46 MARCH 2001 / Concrete international

1999 Turkey
Earthquake
Performance of RC
Structures
BY MURAT SAATCIOGLU, N. J. GARDNER, AND AHMED GHOBARAH

A n earthquake with a Richter magnitude of 7.4

struck northwestern Turkey on August 17, 1999,
lasting about 50 seconds and resulting in massive
mance of reinforced concrete (RC) structures, while
providing explanation for the causes of widespread
structural damage. A brief background is also provided
destruction and loss of lives. It was one of the strongest on the seismology and history of seismic activity in the
earthquakes of the 20th century and the largest seismic region.
event recorded since the 1906 San Francisco and 1923
Tokyo earthquakes that affected industrialized regions of
the world. The epicenter was near the town of Golcuk,
immediately to the south of Izmit and approximately
80 km (50 mi) southeast of Istanbul with a population of
over 10 million people. Figure 1 illustrates the location of
the epicenter and the areas that sustained heavy dam-
age. The official figure for casualties was about 17,000,
though the unofficial estimates are as high as 40,000. A
large number of buildings either collapsed or sustained
heavy damage, leaving an estimated 750,000 people in
need of housing. Approximately 77,000 buildings were
severely damaged or collapsed, and an equal number
exhibited moderate damage. An estimated 90,000
buildings were lightly damaged. The earthquake af-
fected approximately 35% of the industrial base in
Turkey, creating a total financial loss of approximately
$15 to $20 billion.
A week-long reconnaissance visit was conducted by Fig. 1: Damaged areas and the location of epicenter
the authors shortly after the earthquake. This article
highlights the observations made in terms of perfor-
Concrete international / MARCH 2001 47

(b)
Seismology and history
of seismic activity
The Republic of Turkey is situated
in a seismically active part of the
world. The Anatolian microplate is
surrounded by the North Anatolian
and Northeast Anatolian Faults in
the north, Hellenic and Cyprus arcs
in the south, and the East Anatolian
Fault in the southeast. Earthquakes
in the region are caused by the
northward push of the Arabian plate,
forcing the Anatolian plate to move
westward. This tectonic movement is
measured to be approximately 24 mm
48 MARCH 2001 / Concrete international
Fig. 2: Fault rupture and resulting horizontal offset: (a) railway near Arifiye; and (b) shift
in a tree line by 4.5 m
(1 in.) every year along the North
Anatolian Fault. The Anatolian
microplate is also under compres-
sion by the northward movement of
the African plate, which produces a
subduction zone along the faults
tracing the southern boundary
(Hellenic and Cyprus arc). The North
Anatolian Fault resembles in many
ways the well-known San Andreas
Fault along the Californian coast. It
produces a right lateral slip, with
significant horizontal offset every
time it ruptures. The fault is approxi-
mately 750 km (450 mi) long, starting
near the northwest shores of the
Marmara Sea in the west and extend-
ing to Erzincan in the east where it
joins the Northeast Anatolian Fault.
After the August 17, 1999 earth-
quake, the horizontal offset along
the fault was measured to vary
between 2.5 and 4.5 m (8.2 and 15 ft).
Although a vertical offset of 2.0 m
(6.5 ft) was reported by others, no
appreciable vertical offset was
observed by the authors in the
segments inspected. Figure 2(a)
and (b) show horizontal offset at
different locations along the fault.
The North Anatolian Fault has a
long history of seismic activity,
accounting for 34 damaging earth-
quakes during the last millennium.
(a)
There were seven seismic events of
magnitude 7.0 and higher since the
1939 Erzincan earthquake, which
claimed 30,000 lives and created a
similar catastrophe as the August
1999 event in eastern Turkey. It is
clear that the North Anatolian Fault
has been active in the past and
continues to be active, with great
potential for similarly destructive
earthquakes in the future.
Ground motion
There is a good network of strong
landmass motion instruments across
Turkey, providing sufficient informa-
tion on the nature of the ground
excitation. The maximum horizontal
peak acceleration was recorded to
be 0.41g in the east-west direction, at
a station in Adapazari. The vertical
peak acceleration at the same
station was 0.26g, though the
maximum vertical acceleration
recorded was in Duzce (east of
Adapazari), with a magnitude of
0.49g. The Yarimca record, which
was recorded 20 km (12 mi) north-
west of the epicenter, indicated a
double rupture, with the most
intense pulses generated by the
first rupture starting at approxi-
mately 10 s after the beginning of
the earthquake and lasting for about
10 s. The second rupture created
intense pulses at approximately 37 s
after the beginning of the earth-
quake, lasting about 5 s. This second
shock was probably associated with
asperity between Sapanca Lake and
Izmit, or tectonic subsidence that
was observed in the area after the
earthquake. The record indicated
earthquake duration approaching
1.0 min.

Performance of
reinforced concrete (a)
structures
The predominant structural
system used in Turkey consists of
reinforced concrete frames with
masonry infills. Concrete, which is
locally available, is generally pre-
ferred over other construction
materials for economic reasons. The
majority of concrete is used for cast-
in-place construction, with an
increasingly larger percentage being
ready-mixed concrete. Precast
construction is employed often for
industrial buildings. Concrete shear
walls appear to have gained popular-
ity only in recent years.

Soil conditions
The damage along the fault was
most intense in regions with soft
soil. Therefore, it is important to
recognize the amplifying role of soft
soil on structural performance. The
entire region between Yalova and
Duzce, including Adapazari, has
alluvial soil, including old river beds.
Soil borings in the area consistently
showed sand, silty sand, and clay at
depths up to and in excess of 20 m
(60 ft). Locals consistently indicated
that the buildings could not have
proper foundations because of the
high water table only 0.5 to 2.0 m
(1.5 to 6.5 ft) below the surface. This
provided suitable conditions for soil
to liquefy. In fact, Adapazari and
Sapanca included some spectacular
liquefaction sites as illustrated in
Fig. 3, resulting in tilting or settling
of buildings. There was a long
(b)
Fig 3: Effects of liquefaction in Adapazari: (a) overturning of a 5-story building; and (b)
vertical settlement of approximately 1.0 m
stretch of the Istanbul-Ankara Tollway that suffered soil settlement leaving
highway bridges at higher elevation. The amplification of earthquake ground
motion by soft soil clearly had a significant impact on structural damage.
Reinforced concrete frame buildings
The majority of collapses during the earthquake were attributed to poor
performance of reinforced concrete frames and masonry infill walls. Buildings
with four to six stories suffered the heaviest damage, inflicting most of the
casualties. Buildings that survived the earthquake also had the same framing
system, including those that make up the large inventory of buildings in the
city of Istanbul, creating a great deal of controversy. It is important to note
that, judging by the earthquake records, the structures in the entire earth-
quake-stricken area were subjected to very high seismic demands.
Inspection of collapsed and damaged buildings revealed that very little or
no aseismic design had been implemented during design and construction of

Concrete international / MARCH 2001 49


Fig. 4: Different levels of contribution of masonry infills to reinforced concrete frame response: (a) extensive damage to masonry, no
apparent distress in frames; and (b) total damage to masonry and structural collapse
Fig. 5: Example of a soft story reinforced
concrete building.
reinforced concrete frame systems.
It was clear that the structural
layouts used were susceptible to
very high seismic deformation
demands due to lack of proper
bracing elements and extensive use
of soft stories (open floor plan). The
high seismic demands became
increasingly critical due to the
amplification of ground motion by
soft soil. The only mechanism of
50 MARCH 2001 / Concrete international
(a)
defense in such high demand
structures would be the inelastic
deformability of the structural
systems. Unfortunately, all the
buildings inspected lacked standard
seismic design and detailing prac-
tices, which could have provided the
inelastic deformability needed to
save a great majority of structures.
Proper design practices were
missing in spite of the seismic design
requirements of the Turkish Code,
whose design and detailing require-
ments are discussed later in the
article.
Causes of damage can be viewed
under two categories: factors
contributing to increased seismic
demands, and factors contributing to
reduced deformability.
Factors contributing to increased
seismic demands — Lateral bracing
for reinforced concrete frame
structures was provided by
unreinforced brick, concrete
masonry walls, or both. The brick
masonry used was often in the form
of hollow architectural units. During
the earthquake, these walls were
able to participate in lateral load
resistance to varying degrees, and
were often damaged prematurely,
developing diagonal tension and
compression failures. The degree of
lateral load resistance depended on
the amount of masonry used and the
(b)
framing system provided. In contrast
to modern moment-resisting frames
of North American practice, the use
of light partitions, such as dry walls,
was not common in the earthquake-
stricken areas. Instead, masonry was
used extensively for interior
partitioning, as well as exterior
enclosure of buildings, increasing
wall-to-floor area ratios. Therefore,
in spite of lower strength and the
expected brittleness of this type of
masonry walls, the frames did
benefit somewhat from such
extensive use of masonry until the
threshold of elastic behavior was
exceeded. After the failure of brittle
masonry, there was no lateral
bracing to control lateral drift,
thereby resulting in high drift
demands. Figure 4 illustrates
different levels of masonry failure,
leaving reinforced concrete frames
either partially or fully unbraced.
The same figure includes an
apartment building that collapsed
entirely due to lack of sufficient
lateral bracing elements and inability
of the vertical elements to sustain
inelastic deformations.
Most buildings in Turkey are
designed to have commercial space
at the first-story level, generally used
for stores, as illustrated in Fig. 5. This
is mainly due to the fact that revenue
per square meter of floor area of
 (a)

Fig. 6: Use of “Asmolen” one-way slab system and resulting

strong beams and weak columns: (a) “Asmolen” concrete slab
system; and (b) strong-beam weak-column connection

