EGU Journal Logos (RGB) Open Access Open Access Open Access Advances in Annales Nonlinear Processes Geosciences Geophysicae in Geophysics Open Access Open Access Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 505–522, 2013 Natural Hazards Natural Hazards www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/505/2013/ doi:10.5194/nhess-13-505-2013 and Earth System and Earth System © Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Sciences Sciences Discussions Open Access Open Access Atmospheric Atmospheric Chemistry Chemistry and Physics and Physics 19 May 2011 Kutahya¨ – Simav earthquake and evaluation of Discussions Open Access Open Access existing sample RC buildings according to the TEC-2007Atmospheric criteria Atmospheric Measurement Measurement M. H. Arslan1, M. Olgun1, M. A. Koro¨ gluˇ 2, I. H. Erkan1, A. Koken¨ 1, and O. Tan1 Techniques Techniques 1 Department of Civil Engineering, Selcuk University, 42075 Konya, Turkey Discussions 2 Open Access Department of Civil Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42060 Konya, Turkey Open Access Correspondence to: M. H. Arslan ([email protected]) Biogeosciences Biogeosciences Discussions Received: 19 October 2012 – Published in Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: – Revised: 25 December 2012 – Accepted: 3 January 2013 – Published: 25 February 2013 Open Access Open Access Climate Abstract. This study examines the damage caused to rein- 7.2)) (Arslan and Korkmaz, 2007;Climate C¸agatay,˘ 2005; Inel et al., forced concrete structures by the 2011 earthquake that oc- 2008; Tan et al., 2008; Adalierof andthe Aydıng Pastun,¨ 2001; Sezen of the Past curred in Simav, Turkey. The study briefly reports on post- et al., 2003; Dogang˘ un,¨ 2004; Celep et al., 2011; Kaplan et Discussions earthquake field observations, tectonic characteristics of the al., 2004). The majority of these studies are related to build- earthquake area, geotechnical characteristics of the field, and ings with reinforced concrete (RC) structural systems. How- Open Access Open Access seismic characteristics of the earthquake. The main part of ever, most of the low-rise residential buildings constructed in Earth System the study comprises a field study, material experiments, and villages and small townsEarth are masonry System structures. Therefore, performance analyses of two reinforced concrete buildings much of the knowledge aboutDynamics Turkish earthquake hazards, Dynamics that survived the earthquake with medium level damage. The structural deficiencies, and errors are concentrated on RC and Discussions building performance was calculated and assessed accord- masonry structures (Arslan and Korkmaz, 2007; C¸agatay,˘ ing to the Turkish Earthquake Code requirements for exist- 2005; Inel et al., 2008; Kaltakcı et al., 2007; Tan et al., 2008; Open Access ing building stock, and recommendations were made based Adalier and Aydıngun,¨ 2001;Geoscientific Sezen et al., 2003; Dogang˘ un,¨ Geoscientific Open Access on the findings. 2004; Celep et al., 2011;Instrumentation Kaplan et al., 2004; Arslan, 2010). Instrumentation On 19 May 2011 an earthquakeMethods with and magnitude (Mw) Methods and 5.7 occurred in Simav, in Kutahya¨ Province, located in the western part of Turkey. AccordingData Systems to the Earthquake De- Data Systems 1 Introduction partment of the Disaster and Emergency Management Presi- Discussions Open Access dency (DEMP), the earthquake occurred at 20:15Open Access local time ◦ ◦ Geoscientific Turkey is situated in an active earthquake zone and more with epicenter coordinatesGeoscientific of 39.1328 N, 29.0820 E at a than 90 % of its land area is within highly seismic re- depth of 24.46 km. The earthquake resulted in 2 fatalities and Model Development gions. During the 20th century, Turkey experienced sev- Model Development more than 122 injuries. Approximately 2500 aftershocks oc- Discussions eral moderate to heavy earthquakes that resulted in signif- curred after the main shock (Sandıkkaya et al., 2011; Inel˙ icant loss of life and property, and 22 major earthquakes et al., 2011; Kaplan et al., 2011), with a magnitude range Open Access with minimum magnitudes 7 (M ) caused significant ca- Open Access w (ML) of between 1.3 andHydrology 4.8 (Sandıkkaya and et al., 2011). After Hydrology and sualties and extensive structural damage (Arslan and Kork- the earthquake Turkish researchers focused on understand- maz, 2007; C¸agatay,˘ 2005; Inel et al., 2008). The literature ing the causes of the damagesEarth on System especially RC buildings. Earth System includes many studies of earthquakes and post-earthquake Tama (2012) investigated the buildingsSciences by P25-rapid assess- Sciences case studies in Turkey because several destructive earth- ment method. The method showed that two of the buildings quakes have hit the country during the last two decades Discussions Open Access were in “high risk band”; the other two fell intoOpen Access “detailed (including 1992 Erzincan (Mw = 6.8), 1996 Adana–Ceyhan evaluation band”, and the rest were in the “low risk band”. (Mw = 6.3), 1999 Adapazari–Izmit (Mw = 7.4), 1999 Duzce¨ So his findings demonstrated that the figure matched with Ocean Science (M = 7.2), 2002 Afyon–Sultandagi (M = 6.5), 2003 Bin- Ocean Science w w the damages observed in the site survey after the earthquake. Discussions gol (Mw = 6.4), 2010 Elazıg˘ (Mw = 6.0), 2011 Van (Mw = Open Access Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. Open Access Solid Earth Solid Earth Discussions Open Access Open Access The Cryosphere The Cryosphere Discussions Fig. 1. 506 M. H. Arslan et al.: 19 May 2011 Kutahya¨ Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 2. Major faulting system in the Simav region (AFAD, 2011). Fig. 1. Major tectonic elements and distribution in Turkey (Adalier and Aydingun, 2001). Fig. 2. Province (EAF), the Aegean Graben System, the Cyprus– This study briefly examined structural damage caused by Hellenic Arc, the Central Anatolian Province, and the Black this earthquake event. The seismic characteristics of the Sea region (Sengor et al., 1985). The tectonics of Turkey earthquake were determined by examining the seismic struc- is greatly influenced by the movements of the Arabian, ture and soil features of the region. Soil and material ex- Eurasian, and African plates (Fig. 1). The Arabian plate periments required by Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC-2007) moves NE and pushes the Eurasian plate along the Bitlis norms were made in two low-rise buildings that experienced thrust and fault zone. Due to this continuing movement of the medium damage. Using the obtained data, the load systems Arabian plate, the Anatolian block shifts westward along the of the buildings were evaluated to analyze structural perfor- North and Northeast Anatolian faults. On the other hand, the mance. The main aim of the study is to compare two sam- African plate moves in the NE direction, colliding with the 32 ple RC buildings located on alluvial soils, which suffered Eurasian plate, and subducts along the Cyprus–Hellenic Arc, damage but remained standing, and to critically evaluate the somewhat retarding the westward movement of the Anato- provisions of the TEC-2007 regulations. For this purpose, lian block and initiating its tendency to rotate to the SW. The the seismic performance of the selected buildings obtained interaction of these complex plate motions resulted in sev- by the non-linear evaluation procedures given in TEC-2007 eral E–W trending blocks bounded by oblique normal faults has been conducted. Global performance of these buildings in southwest Turkey. Consequently, this region covering the was determined from the member performances and the an- Cyprus-Hellenic Arc and the Aegean Graben System has alytical results were compared with the experienced damage very high seismicity (Konak, 1982). of the buildings. After the assessment a critical comparative The Aegean region of Turkey, including Kutahya¨ evaluation has been done from the obtained results. Province, is a highly active seismic area and has frequently been exposed to earthquakes. Kutahya¨ is affected by the ground motions resulting from the Gediz–Emet, Simav, and Kutahya¨ fault lines. Throughout history many destructive 2 Seismicity and geotechnical characteristics earthquakes causing loss of life and property have occurred 2.1 Tectonic setting in the region (Table 1). The highest magnitude earthquake recorded in this region was generated by the Gediz fault in Turkey is located in the eastern Mediterranean segment on March 1970 and resulted in more than 1000 casualties and the Alpine–Himalayan earthquake belt and is frequently ex- the total collapse of 3500 buildings. The most recent disas- posed to destructive earthquakes. According to the seismicity trous earthquake of Kutahya–Simav¨ in 2011, approximately 32 map of Turkey, 95 % of the population and 92 % of Turkish 40 km from the epicenter of the 1970 Gediz earthquake, led land is within seismically active areas (on seismic zones 1 to considerable damage in Simav, Kutahya.¨ to 4). The Kutahya–Simav¨ region is in the first seismic zone Simav district is located within a collapsed basin (ele- according to the seismic zoning map of Turkey and has a vation 800 m) known as the Simav Graben. Simav Moun- seismic coefficient of 0.4 g according to TEC-2007. tain extends east–west and is located in the south of Simav. There are seven major tectonic provinces in Turkey: The most important tectonic feature of the study area is the North Anatolian Fault (NAF), the Northeast Ana- Simav Fault, an active right strike-slip fault extending ap- tolian Fault (NEAF), the East Anatolian Contractional proximately 205 km length in a general NW–SE direction Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 505–522, 2013 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/505/2013/ M. H. Arslan et al.: 19 May 2011 Kutahya¨ Fig. 3. 507 Table 1. Recent destructive earthquakes in the Aegean region of Fig. 3. Turkey. Date Instrumental Magnitude Epicenter 1928 6.2 Emet 1944 6.2 Saphane 1970 7.2 Gediz 1970 5.9 Cavdarhisar 2011 5.7 Simav (Konak, 1982; Saroglu˘ et al., 1987, 1992).