Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04764-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Failures of structures during the January 24, 2020, Sivrice

(Elazığ) Earthquake in Turkey

Osman Fatih Bayrak1 · Murat Bikçe1 · Muhammet Musab Erdem1

Received: 17 May 2020 / Accepted: 19 April 2021 / Published online: 27 April 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
On January 24, 2020, a severe earthquake of magnitude Mw 6.8 hit the Sivrice district
of Elazığ province at 20:55 (17:55 GMT) local time. This earthquake caused significant
damages, partial or total collapses in many buildings with 41 fatalities. A few days after
the earthquake, our reconnaissance team visited city centers, districts and villages in the
region and, then, carried out an investigation and assessments. The results and suggestions
obtained after the earthquakes are very important in designing earthquake-resistant struc-
tures and reducing the casualties. This study aims to identify deficiencies and reveal the
causes of damages by examining the failure mechanisms of structures. Firstly, the effect of
the destructive seismic event is discussed and the historical earthquakes in the region are
summarized. Then, strong ground motion data and the structural damages observed from
different building types are evaluated. The damage patterns and failure mechanisms are
analyzed and interpreted based on the Turkish Earthquake Codes.

Keywords Sivrice—Elazığ (Turkey) earthquake · Earthquake damage survey · Structural

damage · Reinforced concrete buildings · Masonry buildings · Strong ground motions

1 Introduction

Elazığ is located in one of the seismically active regions of Turkey. The population
of Elazığ is specified as 591.098 according to Address-Based Population Registration
(TURKSTAT 2019). While more than half of this population lives in urban areas, the
other half lives in rural areas. The region, on the seismically active faults, has a his-
tory with many destructive earthquakes. Serious earthquakes have been experienced in
the neighbors of Elazığ province such as Erzincan earthquakes in 1939 measuring 7.9

* Murat Bikçe
murat.bikce@iste.edu.tr
Osman Fatih Bayrak
osmanfatihbayrak@gmail.com
Muhammet Musab Erdem
musab.erdem@iste.edu.tr
1
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Civil Engineering Department, Iskenderun Technical
University, 31200 Hatay, Turkey

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1944 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Table 1  January 24, 2020, Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake characteristics

Source Time (GMT) Latitude (N) Longitude (E) Depth (km) Mw

DEMAa 17:55:11 38.3593 39.0630 8.06 6.8

KOERIb 17:55:11 38.3775 39.24 5 6.5
USGSc 17:55:11 38.39 39.08 10 6.7
Earthquakes@GAd 17:55:15 38.38 39.2 10 6.7
EMSCe 17:55:14 38.37 39.22 15 6.8
GEOSCOPEf 17:55:14 38.33 39.084 23 6.7
a
Turkish Prime Ministry-Disaster and Emergency Management Agency (DEMA 2009)
b
Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI 2006)
c
United States Geological Survey (USGS 2012)
e
Earthquakes Geoscience Australia (Earthquakes@GA 1946)
d
European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC 1975)
f
GEOSCOPE Observatory (GEOSCOPE 1982)

Fig. 1  Epicenter of Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake and active faults (USGS 2011)

Mw (Gürsoy et al. 2013) and in 1992 measuring 6.8 Mw (Karanci and Rustemli 1995),
Bingöl earthquake in 2003 measuring 6.4 Mw (Doǧangün 2004) and Van earthquakes
in 2011 measuring Mw 7.2 and Mw 5.6 (Erdik et al. 2012). Furthermore, an earthquake
with a magnitude of 6.0 Mw occurred in Elazığ province, causing a grave casualty and
property losses in 2010 (Calayır et al. 2012).
Finally, on January 24, 2020, at 20:55 (17:55 GMT) local time, an earthquake hav-
ing a magnitude of 6.8 Mw and at a depth of 8.06 km occurred in this region (DEMA
2009). Since the epicenter was in Sivrice district, which is approximately 30 km south
of Elazığ, this earthquake was named as Sivrice (Elazığ) Earthquake. Information about
the earthquake taken from the databases of various institutions is presented in Table 1.
The intensity and location of the earthquake felt in a wide area are shown in Fig. 1.

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1945

The earthquake, which particularly affected Elazığ and Malatya, caused a total of 41
unfortunate fatalities. Furthermore, 1631 people applied to hospitals and 45 people were
pulled alive from the debris as well (DEMA 2009). Completing the damage assess-
ment on February 8, 2020, the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (RTMEU)
announced that 263 buildings collapsed, 7698 buildings were severely damaged, 11,540
buildings were moderately damaged, and 558 buildings need to be demolished urgently
in Elazığ (Fig. 2a) (RTMEU 2020a).
Malatya governorship announced that 398 buildings collapsed, 4947 buildings were
severely damaged, 413 buildings were moderately damaged, and 297 buildings need to
be demolished urgently (Fig. 2b) (Malatya Governorship 2020). On the other hand, it
is known that some structures damaged by the main earthquake collapsed during after-
shocks (Hurriyet 2020).
In addition to structural damage and the fatalities, the livestock industry was affected
by the earthquake as well. A partial powercut occurred in the electricity distribution
network of Sivrice due to the earthquake (Ntv 1996). In Malatya province, it was stated
that there was no damage related to the infrastructure facilities; however, natural gas
and power-cuts in a controlled manner were made by the Malatya governorship in the
neighborhoods where the earthquake was intensely felt (Haberler 2020).
After destructive earthquakes, observing the failures and deficiencies in structures
is of significant importance to generate innovative seismic solutions (Anbazhagan
et al. 2019; Pozos-Estrada et al. 2019; Sayın et al. 2013; Tapan et al. 2013). Therefore,
our reconnaissance team arrived at the region a few days after the main earthquake.
A detailed field investigation and damage assessment was carried out in Malatya and
Elazığ, especially in Sivrice district of Elazığ, which is the epicenter of the earthquake.
This study aims to provide a general overview of the causes of damage by examining
the failure mechanisms of structures. Firstly, the effect of the seismic event is presented,
and historical earthquakes in the region are summarized. Then, strong ground motion
data, damage patterns and failure mechanisms of different building types are evalu-
ated and discussed considering the Turkish Earthquake Codes (TEC) (TEC 1975, 1997,
2007, 2018).