commercial space is significantly larger than that for a

residential area. Furthermore, shopping malls are limited
in numbers and the stores are scattered along main
streets, located in the first stories of buildings. This
results in extensive use of soft stories at the street level,
placing excessive deformation demands on the highly
critical first-story columns.
Another reason for increased seismic demands on
structures was the common use of a structural slab
system called “Asmolen.” This is a one-way slab system,
consisting of concrete joists with masonry units placed
in between the joists, forming a deep structural slab
system, as illustrated in Fig. 6(a). Columns used are
usually smaller in size, resulting in flexible and weak
vertical elements relative to the adjoining horizontal
members at beam-column joints. This system, totally in
violation of the strong-column weak-beam design phi-
losophy, places heavy burden on columns, especially at
the first-story level, increasing story drifts and
forcing hinging to occur in the columns. Figure 6(b)
shows a column damage resulting from a strong-
beam weak-column connection.
Factors contributing to reduced strength and
deformability — During seismic response, the failure of
brittle masonry walls placed a heavy burden on the first-
story columns of multistory buildings. The columns
sustained heavy damage mostly because of lack of
sufficient transverse reinforcement. The transverse
reinforcement consisted of 8.0 mm (No. 3) smooth
reinforcing bars, generally placed at 300 mm (12 in.) or
wider spacing. In some buildings, some of the column
ties were left out as illustrated in Fig. 7. The ties did not
appear to be sufficient either in terms of amount or
detailing. This resulted in widespread column shear
(b)
failures as illustrated in Fig. 8. In the majority of cases,
the transverse reinforcement was limited to perimeter
ties with 90 degree hooks. Columns that were subjected
to heavy axial compression and flexural compression
resulted in the crushing of concrete due to lack of
confinement. Figure 9 shows additional examples of
column damage caused by lack of sufficient transverse
reinforcement, this time resulting in compression crush-
ing rather than diagonal tension failures. First-story
column failures accounted for the majority of building
collapses and hence a significant portion of the overall
casualties.
The lack of transverse reinforcement was also ob-
served in monolithic beam-column connections. Beam-
column connections in the majority of buildings did not
contain any transverse reinforcement, suggesting that
joint shear design was never a consideration in these
buildings. Figure 10 illustrates damage to beam-column
connections inflicted by lack of joint reinforcement.
Deformation capacities of some structural elements
were impaired because of unintended interference of
Concrete international / MARCH 2001 51
Fig. 7: Lack of transverse reinforcement in Fig. 8: Lack of transverse shear
concrete column reinforcement and resulting diagonal
tension failure
nonstructural elements with the structure. As masonry
walls participated in lateral load resistance of the
framing system, short column effects were created
around window and other openings. Columns, not
designed for the increased shear associated with reduced
unsupported height, suffered brittle shear failures. In some
buildings, the landing slabs of staircases were connected to
columns and either applied unexpected lateral forces or
caused short column effects, as shown in Fig. 11.
Additional problems were observed associated with
irregularities in structural elements, reducing
deformability of elements. Although most floor plans
had symmetric layouts, there were cases where tor-
sional effects created by asymmetry had adverse
effects. Columns with plan offsets suffered damage.
Two cases of cranked columns were found to survive
the earthquake without significant damage, mainly
because they were overdesigned but with some signs of
distress, requiring retrofitting.
Reinforced concrete shear-wall structures
Use of reinforced concrete shear walls is limited in
Turkey, especially in older buildings. A number of
buildings were found with narrow shear walls, which in
some cases may be labeled as wide rectangular columns.
These buildings performed reasonably well. Figure 12(a)
illustrates an apartment complex under construction
with lightweight concrete masonry units and narrow
shear walls. These buildings survived the earthquake
52 MARCH 2001 / Concrete international
Fig. 9: Lack of confinement reinforcement
and resulting crushing of column concrete
with minor damage to the structural framing system,
although they suffered extensive masonry damage.
Figure 12(b) shows a shear wall in this complex that
developed diagonal shear cracks wide enough to suggest
some yielding in reinforcement, but it survived the earth-
quake while also saving the entire structure. There were
other shear wall buildings with older and significantly
lower quality concrete. Although the concrete in these
walls was damaged extensively, the shear walls did save
the structures from collapsing. This is illustrated in Fig. 13.
Properly designed shear wall structures were found in
the residential complex of the Tupras Oil Refinery in
Izmit. Figure 14(a) shows the overall view of an apart-
ment building within the complex, without any sign of
distress, though many frame buildings in the general
area suffered extensive damage and complete collapses.
Figure 14(b) illustrates the concrete placement problem
(cold joint) found in one of these shear walls, which
otherwise performed well.
Performance of precast concrete structures
A limited number of precast concrete structures,
mostly in the form of industrial buildings, were found in
the area. In general, the precast structures did not fare
well during this earthquake. Two problems were identi-
fied. The collapse of two large precast buildings during
construction was due to the lack of bracing as the
construction of the outside masonry walls was about to
begin. Other completed, precast concrete structures
failed due to the weak joints between
the roof beams and columns. The
beams were designed to be sup-
ported on brackets with one or two
dowels to guide the beam installa-
tion. Considering the roof beams as
simply supported at the columns,
this presents a structural system
with no redundancies.
Of particular interest was the
performance of two precast indus-
trial buildings, side by side, both
under construction. One of the
buildings was at an early stage of
construction with precast framing
elements erected. This building
totally collapsed due to lack of lateral
bracing, as shown in Fig. 15(a). There
was no connection provided be-
tween the elements at the time. The
adjacent precast building survived
the earthquake without any damage,
Fig. 10: Lack of joint reinforcement and Fig. 11: Interference of nonstructural
as depicted in Figure 15(b), because resulting failure in beam-column elements (stairway landing slabs) with
it had the roof trusses as well as the connection lateral load-resisting system
bracing wall elements in place. This
comparison underlines the impor-
tance of continuity and lateral
bracing in precast construction.

(a) (b)

Fig. 12: A frame-shear wall building with lightweight concrete masonry blocks: (a) Fig. 13: Excessive damage caused by shear
apartment building with narrow shear walls; and (b) diagonal tension cracks in a in an older shear wall
shear wall

Concrete international / MARCH 2001 53


(a)
Concrete bridges
Only one bridge collapsed during the earthquake.
This was a reinforced concrete, multiple single-span
bridge, crossing over the Ankara-Istanbul Tollway, near
Arifiye. It was located in an area that suffered signifi-
cant ground settlement. It was also very close to the
fault line, which showed a horizontal offset of about
4.5 m (15 ft). The fault offset illustrated in Figure 2(b)
was less than 1.0 km (0.6 mi) away from the collapsed
bridge. The failure, shown in Fig. 16, was attributed to
the unseating of girders. It was clear that the excessive
ground movement in the area caused the separation of
the supporting columns that resulted in unseating of
the girders.
In spite of the heavy damage sustained in the area,
many highway bridges built on firm soil, including a large
number of modern highway viaducts between Istanbul
and Izmit, survived the earthquake without any damage.
54 MARCH 2001 / Concrete international
(b)
Fig. 14: A frame-wall building in Izmit without any significant
damage: (a) exterior view; and (b) a structural wall with concrete
placement problem
Turkish seismic code requirements
Many reinforced concrete buildings that suffered
damage during the earthquake were designed in a period
when the 1975 edition of the “Specifications for
Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas,”1 that had been
issued by the Ministry of Reconstruction and
Resettlement of the Government of Turkey, was in effect.
Therefore, this edition of the specifications, referred to as
the Turkish Code, is highlighted in this article, though a
more recent edition was issued in 1998. The emphasis is
placed on reinforced concrete frame buildings with
masonry infills, because this type of structural system
dominated not only the concrete construction, but the
entire building inventory, of the earthquake-stricken areas.
Design base shear (F) in the Turkish Code is ex-
pressed below and resembles that specified in North
American building codes of the era.
F = CW (1)
C = C0 KSI (2)
where W is total structural weight, and C is seismic
coefficient as defined below:
■ C0 is seismic zone coefficient, and is equal to 0.1 for
seismic Zone 1, which is the zone of the area that was
affected by the earthquake;
■ K is a coefficient related to structural type, and is
equal to 0.8 for ductile concrete frames with
unreinforced masonry infills, and equal to 1.5 for
nonductile frames with unreinforced masonry;
■ The spectral coefficient S is a function of the
fundamental period of structure, and the soil type is
 equal to the inverse of the period T for soft and alluvial
soils with a high water table (similar to the soil
conditions encountered in the disaster area). The
coefficient S is limited to 1.0; and
■ I is the importance factor, and is equal to 1.0 for
ordinary residential, office, and industrial buildings.
Therefore, for the majority of building structures with
fundamental periods of less than 1.0 s, the design base
shear varies between 8 and 12% of structural weight,
depending whether the concrete frame is designed to be
ductile or nonductile, respectively.
The specifications provide provisions to incorporate
the effects of nonstructural components on structural (a)
elements to prevent short column effects often observed
after the earthquake. The nonstructural elements are
required to be separated from the frame if the story drift
exceeds 0.25%.
Concrete frame members are required to be confined
at the ends, in the potential plastic hinge regions.
Columns are to be confined by closely spaced transverse
reinforcement, unlike the observed practice. The mini-
mum volumetric ratio of rectilinear and spiral transverse
reinforcement is specified to be 1.0 or 12% of the ratio of
transverse steel yield strength to concrete compressive
strength. The spiral pitch is limited to 1/5 of the column
core or 80 mm (3 in.), whichever is less. The hoops are
required to be placed with a spacing not to be less than (b)
50 mm (2 in.) and not to exceed 100 mm (4 in.). The
Fig. 15: Two precast industrial buildings, side by side, sub-
minimum tie diameter is specified to be 8 mm (5/16 in.). jected to the earthquake during different stages of construc-
The hoops are expected to have 135 degree bends with tion: (a) building with frame elements only; and (b) building with
10 times the bar diameter extensions (embedment) into bracing walls in place
the confined core. The middle portions of columns
between the confined ends are allowed to have reduced
transverse reinforcement, with spacing relaxed up to 1/2
the column dimension, 200 mm (8 in.), or 20 times the
smallest longitudinal bar diameter, whichever is smaller.
Hoops are required at the ends of beams, similar to
those for columns, within a distance of at least twice the
beam depth, with a maximum spacing of 1/4 the beam
depth. Beam-column joints are to be designed for joint
shear. Transverse reinforcement is required in joints to
resist joint shear. Under no circumstances is the joint
shear reinforcement allowed to be less than that needed
in the column middle region.
The beams are designed for shear under the effects of
gravity loads and end moments due to the earthquake.
The spacing of transverse shear reinforcement is limited
to the beam width or 1/2 of the beam depth. The longitu-
dinal beam reinforcement is required to be continuous at
the top and not reduced below 1/4 of the larger amount
required at either end near the support. The bottom
bars are required at the ends, near the supports, such
that they are not less than 1/3 the top bar. Additional
Fig. 16: Failure of a multiple single-span reinforced concrete
requirements are specified pertaining to reinforcement bridge
splicing and development.

Concrete international / MARCH 2001 55

Summary and conclusions
The Turkish earthquake of August 17, 1999, imposed
high seismic demands on most structures. The soft soil
conditions in the area contributed significantly to the
amplification of seismic demands. The predominant
form of building construction in the area consisted of Murat Saatcioglu, FACI, is a
reinforced concrete frames with unreinforced masonry professor of structural engineering at
infills. A large inventory of these buildings lacked proper the University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
lateral bracing while containing soft stories, a combina- Canada. He is a member of the
tion of which increased seismic-induced deformation Canadian National Committee on
demands. The structural elements needed adequate Earthquake Engineering, a director of
deformability to sustain these inelastic deformation the Canadian Association for Earth-
demands. Very little or no asesimic design was em- quake Engineering, and associate
ployed in the structures, in spite of fairly stringent director of the Ottawa-Carleton
earthquake-resistant design requirements of the Turkish Earthquake Engineering Research
Code. Center. Saatcioglu is a member of ACI Committees 374,
Many structural failures could be attributed to lack of Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Build-
properly detailed transverse column and joint reinforce- ings; Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441, Reinforced Con-
ment. Some construction and quality control problems crete Columns; and is chairman of ACI Committee 340,
were observed, although these were believed to be of Design Aids for ACI Building Codes. His research inter-
secondary importance to some of the structural design ests include seismic performance, design, and retrofit of
flaws observed. The excessive use of masonry walls reinforced concrete buildings and bridges.
contributed to lateral drift control, limiting damage to
structural and nonstructural elements, until their elastic
capacity was exceeded. Beyond the threshold of elastic N. J. Gardner, FACI, is a professor
response, brittle unreinforced masonry could not fulfill of structural engineering at the
the same function, jeopardizing seismic survival of University of Ottawa. He is a member
reinforced concrete frame elements that lacked ductile of ACI Committees 209, Shrinkage and
design and detailing. The use of reinforced concrete Creep in Concrete; 231, Properties of
shear walls was limited, and when used, minimized or Concrete at Early Ages; 347,
totally eliminated structural and nonstructural damage. Formwork for Concrete; and 435,
Deflection of Concrete Building
Acknowledgments Structures. His research interests
The reconnaissance visit to Turkey was funded by the Natural include early-age loads due to the
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The authors construction process, early-age behavior of reinforced
are grateful to Bogazici University, Kandilli Observatory, and the
concrete members, and formwork pressures.
Earthquake Research Institute, particularly to Mustafa Erdik and
Ozal Yuzugullu for their cooperation and assistance. Ahmed Ghobarah is a professor of
structural engineering at McMaster
Selected for reader interest by the editors after independent expert University, Hamilton, Canada. His
evaluation and recommendation. research interests include experimen-
tal and analytical modeling of con-
References crete structures and concrete dams,
1. “Specifications for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas,” with a particular emphasis on
Turkish Government, Ministry of Reconstruction and Resettlement, seismic performance and rehabilita-
Earthquake Research Institute, Ankara, Turkey, 1975, 47 pp. tion of existing structures.

56 MARCH 2001 / Concrete international