SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Firat University Journal of Experimental and Computational Engineering / 2026 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2

Comparative Analysis of the Seismic Risk of Tunceli-Ovacık Rural Building Stock Using Different Rapid Screening Methods

Tunceli-Ovacık Kırsal Yapı Stokunun Sismik Riskinin Farklı Hızlı Tarama Yöntemleri İle Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Ezgi Ayhan(MUNZUR UNIVERSITY)0009-0003-2595-7247
Berivan Yılmazer Polat(MUNZUR UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9109-2876
Pages
619–634
Publication Date
2026-06-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

While the overall risk distribution ratios were similar, building-level matching analyses showed a medium level of agreement between the methods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Located at the intersection of the Yedisu Segment, a seismic gap, and the active Ovacık Fault, the Tunceli-Ovacık district is a region with a high earthquake risk but an unclear level of structural fragility.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within the scope of the study, 209 buildings representing the building typology in the region, 88% of which are masonry-mixed systems, were analyzed using both rapid assessment algorithms.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While the overall risk distribution ratios were similar, building-level matching analyses showed a medium level of agreement between the methods.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Deprem · Yapı · Fay hattı

Abstract

Located at the intersection of the Yedisu Segment, a seismic gap, and the active Ovacık Fault, the Tunceli-Ovacık district is a region with a high earthquake risk but an unclear level of structural fragility. This study aims to assess the seismic safety of the rural building stock located in a seismically critical area. To this end, the Turkish Rapid Visual Screening (RVS), based on local parameters, and the Canadian Seismic Survey Method, widely used in international literature, were applied to determine the current condition of the buildings; the earthquake risk of the region was analyzed based on the results obtained. Furthermore, similarities and differences between the methods were comparatively examined to ensure scientific integrity. Within the scope of the study, 209 buildings representing the building typology in the region, 88% of which are masonry-mixed systems, were analyzed using both rapid assessment algorithms. While the overall risk distribution ratios were similar, building-level matching analyses showed a medium level of agreement between the methods. This indicates that the local and universal methods, rather than definitively verifying each other, provide complementary data by focusing on different parameters in the seismic assessment of the rural building stock. This study demonstrates that an integrated risk mapping approach, where different methodologies complement each other, can offer a rapid and reliable decision support mechanism for urban transformation strategies in cities with high earthquake risk, such as Tunceli.

Özet

Sismik boşluk niteliğindeki Yedisu Segmenti ve aktif Ovacık Fayı’nın kesişim noktasında yer alan Tunceli-Ovacık ilçesi, yüksek deprem tehlikesine rağmen yapısal kırılganlık düzeyi net olarak tanımlanmamış bir bölgedir. Bu çalışma, sismik açıdan kritik bir bölgede yer alan kırsal yapı stokunun deprem güvenliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda, yapıların mevcut durumunu ortaya koymak için yerel parametrelere dayalı Sokak Tarama Yöntemi ile uluslararası literatürde yaygın olarak kullanılan Kanada Sismik Tarama Yöntemi uygulanmış; elde edilen sonuçlar üzerinden bölgenin deprem riski analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca, bilimsel değerlendirme bütünlüğü sağlamak amacıyla yöntemler arasındaki benzerlik ve farklılıklar da karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında, bölgedeki yapı tipolojisini temsil eden ve %88’i yığma-karma sistemden oluşan 209 bina, her iki hızlı değerlendirme algoritmasıyla analiz edilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda genel risk dağılım oranları birbirine yakın olsa da, bina düzeyindeki eşleşme analizleri yöntemler arasında orta düzeyde bir uyum olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu durum, yerel ve evrensel yöntemlerin birbirini kesin olarak doğrulamaktan ziyade, kırsal yapı stokunun sismik değerlendirmesinde farklı parametrelere odaklanarak birbirini tamamlayıcı veriler sunduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu çalışma, farklı metodolojilerin birbirini tamamladığı entegre bir risk haritalama yaklaşımının, Tunceli gibi deprem riski açısından öncelikli şehirlerde kentsel dönüşüm stratejilerinde hızlı ve güvenilir bir karar destek mekanizması sunabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ayhan, E., Polat, B. Y. (2026). Comparative Analysis of the Seismic Risk of Tunceli-Ovacık Rural Building Stock Using Different Rapid Screening Methods. Firat University Journal of Experimental and Computational Engineering, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 619–634. https://doi.org/10.62520/fujece.1955816

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. T. Sançar, “Paleoseismological and morphotectonic characteristics of the Yedisu fault segment,” M.S. thesis, Istanbul Technical Univ., Istanbul, Türkiye, 2006.
  2. G. Ozcebe, H. Sucuoglu, M. S. Yucemen, A. Yakut, and J. Kubin, “Seismic risk assessment of existing building stock in Istanbul: A pilot application in Zeytinburnu district,” in Proc. 8th U.S. Nat. Conf. Earthq. Eng., San Francisco, CA, USA, Apr. 18–22, 2006, Paper No. 1737.
  3. H. Tokgöz and H. Bayraktar, “The street survey method is being applied in the identification of risky buildings in Kaynaşlı district of Düzce province,” Duzce Univ. J. Sci. Technol., vol. 3, pp. 107–116, 2015.
  4. D. Okuyucu, G. K. Savaş, B. Gedik, M. F. Şuşarlıoğlu, and T. Kara, “Determination of regional seismic risk distribution of structures by sidewalk survey method: Erzurum–Yenişehir example,” Firat Univ. J. Sci., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 219–223, 2018.
  5. E. Güler and M. Canbaz, “Determination of earthquake risk of structures by street screening method,” J. Eng. Archit. Fac. Eskisehir Osmangazi Univ., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 227–234, 2020.
  6. S. Efekan, “Determining the seismic performance of structures using rapid assessment methods and comparing the results,” M.S. thesis, Maltepe Univ., Istanbul, Türkiye, 2019.
  7. E. Gülgeç, “Comparison of the seismic performance of a reinforced concrete school building using 4 different rapid assessment methods,” M.S. thesis, Balıkesir Univ., Balıkesir, Türkiye, 2019.
  8. S. Bektaş, “Comparative assessment of earthquake risk of educational buildings in Bayburt province using some rapid assessment methods,” M.S. thesis, Bayburt Univ., Bayburt, Türkiye, 2022.
  9. E. Işık, “Calculating the performance score of a damaged reinforced concrete building,” Int. Anatolia Acad. Online J., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 47–52, 2015.
  10. Ş. Metin and D. Öztürk, “Examination of a reinforced concrete building using a rapid assessment method,” Eur. J. Sci. Technol., no. 28, pp. 1254–1257, 2021.
  11. N. Demirbaş, H. Şahin, and C. Durucan, “Determining the effectiveness of rapid assessment methods used for estimating structural damage after earthquakes in reinforced concrete structures,” Firat Univ. J. Sci., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 125–134, 2021.
  12. N. Demirbaş, H. Şahin, and C. Durucan, “Evaluating the performance of rapid assessment methods using earthquake-damaged buildings,” Pamukkale Univ. J. Eng. Sci., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 389–400, 2022.
  13. E. Harirchian, T. Lahmer, S. Buddhiraju, K. Mohammad, and A. Mosavi, “Earthquake safety assessment of buildings through rapid visual screening,” Buildings, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–15, 2020. IEEE formatına göre düzenlenmiş, dergi adları kısaltılmış ve DOI bilgileri kaldırılmış hali:
  14. M. M. Kassem, S. Beddu, C. G. Tan, A. M. El-Maissi, and F. M. Nazri, “Assessment of seismic building vulnerability using rapid visual screening method through web-based application for Malaysia,” Buildings, vol. 11, no. 10, Art. no. 485, 2021.
  15. K. G. Vandoros and S. E. Dritsos, “Concrete jacket construction detail effectiveness when strengthening RC columns,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 264–276, 2008.
  16. E. Işık and H. Özlük, “Evaluation of Tatvan's urban building stock,” Int. Anatolia Acad. Online J., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 8–21, 2013.
  17. M. E. Şahinli, “Investigation of the seismic performance of structures in the South Çankaya region of Ankara using rapid street survey methods and linear analysis of existing structures according to TBDY-2018,” M.S. thesis, Kırıkkale Univ., Kırıkkale, Türkiye, 2022.
  18. D. Kahraman, “Comparison of parameters used in rapid screening methods with structural seismic performance,” M.S. thesis, Bitlis Eren Univ., Bitlis, Türkiye, 2019.
  19. E. Işık, N. Bozkurt, and V. Taşkın, “Investigation of the building stock in Muş province using the Canadian seismic survey method and the seismicity of the region,” Suleyman Demirel Univ. J. Nat. Appl. Sci., vol. 21, no. 2, p. 421, 2016.
  20. B. Özkul and E. Gülgeç, “Comparison of the seismic performance of a reinforced concrete school building using 4 different rapid assessment methods,” J. Balikesir Univ. Inst. Sci. Technol., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 152–171, 2022.
  21. M. Altıner, “Rapid assessment methods for determining the collapse risk of reinforced concrete buildings under earthquake impact,” M.S. thesis, Istanbul Kultur Univ., Istanbul, Türkiye, 2008.
  22. Ş. Kızılkaya, “Comparative evaluation and application of FEMA 154 rapid visual survey, Canadian seismic survey, and Japanese seismic index methods,” M.S. thesis, Istanbul Technical Univ., Istanbul, Türkiye, 2018.
  23. National Research Council Canada, Manual for Screening of Buildings for Seismic Investigation. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Inst. Res. Constr., Nat. Res. Council Canada, 1993.
  24. AFAD, Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBDY 2018). Ankara, Türkiye: Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, Ministry of Interior, 2018.
  25. H. Sucuoğlu, U. Yazgan, and A. Yakut, “A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 441–458, 2007.
  26. U. Albayrak, M. Canbaz, and G. Albayrak, “A rapid seismic risk assessment method for existing building stock in urban areas,” Procedia Eng., vol. 118, pp. 1242–1249, 2015.
  27. E. Işık, “Investigation of an existing RC building with different rapid assessment methods,” Bitlis Eren Univ. J. Sci. Technol., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 71–74, 2015.
  28. İ. B. Karaşin, E. Işık, and B. Antep, “A case study of Canadian seismic screening method in Lake Van Basin,” J. Mech. Civ. Eng., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 91–95, 2016.
  29. İ. B. Karaşin, B. Eren, and E. Işık, “Investigation of an existing masonry building with different rapid assessment method,” Dicle Univ. J. Inst. Nat. Appl. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 70–76, 2016.
  30. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,” Biometrics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 159–174, 1977