A limited time offer!

urgent 3h delivery guaranteed

Earthquake Performance of Reinfoced Concrete Buildings

EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE OF REINFOCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS: A CASE STUDY FROM MARMARA TURKEY Korkut Mirzai 08074260 Bachelor Science with Honors Degree in Construction Project Management. Oxford Brookes University. Department of the Built of Environment.

We will write a custom essay sample on Earthquake Performance of Reinfoced Concrete Buildings

or any similar topic only for you

Order Now

March 2012 List of Abbreviations: RC: Reinforcement Concrete TR: Turkey UK: United Kingdom USA: United States of America EU: European Union MHI: Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure EQ: Earthquake Code EE: Earthquake Engineering TSE: Turkish Standard Institute TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1   Purpose of the research……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2   Research Question …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Chapter 2: Research

Methods ……………………………………………………………………………. 3 Interviews……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5   Face to face interviews …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5   Telephone Interviews ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..   Interview Structure …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7   Case studies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 Chapter 3: Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9   Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. An effective Code ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9   Comparison with the California code………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10   The update to the Turkish Code …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12   Compliance with the

Code…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14 Chapter 4: Data Presentation…………………………………………………………………………… 16   Interview ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16   Chapter 5: Case Study …………………………………………………………………………………….. 21   Building

A …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21   Building B …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23   Building C …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25   Building D …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26   SUMMARY OF CASE

STUDY ……………………………………………………………………………… 29   Chapter 6: Conclusion & Recommendations……………………………………………………….. 30   Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30   Regulation and political issues: ………………………………………………………………………… 31 Recommendation: …………………………………………………………………………………………. 1   Limitation of study…………………………………………………………………………………………. 32   References……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33   Appendixes…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank George Blumberg for all the guidance that he provided me with throughout the writing of this dissertation.

I would also like to thank Nejat Bayulken for helping with my questionnaire and Luke Murgatrody and Sammuel Gracey for helping to correct my grammatical errors. I wish to acknowledge my classmates; Robert Leeming, Simon Yallop. Sagar Rasioni and Gianni Spagnolli , who were always ready to help in any time during dissertation research. At last, many thank all those at Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineer Department in Ankara / Turkey who helped me bring together the information that needed to complete this dissertation. 1

Abstract: This dissertation investigates earthquake performance of reinforced building during an earthquake specifically within Turkey. The Marmara earthquake highlighted serious problems with Turkish buildings and how they perform during seismic activity. Marmara is situated on one of the worlds most active tectonic regions. This study focused on the standpoints of Turkish Government and Engineers attempt in construction problems that they were facing it for many years. My research identifes the probem that earthquake has caused in Turkey .

The problem that Turkish Government and Engineers have faced in regard to fall down of the buildings in Marmara region. The research highglited that there were three important question that need to be answered; • • • To consider the effectiveness of building codes in an earthquake zone. To investigate why 1974 Earthquake Code was not successful. What are new updates in present Earthquake Code? and Did Turkish government take lesson from it ? The research will focus on four different case studies that were in the earthquake region.

The case studies will explain the techniques applied to structures in order to understand any problems that arise from the engineers or contractors and materials. This will be done by collecting data from Turkish Republic Disaster and Emergency Management sources and Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure. The recommendations from this report are that while common issues are highlighted about what government willingness to improve levels of assurance in regards to earthquake disaster that Turkey may have in future. Word Count : 8593 Keywords: Construction Industry, Earthquakes, Workmanship, Damage, Training, Material Quality, in Turkey. Background This dissertation reports an analysis of the state of the regulatory compliance of buildings constructed in the Marmara region of Turkey. Through an analysis of past and present practices, this study systematically addresses the vulnerability of buildings to destruction from earthquakes. This study focuses on the buildings in the Marmara region that were built after the introduction of the 1974 building codes (MPWH 1998), which recognised the need to implement improved design, architecture, and construction techniques in order to prevent catastrophic building collapse during earthquakes.

This code and the buildings build after its introduction were tested on August 17, 1999 during the Izmit earthquake (also known as the Kocaeli or Golcuk earthquake) of 7. 6 magnitude. Many of building collapsed, although a significant number survived. In addition, there were casualties caused by falling objects in buildings that did not suffer catastrophic collapse. Research Question What is the best approach to systematically study the compliance of buildings built after the 1974 building code in their ability to survive destruction from an earthquake? 1 Purpose of the research

The main purpose of this research is to provide a structured approach to the study of the complex problems associated with building in an EQ zone. 1. To understand the complex technical and regulatory situation around the application of an effective building code to prevent death due to EQs in Turkey. 2. To support engineers and contractors in understanding of this complex and challenging situation and to point the way towards better codes, design application and good quality construction materials. 3. To consider other aspects of the code such as the internal detailing and fixing movable objects to prevent damage during and EQ.

Research Question • Is there a systematic way to consider the effectiveness of building codes in an earthquake zone? • • Why 1974 Earthquake Code was not successful? What are new updates in present Earthquake Code? and Did Turkish government take lesson from it ? 2 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS The section presents the methodology that is designed to address the research question and focuses on the development of a systematic study plan to understand the suitability of the building codes and whether builders have been compliant in construction.

The study also takes into account other developments in Turkey, such as the rapid population increase and the need to build high density residential structures. The research method is based upon the organization of a wide variety of information and knowledge that encompass political, regulatory, social, cultural, engineering and geophysics. Survived Followed code Did not follow code (a) (c) Did not Survive (b) (d) Table 1 contains the main research structure followed in this paper on buildings after the introduction of the 1974 Building Code that survived or did not survive.

The table contains four separate cases, labeled (a), (b), (c) and (d). These will be discussed and analysed in this paper. The method followed in this dissertation will be how to analyise the four cases shown in Table 1. In this table, the four cases are: (a) those buildings who’s builders claimed to have followed Code and survived, (b) those buildings who’s builders claimed to have followed code, but collapsed, (c) those who did not follow the code, but survived (such as historic buildings) and (d) those who did not follow code and were destroyed. This issertation is designed to provide a structured approach to the analytical and qualitative study (Glazier Jack D & Powell 1992) of earthquake resilience. Furthermore, qualitative method is the way to fully assess earthquake vulnerability and involves many experiments and study of a large scale that is already being conducted. However, for the purposes of this study, visual inspection of buildings preserved in photographs are analysed to understand their condition and learn 3 something of their survival status. Observations of this sort it direct and useful, however subject to errors (Murakami et al. , 1999).

Table 2 contains a comparison of quantitative and qualitative approaches and how the study reported here is an attempt to survey these approaches and come up with an overview that will help to better understand the particular situation affecting the resilience of buildings in the Marmara region to earthquakes. Quantitative Aim Relationship Between Researcher & Subject Scope of Findings Relationship Between Theory and Research Nature of Data Hard & Reliable Rich and Deep Numeric Comparing Idiographic Development Fact Distant Finding based on evidence Qualitative Attitude based on ideas and measurements Close

Table 2 Differences Between Quantitative Research and Qualitative Research. Table 2 shows the differences between research methods, I have followed the quantitative method, as this is a more appropriate route for the data I am collecting, as it is a fact-based study. By using quantitative exploratory research, I will be more into issues and problems. This enabled me to understand; 1. To investigate what is happening. 2. To ask question and interviews with professionals. 3. To create ideas and theory for future study. 4 Interviews Face to face interviews

The interviews were conducted in order to get a better understanding of the reasons why some buildings survived the EQ and others didn’t. Face to face interviews have a distinct advantage of enabling the researcher to gain insight into situation where there is a lack of published information or the authorities may be hiding something. These interviews produce highest response in the research and it will also allow the researcher to understand impressive answers and when appropriate. Despite their expense, they provide invaluable insight into a complex political and technical area.

The main objective of the interviews was to gain insight into the four (4) cases of buildings as first described in Table 1. Was the Code followed? Did the building perform? Was the Code effective? This is very variable and can be used to collect considerable amounts of information. During personal interview, any type of questionnaire can be used. Personal interviews took two forms: planned and unplanned. Unplanned interviews sometime yield surprising results as they often catch the person off guard and they reveal something interesting or previously hidden.

During my research period, I have done both as it helped me to understand the topic better, and also to reach knowledgeable people and gain insight. During my research period, interview with Nejat Basulke took place on 14th January 2012; he is president of chamber of Civil Engineers. Telephone Interviews Telephone interviews are less time consuming and less expensive and it also gives the opportunity to access to anyone who has telephone. 1. 1. It can be more flexible as interviewer can explain questions not understood by the respondent.

Depending on respondent’s answer they can skip some questions and probe more on others. 5 2. 3. Allows better sample control. Response rate be likely to be higher than mail. 6 Interview Structure The questions were mainly based upon George Blumberg’s suggestions on building performance and materials. The questions were designed and formatted in such a way that the respondent could present their complete view about the topic. Detailed questions and original answers can be found at the end of this dissertation in the appendix section. 1. What is your definition of Earthquake Engineering?

This question is very important, as it will show that respondent actually believes is Earthquake Engineering and this will then determine how the following questions will be answered and how much emphasis can be put onto their results. 2. What are main failures that buildings are collapsing? This is question that will identify the main problems of the buildings and what cause them to collapse. 3. Why there were so many project errors? How approves them? Did not they consider the Earthquake Code. Following swiftly on from the previous question is a question designed to make the responder give his own opinion. . Most of the buildings are built on reinforced system, was it true ? i Especially f the country on laying on the seismic regions . By asking this question, it will mean to be quite a probing question to get the responder to think about the failings encountered and try and reason why these failings happened. 5. How is the poor workmanship affects the buildings? This is very important question due to the lack of information in my research. 6. What the recommendations, in order to build earthquake resistance building, as well as following the earthquake code?

This is a good start from which to suggest improvements review and it should provide a good start from which suggests improvements and this could identify new improvements that have not been researched or improved. Therefore this 7 question could end up being the most necessary part of the research the solutions could help to make it better. Case studies Our choice of case studies was made in order to explore the elements of the buildings that experience the 1999 EQ as shown in Table 1 where buildings that both survived and did not survive are studied.

The same information was derived from each case study. These criteria are: did they follow the code, what was the reason for failure (or survival), compliance to the code 1974. Case studies are mainly used when the researcher be determined to keep up my argument by an in depth analysis of the project “ Reinforced Concrete Building in Golcuk” which constructed under Code 1974. The nature of the case study focuses on one aspect, in my case study, this would be, why reinforced concrete buildings are easy target in earthquake. According to S. G.

Naoum (2007) there are three types of case studies (Table 4). The Descriptive Case Study Quite similar to the concept of descriptive survey “ counting” The analytical Case Study Similar to theory of investigative survey “Counting, and Association “ The Explanatory Case Using the theoretical approach to the problems and comparing them. Table 3 The Case Study Approach to addressing the research question. The case study is most useful for generating theory and the main advantage of a case study is that it gives me a opportunity to study one phase of the problem in detail from many different viewpoints. CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS ANALYSIS The analysis in this section is based on the information gathered during the experimental stages using the method described in the previous section. Since the objectives of the research reported in this dissertation are designed to provide a better understanding of the effectiveness of building codes in a Turkish earthquake zone, the then analysis is presented in order to uncover how to better conduct a study into the details of code compliance.

A summary of this can be seen in Figure 1, where the resilience of a building in an EQ zone depends on the effectiveness of the code and on how well it has been applied to the construction. An Effective Code Compliance with the Code and the resialiance to Figure 1 shows the relation between an effective building code damage due to EQs This advantage of studying the situation in Turkey is that the frequency and intensity of earthquakes, coupled with high population density, leads to a situation where buildings are tested to the extreme.

An effective Code In the absence of effective advance warning of earthquakes the only measure that can be taken to protect occupants of buildings is to construct them using materials and with a design that is resistant to damage due to earthquake movement. Building EQ resistant buildings is a well develop practice and in certain places where these buildings are required, there are very few casualties from collapsed buildings. For instance in the Los Angeles EQ of 1994 resulted in only 20 deaths despite the size of the quake (BBC News 1994).

This is due to an effective building code that is adhered to by everybody who builds. Furthermore, there are measures in the Code to prevent falling objects from coming loose and striking people during an EQ. The major reason for the damage in reinforced concrete structures is because, they are not fully designed for seismic movement, and therefore reinforced concrete buildings cannot sow spongy behaviour in earthquake. Well-designed 9 structures should be capable of resisting motions equally from three directions of earthquake effects.

The damages in reinforced buildings have occurred due to design and construction methods, such as use of poor resistant’s concrete, the weak reinforcement of soft stories and beam joints. The damages in unreinforced building should not be a surprising, as it is not obeyed the construction rules and new updated Earthquake Code. In this dissertation, the oberservations and my findings on the damages reinforced concrete and other type of building have been assessed, in order to understand the matters, Turkish Earthquake Codes (2007) directed towards design have been discussed especially for building.

Comparison with the California code Revisions to the practice of earthquake codes in construction engineering in Turkey have usually followed major, detrimental earthquakes. This trend is not exceptional to Turkey because changes in design practice in Japan, Mexico, and the United States have followed major earthquakes in those countries (Nisee 2010). Provisions for particular detailing of reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames for yielding reaction were introduced in Turkey in early 1975s.

These requirements were considerably similar to those introduced in the United States in the early 1970s (Nisee 2010). On the other hand, the construction of buildings with ductile details was not authorized as it was in California in the 1970s. To a certain extent, buildings could be constructed without special details for ductile response or ductile details. According to Nisee (2010) report “ For modern reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames of high ductility (U. S California Code. , the ordinates of the 1997 Turkish lateral-force-coefficient spectra exceed those of the 1997 California Code for both rock and firm soil sites. Recognizing that the prescriptive details of the 1997 California Code and the 1997 Turkish code for frames of high 10 ductility are similar, the performance of buildings designed to either code should be similar if the standards of construction are comparable”. Lateral Force – Resisting System Reinforced concrete shear wall Reinforced frame Steel braced frame Steel resisting frame 6 6 7 6. 5 concrete moment-resisting 1974 to 1999 Turkey 6 7 1974 to 1999 USA 7 7. Table 4 Comparing of two different seismic codes, (Nisee 2010) According to Table 4, the reviews of two different codes bring the idea of the similarities in most other regards. Although the codes are very similar with each other, the buildings are should have designed and constructed in accordance with these codes, it must have performed equally, if the construction quality is the similar. Therefore, most of the collapsed multi-storey buildings were believed to be highly earthquake resistant. They were not for some or all of the following reasons: 1.

Most of the buildings did not meet the design requirements of the code and included details that are not earthquake resistant, due to inadequate vertical and horizontal reinforcing steel and the widespread use of smooth reinforcing steel. 2. The design structural engineer, the contractor, does not inspect the ongoing construction to verify that the contractor has built the building according to the intent of the Earthquake Code requirements. 3. 4. 5. Many of the buildings were built with very poor and inappropriate construction materials and utilized poor workmanship.

Most of the structures were knowingly allowed to be built on active faults. Many buildings were not engineered, but built according to past experience with 1974 code. 11 According to my research, I have found the main reason between California Code and Turkish Code. This because, it was cheaper to construct stronger buildings without special details for ductile response than weaker buildings with ductile detailing, non ductile moment-resisting frame construction was most common in Turkey up to the time of the Izmit earthquake (Nisee 2010).

Since 1974, California has made a significant process towards earthquake safety for the structures. California Code became more useful and made California state safer from potentially deactivating earthquakes. These new policies that has the following basic principles; 1. 2. Continual improvement in education and new skills about earthquakes and better techniques for mitigating their effects. Evolutionary improvement in public policy affecting the design and construction that can fit California’s built environment. The update to the Turkish Code Earthquake code of Turkey is prepared around three times, 1959, 1975, 2007.

This earthquake code includes regulations for general principles of earthquakes. Such as specifications is to avoid structural and non-structural elements of building from any damage in low-intensity earthquakes; to limit the damage in structural and non-structural elements to repairable levels in medium-intensity earthquakes, and to prevent the overall or partial collapse of buildings in high- intensity earthquakes in order to avoid the loss of life (MPWS 1998)). Marmara Earthquake in 1999, most of the contractors are failed to follow earthquake codes, so this esulted errors in (Europan Journal of Educational Studies 2(1), 2010); • Low quality concrete is used in 90% • Corrosion problem in 64. 20% • Sea sand (with salt) is used in 61. 23% • Service life ends in 16% 12 • Bad concrete curing in 11. 27% • Various architectural mistakes in 12% • Soil problems in 23. 40% In 1997, the government tried to update the Earthquake for the new and existing structures, to offer a little protection from the collapse. Between 1997 to 1999, less than 25 % of all buildings in Turkey conform to the update in Earthquake Code in 1997 (Coburn 1995:84).

Last earthquake code covers the regulations about repairing and reinforcement of existing buildings. The general purpose of earthquake resistant design with this new specification is to avoid structural and non-structural elements of buildings from any damage in low-intensity earthquakes; to limit the damage in structural and non-structural elements to avoid the overall or partial collapse of buildings in high- intensity earthquakes in order to avoid the loss of life. 2007 TEC consists of following titles (Turkish Earthquake Code, 2007, MPWH 1998).

These new updates are based on Table 5; Earthquake Resistant Design rules for Reinforced Concrete Structures Earthquake Resistant Design rules for Masonry Structures. Earthquake Resistant Design rules for Steel Structures Eartquake Resistant Design on Reinforcement of Existing Earthquake Resistant Design rules for Foundations. Reinforcement of Structures. Site Feasibility Work. Material Selections. Table 5 New Updates on Earthquake Code 2007. 13 Compliance with the Code What were the problems with public records? During my research, I found no evidence of inspections that has been done.

Normally, the countries, who do follow their Earthquake Code, the municipalities are responsible for supervising building construction projects. However in Turkey, this works up side down, this mainly because most of them have inadequate skills and resources to fulfill this responsibility. According to a theory, to having a established building codes and land use regulations, such as in the U. S. A and UK, before the project begins, the architecture, structural engineer and designers must be submit their paper works for the structure that they are going to build and get the approval construction permit.

In consequent, most municipal planning offices employ no structural engineers and stamp plans as “received” without checking the technical considerations of the project. (Gulkan, 2001; Gulkan, 2002) Local governments are permitted to shut down construction sites if these plans do not meet their regulations, but problems are more regularly met with an institutional “averting of eyes”. (Gulkan, 2002) Furthermore, municipalities are not liable for mistakes in development, and no legal action against officials has ever been taken. Balamir, 2001; Gulkan, 2002). Lack of education on the risks of EQ : The research has shown me some important issue with lack of education on the risks of EQ. Most of Turkish graduates, as soon as they achieved their degree (diploma), have the authority, according to Turkish Law to do any type of projects, and to be any type of project manager on any construction. Aydinoglu (1998) ‘stop my friend, to be a project engineer is not such an easy job, you need to be wellversed in earthquake engineering and construction technology, and have your work assessed’.

Polat Gulkan (2000) Ankara Technical University/ Turkey spoken the difficulty in terms of the safety afforded the ill coordinated “expert” at the cost of public safety; “In Turkey any engineer who holds a current diploma, without regard for the (theoretical) degree of difficulty of the project, can put his/her signature to any project. Expert status in engineering has not been established. This in effect equips engineers and other experts, like [government] officials, with 14 an iron-plated immunity “. (Gulkan, 2001). Experience is one of the important need for earthquake engineering.

There are many architects or civil engineers applied to work in Consulting and Inspection Bureau (CCE) . According to The head of the Istanbul CCE, Cemal Gokce, stated ‘But I know that most of these colleagues of mine have never drafted a project in their lives. They should not give permission to these people to open a bureau just because they are politically close to the Ministry of Public Works and Housing (quoted in TDN, 29 October 1999). The political situation and the difficulty of doing business: Until late 2000’s, If you know some one in parliaments, it was really easy to set up a construction company and built.

This was due to political power behind the owner or the contractor. Therefore, most of the rules were not applying to them. In august 20th, 1998,the public prosecutor for the Ankara State Security Court launched an investigation in order to find out the allege corruption in state tenders for housing contractors for Marmara EQ. The Minister for Public Works and Housing and his father created a company selling construction equipment and, it was alleged, forced companies submitting construction tenders for the building of permanent housing for earthquake survivors to buy materials from this company.

Most of the materials were not even approved by TSE and also recommended by the Earthquake Code. This means, due to political power, people were not able to check whether building is built in earthquake area, either temporary or permanent, as they could not find any plans or permissions. The voice from the professions is united: ‘We knew that this fault runs through this area. There were many past earthquakes in this area with the last one 1999 in Goluck. So this is very obvious.

Geologically we know that the area has such a risk, but the outcome shows that the development was totally unplanned’ (Haluk Suguoglu, Director of Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, METU). 15 CHAPTER 4: DATA PRESENTATION INTERVIEW Who is Nejat Bayulke : Nejat Bayulke graduated from METU with a Bachelor of Civil Engineering. He has worked at the Earthquake Research Department for the Ministry of Public Works since 1998. He is currently a leading member of the Chamber of Civil Engineers in Turkey. The interview was in Turkish and then translated by myself “Korkut Mirzai”.

Original speech can be found in Appendix. 1) What is your definition of Earthquake Engineering? There were two responses to this question; the first answer given focused around the evaluation of Earthquake Engineering can be defined as branch of engineering dedicated to earthquake hazards. In his opinion earthquake engineering covers and investigates the problems, then brings the best solution for these problems, which are caused by the seismic movements. Second explanation was that earthquake engineering is the preventative measures taking in designing a building to withstand earth tremors and seismic movements.

These measures may not prevent building damage but should ensure the integrity of the building remains so that collapse doesn’t occur in the event of such natural disasters. Summary: Even though earthquake engineers are quite needed for construction, in Turkey, this is not really common. Most of the buildings are not seen by these engineers in order to get approve of construction stage. According to updated Earthquake Code 2007, any construction in earthquake zone must have one inspection by an earthquake engineer during the construction phrase. ) Why does a structure collapse? There might be an error in the project, or a flaw in the construction; it might be because of the exterior factors. On the other hand, structures collapse due to horizontal loads and pressures, which weaken their supporting materials. Summary: Major problem with structure in Turkey, especially with reinforced 16 concrete, they are not actually designed for seismic region, when there is a earthquake, beams in the building can not carry the horizontal loads, as they become weakened because of the shake. 3) What are the major Project Errors? Mistakes can be made with the load, it might have been calculated less than it should have been, wrong corner cuts and the equipment might be inadequate to support the load, maybe the supporting system is not as it should be or calculation and modeling methods may be insufficient. There might be some consequences of the geometry of the structure but these may be overlooked during calculation. This is a cause of destruction. For example, loads are miscalculated or maybe the possibility of an earthquake is neglected. These are project errors.

Some effects are not taken into consideration, such as rotational and shear forces. For instance, a far more important matter: the tension caused by twisting in warm climates. These don’t appear right away but in time these kind of effects lead to certain damages, fractures in the structure. Summary: When I am examined the buildings, I have clearly noticed, most the buildings have the structural design errors. Especially the one designed with Earthquake Code 1975. My understanding from this question is, the major error in the reinforced concrete building is wrong planning and decisions.

Such as soft ground floor, where the first floor of the building is way much bigger than ground floor, and structure cant not carry the load during the earthquake. Sadly this decision made by engineers or contractors in order to make more profit. The main problem is ensuring that contractors follow the designs that strengthen buildings and not cut any corners for the sake of extra profit. Regular inspections should be carried out during the construction process by a government controlled body as well as the procurement team. 4) Construction Errors? Here in our country the biggest mistake in construction is the fact that the concrete used in the project does not have enough resistance. This, unfortunately, is a grave problem of our country. It was a bigger problem especially in the days when we didn’t have ready mixed concrete. As far as I know a lot of buildings’ concrete 17 resistance decreases down to 1/3 of the resistance required in that project. The equipment is inadequate, misplaced. These, too, are the reasons of the collapses. 5) Why most of the reinforced buildings are collapsed during the earthquake?

Before proceeding to the explanation as well as the analysis of the idea of, reinforced concrete buildings, it seems necessary to first give and describe its main features. To begin with, in Turkey, owing to the poor workmanship in design and application and the low quality of materials, reinforced concrete buildings tend to be affected, damaged by earthquakes. Then, the current strength of the concrete of the complemented structure is estimated at 100 kg/cm2; nevertheless, when earthquakes occur and buildings fall apart, this value can plummet to 60-70 kg/cm2.

It is to be reminded that, in theory the design strength of concrete is valued at 160 kg/cm2 (cube strength). From the above, it can be inferred that in Turkey, most buildings do not respect the established “earthquake resistant design code”. Anchorage lengths, longitudinal bars, close spacing are illustrations of rules rarely considered and applied in today’s construction. Within the context of earthquakes, it is noticeable that, in terms of conceptual design, very few are the buildings provided with an earthquake resistant structural system with a proper frame or a frame-shear wall system.

To sum up, due to the above mentioned reasons, in Turkey, most reinforced concrete buildings are exposed to earthquakes. Summary : My understanding from this question would be nearly most of the reinforced concrete buildings are collapsed during the earthquake. Hence All of the collapsed buildings have slab system of joist beams with hollow lightweight concrete block fillers, which completely different than current requirements of Earthquake Code (Earthquake Code 2007) 6) How can you describe the poor workmanship?

In Turkey, most of the construction problems are based on poor workmanship, this mainly due to contractors prefers to either use cheap materials or wrong method of 18 construction. This poor workmanship can be underline in two different ways, one of them is the connections of columns and beams are really weak, as the connection of steel bars did not attach it correctly. An other factor is the granulometry (Definition: Linking to the distribution of grain sizes in sand or rock) of the sand and gravels of concrete were considerably poor.

So those big gravels blocked the solid while casting at site where steel connections were thick as it resulted in very poor and weak connections. So such connections creates a heavy damages during earthquake. Summary : My understanding for poor workmanship which leads to defective works has to be rectified by the contractor or engineers, however, in order to do that, the project will require postponement of time, therefore people just ignoring to follow that stage. Sloppy mistakes such as taking incorrect measurements from plans and specifications created the construction mistakes.

Furthermore, incorrect units and measures during construction have created a defective work. In consequence, the contractors need to reconstruct those construction mistakes which results in taking additional time to complete the project rather than just ignoring it. 7) What the recommendations, in order to build building, as well as following the earthquake code. Recommendations would be to make buildings EQ resistant. This could be done using the building method of tunnel formation (EQ code 2007). This would be the best proposal to improve the earthquake resistance of housing.

Even though, tunnel form systems have been used in Turkey since late 70`s, it did not become a primary choice in the construction until 1999. As a result, tunnel form buildings performed better seismic performance by retarding plastic hinge formations at the most critical locations, such as slab–wall connections and around wall openings than other buildings. During the earthquake, tunnel form buildings do not collect all the power at shear connections, it does divides the energy all over the building, therefore you may feel the intensity more than the buildings, but this a good thing.

Another benefit of tunnel form buildings is that they never collapse earthquake resistance 19 successively as seen in a domino effect, they sway instead. Summary: According the recent earthquakes reports, tunnel forms frame buildings have exhibited better performance than the other buildings “RC”. Since 1999, after the regulations became tighter, the contractors and engineers choice of using the tunnel form has become a primary. 20 CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY BUILDING A The level of damage is less in Sehitler District , most of the buildings are settled towards the side of hills.

The soil condition is hard and the building stock is made up of 2-3 storey steel framed structures and 3-4 storey frameless brick and masonry buildings by 49% and, 3-7 storey reinforced concrete framed buildings by 51% (Ergunay & Gulkan, 1999). Building A (Picture 1) that I have chosen, it was constructed on the seismic fault line, and also this construction type is addressed by the codes/standards in Turkey under “ 1. Regulations for Buildings to Be Built in Disaster Areas (1998) 2.

TS 500: Requirements for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures (2000)”. Furthermore, with good feasibility research, building has constructed on a math foundation, so it can transmit the gravity loads to the soil any vibration from the ground. Picture 1 The Case Study, Building B Sehitler Discrit, (H. Sezen2000) 21 This building has a complete load path for seismic movement effects from any parallel direction that transfers inertial forces from the building to foundation.

The vertical load bearing parts are well attached to the foundations; therefore concrete columns and walls are getting supportive force from the foundation (Picture 2). Picture 2 The Case Study, Building B Sehitler Discrit , Foundation Level, (H. Sezen2000) The walls are the primarily load carried for the buildings and one of the most effective members against earthquakes. Good planed of wall density helped in reducing the unit shear, and enabled most of the elastic response during the strong earthquake period (Picture 3). Most the materials sed in this structure construction were considered to be well adequate per the requirement from the Turkish National Construction Code and Standards. “ Legislation was enacted in April 2000 to enforce mandatory design checking and construction inspection of all buildings by government-licensed private supervision firms. For new buildings, this supervision aims to ensure compliance with earthquake-resistant design codes and nominal construction quality standards’’ (Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education 2003). 22

Picture 3 The Case Study, Building B Sehitler Discrit , Elevation, (H. Sezen2000). BUILDING B Building B (Picture 4) is located in northern side of Golcuk, near by the coast line , this an example building of who followed the Earthquake Code 1974 , but collapsed in 1999 EQ in Marmara. As the building built in around 1975, it was quite old for Turkish building classification. . This building suffered with the little damage as a result of the seismic movement but could not be occupied because it settled due to liquefaction and bearing failure of the supporting soils (Picture 5).

Because, where the building has been build is a concrete filled ground ( where it used to be a sea ), after many years, the sea water started to cracking the concrete and allowed liquefaction. Therefore, unlikely of any ground movement, building were ready to collapse or damages. Until late 2000s, liquefaction was not considered by the Earthquake Code (MPWH 1998). To achieve performance 23 partially stabilized the building. 3. 7. 4 Building D 3. 7. 4. 1 Building Description Building D was a six-story moment-frame building located in the center of Adapazari.

An elevation of the building is shown in Figure improvementson similarliquefaction would have age in beyond collapse prevention, site 3-59. Based to avoid construction of the same Adapazari, the foundation for Building D was probably a mat or raft with a thickness of approximately been required. 1 m. or soil and foundation behavior in performance-based earthqu ng would have satisfied the performance level of collapse pre 1997] and Vision 2000 [SEAOC 1995]), it would not have s life-safety performance level. To achieve performance beyon Figure 3-59 Elevation of Building D o avoid liquefaction would have been required.

Picture 4 The Case Study, Building B North,Golcuk , Elevation, (H. Sezen2000). 3. 7. 4. 2 System Response Building D is an example of poor system performance that was not accompanied by componen damage or failure. This building suffered little damage as a result of the earthquake shaking but could not be occupied because it settled more than 1 m due to liquefaction and bearing failure of the supporting soils (see Figure 3-60). It is likely that this failure of the supporting soils limited the shaking experienced by the building. Services and utilities to the building were destroyed and ingress and egress were most difficult.

The poor performance of this building underscores the need to ure 3-60 Settlement of Building D due to liquefaction and soil-bearing Picture 5 The Case Study, Building B North,Golcuk , Settlement of Building B, due to liquefaction, (H. Sezen2000). ary Remarks e of the discussion of selected buildings is to identify issues re ust be addressed in the development of guidelines and tools f ed earthquake engineering. of this writing, building (system) response is often judged on mponent in the building. Clearly, this approach, although con fective.

Poor behavior of one or two random components doe avior, although poor behavior of one or two key components m sms for redistribution of gravity loads do not exist in a buildi ns to be learned about the collapse of buildings and the desig n or failure. Research on the following topics is needed to im 24 BUILDING C Many of the city’s well-known historical monuments such as Hagia Sophia (Picture 6) may withstand the quake because they were designed by earthquake aware architects and engineers, built soundly of quality materials, and, have already survived from several substantial earthquakes for over thousand years.

In many cases, reinforcements have been added when damage from earlier quakes has been repaired. The reason why this building did not collapse, even though they did not even have earthquake code by that time ,the superior part of the structure is not a box, it’s a series of domes. Domes deliver lateral forces very well for three reasons. 1. First, and primary, even earthquake strong enough to get a dome to sway will not produce areas of the structure that have no support against gravity, because the base is much wider than the top. 2.

Second, domes distribute forces in all directions naturally, and as a consequence the design is much better at dissipating energy. 3. Third, most of the mass of a dome is low, and this lower center of gravity greatly reduces the chance of collapse. Hagia Sophia started showing signs of fatigue and was extensively strengthened with the addition of structural supports to its exterior by the great Ottoman architect Sinan who is also considered one of the first earthquake engineers in the world. Picture 6 The Case Study, Building C Istanbul , Elevation Of Hagia Sofia 25

BUILDING D Building D ( Picture 7) is located in Kavakli district near by the city center along the seacoast where most of the reinforced concrete framed buildings are dominant approximately 75% and ground bearing capacity is low poor soil condition, therefore more than 60 % buildings were heavily damaged or moderately damaged (Ergunay & Gulkan, 1999). Picture 7 The Case Study, Building D Kavakli Discrit , Back Elevation (H. Sezen2000) Reinforced concrete systems are well known to be the most sensitive systems to earthquake loads, unless if they are built with acceptable Earthquake Code standards, construction techniques and good workmanship.

Yet, in this region, most of the above requirements that were not satisfied have become the reasons for high damage on reinforced concrete buildings. The “ cement “ that used on floors, was made of sea sand, therefore it did not actually had a sufficient of cement. However, according to new Earthquake Code 2007 clearly states that concrete quality must be c20 or higher quality, if it based in 26 zone one and two(MPWH 1998). Although, at this building, this level was even lower than c10 level. Using of low quality of cement made building columns weak against earthquakes.

The cracks on the columns and beams let it to be broken due to heavy load and seismic vibration (Picture 8). Picture 8 The Case Study, Building D Kavakli Discrit , Column,(H. Sezen2000) At the first floor columns, at the front face of the building Picture 9. Further damaged can be found around the stairwell at the rear of the structure. The staircases in the back of the stairwell were cast integrally with the external columns. Each landing is located just about 1 m below the beam-column connections.

As can be seen on the Picture 9, Although Earthquake Code requires strong quality of steel in the stairs , there were no enough amount of steel frame used in the connections. So, this means that staircases resulted in short column construction and led to shear failures at the landings (MPWH 1998). 27 Picture 9 The Case Study, Building D Kavakli Discrit , Stairs Level,(H. Sezen2000) 28 SUMMARY OF CASE STUDY To sum up the case study, I have considered, that most of the residential buildings that collapsed including building A were built to the previous code which was established 1975.

D`Ayala (2003) states the earthquakes damage in this disaster have put the duty for the deconstruction on poor standards of construction; • • • Provisions of the code for detailing the reinforcement was not present in practice. Concrete was considerably poor quality contributing to brittle performance. Apartment blocks had infill wall made with light weight of steel frame, that would not be adequate to resist the forces. Earthquake cataclysm is a major problem that Turkish authorities have had to deal with over the years.

Even though, Turkish government failed to improve understanding of the earthquake disaster and emergency solutions (Gulkan 2001); • • Lack of properly qualified staff in the council to control the design checks. Lack of beginner producers, who were carrying out the design checks. 29 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS This section provides the guidance for conducting an effective analysis of the compliance to the building code in Turkey and to make recommendation on how to develop an effective and safe built environment.

The aim of the research is to identify the problems for implementation of reinforced building behaviours due to Earthquake Code failure in earthquake. The literatures were containing information’s that Turkey has the one of the actively seismic zone, evaluation of the materials, selection of construction methods, lack of education, earthquake code and case study. For that reason, this study went on investigate in depth. Interviews were taken, in order to support the case study with professional references.

Case studies showed that there were many insufficient techniques, and these evidence approved that there was a poor understanding about the materials and applying them due to lack poor training and education and not following the legislation “ Earthquake Code”. These researched explained that the systems and techniques did not even fully match with EU regulations. There was no proper seismic requirement in the Turkish Earthquake Codes until after the huge earthquake 1999 Marmara Earthquake.

Although, there were many revisions to the code from 1944 to 1975, but they were not quite useful for the significant problems with Turkish construction. Although the 1999 Marmara Earthquake was a important wake-up call, Turkey has large inventories of buildings that are susceptible to severe damage and collapse from strong earthquakes. Thousands of buildings collapsed all over the region. Many buildings were designed to outdated building codes (Code 1975) or none at all. Most of these buildings and much of the construction throughout Turkey consists of no still frame work with unreinforced masonry infill walls. This dissertation widely explained that Turkish Government regulations has failed to reduce the risk of significant harm. Use of thick slabs resulted in strong column and this weak beam could support it. Structural system problems such as soft 30 storey colon in ground floor, and wrong beam connection are important factors. If the updated Earthquake Code is applied, the damage reasons resulting considerably less. Although, the major problem in Turkey is that the workmanship and materials are of poor quality.

In order to achieve a good standard of construction, the proposal would be to use appropriate material and use of tunnel form concrete will reduce the risk of the damage in any future earthquakes (Earthquake Code 2007). Year 2012, it grieves me to say that Turkey hasn’t progressed more than an inch since 1999. Van earthquake in 2011 was the best example for this. The precise time and place of an earthquake cannot be predicted, but according to seismologist , they are expecting a big earthquake in Istanbul / Marmara , there still more to develop in Earthquake Code and in construction.

REGULATION AND POLITICAL ISSUES: • Administrative failure has identified that Ministry for Public Works and Housing stated the construction check law after publishing that an important aim the damage had occurred was because the local administrations did not performed their inspection duties correctly by that time (Earthquake Code2007, MPWH 1998). • • Politic issues play a major role in performance of any material in Turkey. The research demoed that Turkish construction system politically driven. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendations are not to be expected that change the condition of housing and construction in Turkey overnight. Improving the construction quality by providing of good mixing and quantity of water, good class sand and aggregates, designed quantity of cement in the mix, appropriate mixing of all the elements with control on water cement sufficient compaction in the position of concrete, proper placement of steel ( Earthquake Code 2007, MPWH 1998). • Avoid soft storey ground floor (Earthquake Code 2007, MPWH 1998). 31 • Design steel structure must be ductile (Earthquake Code2007, MPWH 1998). • Updated Earthquake Code must be applying to all constructions (Earthquake Code2007, MPWH 1998). The engineer or site manager in charge of the construction must personally be at the site at all time and supervise all the operators in order check the material and test them if it necessary (Earthquake Code2007, MPWH 1998). • In order to stop building collapsing, this can depends on the government making deeper changes to its governmental system, institutionalising community participation in disaster management, and must give priority to these changes, before it’s too late (Earthquake Code2007, MPWH 1998). •

The government should set up a capability committee to assess the materials and projects. This committee should include quality of materials, structure of the building, location of the site and relevant planning policies. LIMITATION OF STUDY • The first limitation I have in writing this dissertation is that I have the word limit of 10,000; this in fact limits overall what I can include in my sources study (literature). Any additional information that proves to be relevant to my study will be included and referenced to my appendix. Due to the nature of the information I was seeking from my sources, government officials were not confident in giving out information that could be seen as reputably detrimental. • Due to my topic mainly based about Turkey and Turkish construction and government regulations, it has been difficult to retrieve information and some paperwork’s, as it was very important for my quality of research and also there were big numbers of articles, journals and literatures, it was considerably difficult to summary them and narrow it down. 32

