journal article·2025-12

Uprooting collapse mechanism of RC structures in earthquakes

Eleni Smyrou, Eren Vuran, İhsan E. Bal

Publisher page

Abstract

The Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Sequence of February 6, 2023, stands as the deadliest earthquake in Turkey during the era of instrumental seismology. A significant factor in this tragedy is the large building stock of Turkey, comprised of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, many of which are vulnerable attributing to the widespread destruction. The weaknesses in the Turkish RC building stock have been well-documented, as they have repeatedly manifested in past earthquakes. However, given the progress in seismic codes and hazard maps over the past two decades, greatly advanced because of the 1999 earthquake, the widespread collapse of buildings constructed after 2000 was largely unexpected. This paper focuses on a specific type of collapse mechanism repeatedly observed during post-earthquake reconnaissance missions. Termed here as the “uprooting collapse”, this mechanism differs from the more common pancake-style collapses typically seen in substandard Turkish RC buildings. The possible causes behind the uprooting collapse are explored using an actual case study from the earthquake zone, supported by parametric analyses on RC frame buildings designed in accordance with the Turkish Seismic Code. The results indicate that when specific conditions align, such as high velocity demands, flexible load-bearing systems, improper structural member design, and a high height-to-width ratio, a total collapse in an uprooting fashion becomes possible even if construction quality standards and design code requirements are met.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (57)

Show source-provided references
1. Frame buildings are not an answer for earthquakes: the case of the earthquakes in Türkiye
2. Quantitative evaluation of the damage to RC buildings caused by the southeast Turkey earthquake sequence
3. Damage observations of RC buildings from Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence and discussion on the seismic code regulations
4. Effect on RC buildings of 6 February 2023 Turkey earthquake doublets and new doctrines for seismic design10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107521 ↗
5. Characteristics of strong ground motions and structural damage patterns from the February 6th, 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, Türkiye10.1007/s11069-024-06856-y ↗
6. Investigating the structural damage in Hatay province after Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye earthquake sequences10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107857 ↗
7. Structural damage assessment of reinforced concrete buildings in Adıyaman after Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes on 6 February 202310.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107799 ↗
8. Analysis of a multi-story reinforced concrete residential building damaged under its self-weight10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.01.043 ↗
9. An investigation on failed or damaged reinforced concrete structures under their own-weight in Turkey10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.12.005 ↗
10. Importance of building inspection on the seismic response of a severely damaged RC structure during the February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence10.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.108410 ↗
11. Seismic performance of mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings in Izmir Bayrakli after the 2020 Samos earthquake10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106277 ↗
12. Earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area10.1007/BF02857534 ↗
13. Earthquake risk and its mitigation in Istanbul10.1007/s11069-007-9110-9 ↗
14. What is to be learned from damage and failure of reinforced concrete structures during recent earthquakes in Turkey?10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.01.003 ↗
15. Displacement-based earthquake loss assessment for an earthquake scenario in Istanbul10.1080/13632460802013388 ↗
16. FRP versus traditional strengthening on a typical mid-rise Turkish RC building10.12989/eas.2015.9.5.1069 ↗
17. Specifications for Structures to be Built in Seismic Areas, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey, 1998.
18. Specifications for Structures to be Built in Seismic Areas, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
19. Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBEC‑2018), Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), Ankara, Turkey, 2018.
20. TS 500: Requirements for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures, (2000).
21. Comprehensive investigation of damage due to 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Türkiye: causes, consequences, and mitigation
22. Field data and observations of damaged buildings 10 weeks after the February 2023 earthquake sequence in Türkiye10.1061/JPCFEV.CFENG-4792 ↗
23. Seismic response simulation of a reinforced concrete wall-frame building that collapsed during the February 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquake
24. Failure analysis and retrofitting of reinforced concrete beams in existing moment resisting frames10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107601 ↗
25. Ductility design of RC columns. Part 1: consideration of axial compression ratio10.1080/1023697X.2016.1232179 ↗
26. Çevre çerçeve kirişi süreksizliğinin yapı deprem davranışı üzerindeki etkileri
27. Seismic performance of wide-beam infill-joist block RC frames in Turkey10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000485 ↗
28. Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.005 ↗
29. Evaluation of seismic performance, design and practice of frame-wall buildings in Türkiye after the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes
30. ASTM A370‑23: Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, (2023).
31. Global scrap trading outlook analysis for steel sustainability10.1007/s40831-015-0007-7 ↗
32. Effect of vanadium and strain rate on hot ductility of low-carbon microalloyed steels10.3390/met12010014 ↗
33. Impact toughness of reinforcing steels produced by (i) the tempcore process and (ii) microalloying with vanadium10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.05.005 ↗
34. Effects of vanadium on structure and tensile properties of tempcore steel bars
35. TS 708: Steel for the Reinforcement of Concrete – Reinforcing Steel, (2010).
36. Determination of mechanical properties of concrete and steel materials taken from buildings in Antakya after the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes
37. M. Bikçe, M.M. Erdem, Investigation of construction material quality and workmanship defects of rc buildings collapsed and severely damaged in the 6.8 mw sivrice, elaziğ, turkey, earthquake, january 2020, (n.d.).
38. Amendment to Article 5 of the Zoning Regulation for Planned Areas, 2025.
39. Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, General Directorate of Disaster Affairs, Seismic Zonation Map of Turkey, (1996).
40. Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps for Turkey
41. Analysis of impulsive ground motions from February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence10.1007/s10518-024-01897-x ↗
42. A ground‐motion predictive model for iran and turkey for horizontal PGA, PGV, and 5% damped response spectrum: investigation of possible regional effects10.1785/0120140134 ↗
43. Pulse-like ground motion observed during the 6 February 2023 MW7.8 Pazarcık Earthquake (Kahramanmaraş, SE Türkiye)10.1016/j.eqs.2023.05.005 ↗
44. Ductility demands for stiffness-degrading SDOF systems under pulse-like ground motions of the 2023 Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) earthquake10.1007/s10518-024-01882-4 ↗
45. OpenSeesPy: python library for the opensees finite element framework10.1016/j.softx.2017.10.009 ↗
46. McKenna, Frank; Fenves, Gregory L.; Scott, Michael H., OpenSees: Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2000.
47. Analytical prediction of the collapse earthquake for R/C buildings: suggested methodology10.1002/eqe.4290200206 ↗
48. EN ISO 6892‑1:2019: Metallic Materials — Tensile Testing — Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature, (2019).
49. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (FEMA P‑695), Federal Emergency Management Agency (Prepared by the Applied Technology Council), Washington, D.C., 2009.
50. Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings (ATC‑72‑1), Applied Technology Council (Prepared for the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center), Redwood City, CA, 2010.
51. Behaviour‐based method to determine design shear in earthquake‐resistant walls10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:2(619) ↗
52. Near-fault ground motion characteristics and its effects on a collapsed reinforced concrete structure in Hatay during the February 6, 2023 Mw7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.117067 ↗
53. A new layered shell model for reinforced concrete walls I: model description and dynamic response simulations
54. Perform‑3D, Version 8.0.0: Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures — User Manual, (n.d.).
55. Perform‑3D, Version 8.0.0: Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures, (2023). https://www.csiamerica.com/products/perform-3d.
56. Powell · 2010
57. Gogus · 2010