Fig. 2  Number of structures that moderately damaged, severely damaged, collapsed and need to be demol-
ished urgently in a Elazığ and b Malatya

13
1946 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

2 Seismo‑tectonic characteristics and historical earthquakes

of the region

Elazığ is located between East Anatolian Fault (EAF) and North Anatolian Fault (NAF).
With the Arabian Plate moving to the north and the Anatolian Plate moving to the west,
EAF constitutes the boundary that a left-lateral strike slip (Fig. 1) (Duman and Emre 2013).
This fault with a length of approximately 580 km consists of 6 different segments, rang-
ing from 50 to 145 km, which are Karlıova-Bingöl, Palu-Lake Hazar, Lake Hazar-Sincik,
Çelikhan-Gölbaşı, Gölbaşı-Türkoğlu and Türkoğlu-Antakya (Fig. 3) (Demirtaş and Yılmaz
1996; Herece 2003). Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake occurred in Hazar-Sincik segment of the
EAF. In addition to these main segments, there are secondary faults in and around Elazığ.
Due to the seismic activity in its location, Elazığ and its surroundings have experienced
destructive earthquakes in the historical period (Table 2) (Celep et al. 2011).
In 1114, an earthquake measuring 7.8 hit the Gölbaşı-Türkoğlu segment that was felt
in a wide area (Guidoboni and Comastri 2005). In 1513, an earthquake with a magnitude
of 7.4 struck the region covering from Malatya to Adana. Then, a massive earthquake
occurred between Palu and Bingöl in 1789, resulting in 51,000 fatalities in an area with
a radius of 75 km (Soysal et al. 1981). In 1822, the destructive earthquake that affected
the region between the Black Sea coast and Gaza occurred on the Türkoğlu-Antakya seg-
ment (Arvanitakis 1903; Calvi 1979; Sieberg 1932). In 1886, a magnitude of 7.2 earth-
quake occurred in the Karlıova-Bingöl segment (Ambraseys and Jackson 1998). 6 years
after this earthquake, in 1872 destructive earthquake occurred on the Türkoğlu-Antakya
segment. In 1874 and 1875, earthquakes with the magnitude of 7.1 and 6.8 occurred in the
Palu-Hazar segment and the Hazar-Sincik segment, respectively. In 1983, a magnitude of
7.3 earthquake in Çelikhan-Gölbaşı segment affected Malatya and southern regions (Yönlü
2012). A magnitude of 6.8 earthquake that caused severe damage in many villages between
Pütürge and Çelikhan in 1905 occurred related to Hazar-Sincik segment (Erkmen and

Fig. 3  Turkish fault map and segments of EAF (Özacar et al. 2010)

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1947

Table 2  Historical earthquakes Year Magnitude (M) Segment

on EAF
1114 7.8 Gölbaşı-Türkoğlu
1513 7.4 Gölbaşı-Türkoğlu
1789 - Palu-Bingöl
1822 - Türkoğlu-Antakya
1866 7.2 Karlıova-Bingöl
1872 - Tükoğlu-Antakya
1874 7.1 Palu-Hazar
1875 6.8 Hazar-Sincik
1893 7.3 Çelikhan-Gölbaşı
1905 6.8 Hazar-Sincik
2010 6.1 Hazar-Sincik

Eravcı 2008). In 2010, many masonry and reinforced concrete buildings were collapsed
and many people lost their lives, during the 6.1 magnitude earthquake (Celep et al. 2011).

3 Evaluation of ground motion

3.1 Characteristics of ground motion records

In this study, the earthquake was evaluated according to the data presented by National
Strong Motion Recording Stations of DEMA (DEMA 2009). Having a strong data col-
lection network with approximately 800 acceleration stations, DEMA recorded this earth-
quake with 235 different accelerometers. It was also stated that the station–epicenter dis-
tance ­(Repi) of the earthquake ranged from 23 to 770 km. After the earthquake, the peak
acceleration values for N-S, E-W and U-D were measured in Sivrice (Elazığ) district as
0.242 g, 0.298 g and 0.193 g, respectively (Fig. 4a). The next peak acceleration values were
measured in Pütürge (Elazığ) district, about 160 km away from Sivrice (Elazığ), as 0.210 g
(N-S), 0.243 g (E-W) and 0.156 g (U-D) (Fig. 4b). The earthquake was felt with accelera-
tions greater than 0.01 g in Adıyaman, Diyarbakır, K.Maraş, Erzincan, Ş.Urfa and Tunceli
that are neighbor provinces of Elazığ and Malatya. In addition, a total of 2559 aftershocks
occurred, with a magnitude greater than 4.0. The acceleration, velocity, Fourier, response
spectrum and displacement graphs on which Butterworth 0.1–0.25 Hz bandpass filter was
applied are presented at Fig. 4e concerning Sivrice (2308) district of Elazığ province that
had the highest earthquake acceleration.
In Sivrice station, peak ground velocity was measured as PGV = 40.3 cm/s, while peak
ground displacement was found as PGD = 11.4 cm (Fig. 4e). In the Fourier Spectrum, two
different dominant periods appeared as 1.4 and 0.8 s (Fig. 4c, d). Furthermore, in the E-W
component of acceleration record of Sivrice, the significant duration was calculated as 20.3
and bracketed duration as 34.4 s.

3.2 Spectral characteristics

The first seismic design code in Turkey was published in 1940, after the 1939 Erzincan
earthquake causing 39.968 fatalities. After publication of the first seismic design code,

13
1948 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Fig. 4  Ground motion data of Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake: a acceleration; b velocity; c Fourier d response
spectrum; and f displacement (DEMA 2009)

construction and seismic design rules have been updated frequently. The last seismic code
was published in 2018 as TEC-2018. Furthermore, Earthquake Hazard Map of Turkey
was updated in 2018 as well (Fig. 5a) (DEMA 2018). For the Sivrice region, peak ground

Fig. 5  Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake: a location of epicenter on Turkey Earthquake Hazard Map and b spec-
tral accelerations of design earthquakes and acceleration data recorded in Sivrice Station (DEMA 2009)

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1949

acceleration value, also called as design earthquake, that can be formed in 475 years was
0.4 g in the previous design code (TEC-2007), and it was updated to 0.665 g in the current
design code (TEC-2018) (Fig. 5b).
Spectral accelerations of E-W, N-S and geometric mean spectra of these horizontal
components of Sivrice (Elazığ) station are presented in Fig. 5b together with design accel-
eration spectrums of TEC-2007 and TEC-2018 (TEC 2007, 2018). Since soil classification
was changed in TEC-2018, the soil class of Sivrice (Elazığ) station was selected as Z3 for
TEC-2007 and as ZC for TEC-2018. As seen in Fig. 5b, acceleration values of 24 January
2020 Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake are below the acceleration values of the design spectrum
of TEC-2007 and TEC-2018.

4 General condition of buildings in Elazığ and Turkey

Principal damages caused by Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake are closely related to construction
practices and design that are common in Turkey. In previous research studies conducted on
building damages after the earthquakes, it is seen that severely damaged buildings are not
constructed in accordance with the seismic design code and most of these buildings have
similar problems (Doǧangün 2004; Erdik et al. 2004; Saatcioglu et al. 2001; Sezen et al.
2003). Severe damage and casualty caused by earthquakes revealed the need to improve the
building stock across the country and increase the funds on this issue (Bikçe 2016).
After Kocaeli and Düzce earthquakes in 1999, the Compulsory Earthquake Insurance
came into force to compensate structural damages due to earthquake (DASK 2019). How-
ever, regulation has unfortunately not been widely preferred. The main reason for this situ-
ation is considered as the financial support provided by the government for damaged build-
ings after earthquakes in the country, regardless of whether they are insured. Although
earthquake insurance is compulsory, only 54.90% of the buildings have benefited from this
law in Turkey (DASK 2019). Moreover, it was observed that the rate of buildings having
compulsory earthquake insurance was low particularly in provinces such as Van, Elazığ
and Bingöl, which were subjected to severe earthquakes.
Before the “construction inspection law” no. 4708 was published in 2001, all stages of
construction were officially inspected by technical personnel (Ministry of Public Works
and Settlement 2008). However, it is obvious that these technical personnel did not control
the structures properly and the structures were not built in accordance with the seismic
design codes.
After the 1999 Kocaeli and Düzce earthquakes, to inspect the design and construction
of buildings, the law no. 4708 was implemented only for 19 pilot provinces (Ministry of
Public Works and Settlement 2001). In Elazığ which is not among the pilot provinces, this
law came into force in early 2011. According to this law, independent inspection firms
were held responsible for any misapplication including the design or construction phases
of buildings. However, the fact that the inspector is selected by the building owner has pre-
vented effective implementation of this system.
In 2012, the law no. 6303 was enforced to renew, transform or improve risky build-
ings that are expected to be damaged during an earthquake (RTMEU 2020b). Although
the main purpose of this law was to improve the buildings built without inspection, giving
priority to structures having economic return caused the law to not achieve its purpose.

13
1950 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Existing buildings in Turkey can be classified into two main categories as engineered
buildings and non-engineered buildings. Unfortunately, the number of buildings that con-
structed with engineering service and through the inspection system is not very high.
Moreover, before law no 4708 was enforced, it is known that non-engineered buildings
were designed and constructed by untrained workers. In 1976, when the first ready-mixed
concrete production was started, approximately 0.2% of the total cement production was
used in ready-mixed concrete, while this ratio exceeded 10% in 1993 (Arınel 1994).
In Elazığ and Malatya city centers, the structural system of most buildings consists of
reinforced concrete frame or combinations of reinforced concrete frame and shear wall.
While these reinforced concrete structures are generally 4–6-story, there are also 8–9-
story reinforced concrete buildings in the new residential areas. Very few of these mid-rise
buildings have a shear wall around the stairs and elevators in their structural systems. Fur-
thermore, these buildings usually have no basement and are built on shallow foundations.
Most of the low-rise (1–3 story) buildings constructed in the villages and small towns of
Elazığ consist of mudbrick, lightweight concrete blocks or stone masonry with mud mor-
tars, depending on the economic income level. It was observed that low-rise masonry
buildings do not receive engineering services. Furthermore, although mid-rise buildings
are generally constructed as reinforced concrete, it cannot be said that they receive engi-
neering services.
In reinforced concrete structures, it is essential to select right foundation based on soil
investigation, to have a static project including earthquake calculation, to construct the
building in accordance with the project and to use materials (concrete and reinforcement)
ensuring the strengths, dimensions and locations specified in the project. Unfortunately, it
was observed that these principles were not taken into account in some structures damaged
by the Elazığ earthquake (Turkey Ready-Mixed Concrete Association 2020).

5 Building types and material properties

5.1 Concrete

The first ready-mixed concrete facility in Elazığ region was started in 1991; however, it was
later decided to stop production due to the lack of demand in 1991 (Oymael and Yeginobalı
1994). The second ready-mixed concrete facility started its operations in 1993. However,
since there was no inspection system controlling the quality of concrete production, many
buildings were produced by using low-quality concrete. As a result of the prohibition of
hand-made concrete after 2005, the use of ready-mixed concrete has become widespread.
For assessing the mechanical characteristics of concrete used in construction, a large num-
ber of samples were taken from buildings. Turkish Ready Mixed Concrete Association
stated that compressive strengths of core samples taken from the severely and moderately
damaged buildings in Elazığ vary between 6 and 12 MPa. These strength values are below
the limit values stated by TECs in force for 45 years (TEC 1975, 1997, 2007, 2018). On the
other hand, one of the important findings was that the core strengths gathered from differ-
ent points of the same structure were quite different.
Researchers often encountered over-limit aggregate sizes in buildings damaged after
the earthquake of January 24, 2020 (Fig. 6). As seen in Fig. 6a-c, the concrete samples
encountered had aggregate sizes of 40–60 mm that were taken from river beds in random

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1951

Fig. 6  Aggregate sizes encountered in concretes of structural members in different columns

sizes consisting of coarse and fine aggregates, whose particle size distribution was not suit-
able. Furthermore, segregation was another frequently encountered problem (Fig. 6b, c).
Another important issue is that the damage assessment of the buildings was carried out
carelessly. However, it is one of the basic principles to avoid damaging the structural mem-
bers and reinforcement in core drilling. In this context, due to careless drilling in gathering
core samples may cause cutting the reinforcement as encountered in Fig. 7. In addition,
in the damage assessment, rather than reinforcement samples, mostly core samples were
collected.

5.2 Steel reinforcing bars

Like the use of ready-mixed concrete in Elazığ, usage of the ribbed reinforcement started
late compared to other cities. Small-diameter plain bars were used in almost all rein-
forced concrete buildings before 2000s (Fig. 8a–d, e–g). In these structures, many other
problems were also observed such as wide spacing of transverse reinforcement in column
ends (Fig. 8a–h) and beam-column joints (Fig. 8a–h), inappropriate angle of stirrup hooks

Fig. 7  Cutting of longitudinal reinforcements while core drilling

13
1952 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Fig. 8  Reinforcement deficiencies in buildings: a plain, widely spaced, small diameter and corroded rein-
forcement; b 90° bent stirrup hook angles on lap splices; c lap splice of column reinforcement without
stirrup; d incorrect lap splice detailing in column; e corrosion, segregation and incorrectly displaced lon-
gitudinal reinforcement; f longitudinal reinforcement outside the stirrups; g longitudinal reinforcement not
adequately surrounded by stirrup; and h widely spaced stirrup in the ground floor column of a 6 story build-
ing

(Fig. 8a–b), longitudinal bars without transverse reinforcement (Fig. 8c–h), longitudinal
bars outside of the perimeter of transverse reinforcement (Fig. 8f), displacement of longi-
tudinal bars that should be in the corners of the stirrup (8e–g) and hooks at the end of the
longitudinal bars prohibited by TECs (Fig. 8d).
In addition, it was also determined that the concrete cover rule stated in the earthquake
regulations was not complied, and accordingly, most of the reinforcements were corroded
in some buildings (Fig. 8a, d, e).

5.3 Industrial structures

As in other parts of Turkey, the structural system of the most industrial buildings is
reinforced concrete in Elazığ. And precast structural system is the most common type

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1953

of industrial buildings. In addition, there are many industrial facilities built with steel
construction systems. No damage was encountered in the examinations made on these
structures.

5.4 Mosques

There are many mosques in the Eastern Anatolia Region having rich cultural monu-
ments. Although better seismic performance is expected for the design of such struc-
tures in TECs, some mosques in provinces and districts observed damages in the façade
(Fig. 9a–e).
Severe damages occurred on the masonry walls and columns of Sivrice Merkez
Mosque, which was constructed after the 2000s (Fig. 9a, b). Ribbon windows at the
basement reduced the free length of the column and created a short-column effect
by attracting more shear force than expected (Fig. 9b). Furthermore, severe damages
observed at the dome and masonry walls of the Yeni Cami in Malatya city center
(Fig. 9c, d).
Minarets, the slender structures, are defined as one of the most risky structures
against horizontal earthquake loads. The spire of many masonry minarets was observed
to be damaged and fell to the ground during earthquake (Fig. 10a–d).

Fig. 9  Mosque damages: a, b Sivrice Merkez Mosque; c Malatya Yeni Mosque dome from inside (Malatya-
time 2020); and d damage in joints of masonry units of Malatya Yeni Mosque from outside

13
1954 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Fig. 10  Damages to minarets: a Elazığ Beyzade Efendi Mosque, b Elazığ Hacı Osmaniye Mosque, c Elazığ
Rüstem Paşa Mosque, and d Elazığ Kültür Mosque

5.5 Schools

School buildings are usually constructed with shear walled reinforced concrete struc-
tural system in Turkey. Against the destructive effect of the earthquake, schools are
designed to provide relatively higher performance compared to houses (TEC 2007,
2018). Because school buildings are expected to be used as shelter or service building
after earthquakes. However, as a result of the damage assessment studies, the semester
break in schools was extended (Ministry of Education 2020) and a total of 80 schools,
32 in Elazığ, 27 in Malatya, 14 in Adiyaman and 7 in Diyarbakir were decided to be
demolished (Mebpersonel 2020) (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11  Controlled demolition of some schools after Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake (Sabah 2020)

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1955

5.6 Hospitals

Hospitals examined in Elazığ were constructed with reinforced concrete structural system.
Although no hospital building collapsed during the earthquake, cracks were observed in
infill walls of the Fırat University Education and Research Hospital (Fig. 12a). In Turkey,
there is an increase in the number of hospitals being built with seismic isolators recently.
Fethi Sekin City Hospital with seismic isolator in 872 columns survived earthquake with-
out damage (Fig. 12b).

5.7 Transportation structures

After the earthquakes, continuity of some services such as substructure, transportation,

health and communication has a great importance. No significant damage caused by earth-
quakes was encountered in structures such as dams, railway tunnels, culverts, bridges, etc.
(KOERI 2006). However, in the examinations, certain damages were observed on the ceil-
ing covering of the airport (Fig. 13a) and infill walls of Elazığ Bus Terminal (Fig. 13b).

5.8 Non‑structural members

In addition to the structural members, non-bearing members were also damaged due to
the earthquake. These members were exposed to unexpected damages, since no earthquake
calculation was made during the design phase of the structure. Toppled bookshelves in
Sivrice Merkez Mosque (Fig. 14a), the technical equipments broken from the telecom
poles (Fig. 14b) and toppled surrounding walls of gardens (Fig. 14c) became a risk factor
for people even if the structures were not collapsed.

5.9 Engineered buildings

5.9.1 Buildings in city center of Elazığ

Despite the fact that there are reinforced concrete buildings built up to 10 floors after
2000s, the building stock mostly consists of 4–8-story reinforced concrete buildings in

Fig. 12  a Fırat University Education and Research Hospital, infill wall damage (Trthaber 2020) and b
undamaged Fethi Sekin City Hospital with seismic isolators

13
1956 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Fig. 13  a Ceiling covering of the airport and b infill wall damage in Elazığ Bus Terminal

Fig. 14  Failures of non-structural members: a Sivrice Merkez Mosque, b telecom pole in Sivrice city
center, and c wall damage in Sivrice district of Elazığ

Elazığ city center. Even if most of the reinforced concrete buildings are theoretically calcu-
lated and approved by local authorities, it is very difficult to define these structures as con-
structed in accordance with their design projects. This situation is thought to be caused by
insufficiencies in the construction inspection system. On the other hand, it was remarkable
that the structures built in accordance with the earthquake regulations (TEC 1997, 2007,
2018) survived the earthquake with no damage or minor damages.
It was announced that a total of 263 buildings were collapsed during the earthquake in
Elazığ, 4 of which were multi-story reinforced concrete. Of the 4 multi-story reinforced
concrete structures collapsed in the earthquake, 1 was located in the Sürsürü neighbor-
hood (Fig. 15a,b), 2 in the Mustafa Paşa neighborhood (Fig. 15c-f) and 1 in the Gezin town
(Fig. 25a–c).
At the first glance, poor material quality, design errors, poor workmanship and unsu-
pervised construction were obvious in the buildings collapsed during the earthquake. In

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1957

Fig. 15  Structures collapsed during the earthquake on 24 January 2020 in the center of Elazığ: a aerial
view of the collapsed building (in Sürsürü neighborhood) (Sozcu 2020), b after clearing the wreckage (in
Sürsürü neighborhood), c–f collapsed buildings in Mustafa Paşa neighborhood (Elazigsonhaber 2020)

addition to the structural deficiencies mentioned above, the fact that the nearby buildings
were not collapsed despite damages in the same earthquake supports the thesis that these
buildings were produced without earthquake regulations, related standards and supervision.
In addition, Sürsürü and Mustafa Paşa neighborhoods and Rüstem Paşa neighborhood
in Elazığ city center, where these structures were collapsed, were defined as “Risky Areas”
(Official Gazette 2020). Although these structures can be considered as non-engineered
buildings, they are discussed in this part since they were multi-story reinforced concrete.
In many structures with severe damages in Elazığ, it was observed that same defects
were repeated that were also observed in major earthquakes in the past in Turkey. It is a
frequently encountered case in Elazığ city center that the ground floors are used as shops,
the outer frames are window-walled and the inner frames are without walls, while the
upper floors with infilled frames are used as residential buildings. Particularly, the vertical
discontinuities in these buildings on the main street caused the buildings to suffer severe
damages due to the sudden changes in stiffness, weak story and soft story irregularities
(Fig. 16a–c).

13
1958 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Fig. 16  Weak story and soft story effect in structures: a Mustafa Paşa, b University, and c Nailbey neigh-
borhoods

In structural members of ground floor, torsion, bending and shear cracks could also
be observed due to the stiffness differences between floors (Fig. 16a–c). In the works
carried out by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, it was decided to demol-
ish the severely damaged buildings urgently. These buildings were demolished quickly,
and their wreckages were removed (Fig. 14b, e).
In examinations, structures with insufficient shear walls in the structural system and
those constructed with poor workmanship are frequently encountered. Such deficiencies
have caused some columns to be heavily damaged in the structural system, ultimately
resulting in vertical eccentricity in the building (Fig. 17a).
Although the flooring systems of the buildings are designed with a rigid diaphragm
assumption, there are also situations such as not producing some slabs and beams during
construction and causing discontinuity in structural members on the ground level due to
the need for garage entrance. It was seen in past earthquakes that such out-of-design
interventions caused severe damages to the buildings during the earthquake (Bikçe and
Çelik 2016). Similarly, in Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake, it was determined that severe
damages occurred in the columns at the garage entrances (Fig. 17b, c).

