Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Consistency of the rapid assessment method for reinforced concrete buildings

  • Isik, Ercan (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Bitlis Eren University)
  • Received : 2016.01.21
  • Accepted : 2016.10.24
  • Published : 2016.11.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Determination of earthquake-safety of existing buildings requires a rather long and challenging process both in terms of time and expertise. In order to prevent such a tedious process, rather rapid methods for evaluating buildings were developed. The purpose of these rapid methods is to determine the buildings that have priority in terms of risk and accordingly to minimize the number of buildings to be inspected. In these rapid evaluation methods detailed information and inspection are not required. Among these methods the Canadian Seismic scanning method and the first stage evaluation method included in the principles concerning the determination of risk-bearing buildings promulgated by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization in Turkey are used in the present study. Within the scope of this study, six reinforced concrete buildings damaged in Van earthquakes in Turkey are selected. The performance scores of these buildings are calculated separately with the mentioned two methods, and then compared. The purpose of the study is to provide information on these two methods and to set forth the relation they have between them in order to manifest the international validity.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahmed, M.M., Jahan, I. and Alam, M.J. (2014), "Earthquake vulnerability assessment of existing buildings in cox's-bazar using field survey & GIS", Int. J. Eng., 3(8), 1147-1156.
  2. Alam, N., Alam, M.S. and Tesfamariam, S. (2012), "Buildings' seismic vulnerability assessment methods: a comparative study", Nat. Haz., 62(2), 405-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0082-4
  3. Altiner, M. (2008), "Deprem etkisindeki betonarme binalarin gocme riskinin saptanmasi iCin hizli degerlendirme yontemleri", Ph.D. Thesis, Istanbul Kultur Universitesi, 68p.
  4. Barka, A. and Kadinsky-Cade, K. (1988), "Strike-slip fault geometry in Turkey and its influence on earthquake activity", Tectonics, 7(3), 663-684. https://doi.org/10.1029/TC007i003p00663
  5. Borcherdt, R.D. (1990), "Influence of local geology in the San Fransisco bay region California on ground motions generated 1990, by the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989", Proceedings of International Symposium on Safety of Urban Life and Facilities, Tokyo, Japan.
  6. Chever, L. (2012), "Use of seismic assessment methods for planning vulnerability reduction of existing building stock", Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering-WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal.
  7. Celik, C.O., Ilki, A., Yalcin, C. and Yuksel, E. (2007), "Dogu ve Bati Avrupa kentlerinde degisik tip binalarin deprem riskinin hizli degerlendirmesi uzerine bir deneyim", Sixth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, October.
  8. DRBB (Determination of Risk-Bearing Buildings) (2013), Afet riski altindaki alanlarin donusturulmesi hakkinda kanunun uygulama yonetmeliginde degisiklik yapilmasina dair yonetmelik. Turkiye Cevre ve Sehircilik Bakanligi, Turkey.
  9. Foo, S., Naumoski, N. and Cheung, M. (2002), "Seismic risk reduction of existing buildings", accessed July 20. ftp://199.246.24.198/pub/SEISMIC/canada_taiwan_2002.pdf
  10. Foo, S. and Davenport, A. (2003), "Seismic hazard mitigation for buildings", Nat. Haz., 28(2-3), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022950629065
  11. Isik, E. (2013), "The evaluation of existing buildings in Bitlis province using a visual screening method", Suleyman Demirel Univ. J. Nat. Appl. Sci., 17(1), 173-178.
  12. Jain, S.K., Mitra, K., Kumar, M. and Shah, M. (2010), "A proposed rapid visual screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC-frame buildings in India", Earthq. Spectra, 26(3), 709-729. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3456711
  13. McClusky, S., Balassanian, S., Barka, A., Demir, C., Ergintav, S., Georgiev, I., Gurkan, O., Hamburger, M., Hurst, K., Kahle, H., Kastens, K., Nadariya, M., Ouzouni, A., Paradissis, D., Peter, Y., Prilepin, M., Reilinger, R., Sanli, I., Seeger, H., Tealeb, A., Toksoz, M.N. and Veis, G. (2000), "GPS constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus", J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 105(B3), 5695-5719. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JB900351
  14. McKevitt, W.E., Timler, P.A.M. and Lo, K.K. (1995), "Nonstructural damage from the Northridge earthquake", Can. J. Civ. Eng., 22, 428-437. https://doi.org/10.1139/l95-051
  15. NRRC (National Research Council of Canada) (1993), Manual for screening of buildings for seismic investigation, Canadian Standard. Ottowa: National Research Council of Canada.
  16. Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Cakmak, R., Ozener, H., Kadirov, F., Guliev, I., Stepanyan, R., Nadariya, M., Hahubia, G., Mahmoud, S., Sakr, K., ArRajehi, A., Paradissis, D., Al-Aydrus, A., Prilepin, M., Guseva, T., Evren, E., Dmitrotsa, A., Filikov, S.V., Gomez, F., Al-Ghazzi, R. and Karam, G. (2006), "GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions", J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 111(B5), 1978-2012.
  17. Srikanth, T., Kumar, R.P., Singh, A.P., Rastogi, B.K. and Kumar, S. (2010), "Earthquake vulnerability assessment of existing buildings in Gandhidham and Adipur cities Kachchh, Gujarat (India)", Euro. J. Sci. Res., 41(3), 336-353.
  18. Sucuoglu, H. (2007), "A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks", Sixth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey.
  19. Sengor, A.M.C., Gorur, N. and Saroglu, F. (1985), "Strike-slip deformation, basin formation and sedimentation: strike-slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study", Soc. Eco. Paleontol. Mineral., Spec. Publication, 37, 227-264.
  20. Tesfamariam, S. and Liu, Z. (2010), "Earthquake induced damage classification for reinforced concrete buildings", Struct. Saf., 32(2), 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.10.002
  21. Tischer, H., Mitchell, D. and McClure, G. (2011), "Comparison of seismic screening methods for schools in a moderate seismic zone", Proceedings of the COMPDYN.
  22. Tischer, H., McClure, G. and Mitchell, D. (2012), "Development of a seismic vulnerability assessment method for schools in Eastern Canada", Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering-WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal.
  23. Turkish Earthquake Code (2007), Turkish earthquake code-specification for structures to be built in disaster areas, Turkey.
  24. Ulutas, H. (2012), "Seismic hazard analysis of Van City in Turkey", Master Thesis, Sakarya University.
  25. Utkucu, M., Durmus, H., Yalcin, H., Budakoglu, E. and Isik, E. (2013), "Coulomb static stress changes before and after the 23 October 2011 Van, eastern Turkey, earthquake (MW = 7.1): implications for the earthquake hazard mitigation", Nat. Haz. Earth Syst. Sci., 13(7), 1889-1902. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-1889-2013
  26. Utkucu, M, Budakoglu, E., Yalcin, H., Durmus, H., Gulen, L. and Isik, E. (2014), "Seismotectonic characteristics of the 23 October 2011 Van (Eastern Anatolia) earthquake (Mw=7.1)", Bull. Earth Sci. Appl. Res. Centre of Hacettepe Univ., 35(2), 141-168.

Cited by

  1. Seismic vulnerability assessment of an old historical masonry building in Osijek, Croatia, using Damage Index vol.28, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.05.012
  2. Performance Analysis of Steel Structures with A3 Irregularities vol.18, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0046-6
  3. Insights from existing earthquake loss assessment research in Croatia vol.13, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.4.365
  4. Web based evaluation of earthquake damages for reinforced concrete buildings vol.13, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.4.387
  5. Bridge Seismic Damage Assessment Model Applying Artificial Neural Networks and the Random Forest Algorithm vol.2020, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6548682
  6. Earthquake Safety Assessment of Buildings through Rapid Visual Screening vol.10, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10030051
  7. A Contribution to a UHS-Based Seismic Risk Assessment in Croatia-A Case Study for the City of Osijek vol.12, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051796
  8. Earthquake Hazard Safety Assessment of Existing Buildings Using Optimized Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Network vol.13, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13082060
  9. The effects of changing story number and structural footprint area on building performance in reinforced-concrete buildings vol.10, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.17678/beuscitech.725367
  10. 24 January 2020 Sivrice (Elazığ) earthquake damages and determination of earthquake parameters in the region vol.19, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.19.2.145
  11. A Comparative Study of MCDM Methods Integrated with Rapid Visual Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing RC Structures vol.10, pp.18, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186411
  12. A case study for determination of seismic risk priorities in Van (Eastern Turkey) vol.20, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.20.4.445
  13. Application of Shape Memory Alloys in Retrofitting of Masonry and Heritage Structures Based on Their Vulnerability Revealed in the Bam 2003 Earthquake vol.14, pp.16, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164480
  14. Sustainability of Civil Structures through the Application of Smart Materials: A Review vol.14, pp.17, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14174824
  15. Seismic and Structural Analyses of the Eastern Anatolian Region (Turkey) Using Different Probabilities of Exceedance vol.4, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/asi4040089
  16. Structural expertise of the Perdicaris castle within the context of assessment and rehabilitation of historical masonry buildings in Morocco vol.7, pp.1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-021-00151-0