The size of the footprint of these structures are 34x7.5 m. The same plans are used for 24 story buildings. Dimensions of the columns are 0.3x0.5 m and the typical dimensions for beams are 0.3x0.7 m. The thickness of plastered hollow clay-tile masonry inf...

Prepared By: Miguel Robles
Occupancy: Education
Year Built: 1999
Height: 9.6 m
Number of stories: 3
Stories below ground: 1
Size: 1785 sqm
Original Code:
Modification: Unknown
Year Modified:
Code of Modification:
Lateral Load System: MomentFrame
Other Load System:
Vertical Load System: Slabl_Beams_Columns
Other Vertical Load System:
Foundation : Other
Other Foundation : Foundation-basement
Country: Turkey
State: Bingol
City: Kaleonu
Street: Bingl Mus Yolu, Kalen Mh., 12000
Latitude: 38.908105
Longitude: 40.549894


Turkey School bldgs - Moment Frames

Earthquake Information



Earthquake Date 37742
Moment Magnitude 6.4
Epicentral Distance 13.3
Local Intensity VIII MMI
Site Description The soils in this alluvial terrace were constituted by a layer of medium stiff brown sandy silt or clay, approximately 1 to 1.5 m thick; below, at a level close to river there was a layer of gravels, seemingly ranging from dense to very dense. (Ozcebe et al., 2003).
PGA Lateral 0.56 (g)
PGA Vertical 0.47 (g)
Ground motion recording stations MPWR Building, Bingl
Distance to station 4.24
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 first story of the building completely collapsed. Columns and beam/column joints performed poorly. Infill walls interfered with the frame action and were severely damaged.

Damage state description

Completely collapsed first story. Shear and flexural failures in columns. Severe damage to captive columns. Shear cracks in beams. Joint shear failures. Spalling concrete in columns and beam/column joints. Severe damage. In-plane and out-of-plane failures of infill walls.

Summary of causes of damage

1. Weak story effect due to insufficient shear strength in column ends and presence of captive columns resulted in complete collapse of the first story. 2. Non-ductile detailing, 90 hooks in column ties and unconfined beam/column joints were used, resulted in brittle failures. 3. Shear failures in joints developed due to lack of transverse reinforcement. 4. Low quality concrete and use of smooth bars contributed to the overall lack of strength. 5. Interference of infill walls with frame action created captive columns and allowed severe damage and failure of nonstructural walls.

Observed Design and Construction Characteristics


Construction Quality

MaterialsNotesContribution to Damage
Concrete Size of aggregate
Reinforcing steel Smooth bars

ExecutionNotesContribution to Damage
Conveyance/placement of concrete
Rebar Concrete cover in joints
Field variance with design documents
OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Construction Quality Non-ductile detailing: column ties with 90 hooks, unconfined beam/column joints


Plan IrregularitiesNotesContribution to Damage
Perimeter boundary
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

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Configuration

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

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 Unconfined rebar hooks
Loss of vertical capacity
Interference of frame action by infill beams

JointsNotesContribution to Damage
Exterior Lack of confinement and transverse reinforcement
Corner Lack of confinement and transverse reinforcement

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

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 There was a crack in the ground, approximately 3 to 4 m from the perimeter of the building result of the settlement of the backfill behind the basement wall

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

Repair and Retrofit Information


Type of Retrofit or Repair

None (demolished/abandoned)

Other Retrofit or Repair

Performance Level


Hazard Level


Retrofit or Repair Code


Other Retrofit or Repair Code

Lateral Analysis


Other Lateral Analysis

Design Strategy

Retrofit Summary

zcebe, G. et al., 2003. "1 May 2003 Bingl Earthquake Engineering Report". National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).
Gur, T., et al., 2009. Performance of Schools Buildings in Turkey During the 1999 Dzce and the 2003 Bingl earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 25, pp. 239-256.
Irfanoglu, A., 2009. Performance of Template School Buildings during Earthquakes in Turkey and Peru. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 2009.
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.
Bayhan, B., 2010. "Buildings under recurring near-field earthquakes". Ph.D. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. (page 63) Bingol DATA 1, C-13-08.

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.