Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 4757–4781 | Cite as

Hanging Wall and Footwall Effects in the Largest Reverse-Slip Earthquake of Turkey, October 23, 2011, \({M}_{\mathrm{W}}\) 7.2 Van Earthquake

  • Kemal BeyenEmail author
Research Article - Civil Engineering


This study provides an engineering-focused assessment of the ground motions recorded during the \({M}_\mathrm{w}\) 7.2 reverse-slip Van earthquake. Spatial and temporal distributions of the site responses and their effects on the structural responses were discussed. Reverse/oblique earthquake characteristics with coupled effects of source, path of propagation and local site conditions in the fault-normal and fault-parallel directions on hanging wall and footwall blocks are particularly considered. Magnitude and distance dependency of the recordings from 22 stations were examined using ground motion prediction equations developed for reverse mechanism. Results show that parameters in the ground motion prediction expressions are not robust enough to represent the source process and propagation effects. Elastic and inelastic displacement limits for the first three closest stations are exceeded in each direction for structural periods greater than about 0.2 s. Severely damaged towns Erciş and Van were examined in the lights of available recordings. Large structural displacement responses of the majority of the buildings initiated inelastic behavior during the main shock. As a consequence of severe demands, structural collapses observed at the region due to poor construction quality which satisfied neither nominal nor full ductility levels. Overall results indicated that effects of directivity and hanging wall effect increased the influence of the seismic loading on structures despite low peak acceleration values recorded at the region. For known active tectonic regions, earthquake design spectrum should be modified over a period range of interest for rupture dynamics and near-fault ground motions in strike-normal and strike-parallel directions.


Reverse fault Van earthquake Directivity effect Hanging wall Near-fault effect Design spectrum 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Koçyiğit, A.: New field and seismic data about the intraplate strike-slip deformation in Van region, East Anatolian Plateau, E Turkey. J. Asian Earth Sci. 62, 586–605 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyen, K.; Tanırcan, G.: Strong motion characteristics of the 2011 Van earthquake of Turkey: implications of seismological aspects on engineering parameters. Earthq. Struct. 8(6), 1363–1386 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Çoşkan, S.; Kartal, M.E.; Bilir, T.: The effect of concrete strengths obtained from 2011 Van earthquake on the structural performance of RC buildings. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 41, 3817–3825 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ilki, A.; Celep, Z.: Earthquakes, existing buildings and seismic design codes in Turkey. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 37, 365–380 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ozden, S.: Performance of precast concrete structures in October 2011 Van earthquake, Turkey. Mag. Concr. Res. 66(11), 543–552 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tapan, M.; Comert, M.; Demir, C.; Sayan, Y.; Orakcal, K.; Ilki, A.: Failures of structures during the October 23, 2011 Tabanlı (Van) and November 9, 2011 Edremit (Van) earthquakes in Turkey. Eng. Fail. Anal. 34, 606–628 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akansel, V.; Ameri, G.; Askan, A.; Caner, A.; Erdil, B.; Kale, Ö.; Okuyucu, D.: The 23 October 2011 Mw 7.0 Van (Eastern Turkey) earthquake: interpretations of recorded strong ground motions and post earthquake conditions of nearby structures. Eq. Spectra 30, 657–682 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taskin, B.; Sezen, A.; Tugsal, U.M.; Erken, A.: The aftermath of 2011 Van earthquakes: evaluation of strong motion, geotechnical and structural issues. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 11(1), 285–312 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taymaz, T.; Yilmaz, Y.; Dilek, Y.: The Geodynamics of the Aegean and Anatolia: Introduction, vol. 291, pp. 1–16. Special PublicationsGeological Society, London (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barka, A.A.; Reilinger, R.: Active tectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean Region: deduced from GPS, neotectonic and seismicity data. Ann. Geophys. 40(3) (1997).
  11. 11.
    Mc Clusky, S.; Balassanian, S.; Barka, A.; et al.: GPS constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 105(B3), 5695–5719 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doğan, B.; Karakaş, A.: Geometry of co-seismic surface ruptures and tectonic meaning of the 23 October 2011 \(\text{ M }_{{\rm w}}\) 7.1 Van earthquake (East Anatolian Region, Turkey). J. Struct. Geol. 46, 99–114 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elliot, J.R.; Copley, A.C.; Holley, R.; Scharer, K.; Parsons, B.: The 2011 \(\text{ M }_{{\rm w}}\) 7.1 Van (Eastern Turkey) Earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 118, 1–19 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalafat, D.; Güneş, Y.; Kekovalı, K.: 2 Jully 2004 Doğubayazıt (Karaköse-Ağrı) earthquake, preliminary field report. Council of Europe, EMSC European Mediterranean Seismological Centre, Special web pages on significant earthquakes. (2004). Accessed 11 Sept 2018
  15. 15.
    Kalafat, D.; Kekovalı, K.; Güneş, Y.; Küsmezer, A.; Garip P.; Berberoğlu, A.; Bekler, F.: 25 January 2005 Hakkari Earthquake report. Council of Europe, EMSC European Mediterranean Seismological Centre, Special web pages on significant earthquakes. (2005). Accessed 11 Sept 2018
  16. 16.
    Taymaz, T.; Eyidoğan, H.; Jackson, J.: Source parameters of large earthquakes in the East Anatolian fault zone (Turkey). Geophys. J. Int. 106, 537–550 (1991). OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gülkan, P.; Gürpınar, A.; Celebi, M.; Arpat, E.; Gencoglu, S.: Engineering Report on the Muradiye–Çaldıran, Turkey, Earthquake of 24 November 1976. National Academy of Sciences, Washington (1978)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gökkaya, K.: Geographic analysis of earthquake damage in Turkey between 1900 and 2012. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 7(6), 1948–1961 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    AFAD: Deprem Dairesi Başkanlığı. (2011). Accessed 11 Sept 2018
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    NERA: Analysis of relative contribution of source, scattering and local site effects to ground motion, Network of European Research Infrastructures for Earthquake Risk Assessment and Mitigation, Project in JRA3—Work Package, EC Project number: 262330 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Konagai, K.; Ulusay, R.; Kumsar, H.; Aydan, Ö.; Çelebi, M.: The characteristics of seismic, strong motion and structural damage of the 2011Van-Erciş earthquake. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, pp. 1902–1913, Tokyo, 1–4 Mar 2012Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    MATLAB 8.2: The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spudich, P.; Joyner, W.B.; Lindh, A.G.; Boore, D.M.; Margaris, B.M.; Fletcher, J.: B: SEA99: a revised ground motion prediction relation for use in extensional tectonic regimes. BSSA 89(5), 1156–1170 (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abrahamson, N.A.: Effects of rupture directivity on probabilistic seismic hazard analyses. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Palm Springs, pp. 151–156 (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abrahamson, N.A.; Silva, W.J.: Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthq. Spectra 24(1), 67–97 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boore, D.M.; Atkinson, G.M.: Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01s and 10.0s. Earthq. Spectra 24(1), 99–138 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Campbell, K.W.; Bozorgnia, Y.: NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10s. Earthq. Spectra 24(1), 139–171 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chiou, B.S.J.; Youngs, R.R.: NGA ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters. Earthq. Spectra 24(1), 173–215 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McVerry, G.H.; Zhao, J.X.; Abrahamson, N. A.; Somerville, P. G.: Crustal and subduction zone attenuation relations for New Zealand earthquakes. In: Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1834, Auckland (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Field, E.H.; Jordan, T.H.; Cornell, C.A.: OpenSHA: a developing community-modeling environment for seismic hazard analysis. Seismol. Res. Lett. 74(4), 406–419 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shabestari, Khosrowi T.; Yamazaki, F.: Near-fault spatial variation in strong ground motion due to rupture directivity and hanging wall effects from the Chi–Chi, Taiwan earthquake. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32, 2197–2219 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    TEC: Ministry of public works and settlement, Specification for structures to be built in disaster areas, Republic of Turkey (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fajfar, P.: A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthq. Spectra 16(3), 573–592 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ulusay, R.; Kumsar, H.; Konagai, K.; Aydan, Ö.: The characteristics of geotechnical damage by the 2011 Van-Erciş earthquake. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, Tokyo (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Somerville, P.G.; Smith, N.F.; Graves, R.W.; Abrahamson, N.A.: Modification of empirical strong ground-motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effect of rupture directivity. Seismol. Res. Lett. 68(1), 199–222 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chopra, A.K.; Chintanapakde, C.: Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthq. Eng. Soil Dyn. 30, 1769–1789 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Akkar, S.; Yazgan, U.; Gulkan, P.: Drift estimates in frame buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions. J. Struct. Eng. 131(7), 1014–1024 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Champion, C.; Liel, A.: The effect of near-fault directivity on building seismic collapse risk. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 41, 1391–1409 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Somerville, P.G.: Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 137, 201–212 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kunnath, S.K.; Abrahamson, N.; Chai, Y.H.; Erduran, E.; Yilmaz, Z.: Development of guidelines for incorporation of vertical ground motion effects in seismic design of highway bridges. Technical report CA/UCD-SESM-08-01 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringKocaeli UniversityIzmitTurkey

Personalised recommendations