Fig. 17  In Elazığ province: a 9-story building with failed column, b, c column damages at the garage
entrance

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1959

Furthermore, a building located in Nailbey district was built with insufficient columns
and irregular beams since the ground floor was used as a workplace. This situation caused
severe damage to the structure due to beam discontinuity in the transfer of horizontal loads
(Fig. 18).
It is a well-known fact that designers should pay the utmost attention to stirrups in order
for the structures to have sufficient earthquake performance. Due to the unpleasant experi-
ences in the past earthquakes, the rules introduced to increase the ductility of vertical struc-
tural members are increasingly included in the earthquake codes (TEC 1975, 1997, 2007,
2018). Although there are some minimum requirements in the designs of the reinforce-
ments determined by theoretical calculations, a negligence during the construction causes
damage to the core concrete of the vertical structural members during the earthquake and
the formation of the mechanism by buckling the longitudinal reinforcements. Imperfec-
tions encountered in the investigations of previous earthquakes such as insufficient stir-
rup spacing in confinement zones and column-beam joints, inappropriate hook length and
angle and inappropriate fastening of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements were
also observed in buildings damaged during the Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake (Fig. 19a–e).
The imperfections listed above such as wide-spaced stirrups or no stirrups in the column
ends and column-beam joints were frequently encountered in severely damaged buildings
particularly in Elazığ earthquake area (Fig. 19a–d). It was also observed in the past earth-
quakes that the stirrups not surrounding the longitudinal reinforcement did not contribute
to the performance of the structure (Bikçe and Çelik 2016). In addition, as in the previous
earthquakes, certain situations were encountered where water and electrical installations
were placed by causing damages in structural members (Fig. 20).
As in other provinces of Turkey, depending on the rapid population growth in urban
areas, the construction of adjacent structures are also encountered in Elazığ. Even if the

Fig. 18  Irregular structural system design with beam discontinuities

13
1960 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Fig. 19  Stirrup deficiencies in structural members: a column-beam joint without stirrup, b widely spaced
stirrup in column end, c; d wide stirrup spacing and e shear wall which transverse and longitudinal rein-
forcements are not attached

Fig. 20  Water and electrical installations placed by damaging structural members

adjacent buildings are individually designed to be earthquake-resistant, they can be dam-

aged by neighboring buildings due to insufficient gap between them. In the Turkish earth-
quake regulations, there is an obligation for the minimum gap between the two buildings
to be the sum of the minimum displacement of neighboring structures, or 3 cm for the
first 6 m and 1 cm for each subsequent 3 m (TEC 1997, 2007, 2018). Despite the relevant
restrictions in the earthquake regulations, many adjacent structures in Elazığ city center
were damaged due to insufficient gaps (Fig. 21).
Damage may occur in beams (Fig. 21a), columns (Fig. 21b) and non-structural infill
walls (Fig. 21c) due to the pounding effect of adjacent structures. It is known that non-
structural members are damaged due to horizontal loads such as earthquakes and even
cause loss of life and property. The rules regarding the design of non-structural members
are detailed in the earthquake regulations (TEC 1975, 1997, 2007, 2018). Moreover, the

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1961

Fig. 21  Damages due to insufficient gaps between adjacent buildings

calculation principles of non-structural members are explained in a separate section in the

current earthquake regulation. It is noteworthy that in the investigations conducted after
the earthquakes in Turkey, these non-structural members in the old and new structures
were produced inattentively. Non-structural members such as chimneys, parapets and gable
walls toppling out-of-plane after the Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake were often an important
issue causing loss of life and property (Fig. 22a–d).

5.9.2 Building in city center of Malatya

The Governorship of Malatya announced that the engineered buildings were not collapsed
during the Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake, but 398 non-engineered buildings in Malatya prov-
ince were collapsed in total (Malatya Governorship 2020). Similarly, it was observed that
the buildings constructed in accordance with TECs were not collapsed or severely dam-
aged. Although there was no complete collapse during the earthquake in the center of
Malatya, damages were observed in a few buildings that do not comply with the known
seismic design rules.
It can be said that the main damage causes of reinforced concrete structures in city
center of Malatya are the same as in Elazığ. These can be listed as material quality,

Fig. 22  a, b Chimney, c gable wall and d parapet failures in structures

13
1962 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Fig. 23  a Damage due to the transverse reinforcement, b emptied buildings awaiting demolition and c sud-
denly collapsed building just at the beginning of demolition (Cumhuriyet 2020)

Fig. 24  a Infill wall cracks in Sivrice district governorship building, b controlled demolition of
Sivrice district police department building and c in Turkish "No Stirrup" inscription on a basement col-
umn of Sivrice Merkez Mosque

construction-project inconsistency, horizontal and vertical sudden stiffness changes in

the structure, insufficient gaps between adjacent buildings, weak and soft story irregulari-
ties, short column, general deficiencies in transverse reinforcement and poor workmanship
(Fig. 23a). Severely damaged structures containing deficiencies listed above were urgently
destroyed after the earthquake (Fig. 23b). A severely damaged building that was decided to
be demolished urgently collapsed suddenly at the beginning of the demolition (Fig. 23c).

5.9.3 Buildings in district center of Sivrice, Doğanyol and Pütürge

There are few multi-story reinforced concrete buildings in Sivrice district, which is located
approximately 30 km south of Elazığ. The deficiencies observed in city center of Elazığ
were also seen in the buildings in Sivrice district. In the Sivrice district governorship
building, which was built after 2000s, advanced wall cracks were observed (Fig. 24a); and
the Sivrice district police department building, which was heavily damaged, was demol-
ished (Fig. 24b) just after the earthquake. In Sivrice Merkez Mosque, the construction of
which started in the 2000s, significant damages were observed in both structural members
(Fig. 24c) and outer infill walls (Fig. 9a, b). In the investigations conducted in this mosque,
defects such as low concrete quality, reinforcement corrosion and insufficient transverse
reinforcement were noticeable (Fig. 9a,b, Fig. 24c).

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1963

Fig. 25  Damages in a Pütürge (Milliyet 2020) and b Doğanyol

Fig. 26  Mavi Göl Apartment: a before the earthquake, b after the earthquake and c after removing wreck-
age (Onedio 2020)

Doğanyol and Pütürge districts of Malatya are among the settlements where Sivrice
(Elazığ) earthquake was felt most severely. Doğanyol and Pütürge districts, which are 5.8
and 24.5 km away from the epicenter of earthquake, have very few population due to their
location in a rural and mountainous region. These districts, where the most destructive
effect of the earthquake was observed, consist mostly of 1–2 story non-engineered masonry
and rare reinforced concrete structures. In addition to many houses collapsed (Fig. 25a) in
the earthquake, delicate structures were also damaged (Fig. 25b).

