Journals / Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4

Seismic risk priorities of site and mid-rise RC buildings in Turkey

Pages
191–203
DOI
—
🏛️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)

The results obtained were interpreted and recommendations were made.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Especially, the large-scale loss of life and property caused by the significant earthquakes in recent years has brought the importance of research and measures to betaken on this issue.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, a total of 1620, 5-storey buildingsfrom all provinces of Turkey were assessed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results obtained were interpreted and recommendations were made.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Especially, the large-scale loss of life and property caused by the significant earthquakes in recent years has brought the importance of research and measures to betaken on this issue. Determining and analysing the ever-increasing building stock ofthe cities and detecting and managing all information related to buildings are important in terms of spatial planning and urban transformation. This study aims todetermine tectonic characteristics calculating a and b values of Gutenberg- Richtermagnitude-frequency relation which forms the basis of earthquake statistics for allcities in Turkey and the reinforced-concrete buildings which are primarily risky interms of urban transformation. For this purpose, a total of 1620, 5-storey buildingsfrom all provinces of Turkey were assessed. Twenty reinforced concrete buildingsfrom each province were taken into consideration which has 5-stories. The first stageevaluation method specified in the principles regarding the identification of riskybuildings issued in 2013 by the Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Environment and Urbanization was used in this study. The performance scores for 1620 buildings werecalculated by using this method. A risk priority map was created for the provinces,taking into account for these buildings. The study aims to determine risk priorities ofsite and mid-rise reinforced-concrete buildings among the cities. The results obtained were interpreted and recommendations were made.

🔖

Cite This Article

IŞIK, E., KARAŞİN, İ. B., DEMİRCİ, A., BÜYÜKSARAÇ, A. (2020). Seismic risk priorities of site and mid-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4, 191–203. https://ajindex.com/articles/351793

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Ahmed MM, Jahan I, Alam MJ (2014). Earthquake vulnerability assessment of existing buildings in cox’s-bazar using field survey & GIS. International Journal of Engineering, 3(8), 1147-1156.
  2. Aki K (1965). Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N=abM and its confidence limits. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, 43, 237-239.
  3. Aksoylu C, Öztürk O, Erkan İH, Arslan MH (2016). Investigation of vertical column discontinuity in reinforced concrete buildings. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 7(6), 474-481.
  4. Alam N, Alam MS, Tesfamariam S (2012). Buildings’ seismic vulnerability assessment methods: a comparative study. Natural Hazards, 62(2), 405-424.
  5. Alan E (2016). Deprem İstatistik Programı V1. Alan Mühendislik, Turkey. Albayrak U, Canbaz M, Albayrak G (2015). A rapid seismic risk assessment method for existing building stock in urban areas. Procedia Engineering, 118, 1242-1249.
  6. Anadolu NC, Kalyoncuoğlu ÜY (2010). Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesinin depremselliği ve deprem tehlike analizi. Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Natural and Applied Science, 14(1), 84-94.
  7. Arslan MH, Ceylan M, Kayuncu TA (2010). New method for rapid assessment of performances of existing RC buildings under earthquake loading. IV. European Conference on Computational Mechanics Palais des Congrès, Paris, France Arslan MH, Olgun M, Köroğlu MA, Erkan IH, Köken A, Tan O (2013). 19 May 2011 Kütahya--Simav earthquake and evaluation of existing sample RC buildings according to the TEC-2007 criteria. Natural Hazards & Earth System Sciences, 13(2). Ates A, Kayıran T, Sincer I (2003). Structural interpretation of the Marmara region, NW Turkey, from aeromagnetic, seismic and gravity data. Tectonophysics, 367(1-2), 41-99.
  8. Ateş A, Bilim F, Büyüksaraç A, Bektaş O (2008). A tectonic interpretation of the MarmaraSea, NW Turkey from geophysical data. Earth Planets and Space, 60(3), 169–177.
  9. Ateş A, Büyüksaraç A, Bilim F, Bektaş Ö, Şendur Ç, Komanovalı G (2009). Spatial correlation of the aeromagnetic anomalies and seismogenic faults in the Marmara region, NW Turkey. Tectonophysics, 478(1-2), 135-142.
  10. Ates A, Bilim F, Buyuksarac A, Aydemir A, Bektas O, Aslan Y (2012). Crustal structure of Turkey from aeromagnetic, gravity and deep seismic reflection data. Surveys in Geophysics, 33(5), 869-885.
  11. Bal IE, Gulay FG, Tezcan SS (2008). A new approach for the preliminary seismic assessment of RC buildings: P25 scoring method. Proceedings of 14th WCEE, 12-17. Bayrak Y,