ELAZIG GUNISIGI NEWSPAPER - October 2010
ADOBE AND REINFORCED CONCRETE (THE HORSE-DRAWN CART AND THE AUTOMOBILE)
The Başyurt-Karakoçan earthquake occurred on March 8. It's natural to wonder why the topic is about adobe buildings. A panel on adobe buildings was held last week. On October 8, 2010, the Chamber of Architects of Elazığ organized a panel titled "Adobe Buildings and the Earthquake Reality" at the Meeting Hall of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The panel was chaired by former president of the Chamber of Architects, Oktay Ekinci. The panelists were Prof. Dr. Naci GÖRÜR, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bilge IŞIK, and Architect Beyazıt BÜYÜKYILDIRIM.
When you bring together the concepts of "Adobe Buildings" and "Earthquake," it's inevitable that the topic is related to Civil Engineers. I attended the panel with my graduate and doctoral students. When we entered the hall, Erhan KARAKAYA, the second president of the Elazığ Chamber of Architects, was speaking at the podium. KARAKAYA’s statement, "The professors at Istanbul Technical University, who have been researching the effects of adobe buildings against earthquakes since 1970, state that adobe buildings are resistant to earthquakes of magnitude 8 and are more resistant to earthquakes than reinforced concrete buildings," caught attention. He spoke about the inadequacies of building regulations, incorrect story additions, lack of supervision, and various shortcomings. He also mentioned the contradictory statements of the Prime Minister regarding adobe buildings.
Karakaya’s speech was one that could be interpreted in many different ways. It’s difficult to summarize such an important topic in a short period. It would have been better if he had focused solely on the architectural feeling of adobe buildings. From his speech, it was evident that the main message, "Adobe is stronger than reinforced concrete," drew the ire of most of the audience. The first reaction came from the Governor of Elazığ, Mr. Muammer EROL, who said: "There’s something here. If I don’t say it, my stomach will burst. I congratulate the understanding that belittles what was done after the earthquake and then suggests adobe instead of reinforced concrete. We’ll abandon reinforced concrete and, based on your statements, we’ll build adobe buildings. Thank you, goodbye." I must express our support for the Governor's timely intervention.
I prepared this article the night of the panel and would have been uneasy not to share it. In this article, I critically analyzed the panel from start to finish. Adobe buildings should be examined in the light of both emotion and logic. Just because we love nostalgia, we can’t afford to sacrifice people in earthquakes. Of course, cultural heritage should be preserved, but first and foremost, human life matters.
I especially thank the professional chambers for their studies in this area. But please, let’s hold these panels and seminars in more suitable venues or make necessary adjustments to the venues. More than half of the audience had difficulty following the presentation due to the camera equipment and the poor venue conditions. The venue was stuffy, and I don’t understand why there were no working ventilation and climate control systems. Additionally, if such organizations are informed in advance by the Department of Civil Engineering and associations like FİMDER, it would ensure that civil engineering students and professionals attend, helping these panels to meet their objectives.
After the opening speeches, the panel began with the session chair, Oktay Ekinci, who introduced the panel with the phrase "Karakovan Earthquake." Ekinci said that the deficiencies of reinforced concrete buildings only become apparent during an earthquake, while the deficiencies of adobe buildings are evident during construction. I consider this an unfortunate remark, as it reflects a misunderstanding of the topic by someone not in the field. A reinforced concrete structure can be evaluated for safety from the first day of construction to its last day of use. On the other hand, faults in adobe buildings may not be visible during construction but will only become apparent during an earthquake. Additionally, Ekinci claimed that the percentage of reinforced concrete buildings in housing in France has decreased to 15%. This may be normal in Europe, where population growth is minimal, and many new buildings are traditional masonry structures in rural areas. If Europe uses adobe, especially France, why is the European Building Materials and Systems Laboratories Association based in France? France is also one of the leading countries in concrete technology.
The first speaker, Prof. Dr. Naci GÖRÜR, started his talk by addressing the East Anatolian Fault. He emphasized the earthquake risk, particularly stressing that Elazığ and its surroundings are at great risk, and that earthquakes of magnitude 7 and above should not be a surprise. One of the municipal mayors sitting in front of me turned to another and said, "Even our little children know about earthquake risks; what are their suggestions, let them say that."
The second speaker, the emotionally charged architect, Beyazıt BÜYÜKYILDIRIM, spoke entirely about the advantages of adobe. To be honest, I, and much of the audience, were deeply saddened to realize that adobe is considered the best building material in the world, and it took us this long to learn it. One of my students jokingly asked, "Why don’t they remove the reinforced concrete course and add adobe building construction instead?" The panelist showed photos from America and several other countries, stating that adobe buildings are very useful. Indeed, the U.S. builds adobe for nostalgic purposes, but it has experimented with nearly every type of structure. In Africa, the only reason adobe is used is due to necessity. For instance, one of our alumni, who has worked in Sudan, Lebanon, Algeria, Afghanistan, and continues to work in those regions, mentioned that the cement industry in Sudan is controlled by a few groups (I didn’t say mafia!), and since cement is scarce, people are forced to build with whatever materials they can find.
Civil engineers, due to their working conditions, must approach things logically rather than emotionally. A construction site, which may employ hundreds of people (from illiterate workers to university graduates), is unfortunately managed by rules, not emotions. I have always respected the emotional perspectives of architects. Architect Beyazıt BÜYÜKYILDIRIM also presented adobe buildings with great emotional intensity, and we thank him for his work. The lines he quoted from Yunus Emre were beautiful.
“I put adobe in the cauldron, boiled it with the North Wind,
When asked, I told them, I gave my essence.”
I must point out that the poetry of Yunus Emre should not be understood by considering only the literal meanings of the words. Words have deep meanings. To prevent any misunderstandings, I believe that the full text of Yunus’ poem should be reviewed, as he is not concerned with adobe itself. He is not talking about the North Wind boiling adobe. What Yunus emphasizes is that even hard materials like adobe can reach their essence. I hope someone with expertise will analyze the full poem in detail in our newspaper.
The final speaker, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bilge IŞIK, spoke about the excellence of adobe as a building material. Frankly, I expected him to mention both the advantages and disadvantages of this material. Isn’t that the right thing to do? Can anything, a person, or a building material, be purely good or purely bad? Are there no other colors besides black and white?
Now, you may ask, "What do you think of adobe?" Adobe is an old building material. Rules regarding adobe buildings have existed in our building and earthquake regulations since the 1940s. Therefore, adobe buildings have never been ignored in our regulations. However, it must be accepted that adobe is a building material born out of necessity. For instance, in the Uluova Region of Elazığ, all the old village houses were made of adobe because there were no quarries nearby, and it was not possible to build houses out of stone. People did not choose to use reinforced concrete because they couldn’t find cement, sand, and iron to make concrete; they used adobe because it was all they had. In Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia, old villages still have adobe houses, while the homes of wealthy landowners were made from stone. If we don’t examine this from a social history perspective, we won’t arrive at correct conclusions. People didn’t choose adobe because it was healthy, but because it was the only option available to them.
Now, let’s address the earthquake reality. There’s no need to debate the earthquake resistance of reinforced concrete buildings. Properly constructed reinforced concrete or other buildings may sustain damage in an earthquake, but they will not result in loss of life. The primary goal in building safety is not to prevent damage but to avoid casualties. Even in Japan, where earthquakes are common, damage to buildings occurs after earthquakes. Trying to compare the earthquake resistance of adobe buildings with reinforced concrete buildings is like comparing a horse-drawn cart with a car. Of course, reinforced concrete also has its advantages and disadvantages, but it must be acknowledged that it is one of the most useful building materials in the world. There is little need for further discussion; the following fact will suffice: “If concrete is considered a liquid due to its flowability, it is the most used liquid in the world after water.”
I also must address an important point. In the Başyurt-Karakoçan Earthquake, in addition to those who died under the rubble, there were people who suffocated from adobe and earthen mortar dust. If we are discussing adobe buildings and earthquakes, we cannot ignore this fact. When human life is at stake, we cannot talk about the "breathability" of walls or sustainability. Nostalgia is a luxury, but life is a necessity.
Adobe is an old building material with significantly reduced use. It has both positive and negative aspects. What I don’t understand is why one must disparage one material to praise another. Let’s talk about the good qualities of adobe, but I don’t understand why it should be done by badmouthing concrete.
Turkey’s and Elazığ’s problem isn’t an earthquake problem, it’s a BUILDING problem. Rather than emphasizing the magnitude of this problem, we need SOLUTIONS and practical actions based on those solutions.
With the hope that everyone will do their part...