5.9.4 Buildings in villages of Elazığ and Malatya

The building profile in the villages of Elazığ and Malatya consists mostly of low-rise
masonry structures. In the villages, reinforced concrete structures with engineering ser-
vices are rarely encountered. To examine one of these reinforced concrete buildings (Mavi
Göl Apartment) collapsed during to earthquake, the Gezin village of Maden district was
visited, 55 km sout-heast of Elazığ (Fig. 26a-c).
Views of Mavi Göl Apartment before and after the earthquake are presented in
Fig. 26a–c. While the number of residents of the building, which is located very close to
the Hazar lake, reaches 80 people in summer, it is an important coincidence that the build-
ing was almost empty in the winter season when the earthquake occurred and 3 people lost
their lives. While the buildings around the Hazar lake, which can be defined as a holiday
region, are usually 2–3-story, it is stated that the foundation of this 6-story building is not
suitable for the ground, the material quality is quite low and it was damaged in the 2011
Van earthquake.

13
1964 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

5.10 Non‑engineered buildings

5.10.1 Non‑engineered buildings in center of Elazığ, Malatya and district center

of Sivrice, Doğanyol and Pütürge

The majority of the buildings in the center of Elazığ and Malatya are engineered structures.
However, some neighborhoods also have non-engineered buildings. Previous destructive
earthquakes demonstrated that most of the damage occurred in non-engineered buildings
(Sayın et al. 2013). Structural system of the masonry structures, which are widely preferred
due to economic reasons, differs depending on the date of construction. On the other hand,
in rural areas, there are non-engineered masonry buildings whose structural system and
quality of material differ according to the economic level of the owner. Due to limited eco-
nomic resources, such houses, which were built without considering the proper masonry
construction requirements, were severely damaged during the earthquake and evacuated
for life safety (Fig. 27a). In addition, it is noted that mostly derelict buildings have become
completely unusable after the earthquake (Fig. 27a–g).
The bearing walls of traditional masonry buildings are generally constructed with soil,
adobe, stone, hollow concrete brick and perforated and non-perforated bricks (Fig. 27a–c).
Mezzanine floors are sometimes placed on wooden plank beams and sometimes on rein-
forced concrete beams. Roof systems of the buildings are generally formed by covering the
wooden frame with a clay layer, galvanized metal sheet or clay tile (Fig. 27a, d–g).

Fig. 27  Masonry buildings: a adobe walls in Elazığ; b reinforced concrete structure with perforated brick
walls in Elazığ; c clay brick walls in Elazığ; d hollow concrete brick wall in Sivrice (Elazığ); e stonewall
in Doğanyol (Malatya); f soil mudbrick wall with wooden roof in Palu (Elazığ); and g stone walls with
wooden roof in Pütürge (Malatya)

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1965

Fig. 28  Gable wall damages: a in Palu (Elazığ); b, c in Sivrice (Elazığ)

Fig. 29  Collapsed buildings in different villages

Unplanned applications and interlocking areas in non-engineering structures can also

cause damages to the adjacent structures (Fig. 27c). It is also understood that the seismic
performance of masonry buildings is much worse than other buildings, due to the parti-
tion and gable wall damages that occurred during the earthquake (Fig. 28a–c). Gabble wall
damages are frequently encountered in the earthquake area. However, it can be stated that
this situation is more common in buildings in rural settlements (Fig. 28a–c).

5.10.2 Non‑engineered buildings in villages of Elazığ, Malatya

It was observed that stone, soil, mudbrick, hollow clay and concrete brick were used in the
structures encountered in the villages, and various mortars were used as binder material.
It is noteworthy that the quality of these structures without engineering service is getting
worse from urban to rural areas. The structures in the villages are usually built by their
owners without an engineering service. These are the vast majority of structures collapsed
during the earthquake (Fig. 29).
In these villages, existing houses are usually built from masonry walls. The masonry
walls of the houses were mostly built with mudbrick and mud mortar in old buildings; hol-
low concrete bricks and cement mortar in newer buildings. It is even possible to see houses
where these two types of materials are used together. However, due to poor workmanship
and low construction quality, the seismic performances of these structures are quite low. In
addition, these structures deteriorate in time due to climatic conditions.

13
1966 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

6 Conclusions and recommendations

On January 24, 2020, at 8:55 p.m. local time, a destructive earthquake with a depth
of 8.06 km and a magnitude of Mw.6.8 occurred in Sivrice district of Elazığ. After
the earthquake, our reconnaissance team reached in the disaster area and carried out
detailed examinations and observations. The results and comments obtained by the
investigations and observations for Elazığ and Malatya provinces and rural settlements
close to the epicenter are listed below.

• Although, based on the TEC-2007 and TEC-2018, the PGA value for the design
earthquake was estimated at 0.4 g and 0.665 g, respectively, it was measured as
0.298 g at Sivrice (Elazığ) station closest to the epicenter of the earthquake.
• In Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake, the number of deaths in Elazığ and Malatya was
37 and 4, respectively, 45 people were saved from the wreckage, and 1631 people
applied to hospitals (DEMA 2009).
• In Elazığ, 263 buildings were collapsed during the earthquake, 7698 buildings were
severely damaged, 1540 buildings were moderately damaged, and 558 buildings
had to be demolished urgently (RTMEU 2020a). As per Malatya province, it was
stated that 398 buildings were destroyed during the earthquake, 4947 buildings were
severely damaged, 413 buildings were moderately damaged and 297 buildings had to
be demolished urgently (Malatya Governorship 2020).
• The vast majority of the buildings constructed after the 2000s survived the earth-
quake with minor damages or no damage at all. Similarly, the buildings constructed
in accordance with earthquake codes provided sufficient performance. In addition,
no damage was observed in Elazığ Fethi Sekin City Hospital constructed using inno-
vative seismic isolator system, which is obligated by the TEC-2018.
• It was understood that the deficiencies in the structural system design in damaged
structures are more serious in construction. Deficiencies such as insufficient stirrup
spacing, stirrup leg and longitudinal bar development length in structural members,
especially in column-beam joints, lap splices and column ends caused severe dam-
ages to the structures. In addition, structural system design defects such as discon-
tinuities in structural members, asymmetry in plan and vertical irregularity caused
severe damages such as formation of plastic hinges in structural members.
• The low material quality of the structural members was one of the main reasons
for the structures to be damaged. It is observed that the vast majority of reinforced
concrete structures that were severely damaged or collapsed were not adequately
inspected during the project and construction phases and that these structures were
built before 2000. It was considered that hand-mixed concrete was used in these
buildings instead of ready-mixed concrete.
• Losses of life and property were also encountered due to severe damages and out-of-
plane toppling in gabble walls and infill walls.
• Most structural failures were associated with lack of supervision and/or structure
deficiencies resulting from improper construction practices (poor materials, poor
workmanship).
• In this earthquake, which had a smaller acceleration compared to the design earth-
quake, even some schools, historical buildings, public and transportation buildings
were damaged. It is important to construct such structures, which are expected to be

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1967

resistant to greater accelerations, as earthquake resistant and to strengthen the exist-

ing structures urgently.
• It is very important to inspect the structures during the construction in order to reach
the quality determined in the design phase. For this reason, the authority and responsi-
bilities of the inspection officers should be increased by introducing serious sanctions
to inappropriate structures.
• Similar damages are repeated in every earthquake in mosques, minarets and historical
buildings. Structural/non-structural members that are frequently damaged in such struc-
tures should be strengthened or new construction techniques should be developed.
• Since the formation of severe diagonal cracks in the infill walls is an indication that
they carry horizontal loads, it will be useful to include the lateral stiffness of infill walls
into the design calculations, to prevent unpredicted damages.
• Earthquake insurance should be extended with government support.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the Prime Ministry-Disaster and Emergency Manage-
ment for the use permits of the earthquake data and thank the students of İskenderun Technical University,
Abdullah KARAKAŞ, Ali Mert DÖRÜCÜ, Seda YEDEK and Mahmut ATALAN for their assistance in site
investigations.

References
Ambraseys N, Jackson J (1998) Faulting associated with historical and recent earthquakes in the Eastern
Mediterranean region. Geophys J Int 133:390–406. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1046/j.​1365-​246X.​1998.​00508.x
Anbazhagan P et al (2019) Reconnaissance report on geotechnical effects and structural damage caused by
the 3 January 2017 Tripura earthquake. India Natural Hazards 98:425–450. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11069-​019-​03699-w
Arınel C (1994) Hazır Beton Biliği 7. Olağan Genel Kurulu Yapıldı Hazır Beton: pp. 10–11 (in Turkish)
Arvanitakis G (1903) Essai sur le climat de Jerusalem Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien, ser 4:128–189
Bikçe M (2016) A database for fatalities and damages due to the earthquakes in Turkey (1900–2014). Natu-
ral Hazards 83:1359–1418. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​016-​2397-7
Bikçe M, Çelik TB (2016) Failure analysis of newly constructed RC buildings designed according to 2007
Turkish Seismic Code during the October 23 Van earthquake. Eng Failure Anal 64:67–84. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​engfa​ilanal.​2016.​03.​008
Calayır Y, Sayın E, Yön B (2012) Performance of structures in the rural area during the March 8,
2010 Elazığ-Kovancılar earthquake. Natural hazards 61:703–717. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11069-​011-​0056-6
Calvi S (1979) Türkiye ve bazı Komşu ülkelerin deprem kataloğu E Kumcu, Çev İstanbul (in Turkish)
Celep Z, Erken A, Taskin B, Ilki A (2011) Failures of masonry and concrete buildings during the March 8,
2010 Kovancılar and Palu (Elazığ) earthquakes in Turkey. Eng Failure Anal 18:868–889. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​engfa​ilanal.​2010.​11.​001
Cumhuriyet (2020) Newspaper. http://​www.​cumhu​riyet.​com.​tr/​video/​depre​mde-​hasar-​alan-​bina-​yikil​irken-​
coktu-​17181​64. Accessed 16 February 2020
DASK (2019) Natural Disaster Insurance Institution. https://​www.​dask.​gov.​tr/​mevzu​at-​6305S​ayili-​kanun.​
html. Accessed 21 February 2019
DEMA (2009) Turkish Prime Ministry-Disaster and Emergency Management Agency. https://​www.​afad.​
gov.​tr/​elazig-​ve-​malat​yada-​iyile​stirme-​calis​malari-​devam-​ediyo​rkamp​anya. Accessed 5 February 2020
DEMA (2018) Turkey Earthquake Hazard Maps Interactive Web Applications. https://​tdth.​afad.​gov.​tr/.
Accessed February 20 2020
Demirtaş R, Yılmaz R (1996) Türkiye’nin sismotektoniği Bayındırlık ve İskân Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara
37 (in Turkish)
Doǧangün A (2004) Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 Bingöl Earth-
quake in Turkey. Eng Struct 26:841–856. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2004.​02.​005
Duman TY, Emre Ö (2013) The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics. Geo-
logical Society London, Special Publications 372:495–529. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1144/​SP372.​14

13
1968 Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969

Earthquakes@GA (1946) Earthquakes Geoscience Australia. https://​earth​quakes.​ga.​gov.​au/. Accessed 4

February 2020
Elazigsonhaber (2020) Newspaper. https://​www.​elazi​gsonh​aber.​com/​gundem/​elazig-​daki-​binal​arda-​son-​
durum-​ne-​h59122.​html. Accessed 27 January 2020
EMSC (1975) European Mediterranean Seismological Centre. https://​www.​emsc-​csem.​org/#2. Accessed
4 February 2020
Erdik M, Demircioglu M, Sesetyan K, Durukal E, Siyahi B (2004) Earthquake hazard in Marmara
region, Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:605–631. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2004.​04.​003
Erdik M, Kamer Y, Demircioğlu M, Şeşetyan K (2012) 23 October 2011 Van (Turkey) earthquake. Natu-
ral Hazards 64:651–665. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​012-​0263-9
Erkmen C, Eravcı B (2008) Revised destructive earthquake catalogue for Turkey and nearby surrounding
area between 1900–1930. European Seismological Commission 31st General Assembly Abstracts.
p: 71. Hersonissos, Creta Island Greece
GEOSCOPE (1982) Global Netwok of Broad Band Seismic Stations. http://​geosc​ope.​ipgp.​fr/​index.​php/​
en/. Accessed 4 February 2020
Guidoboni E, Comastri A (2005) Catalogue of Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Area
from the 11th to the 15th Century. Istituto nazionale di geofisica e vulcanologia Rome, Italy
Gürsoy H, Tatar O, Akpınar Z, Polat A, Mesci L, Tunçer D (2013) New observations on the 1939 Erzin-
can Earthquake surface rupture on the Kelkit Valley segment of the North Anatolian Fault Zone.
Turkey J Geodyn 65:259–271. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jog.​2012.​06.​002
Haberler (2020) Newspaper. https://​www.​haber​ler.​com/​elazig-​daki-​depre​me-​ilisk​in-​haber​lerim​izi-​12850​
888-​haberi/, . Accessed 25 February 2020
Herece E (2003) Doğu anadolu fayı deprem ve kentleşme. TMMOB Jeoloji Mühendisleri Odası yayınları
78 (in Turkish)
Hurriyet (2020) Newspaper. https://​www.​hurri​yet.​com.​tr/​gundem/​tam-o-​an-4-​2lik-​depre​mde-​coktu-​
41449​295. Accessed 17 February 2020
Karanci AN, Rustemli A (1995) Psychological consequences of the 1992 Erzincan (Turkey) earthquake
Disasters 19:8–18 doi:https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​7717.​1995.​tb003​28.x
KOERI (2006) Bogazici University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, 24 January
Sivrice-ELAZIG Earthquake. http://​www.​koeri.​boun.​edu.​tr/​sismo/2/​24-​ocak-​sivri​ce-​elazig-​depre​
mi-2/. Accessed 10 February 2020
Malatya Governorship (2020) Database of open data. http://​www.​malat​ya.​gov.​tr/​malat​ya-​valil​igi-​basin-​
duyur​usu-​16032​020. Accessed 16 March 2020
Malatyatime (2020) Newspaper. https://​www.​malat​yatime.​com/​haber/​hasar-​goren-​tarihi-​yapil​ar-​onari​
lacak-​67324.​html. Accessed 7 February 2020
Mebpersonel (2020) Newspaper. https://​www.​mebpe​rsonel.​com/​egitim/​elazig-​da-​hasar​li-​80-​okulda-​
egitim-​yapil​mayac​ak-​h2365​95.​html. Accessed 2 February 2020
Milliyet (2020) Newspaper. https://​www.​milli​yet.​com.​tr/​gundem/​malat​ya-​valil​igi-​depre​mde-​56-​konut-​
yikil​di-​61307​00. Accessed 26 January 2020
Ministry of Education (2020). https://​www.​meb.​gov.​tr/​deprem-​bolge​sinde-​yari-​yil-​tatili-​uzati​ldi/​haber/​
20217/​tr. Accessed January 29 2020
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement Building (2008) Inspection Implementing Regulation dated 5
February 2008.
Ministry of Public Worksand Settlement (2001) Construction inspection law.
Ntv (1996) News channel and newspaper. https://​www.​ntv.​com.​tr/​turki​ye/​bakan-​donme​zden-​deprem-​
bolge​sinde-​elekt​r ik-​kesin​tisi-​acikl​amasi​,eY99M​C08aUq_​hnrQG​d6tGg. Accessed 25 February
2020
Official Gazette (2020) Presidential decree no:31058. https://​www.​resmi​gazete.​gov.​tr/​eskil​er/​2020/​03/​
20200​304.​pdf. Accessed 1 March 2020 (in Turkish)
Onedio (2020) Newspaper. https://​onedio.​com/​haber/​mavig​ol-​kalay-​ayken-​elazig-​daki-​depre​mde-​yikil​
arak-​icind​ekile​re-​mezar-​olan-​apart​manlar-​895549. Accessed 26 January 2020
Oymael S, Yeginobalı A (1994) Elazıg Yöresinde Hazır Beton Uygulamaları. Paper presented at the
TMMOB inşaat Mühendisleri Odası,
Özacar AA, Zandt G, Gilbert H, Beck SL (2010) Seismic images of crustal variations beneath the East
Anatolian Plateau (Turkey) from teleseismic receiver functions. Geol Soc London, Special Publ
340:485–496. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1144/​SP340.​21
Pozos-Estrada A, Chávez MM, Jaimes MÁ, Arnau O, Guerrero H (2019) Damages observed in locations of
Oaxaca due to the Tehuantepec Mw8. 2 earthquake. Mexico Natural Hazards 97:623–641. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​019-​03662-9

13
Natural Hazards (2021) 108:1943–1969 1969

RTMEU (2020a) Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Turkey. https://​www.​csb.​
gov.​tr/​bakan-​kurum-​elazi​gdaki-​hasar-​tespit-​calis​malar​ini-​anlat​ti-​bakan​lik-​faali​yetle​ri-​29711. Accessed
8 February 2020
RTMEU (2020b) Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Turkey. 6306 Sayılı
Kanun Kapsamında Riskli Yapıların Tespiti için Yetki Verilen Kurum ve Kuruluşlar. http://​www.​csb.​
gov.​tr/​gm/​altya​pi/​index.​php?​Sayfa=​iller. Accessed 9 February 2020 (in Turkish)
Saatcioglu M et al (2001) The August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake damage to structures Cana-
dian. Journal of Civil Engineering 28:715–737. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1139/​l01-​043
Sabah (2020) Newspaper. https://​www.​sabah.​com.​tr/​galeri/​yasam/​elazi​gda-​agir-​hasar-​goren-​okul-​yikil​di-​
ogren​ciler-o-​anlar-​gozya​slari-​icinde-​izledi/​14. Accessed 30 January 2020
Sayın E, Yön B, Calayır Y, Karaton M (2013) Failures of masonry and adobe buildings during the June 23,
2011 Maden-(Elazığ) earthquake in Turkey. Eng Failure Anal 34:779–791. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
engfa​ilanal.​2012.​10.​016
Sezen H, Whittaker A, Elwood K, Mosalam K (2003) Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during
the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction practise in Tur-
key. Eng Struct 25:103–114. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0141-​0296(02)​00121-9
Sieberg A (1932) Untersuchungen über Erdbeben und Bruchschollenbau im östlichen Mittelmeergebiet:
Ergebnisse einer erdbebenkundlichen Orientreise, unternommen im Frühjahr 1928 mit Mitteln der
Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft. G. Fischer,
Soysal H, Sipahioğlu S, Kolçak D, Altınok Y (1981) Türkiye ve çevresinin tarihsel deprem kataloğu.
Sozcu (2020) Newspaper. https://​www.​sozcu.​com.​tr/​2020/​gundem/​son-​dakika-​elazig-​depre​minde-​olu-​say-
isi-​39a-​yukse​ldi-​55900​65/. Accessed 27 January 2020
Tapan M, Comert M, Demir C, Sayan Y, Orakcal K, Ilki A (2013) Failures of structures during the October
23, 2011 Tabanlı (Van) and November 9, 2011 Edremit (Van) earthquakes in Turkey. Eng Failure Anal
34:606–628. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engfa​ilanal.​2013.​02.​013
TEC (1975) Turkish Earthquake Code, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency
TEC (1997) Turkish Earthquake Code, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency
TEC (2007) Turkish Earthquake Code, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency
TEC (2018) Turkish Earthquake Code, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency
Trthaber (2020) Newspaper. https://​www.​trtha​ber.​com/​haber/​gundem/​elazig-​sehir-​hasta​nesini-​sismik-​izola​
syon-​korudu-​457054.​html. Accessed 28 January 2020
Turkey ready-mixed concrete unity (2020) Elazig Earthquake Review Report. https://​www.​thbb.​org/​teknik-​
bilgi​ler/​rapor​lar/​elazig-​depre​mi. Accessed 16 March 2020
TURKSTAT (2019) Turkish Statistical Institute. http://​www.​tuik.​gov.​tr/​UstMe​nu.​do?​metod=​temel​ist.
Accessed 16 February 2020.
USGS (2011) The United States Geological Survey Tectonic Map of Turkey.
USGS (2012) The United States Geological Survey M 6.7 - 10km NNE of Doganyol, Turkey. https://​earth​
quake.​usgs.​gov/​earth​quakes/​event​page/​us600​07ewc/​dyfi/​inten​sity. Accessed 10 February 2020
Yönlü Ö (2012) Doğu anadolu fay zonu’nun Gölbaşı (Adıyaman) ile Karataş (Adana) arasındaki kesiminin
geç kuvaterner aktivitesi. Eskisehir Osmangazi University (in Turkish)

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13