Dergiler / Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics / 2021 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3

A comparative study on the structural performance of an RC building based on updated seismic design codes: case of Turkey

Sayfa
123–134
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The results revealed that there are changes to be made to increase the seismic capacity of the structure at the point of reducing earthquake damage.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The destructive earthquakes and structural damages reveal the importance of the rules of earthquake-resistant structural design.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The last five seismic design codes (1968, 1975, 1998, 2007 and 2018) were taken into account within the scope of this study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The results revealed that there are changes to be made to increase the seismic capacity of the structure at the point of reducing earthquake damage.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2007 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

The destructive earthquakes and structural damages reveal the importance of the rules of earthquake-resistant structural design. The need of update and renewal of these rules periodically become inevitable as a result of scientific developments, in novations in construction technologies and building materials. Turkey which is an extremely region in terms of seismicity was adapted to these changes through time. The last five seismic design codes (1968, 1975, 1998, 2007 and 2018) were taken into account within the scope of this study. The differences in dimension and material grades of structural elements such as columns as beams have been compared in de tail for each code. Three different analysis types have been performed for a 4-story reinforced-concrete model such as eigenvalue, pushover and dynamic time-history via the minimum conditions for these elements in each code. The natural vibration period of the building was obtained with empirical formulas stipulated in different codes for the sample RC building, additionally. The size and the type of the materials used in beams and columns within the last five codes have been changed. We see that the changes in these two important parameters which affect the behavior of buildings during an earthquake, enhance the performance of the building. It has been revealed that changes and renewals in seismic design codes are a necessity and gain. It has been clearly revealed that each amended code increases the stiffness and enhance the seismic capacity of a structure. Each updated seismic design code is aimed to complete the deficiency of the previous one. The results revealed that there are changes to be made to increase the seismic capacity of the structure at the point of reducing earthquake damage.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

IŞIK, E. (2021). A comparative study on the structural performance of an RC building based on updated seismic design codes: case of Turkey. Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3, 123–134. https://ajindex.com/articles/418520

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (7)

  1. ABYYHY-1968 (1968). Specification for Structures to be built in Disaster Areas. Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/12801.pdf ABYYHY-1975 (1975). Specification for Structures to be built in Disaster Areas. Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved from https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/destek/icerikler/1_1_1975_deprem_yonetmel-g--20191127140243.pdf ABYYHY-1998 (1998). Specification for Structures to be built in Disaster Areas. Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved from https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/destek/icerikler/1_2_1997_deprem_yonetmel-g--20191127140319.pdf
  2. Aksoylu C, Arslan MH (2019a). Empirical evaluation of periodic calculations for frame+shear wall type of reinforced concrete buildings according to TEC-2019 Standard. Uludağ University Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, 24(3), 365-382.
  3. Aksoylu C, Arslan MH (2019b). Çerçeve türü betonarme binaların periyod hesaplarının farklı ampirik bağıntılara göre irdelenmesi. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 569-581. (in Turkish) Aksoylu C, Arslan MH (2021). 2007 ve 2019 deprem yönetmeliklerinde betonarme binalar için yer alan farklı deprem kuvveti hesaplama yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılmalı olarak irdelenmesi. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 13(2), 359-374. (in Turkish) Aksoylu C, Mobark A, Arslan MH, Hakkı Erkan İ (2020). A comparative study on ASCE 7-16, TBEC-2018 and TEC-2007 for reinforced concrete buildings. Revista de la Construcción, 19(2), 282-305.
  4. Alyamaç KE, Erdoğan AS (2005). Geçmişten günümüze afet yönetmelikleri ve uygulamada karşılaşılan tasarım hataları. 4th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Kocaeli, Turkey. Antoniou S, Pinho R (2003). Seismostruct–Seismic Analysis Program by Seismosoft. Technical Manual and User Manual. Bozer A (2020). Comparison of spectral accelerations according to DBYBHY 2007 and TBDY 2018 earthquake codes. Dicle Univercity Jounal of Engineering, 11(1), 393-404.
  5. Caglar N, Demir A, Ozturk H, Akkaya A (2015). A simple formulation for effective flexural stiffness of circular reinforced concrete columns. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 38, 79-87.
  6. Chopra, AK, Goel RK (2002). A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 561-582. DBYYHY-2007 (2007).
  7. Turkish Earthquake Code. Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2007/03/20070306-3- 1.pdf EN 1998-3 (2005). Eurocode-8: Design