Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Geotechnical aspects of reconnaissance findings after 2020 January 24th, M6.8 Sivrice–Elazig–Turkey earthquake

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

On January 24, 2020, Sivrice–Elazig–Turkey earthquake occurred along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. The moment magnitude of the event was reported as 6.8. This paper documents reconnaissance findings performed immediately after the event. Investigated sites namely, Lake Hazar shores, Karakaya Dam Reservoir–Euphrates River shores, Malatya–Battalgazi district and its villages, and Elazig Downtown are predicted to be shaken by rock peak ground acceleration, PGAVS30=1100 m/s, levels of 0.12–0.42 g, 0.05–0.11 g, 0.05 g, and 0.08 g respectively. The documented geotechnical field performances vary from widespread liquefaction-induced sand boils and lateral spreading, to no signs of surface manifestations of permanent ground deformations or soil liquefaction. In Battalgazi district and Elazig Downtown, the foundation performances vary from no signs of permanent ground deformations to 1–3 cm settlements, and 1–2 cm lateral movements. Additionally, the hydraulic structures inspected are estimated to be shaken by PGAVS30=1100 m/s levels of 0.03–0.23 g. Other than a minor longitudinal cracking along a limited section along the crest of a homogeneous earthfill dam, no apparent signs of permanent ground deformations were reported. Last but not least, a number of rock falls were mapped, based on back analyses of which probable peak ground velocities at these rockfall sites were speculated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Figure 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35
Fig. 36
Fig. 37
Fig. 38
Fig. 39
Fig. 40

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

amax :

Maximum ground acceleration

CB :

Correction factor for borehole diameter

Cc :

Compression index

CC :

Coefficient of curvature

CE :

Correction factor for hammer energy ratio

Cr :

Recompression index

CR :

Correction factor for rod lenght

CN :

Correction factor for overburden pressure

CS :

Correction factor for sampling method

CU :

Coefficient of uniformity

CRRσ′v = 1  atm , M = 7.5, PL = 50% :

Cyclic resistance ratio adjusted to σ′v = 1 atm, M = 7.5, PL = 50%

CSRσ′v,M :

Cyclic stress ratio at a given vertical effective stres and moment magnitude

CSRσ′v = 1  atm , M = 7.5 :

Cyclic stress ratio normalized to 1 atm vertical effective stress for a M7.5 event

dcrt. :

Critical depth

D10 :

Paticle size corresponding to 10% finer on the cumulative particle size distribution curve

D30 :

Paticle size corresponding to 30% finer on the cumulative particle size distribution curve

D60 :

Paticle size corresponding to 60% finer on the cumulative particle size distribution curve

FC:

Fines content

FS:

Factor of safety

KM :

Magnitude scaling factors

Kσ :

Overburden correction factor

M:

Moment magnitude of the earthquake

N:

Measured standard penetration test blow counts

N1,60 :

Normalized (overburden, equipment and procedure corrected) standard penetration test blow counts

N1,60,CS :

Equivalent clean sand normalized standard penetration test blow counts

PL :

Probability of liquefaction triggering

PGA475 :

PGA for 475-year return period

PGA72 :

PGA for 72-year return period

PGAVS30 = 1100  m /s :

Median PGA for VS30 = 1100 m/s

rd :

Stress reduction factor (aka: non-linear shear mass participation)

S1 :

Coefficient factor for spectral acceleration at 1 s period

SD1 :

Coefficient factor for design spectral acceleration at 1 s period

SDS :

Coefficient factor for design spectral acceleration at short period

SS :

Coefficient factor for spectral acceleration at short period

VS12 :

Shear wave velocity of the upper 12 m

VS30 :

Shear wave velocity of the upper 30 m

σv :

Vertical total stress

σv′:

Vertical effective stress

σp′:

Preconsolidation pressure

References

  • Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1025–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Aldemir A, Askan A, Bakir S, Canbay E, Demirel IO, Erberik MA, Gulerce Z, Gulkan P, Kalkan E, Prakash S, Sandikkaya MA, Sevilgen V, Ugurhan B, Yenier E (2011) 8 March 2010 Elazig-Kovancilar (Turkey) Earthquake: Observations on ground motions and building damage. Seismol Res Lett 82(1):42–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Azak T, Can T, Ceken U, Demircioglu Tumsa MB, Duman TY, Erdik M, Ergintav S, Kadirioglu FT, Kalafat D, Kale O, Kartal RF, Kekovali K, Kilic T, Ozalp S, Altuncu Poyraz S, Sesetyan K, Tekin S, Yakut A, Yilmaz MT, Yucemen MS, Zulfikar O (2018) Evolution of seismic hazard maps in Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng 16(8):3197–3228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASTM International (2011) D2435/D2435M—11 Standard one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils using incremental loading. West Conshohocken, PA

  • ASTM International (2016) D7928-17 Standard test method for particle-size distribution (gradation) of fine-grained soil using the sedimentation (hydrometer) analysis. West Conshohocken, PA

  • ASTM International (2017a) D2487-17e1 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), West Conshohocken, PA

  • ASTM International (2017b) D6913/D6319M-17 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis. West Conshohocken, PA

  • Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West 2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30:1057–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2012) Probabilistic standard penetration test–based liquefaction–triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(10):1185–1195. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandenberg SJ, Zimmaro P, Stewart JP, Kwak DY, Franke KW, Moss RE, Cetin KO, Can G, Ilgac M, Stamatakos J, Weaver T (2020) Next-generation liquefaction database. Earthq Spectra 36(2):939–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020902477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin K, Seed R, Kayen R, Moss R, Bilge H, Ilgac M, Chowdhury K (2018) The use of the SPT-based seismic soil liquefaction triggering evaluation methodology in engineering hazard assessments. Methodsx 5:1556–1575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2018.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin KO, Ilgac M, Can G, Cakir E, Soylemez B (2020) 24 January 2020, Sivrice–Elazig–Turkey Earthquake Reconnaissance Report. DesignSafe-CI. https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-9jz1-e287.