REFERENCES AYDINOGLU, N. (1998), ‘Deprem ulkesi Turkiyenin ilkel inaat duzeni’, Insaat muhendislik haberi ‘396/4. AIJ, (2000). Report on the Damage Investigation of the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake in Turkey: Architecture Insti- tute of Japan, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Anderson, Donald et. al. (2001). “The August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey) Earthquake – Damage to Structures” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 28, 715-737. Akcay, Burcu. (2004). “Variation of In-Place Concrete Core Strength in

Structures from Istanbul Area: Statistical Analysis of Concrete Core Data” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE. AIJ, (2000). Report on the Damage Investigation of the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake in Turkey: Architecture Insti- tute of Japan, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Alarcon, Dr. John and Franco, Dr. Guillermo. (Aug. 11, 2009). “Izmit-D? zce Ten ” AIRWorldwide rd , (Accesed on 3 December 2011 ). Bibbee, A. , Gonenc, R. , Jacobs, S. , Konvitz, J. , & Price, R. , (2000). “Economic Effects of the 1999 Turkish Earthquakes: An Interim Report (247)”.

Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 33 BBC News 1994 “ Los Angeles Earthquake” available at http://news. bbc. co. uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/17/newsid ( Accessed 15th March 2012). COBURN, A. W. and SPENCE, R. J. S. (1992), “Earthquake Prevention”. London: John Wiley and Sons. Don. W Stacks. “Primer of Public Relations Research Gulferd” press. 2002. Dogangun A. , “Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 Bingol Earthquake in Turkey” Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 841–856.

D’yala (2003) “ Earthquake Disaster and Earthquake Code”. EEFIT (1999), ‘Report on Kocaeli Earthquake of August 1999’, London. EEFIT (2000), ‘Report on Kocaeli Earthquake of August 1999’, London. EERI (1999), ‘The Izmit (Kocaeli) Turkey Earthquake’, available online at: http//:www. eeri. org/earthquakes/Reconn ( Accessed 12th November 2012). EQE (1999), ‘Izmit, Turkey Earthquake of August 17, 1999 (M 7. 4): An EQE Briefing’, available online at: http//www. eqe. com/revamp/izmitrepor (Accessed 12th November 2011).

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (1999): “The Izmit (Kocaeli) Turkey earthquake”. www. eeri. org/earthquakes/Reconn/Turkey0899 (Accessed 12th November 2011). 34 Dr. S. G. Naoum(2007)’Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction’ , Case Study. Derya (2004), ‘Post-earthquake Damage Assessment Using Satellite and Aerial Video Imagery’. GULKAN, P. (2001), ‘An Essay on the Cancellation of Building Inspection Decree with Force of Law 595 and the Subsequent Building Inspection Law 4708’, GULKAN, P. and ERGUNAY, O. (1999), ‘Case Study’ in J. Ingleton (ed. Natural Disaster Management. A Presentation to Commemorate the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) 1990-2000. Leicester: Tudor Rose: 176. Gulkan, P. and A. Yakut. “Tunnel Form Building”. World Housing Encyclopedia. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and International Association for Earthquake Engineering, Turkey/Report 101, 2003. Gulkan, Polat (2000). “Building code enforcement prospects: failure of public policy”. Earthquake Spectra 16 Supp A (December), Chapter 15 of 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake Reconnaissance report.

Glazier, Jack D, & Powell, Ronald R (Eds), (1992) “Qualitative researches in information management”, Englewood Co. Libraries Unlimited . Hanifi Binici (2006). “The earthquakes and the damages caused by the material quality and low workmanship in the recent earthquakes”. PP 233-238. H. Hezen (2000) “ et al. Structural Engineering Reconnaissance of the Kocaeli (Izmit) Turkey Earthquake of August 17 1999” 35 KEYDER, C. , ed. (1999),” Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local. London”: Rowan & Littlefield. Kinzer, S. (2001). Crescent and star: Turkey between two worlds”. Farrar, Straus & Giroux: New York. Kumer, Ronjit2005, Research Methodology , “A Step by Step Guide for Beginners” (2. nd ed. ), Singapore. Person Educations. Leedy and Ormrod 2001. Available at http//www. people. uwec. edu (Accessed on 10th November 2011). Ozgen, K. , Torunbalci, N. , (1997). “Comparing of old (1975) and new (1997) Turkish Earthquake Codes in terms of design rules and fundamentals of reinforced concrete buildings”, YAPI Journal, 192, 127-132 (in Turkish).

Ministry for Public Works and Housing in 1997 “Turkish Standards” (TS) ENV 1998 1. 1-1. 4) Montoya, L. , & Masser, I. , (2000). “GIS in Urban Disaster Management” City Development Strategies(3), 49- 52. Nisee Berkeley (2010), “Evolution of Seismic Building Design Practice in Turkey“ Avaliable at http://nisee. berkeley. edu/turkey/Fturkrch2. pdf ( Accessed on 19th March 2012). PARSONS, T. , SHINJI, T. , STEIN, R. , BARKA, A. and DIETERICH, J. (2000), ‘Heightened Odds of Page 13Large Earthquakes near Istanbul: An Interaction-based Probability Calculation’, Science 288: 661-5.

How to cite this page

Choose cite format:
Earthquake Performance of Reinfoced Concrete Buildings. (2017, Jan 01). Retrieved September 21, 2019, from https://phdessay.com/earthquake-performance-of-reinfoced-concrete-buildings-a-case-study-from-marmara-turkey/.