The building is the main part of a typical branch office of the MPWR, which is a five-building complex designed in the 1970's and constructed in the 1980s. There are four service buildings in addition to the main building. All buildings are separated 50 m...

Prepared By: Miguel Robles
Occupancy: PublicGovernment
Year Built: 1980
Height: 16.6 m
Number of stories: 5
Stories below ground: 0
Size: 1300 sqm
Original Code: 1975 Turkish (TEC 1975)
Modification: none
Year Modified: N/A
Code of Modification: N/A
Lateral Load System: MomentFrame
Other Load System:
Vertical Load System: Two-way slab and beams with columns
Other Vertical Load System:
Foundation : Mat
Other Foundation :
Country: Turkey
State: Bingol
City: Cayboyu
Street: Bingl - Elazig Yolu, Sht. Mustafa Gndogdu Mh., 12000
Latitude: 38.896896
Longitude: 40.503086


MPWR - Bingol

Earthquake Information



Earthquake Date 37742
Moment Magnitude 6.4
Epicentral Distance 12.7
Local Intensity VIII MMI
Site Description "The station and the building were located in the north of the city on an estimated 5 m high alluvial terrace between on two streams (Bobet and etin, 2004). The terrace material is dense formations composed of predominantly uniform granular alluvial deposits. The soil type was classified as stiff soil by Kalkan and Glkan (2004)." (Bayhan, 2010).
PGA Lateral 0.56 (g)
PGA Vertical 0.47 (g)
Ground motion recording stations MPWR Building, Bingl
Distance to station 0
Station Latitude 38.897
Station Longitude 40.503
Ground Motion Summary The earthquake occurred in eastern Turkey. The tectonic of the region are controlled by the collision of the Arabian and Eurasian plates causing lateral escape of the Anatolian block to the west and the Northeast Anatolian block to the east. The Anatolian block is bounded to the north and to the southeast by the North Anatolian and the East Anatolian strike-slip faults, respectively. The epicenter of this earthquake (39.00N, 40.46E) was located 15 km N-NW of Bingol city with a focal depth of 10.0 km. The strong motion instrument located in Bingol records peak ground accelerations of 0.56g north-south, 0.28g east-west and 0.47g vertical. (EERI, 2003).


Damage Information



Performance summary

The building sustained moderate damage that corresponds to a level between immediate occupancy" and "life safety after the earthquake. The structural and nonstructural damage was concentrated in the ground and first stories. There was almost no structural damage in the upper stories except for the masonry infill supports at the roof. It was decided to prepare a retrofit project in 2003.

Damage state description

The building sustained moderate damage that was concentrated in the ground and first stories. There was almost no structural damage in the upper stories except for the masonry infill supports at the roof. It was evident that pounding had occurred with the adjacent building. Damage to the columns consisted of hairline shear cracks. Beams in the ground and first floors suffered minor flexural cracking.

Summary of causes of damage

1. Lack of seismic design calculation: The 1975 seismic code did not have some of the features that the later versions did, but the principal culprit here was the captive columns facing the inner courtyard. They failed, leading to unsymmetrical drifts on one face of the building that no intervention could correct. 2. The presence of in-fill walls attached to the frames created captive columns and allowed damaged to the walls. 3. Smooth bars and constructions practices permitted formation of large cracks in the columns. 4. Inadequate seismic joints allowed pounding between adjacent buildings.

Observed Design and Construction Characteristics


Construction Quality

MaterialsNotesContribution to Damage
Concrete As-built concrete strength (9 MPa) lower than specified (14 MPa).
Reinforcing steel Smooth bars

ExecutionNotesContribution to Damage
Conveyance/placement of concrete
Rebar Concrete cover Ties spacing
Field variance with design documents
OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Construction Quality Inadequate confinement and lateral reinforcement


Plan IrregularitiesNotesContribution to Damage
Perimeter boundary Reentrant corner at L-shaped columns
Out-of-plane offsets in lateral resisting system
Non-orthogonal systems

Vertical IrregularitiesNotesContribution to Damage
Soft story
Weak story
Geometric variablility of lateral resisting system
In-plane discontinuity of lateral resisting system
Mass distribution
Change in stiffness Except for the L-shaped corner columns, sizes and longitudinal reinforcement in these members decrease progressively from lower to the upper stories. (Bayhan, 2011).

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Configuration Beams framing perpendicularly to L-shaped column flanges

Lateral Load Resisting System‐General

StrengthNotesContribution to Damage
Overall lack of strength

StiffnessNotesContribution to Damage
Extreme Flexibility

Load PathNotesContribution to Damage
Anchorage of nonstructural elements
Out-of-plane capacity of walls
Diaphragm chords
Diaphragm openings

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting System-General Design level surpassed

Lateral Load Resisting System‐Frames

ColumnsNotesContribution to Damage
Shear strength
Flexural strength
Axial load ratio
Vertical load columns drift capacity
Interference of frame action by infill

BeamsNotesContribution to Damage
Strength relative to columns
Shear controlled behavior
Continuity of longitudinal reinforcing
Loss of vertical capacity
Interference of frame action by infill beams

JointsNotesContribution to Damage

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting System-Frames

Lateral Load Resisting System‐Shear Walls

ShearNotesContribution to Damage
Diagonal tension/compression
Sliding Shear

FlexureNotesContribution to Damage
Compression zone buckling capacity
Discontinuity of wall
Boundary reinforcing fracture/buckling
Boundary Reinforcing at openings

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting System-Shear Walls

Lateral Load Resisting System‐Infills

InfillsNotesContribution to Damage
Interference with frame action
Out of plane
Attachment to framing

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting Systems-Infills Unintentional short column due to hollow bricks

Lateral Load Resisting System‐Other

FoundationsNotesContribution to Damage
Surface Rupture

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Pile/Pier tension capacity

MiscellaneousNotesContribution to Damage
Spread footing capacity
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting Systems-Other-Foundations

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting Systems-Other-Misc

Repair and Retrofit Information



Type of Retrofit or Repair

Improved Performance

Other Retrofit or Repair


Performance Level

Life safety

Hazard Level

250 yr.

Retrofit or Repair Code


Other Retrofit or Repair Code

No Turkish code was available for "retrofit" in 2004

Lateral Analysis

Equivalent lateral force

Other Lateral Analysis

Design Strategy

Retrofit Summary

Shear walls were added at the exterior frame, cracks were covered with plaster.

Bayhan, B., 2010. "Buildings under recurring near-field earthquakes". Ph.D. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Bayhan, B., and Glkan, P., 2011. "Buildings Subjected to Recurring Earthquakes: A Tale of Three Cities". Earthquake Spectra27, pp. 635-659.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2003. "Preliminary Observations on the May 1, 2003, Bingl, Turkey, Earthquake". Learning from Earthquakes, EERI Special Earthquake Report.
Erdik, M. et al. May 01, 2003. "Bingol (Turkey) Earthquake". Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008. "USGS ShakeMap: Bingol, Turkey". ShakeMap Atlas, 2012.

"Turkey". 39.00 N and 40.51 E. Google Earth/USGS, 2012.