  • Cheloni D, Akinci A (2020) Source modelling and strong ground motion simulations for the 24 January 2020, Mw 6.8 Elazig Earthquake, Turkey. Geophys J Int 223(2):1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2008) Chiou-Youngs NGA ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters. Earthq Spectra 24:173–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30:1117–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakoulas P, Gazetas G (1985) A class of inhomogeneous shear models for seismic response of dams and embankments. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 4(4):166–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Duman TY, Emre O (2013) The East Anatolian Fault: Geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics. Geological Society London, Special Publications

  • Gulerce Z, Kargoiglu B, Abrahamson NA (2016) Turkey-adjusted NGA-W1 horizontal ground motion prediction models. Earthq Spectra 32(1):75–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulerce Z, Tanvir Shah S, Menekse A, Ozacar AA, Kaymakci N, Cetin KO (2017) Probabilistic seismic-hazard assessment for East Anatolian fault zone using planar fault source models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(5):2353–2366. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale O (2019) Some discussions on data-driven testing of ground-motion prediction equations under the Turkish ground-motion database. J Earthquake Eng 23(1):160–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale O, Akkar S, Ansari A, Hamzehloo H (2015) A ground-motion predictive model for Iran and Turkey for horizontal PGA, PGV, and 5% damped response spectrum: investigation of possible regional effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(2A):963–980. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavruk F (2003) Seismic behavior of embankment dams. Middle East Technical University MSc dissertation

  • Kurtulus C, Sertcelik F, Sertcelik I, Kuru T, Tekin K, Ateş E, Apak A, Kokbudak D, Sezer S, Yalcin D (2019) Determination of the national strong ground motion recording stations’ soil parameters. National Earthquake Research Program (UDAP), AFAD (in Turkish)

  • Makdisi FI, Seed HB (1977) A simplified procedure for estimating dam and embankment earthquake-induced deformations in dams and embankments. Earthqukae Engineering Research Center Report No: UCB/EERC-77/19

  • METU EERC (2020) The Elazig-Sivrice Earthquake (24 January 2020 Mw=6.8) field observations on seismic and structural damage. Middle East Technical University Earhquake Engineering Research Center Report No: METU/EERC 2020–01

  • MTA (General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration) (2020) 24 Ocak 2020 Sivrice (Elazig) Depremi (Mw=6.8) saha gözlemleri ve değerlendirme raporu, Ankara. https://www.mta.gov.tr/images/duyuru_ek/belgeler/609_07-02-2020_2b82a14b.pdf(in Turkish)

  • Pousse-Beltran L, Nissen E, Bergman EA, Cambaz MD, Gaudreau É, Karasozen E, Tan F (2020) The 2020 Mw 6.8 Elazig (Turkey) Earthquake reveals rupture behavior of the East Anatolian Fault. Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RocFall 2019 v7.0. (2019) Software for risk analysis of falling rocks on steep slopes. RocScience Inc., Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandikkaya MA, Yilmaz MT, Bakir BS, Yilmaz O (2010) Site classification of Turkish national strong-motion stations. J Seismolog 14(3):543–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saroglu F, Emre O, Kuscu I (1992) The east anatolian fault zone of Turkey. Ann. Tectonicae VI:99–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Saygili G, Rathje EM (2008) Empirical predictive models for earthquake-induced sliding displacements of slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(6):790–803. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:6(790)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(9):1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 111(12):1425–1445. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:12(1425)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TBDY (2019) Turkish building earthquake code. Ministry of Interior, Ankara (in Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchida H (1970) Prediction and countermeasure against the liquefaction in sand deposits. Abstract of the Seminar in the Port and Harbor Research Institute (in Japanese)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The reconnaissance studies were supported by Middle East Technical University. The authors would also like to thank researchers who collaborated on field campaigns and data processing.

Funding

Funding was provided by Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Middle East Technical University, Universiteler Mah. Dumlupınar Bulv., 06800, Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey

    Kemal Onder Cetin, Elife Cakir, Makbule Ilgac, Gizem Can, Berkan Soylemez, Alaa Elsaid, Faik Cuceoglu, Zeynep Gulerce & Aysegul Askan

  2. The General Directorate of Hydraulic State Works (DSI), Devlet Mah., Inonu Bulv., Ankara, Turkey

    Faik Cuceoglu & Seckin Aydin

  3. Firat University, 23119, Elazig, Turkey

    Mesut Gor

Authors
  1. Kemal Onder Cetin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elife Cakir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Makbule Ilgac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gizem Can
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Berkan Soylemez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alaa Elsaid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Faik Cuceoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Zeynep Gulerce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Aysegul Askan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Seckin Aydin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mesut Gor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kemal Onder Cetin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 2577 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cetin, K.O., Cakir, E., Ilgac, M. et al. Geotechnical aspects of reconnaissance findings after 2020 January 24th, M6.8 Sivrice–Elazig–Turkey earthquake. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 3415–3459 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01112-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01112-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation