground motion in seismic risk hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions. Ann Geofisc 1999;42:1125–38. https://
assessment application to the lower Indian himalayas. Earthq Spectra 2014;31(1): doi.org/10.4401/ag-3773.
71–95. [31] Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydınoglu N, Booth E, et al.
[3] Karimzadeh S, Askan A, Erberik MA, Yakut A. Seismic damage assessment based on Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance.
regional synthetic ground motion dataset: a case study for Erzincan, Turkey. Nat J Seismol 2002;6:431–46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020095711419.
Hazards 2018;92(3):1371–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3255-6. [32] Deniz A. Estimation of earthquake insurance premium rates for Turkey. M.S.
[4] Chioccarelli E, Cito P, Iervolino I, Giorgio M. REASSESS V2.0: software for single- Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering. Ankara: Middle East Technical University;
and multi-site probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 2019;17: 2006.
1769–93. [33] Slemmons DB. Determination of design earthquake magnitudes for microzonation.
[5] Pagani M, Garcia-Pelaez J, Gee R, Johnson K, Poggi V, Silva V, Simionato M, In: Proceedings of Third International Earthquake Microzonation Conference;
Styron R, Vigano D, Danciu L, Monelli D, Weatherill G. The 2018 version of the 1982. p. 119–30. USA: Seattle, Washington.
global Earthquake model: hazard component. Earthq Spectra 2020;36(S1):226–51. [34] dePolo CM, Slemmons DB. Estimation of earthquake size for seismic hazards. Rev
[6] Silva V, Amo-Oduro D, Calderon A, Costa C, Dabbeek J, Despotaki V, Martins L, Eng Geol 1990;8:1–28.
Pagani M, Rao A, Simionato M, Vigano D, Yepes-Estrada C, Acevedo A, Crowley H, [35] Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture
Horspool N, Jaiswal K, Journeay M, Pittore M. Development of a global seismic risk length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am
model. Earthq Spectra 2020;36(S1):372–94. 1994;84:974–1002.
[7] Suzuki A. Iervolino I Intensity measure conversion of fragility curves. Earthq Eng [36] Jackson JA, Mckenzie D. Active tectonics of the Alpine-Himalayan belt between
Struct Dynam 2020;49(6):607–29. western Turkey and Pakistan. Geophys J Int 1984;77:185–264. https://doi.org/
[8] McKenzie DP. Active tectonics of the Alpine Himalayan Belt, the Aegean Sea and 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1984.tb01931.x.
surrounding regions. Geophys J Int 1978;55:217–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/ [37] Gulen L, Barka A, Toksoz MN. Continental collision and related complex
j.1365-246X.1978.tb04759.x. deformation: Maras triple junction and surrounding structures, SE Turkey. Bull
[9] Dewey JF, Şengör AMC. Aegean and surrounding regions: complex multiple and Earth Sci 1987;14:319–36 [in Turkish)].
continuum tectonics in a convergent zone. Geol Soc Am Bull 1979;90:84–92. [38] Lyberis N, Yürür T, Chorowicz J, Kasapoğlu E, Gündoğdu N. The East Anatolian
https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1979)90<84:AASRCM>2.0.CO;2. Fault: an oblique collisional belt. Tectonophysics 1992;204:1–15. https://doi.org/
[10] Bozkurt E. Neotectonics of Turkey-a synthesis. Geodin Acta 2001;14:3–30. https:// 10.1016/0040-1951(92)90265-8.
doi.org/10.1016/S0985-3111(01)01066-X. [39] Garfunkel Z, Zak I, Freund R. Active faulting in the Dead Sea rift. Tectonophysics
[11] Woessner J, Danciu L, Giardini D, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G, et al. The 2013 1981;80:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(81)90139-6.
European seismic hazard model: key components and results. Bull Earthq Eng [40] McClusky SC, Balassanian S, Barka A, Ergintav S, Georgie I, Gurkan O, et al. Global
2015;13(12):3553–96. Positioning System constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern
[12] Şeşetyan K, Danciu L, Demircioğlu Tümsa MB, et al. The 2014 seismic hazard Mediterranean Caucasus. J Geophys Res 2000;105:5695–719. https://doi.org/
model of the Middle East: overview and results. Bull Earthq Eng 2018;16:3535–66. 10.1029/1999JB900351.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0346-4. [41] Westaway R. Present-day kinematics of the Middle East and Eastern
[13] Gullu H, Ansal AM, Özbay A. Seismic hazard studies for Gaziantep city in South Mediterranean. J Geophys Res 1994;99:12071–90. https://doi.org/10.1029/
Anatolia of Turkey. Nat Hazards 2008;44(1):19–50. 94JB00335.
[14] Cambazoglu S, Eker AM, Koçkar MK, Akgün H. Development of seismic sources for [42] Erdik M, Oner M, Gülkan P. Malatya-Elazig Railway, Karakaya Bridge: assessment
Kilis region and a sample seismic hazard analysis for Sahinbey District. In: of design earthquake characteristics. Ankara: METU/EERI; 1980. Report No:8006.
Proceedings of 2nd Conference of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. [43] Ambraseys NN, Barazangi M. The 1759 earthquake in the Bekaa Valley:
Turkey: Hatay; 2013. implications for earthquake hazard assessment in the Eastern Mediterranean
[15] Sertcelik F. Estimation of Coda wave attenuation in the East Anatolia fault zone, Region. J Geophys Res 1989;94:4007–13. https://doi.org/10.1029/
Turkey. Pure Appl Geophys 2012;169:1189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/ JB094iB04p04007.
s00024-011-0368-1. [44] Saroglu F, Emre Ö, Boray A. Active faults of Turkey and their seismicity. Ankara:
[16] Gullu H, Iyisan R. A seismic hazard study through the comparison of ground General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration; 1987.
motion prediction equations using the weighting factor of logic tree. J Earthq Eng [45] Herece E, Akay E. East Anatolian fault between Karlıova and Çelikhan. In:
2016;20(6):861–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1104752. Proceedings of 9th Petroleum Congrees of Turkey. Ankara: Turkey; 1992.
[17] Gullu H, Karabekmez M. Investigation of seismic behaviour of Gaziantep Kurtulus p. 361–72.
Mosque. DUMF Eng J 2016;7(3):455–70 [in Turkish)]. [46] Nalbant S, Hubert A, King GCP. Stress coupling between earthquakes in northwest
[18] Terlemez HÇI, Şentürk K, Ateş Ş, Sümengen M, Oral A. Geology of Gaziantep Turkey and the north Aegean Sea. J Geophys Res 1998;103. https://doi.org/
region and Pazarcık-Sakçagöz-Kilis-Elbeyli-Oğuzeli area. Ankara: General 10.1029/98JB01491. 24.469-24.486.
Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration of Turkey (MTA); 1992. Report [47] Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD)-Presidental of Earthquake
no:9526. Department. 2020 Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake. Report of January 24, (in Turkish),
[19] Akbas B, Akdeniz N, Aksay A, Altun I, Balcı V, Bilginer E, et al. Geological map of https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/downloadDocument?id=1831. [Accessed 31 July
Turkey. Ankara: General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration 2020].
Publications; 2016. [48] Koçkar MK, Akgün H, Rathje EM. Evaluation of site conditions for the Ankara basin
[20] Soysal H, Sipahioğlu S, Kolçak D, Altınok Y. Historical earthquake catalogue of of Turkey based on seismic site characterization of near-surface geologic materials.
Turkey and surrounding area (2100 B.C.-1900 A.D.). Ankara: TUBITAK; 1981. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2010;30(1–2):8–20.
Technical Report No: TBAG341. [49] Tinsley JC, Fumal TE. Mapping quaternary sedimentary deposits for areal
[21] Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI)-Regional variations in shaking response. In: Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los
Earthquake-Tsunami Monitoring Center. Earthquake Catalog Search System. 2020. Angeles Region, vol. 1360; 1985. p. 101–25. US Geological Survey Professional
http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/earthquake-catalog/. Paper.
[22] Saroglu F, Emre Ö, Kuşçu I. Active fault map of Turkey (1:2,000,000). Ankara: [50] Park S, Elrick S. Predictions of shear-wave velocities in southern California using
General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration; 1992. surface geology. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1998;88(3):677–85.
19
[51] Wills CJ, Petersen M, Bryant WA, Reichle M, Saucedo GJ, Tan S, et al. A site- [71] Ugurhan B, Askan A. Stochastic strong ground motion simulation of the 12
conditions map for California based on geology and shear wave velocity. Bull November 1999 Düzce (Turkey) earthquake using a dynamic corner frequency
Seismol Soc Am 2000;90(6B):187–208. approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2010;100(4):1–27.
[52] Holzer TL, Bennett MJ, Noce TE, Tinsley III JC. Shear-wave velocity of surficial [72] Roumelioti Z, Kiratzi A, Margaris B, et al. Simulation of strong ground motion on
geologic sediments in Northern California: statistical distributions and depth near-fault rock outcrop for engineering purposes: the case of the city of Xanthi
dependence. Earthq Spectra 2005;21(1):161–77. (northern Greece). Bull Earthq Eng 2017;15:25–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/
[53] Wald DJ, McWhirter L, Thompson EM, Hering AS. A new strategy for developing s10518-016-9949-9.
Vs30 maps. In: Proceedings of 4th IASPEI/IAEE International Symposium: Effects [73] Bajaj K, Anbazhagan P. Regional stochastic ground-motion model for low to
of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion. USA: Santa Barbara; 2011. moderate seismicity area with variable seismotectonic: application to Peninsular
[54] Forte G, Chioccarelli E, Cito P, De Falco M, Santo A, Iervolino I. Seismic soil India. Bull Earthq Eng 2019;17:3661–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-
classification of Italy based on surface geology and shear-wave velocity 00646-9.
measurements. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2019;122:79–93. [74] Tanırcan G, Yelkenci-Necmioğlu S. Simulation of the strong ground motion for the
[55] Turkish Building Earthquake Code-TBEC. Specifications for buildings to be built in 20 July 2017 (Mw. 6.6) Bodrum–Kos earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 2020;18:
seismic areas. Ankara: Ministry of Public Works and Settlement; 2018. 5807–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00892-2.
[56] EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8; Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: [75] Boore DM, Joyner WB. Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc
general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. 2020. Am 1997;87:327–41.
[57] International Code Council-ICC. International Building Code. 2018. Whittier, CA. [76] Boore DM, Atkinson GM. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average
[58] Boore DM. Estimating Vs(30) (or NEHRP site classes) from shallow velocity models horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods
(depths < 30 m). Bull Seismol Soc Am 2004;94(2):591–7. between 0.01s and 10.0s. Earthq Spectra 2008;24:99–138.
[59] Ohta Y, Goto N. Empirical shear wave velocity equations in terms of characteristic [77] Akkar S, Cagnan Z. A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey and its
soil indexes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural. Dynamics 1978;6:167–87. comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bull Seismol
[60] Imai T, Tonouchi K. Correlation of N value with S-wave velocity and shear Soc Am 2010;100:2978–95.
modulus. In: Proceedings of 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing. [78] Turkish Statistical Institute, TSI. Building Census 2000. Ankara: Turkish Statistical
Amsterdam: Netherlands; 1982. p. 67–72. 1982. Institute; 2000 (in Turkish).
[61] Pitilakis K, Raptakis D, Lontzetidis K, Tika-Vassilikou T, Jongmans D. Geotechnical [79] Ay BO, Eroglu Azak T, Erberik MA. Evaluation of changing building characteristics
and geophysical description of Euro-Seistests, using field, and laboratory tests and in Turkey. In: Proceedings of 12th International Congress on Advances in Civil
moderate strong ground motions. J Earthq Eng 1999;3(3):381–409. Engineering. Turkey: Istanbul; 2016.
[62] Sykora DE, Stokoe KH. Correlations of in-situ measurements in sands of shear wave [80] Erberik MA. Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC
velocity. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 1983;20:125–36. buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 2008;30(5):1360–74.
[63] Hasancebi N, Ulusay R. Empirical correlations between shear wave velocity and [81] Erberik MA. Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings
penetration resistance for ground shaking assessments. Bull Eng Geol Environ considering in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2008;37(3):387–405.
2007;66:203–13. [82] Askan A, Asten M, Erberik MA, Erkmen C, Karimzadeh S, Kilic N, et al. Seismic
[64] Koçkar MK, Akgün H. Development of a geotechnical and geophysical database for damage assessment of Erzincan. Project n. TUJJB-UDP-01-12. Turkish national
Seismic zonation of the Ankara Basin, Turkey. Environ Geol 2008;55(1):165–77. union of geodesy and geophysics project; 2015 (in Turkish).
[65] Wills CJ, Clahan KB. Developing a map of geologically defined site-condition [83] Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength
categories for California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2006;96(4A):1483–501. and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2005;34:1489–511.
[66] Wills CJ, Silva W. Shear wave velocity characteristics of geologic units in [84] Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H. Global collapse of frame structures under seismic
California. Earthq Spectra 1998;14(3):533–56. excitations. Stanford, CA: The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center,
[67] Wald DJ, Allen TI. Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and Stanford University; 2005. Rep. No. TB 152.
amplification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2007;97(5):1379–95. [85] Ay BO, Erberik MA. Vulnerability of Turkish low-rise and mid-rise reinforced
[68] Eker AM, Akgün H, Koçkar MK. Local site condition characterization and seismic concrete frame structures. J Earthq Eng 2008;12(S2):2–11.
zonation study by utilizing active and passive surface wave methods. Eng Geol [86] Iervolino I. Assessing uncertainty in estimation of seismic response for PBEE.
2012;151:64–81. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2017;46:1711–23.
[69] Thompson EM, Kayen RE, Carkin B, Tanaka H. Surface-wave site characterization [87] Askan A, Yucemen MS. Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential
at 52 strong-motion recording stations affected by the Parkfield, California, M6.0 seismic damage: application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. Struct Saf
earthquake of 28 September 2004. US Geological Survey Open-File; 2010. Report 2010;32(4):262–71.
2010-1168, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1168. [88] Gurpinar A, Abali M, Yucemen MS, Yesilcay Y. Feasibility of obligatory earthquake
[70] Motazedian D, Atkinson GM. Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic insurance in Turkey. 78-05. Ankara: Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2005;95:995–1010. Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University; 1978 [in
Turkish)].
20

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect