The 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence produced ground motions that locally exceeded the elastic design demands of the Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBEC-2018), yet the spatial distribution of building damage did not consistently follow the magnitude of this exceedance. This study evaluates that discrepancy using two complementary analytical layers. Layer 1 uses district-aggregated PGA across 94 districts; Layer 2 uses station-specific DD-2 design parameters mapped to 37 districts. First, observed peak ground acceleration (PGA) was compared with district-level damage across 94 districts, yielding a weak but significant relationship (Pearson r = 0.243, p = 0.018), explaining under 6% of the variance in damage ratio (R2 ≈ 0.06). Second, a stratified dataset of 59 strong-motion stations representing 37 districts was used to calculate the ratio of recorded PGA to the site-specific DD-2 design PGA. After incorporating available Mw 7.6 Elbistan/Ekinözü records into event envelope values, the exceedance–damage relationship remained non-significant (Pearson r = 0.084, p = 0.62; Spearman ρ = 0.103, p = 0.54). Five non-mutually-exclusive, qualitatively evaluated mechanisms may jointly account for this result: spatial resolution mismatch, the gap between elastic demand and actual structural capacity, site-specific soil response, near-fault pulse effects, and geotechnical hazards such as liquefaction. The findings show that PGA-based code exceedance alone is insufficient for explaining post-earthquake building damage, and should be interpreted together with structural vulnerability and local site conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sadık Varolgüneş (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: