Structural Engineering and Mechanics

  • 제85권6호
  • /
  • Pages.793-808
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1225-4568(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1598-6217(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative analysis of existing reinforced concrete buildings damaged at different levels during past earthquakes using rapid assessment methods

  • 투고 : 2022.11.04
  • 심사 : 2023.03.02
  • 발행 : 2023.03.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Türkiye is located in a region where destructive earthquakes are frequently experienced due to its geological characteristics and geographical location. Therefore, considering the possibility of a devastating earthquake at any time, determining the reinforced concrete (RC) building seismic safety, constructed before or after the current seismic buildings code, is one of the most important issues to be completed firstly. For this purpose, rapid assessment methods developed to quickly determine the seismic safety of buildings are available in the literature. Comparison of the principles of Principles of the Determination of Risky Structures-2019, Column and Wall Index Method, P25 Scoring Method and Improved Discriminant Analysis Method, which are among these methods, have been aimed within the scope of this study. Within the scope of this paper, a total of 43 buildings in the Yalova/Çınarcık region of Türkiye that the damage level was determined by street observation method immediately after the 1999 Kocaeli (Izmit) Earthquake; 15 buildings with heavy damage and 28 buildings with moderate damage were examined by rapid assessment methods. Although the risk detection difference was not separated as a clear line in any of the methods used, the results obtained from the rapid assessment methods are evaluated as being compatible with the detected after earthquake structural seismic behavior of the buildings. The PDRS-2019 and column and wall index method gave the most approximate results. In the results obtained from the analyzes; structural features such as number of floors, frame continuity, soft/weak story irregularity, effective shear strength area, existence of heavy overhangs in plan, type of structural system have been found to be significantly effective on the earthquake behavior of buildings.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ademovic, N., Kalman Sipos, T. and Hadzima-Nyarko, M. (2020), "Rapid assessment of earthquake risk for Bosnia and Herzegovina", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 18(3), 1835-1863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00775-1.
  2. ATC 21.1-FEMA 155 (1988), Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, Supporting Documentation, Applied Technology Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  3. ATC 21-FEMA 154 (1988), Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, Applied Technology Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  4. ATC 40 (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, USA.
  5. Bal, I.E. and Ozdemir, Z. (2006), "The adverse effects of perimeter frame discontinuity on earthquake response of rc buildings", Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Istanbul, Turkiye, October.
  6. Bal, I.E., Tezcan, S.S. and Gulay, F.G. (2007), "P25 rapid assessment method for determining the risk of collapse of reinforced concrete buildings", Proceedings of the 6th National Earthquake Engineering Conference, Istanbul, Turkiye, October.
  7. Bektas, N. and Kegyes-Brassai, O. (2022), "Conventional rvs methods for seismic risk assessment for estimating the current situation of existing buildings: A state-of-the-art review", Sustain., 14(5), 2583. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052583.
  8. Bogazici University, Istanbul Technical University, Middle East Technical University, and Yildiz Technical University (BU-ITU-METU-YTU) (2003), Earthquake Master Plan for Istanbul, The Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul, Planning and Construction Directorate and Geotechnical and Earthquake Investigation Department, Istanbul, Turkiye.
  9. Bulbul M.A., Harirchian E., Isik M.F., Aghakouchaki Hosseini S.E. and Isik E. (2022), "A hybrid ann-ga model for an automated rapid vulnerability assessment of existing RC buildings", Appl. Sci., 12(10), 5138. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12105138.
  10. Buyuksarac, A., Isik, E. and Harirchian, E. (2021), "A case study for determination of seismic risk priorities in Van (Eastern Turkey)", Earthq. Struct., 20(4), 445-455. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.20.4.445.
  11. Cinarcik Municipality (2009), Implementation Zoning Plan, Yalova, Turkiye, March.
  12. Dogan T.P., Kizilkula, T., Mohammadi, M., Erkan, I.H., Tekeli Kabas, H. and Arslan, M.H. (2021), "A comparative study on the rapid seismic evaluation methods of reinforced concrete buildings", Int. J. Disast. Risk Reduc., 56, 102143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102143.
  13. Dogan, G., Ecemis, A.S., Korkmaz, S.Z., Arslan, M.H. and Korkmaz, H.H. (2021), "Buildings damages after Elazig, Turkey earthquake on January 24, 2020", Nat. Hazard., 109, 161-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04831-5.
  14. FEMA 273 (1997), Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  15. FEMA 356 (2000), Prestandart and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  16. FEMA 440 (2005), Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  17. FEMA P-154 (2015), Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, 3rd Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  18. Gulay, F.G., Kaptan, K., Bal, I.E. and Tezcan, S.S. (2011), "P25 scoring method for the collapse vulnerability assessment of R/C buildings", Procedia Eng., 14, 1219-1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.153.
  19. Gulay, F.G., Tezcan, S.S. and Bal, I.E. (2008), "Calibration and pilot region application of p25 scoring method developed on earthquake safety of buildings", Research Project No. 106M278, Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), Istanbul, Turkiye.
  20. Gulkan, P. and Sozen, M.A. (1996), "Procedure for determining seismic vulnerability of building structures", ACI Struct. J., 96(3), 336-342.
  21. Harirchian, E., Hosseini, S.E.A., Jadhav, K., Kumari, V., Rasulzade, S., Isik, E., Wasif, M. and Lahmer, T. (2021), "A review on application of soft computing techniques for the rapid visual safety evaluation and damage classification of existing buildings", J. Build. Eng., 43, 102536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102536.
  22. Harirchian, E., Lahmer, T., Buddhiraju, S., Mohammad, K. and Mosavi, A. (2020), "Earthquake safety assessment of buildings through rapid visual screening", Build., 10(3), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10030051.
  23. Hassan, A.F. and Sozen, M.A. (1997), "Seismic vulnerability assessment of low-rise buildings in regions with infrequent earthquake", ACI Struct. J., 94(1), 31-39.
  24. Isik, E. (2013), "The evaluation of existing buildings in Bitlis province using a visual screening method", Univ. Suleyman Demirel, J. Nat. Appl. Sci., 17(1), 173-178. https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufbed.55891.
  25. Isik, E. (2015), "Calculation of performance score for a damaged RC building", IAAOJ, Scientif. Sci., 3(2), 47-52.
  26. Isik, E. (2016), "Consistency of the rapid assessment method for reinforced concrete buildings", Earthq. Struct., 11(5), 873-885. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.5.873.
  27. Isik, E. and Kutanis, M. (2013), "The evaluation of RC buildings in Bitlis using p25 rapid screening method", J. BAUN Inst. Sci. Technol., 15(1), 21-29.
  28. Isik, E., Karasin, I.B., Demirci, A. and Buyuksarac, A. (2020), "Seismic risk priorities of site and mid-rise RC buildings in Turkey", Chall. J. Struct. Mech., 6(4), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.20528/cjsmec.2020.04.004.
  29. Isik, E., Ulu, A. and Aydin, M. (2021), "A case study on the updates of rapid visual screening methods for reinforced-concrete buildings", Bitlis Eren Univ. J. Sci. Technol., 11(2), 97-103. https://doi.org/10.17678/beuscitech.1024140.
  30. JBDPA (1990), Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, Tokyo, Japan.
  31. Kaplan, O., Guney, Y., Topcu, A. and Ozcelikors, Y. (2018), "A rapid seismic safety assessment method for mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 16, 889-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0229-0.
  32. Karakas, C.C., Palanci, M. and Senel, S. (2022), "Fragility based evaluation of different code based assessment approaches for the performance estimation of existing buildings", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 20(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01292-w.
  33. Kassem, M.M., Beddu, S., Ooi, J.H., Tan, C.G., El-Maissi, A.M. and Nazri, F.M. (2021), "Assessment of seismic building vulnerability using rapid visual screening method through webbased application for Malaysia", Build., 11(10), 485. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11100485.
  34. Nemutlu, O., Balun, B. and Sari, A. (2021), "Assessment of earthquake preparedness of existing buildings: Example of Bingol province", Turkish J. Earthq. Res., 3(1), 92-109. https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.932452.
  35. Ningthoujam, M.C. and Nanda, R.P. (2018), "Rapid visual screening procedure of existing building based on statistical analysis", Int. J. Disast. Risk Reduc., 28, 720-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.033.
  36. Okuyucu, D., Savas, G.K., Gedik, B., Susarlioglu, M.F., and Kara, T. (2018), "Determination of regional seismic risk distribution of structures by sidewalk survey method: Erzurum-Yenisehir example", Sci. Eng. J. Firat Univ., 30(1), 219-231.
  37. Ozcebe, G., Yucemen, M.S., Yakut, A. and Aydogan, V. (2003), "Seismic vulnerability assessment procedure for low- to medium-rise reinforced concrete buildings", Research Report No. 2003/2, Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), Ankara, Turkiye.
  38. Ozhendekci, N. and Ozhendekci, D. (2012), "Rapid seismic vulnerability assessment of low- to mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings using Bingol's regional data", Earthq. Spectra, 28(3), 1165-1187. https://doi.org10.1193/1.4000065.
  39. Ozkul, B. and Gulgec, E. (2022), "Earthquake performance comparison of a reinforced concrete school building based on four different quick evaluation methods", J. BAUN Inst. Sci. Technol., 24(1), 152-171. https://doi.org/10.25092/baunfbed.937187.
  40. PDRS-2019 (2019), Principles Regarding Detection of Risky Structures, Implementation Regulation of Law No. 6306, Environment and Urban Ministry, Ankara, Turkiye.
  41. Rainer, J.H., Allen, D.E. and Jablonski, A.M. (1993), "Manual for screening of buildings for seismic investigation", Institute for Research in Construction of National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
  42. SAP 2000 v20 (2019), Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California, USA.
  43. Sezen H., Whittaker, A.S., Elwood, K.J. and Mosalam, K.M. (2003), "Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction practise in Turkey", Eng. Struct., 25(1), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00121-9.
  44. Shiga, T., Shibata, A. and Takahashi, T. (1968), "Earthquake damage and wall index of reinforced concrete buildings", Proceedings of the Tohoku District Symposium, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, December.
  45. Sucuoglu, H. and Yazgan, U. (2003), "Simple survey procedures for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks", Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, 97-118.
  46. Sucuoglu, H., Yazgan, U. and Yakut, A. (2007), "A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks", Earthq. Spectra, 23(2), 441-458. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2720931.
  47. Sudhir, K.J., Keya, M., Manish, K. and Mehul, S. (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.
  48. TBEC-2018 (2018), Turkey building earthquake code, Environment and Urban Ministry; Ankara, Turkiye.
  49. TEC-1975 (1975), Turkey Earthquake Code, Environment and Urban Ministry, Ankara, Turkiye.
  50. TEC-2007 (2007), Turkey Earthquake Code, Environment and Urban Ministry, Ankara, Turkiye.
  51. Tezcan, S.S. and Gursoy, M. (2002), "Zero loss of life project in a possible earthquake for all our provinces (Istanbul example)", Turkey Eng. News, 417(1), 29-32.
  52. TS-498 (1987), Account Values of Loads to be Taken in Sizing of Building Elements, Turkish Standards Institution, Ankara, Turkiye.
  53. TS-500 (1984), Design and Construction Rules of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Turkish Standards Institution, Ankara, Turkiye.
  54. TS-500 (2000), Design and Construction Rules of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Turkish Standards Institution, Ankara, Turkiye.
  55. Yucemen, M.S. (2002), "Prediction of potential seismic damage to reinforced concrete buildings based on damage probability matrices", Proceeding of the Sixth International Conference on Concrete Technology for Developing Countries, 3, 951-960.
  56. Yucemen, M.S. and Ozcebe, G. (2003), "Estimation of potential earthquake damage to reinforced concrete buildings by the discriminant analysis method", Structural Mechanics Seminar, Eskisehir, Turkiye, June.
  57. ZETEM Engineering Ltd. Co. (2008), Geological-Geotechnical Survey Report for the Revision of the Zoning Plan, Yalova, Turkiye, September.