Dergiler / ARI The Bulletin of the Istanbul Technical University / 2003 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 2

Advances in earthquake risk assessment and hazard reduction for large inventory of structures with high characteristic variability

Sayfa
38–57
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
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)

This paper presents the methodologies and advances in large-scale seismic risk evaluation and hazard reduction, and identifies the needs for further research.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Seismic risk assessment and hazard mitigation for urban infrastructures located in seismic regions is a challenge faced by many countries around the world, especially those with infrastructures known for their variability in seismic resistance and quality of construction.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Thus, there is an urgent need for a systematic strategy that will allow for a reliable assessment of the seismic hazard risk of existing structures through an effective and economical methodology.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:This paper presents the methodologies and advances in large-scale seismic risk evaluation and hazard reduction, and identifies the needs for further research.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Seismic risk assessment and hazard mitigation for urban infrastructures located in seismic regions is a challenge faced by many countries around the world, especially those with infrastructures known for their variability in seismic resistance and quality of construction. Two recent major earthquakes that hit the densely populated urban areas in Northwest Turkey resulted in a large-scale destruction and loss of life. Scientific studies indicate that the probability of occurrence of another severe and destructive earthquake along the North Anatolian Fault near Istanbul is quite high in the next thirty years. This situation presents a serious threat to the large building stock and their occupants, lifelines, and critical facilities in Istanbul and adjacent areas. The criticality of the situation is exacerbated by the fact that, the existing structures in these areas are known to have high variability in their seismic resistance, which makes it difficult to estimate the potential losses in case of a major earthquake. Limited time and funds do not allow for a detailed evaluation of the entire inventory of structures according to seismic codes. Thus, there is an urgent need for a systematic strategy that will allow for a reliable assessment of the seismic hazard risk of existing structures through an effective and economical methodology. Prioritization of these structures according to their hazard risk, and implementation of the necessary mitigation measures are required. This paper presents the methodologies and advances in large-scale seismic risk evaluation and hazard reduction, and identifies the needs for further research.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, O., GÜNEŞ, O. (2022). Advances in earthquake risk assessment and hazard reduction for large inventory of structures with high characteristic variability. ARI The Bulletin of the Istanbul Technical University, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 2, 38–57. https://ajindex.com/articles/448173

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (22)

  1. T. Parsons, S. Toda, R. Stein, A. Barka, and J.H. Dieterich, Bilim ve Teknik, 390, 90 (2000)
  2. TC-BIB, Specification for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas, (Ministry of Public Works and; Settlement, Ankara, Turkey, 1998)
  3. UDK, Deprem Zararlarını Azaltma Ulusal Stratejisi, (Ulusal Deprem Konseyi, Ankara, Turkey, 2002)
  4. DIE, Bina Sayımı 2000 (T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü:// www. die. gov.tr/konular/insaat. htm, 2000)
  5. TC-BIB, Specification for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas, (Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey, 1975)
  6. EERI, Earthquake Spectra 13, 4 (1997)
  7. A.W. Coburn, R.J.S. Sspence, and A. Pomonis, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment, Disaster Management Training Programme (DMTP) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), (Cambridge Architectural Research Limited, Cambridge, UK, 1994)
  8. CSSC, Earthquake Risk Management: A Toolkit for Decision-Makers, California Seismic Safety Commission, (CSSC Report 99-04, Sacramento, CA 1999)
  9. A.M. Chandler and T.K.L. Nelson, Engineering Structures 23, 1525 (2001)
  10. F. Bendimerad, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21, 67 (2001)
  11. FEMA, Estimating Losses From Future Earthquakes, Panel Report, (Washington, D.C, 1989)
  12. S. L. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering (Prentice Hall, NJ, 1996)
  13. A. Marcellini, R. Daminelli, G. Franceschina, and M. Pagani, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21, 415 (2001)
  14. A. Frankel, S. Hartzell, and E. Şafak, Assessment of Seismic Hazard at Ford-Otosan Plant in Gölcük, Turkey, (U.S. Geological Survey, Geol. Hazards Team (CO,1999)
  15. FEMA, HAZUS 99 Technical Manual (Washington, D.C, 1999)
  16. IBC, Int. Code Council, Falls Church (VA, 2000)
  17. ATC, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, ATC-13 (Redwood City, California, 1985)
  18. FEMA, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook (Washington, D.C, 1988)
  19. P. Gülkan, A. Yakut, H. Sucuoğlu, M. S. Yücemen, and E. Cıtıpıtıoğlu, A Seismic Damage Assessment Form for Engineered Construction, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No: 94.01 (Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 1994)
  20. FEMA, NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (Washington, D.C, 1992)
  21. FEMA, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings-A Prestandard (Washington, D.C, 1998)
  22. A.S. Scarlat, Approximate Methods in Structural Seismic De