TY  - JOUR
T1  - Are The Mud Brick Structures Very Weak Against Earthquake? What Are The Advantages and Disadvantaged of Them?
TT  - Kerpiç Yapılar Depreme Dayanıksız Mıdır? Avantajları ve Dezavantajları Nelerdir?
AU  - Binici, Hanifi
AU  - Durgun, Muhammed
AU  - Yardım, Yavuz
PY  - 2016
DA  - June
DO  - 10.17780/ksujes.52504
JF  - Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi
JO  - KSU J. Eng. Sci.
PB  - Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 1309-1751
SP  - 1
EP  - 11
VL  - 13
IS  - 2
LA  - en
AB  - The most of the mud brick buildings were partially or fully damaged at the earthquake inElazig/Turkey on March 8, 2010 and 41 people die. Questions were rose after this earthquake by the public; whythese structures were destroyed? Are the mud brick structures very weak against earthquake? Satisfy answers haveto be found for these equations. Although the application of this construction material has commonly used,advantages, disadvantages and strengthening techniques of the mud bricks are still concern to be explored.After earthquake at the rural area of Bingol, It was observed that main damages and casualties were caused by heavystones used at mud brick constructions. The earthquake damaged could be minimized by using fiber reinforced mudbricks instead of the heavy stones. In this study, advantages, disadvantages and mechanical properties of mud brickswere investigated. Fiber plastic and textile fibers were used as strengthening material while pumice, lime andcement were used as binding agent for the mud brick used in this study. It was found that usage of the fiberreinforced mud bricks has advantages of energy saving, cost-effective and better mechanical properties.Key Words: Earthquake, Mud Brick Buildings, Fiber, Strength
N2  - 8 Mart 2010 tarihinde Elazığ’da meydana gelen depremde toprak harçlı moloz taş duvarlı yığma ve kimi kerpiç yapılar ya büyük hasar görmüş veya yıkılmıştır. Bu depremde 41 insan hayatını kaybetmiştir. Bu yapılar neden yıkıldı ve genel olarak kerpiç yapılar depreme dayanıksız mıdır? Bu sorulara cevap verilmesi gerekmektedir. Ayrıca yaygın olarak inşa edilen bu yapıların iyileştirilmesi mümkün müdür? Avantaj ve dezavantajları nelerdir?
CR  - 1. Işık B., Ekim 2000., Türkiye’de kerpiç yapı kültürü ve Alçı ile stabilize edilen kerpiç-alker yapılar, İTÜ,Mimarlık Fak., İstanbul.
CR  - 2. Binici H., Çağdaş Fiber Kerpiç Üretimi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi, Proje No: MMF2002BAP58, Adana.
CR  - 3. Özener H., Doğru A., Eodezik Ve Sismik Verilerden Yararlanarak Kabuk Deformasyonu Alanının Belirlenmesi, TMMOB Harita Ve Kadastro Mühendisleri Odası 12. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel Ve Teknik Kurultayı 11-15 Mayıs 2009, Ankara.
CR  - 4. Ersoy U., 1992., Erzincan Depremi ve Betonarme Yapılar.13 Mart 1992, Erzincan Depremi Mühendislik Raporu, İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası, Ankara.
CR  - 5. Bayülke N., 1989., Depreme Dayanıklı Yapı Tasarımı, İzmir, S:31, Teknik Yay, Ankara.
CR  - 6. ODTÜ, TMMO, İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası, Ankara Şubesi., Aralık 1995.,1 Ekim 1995 Dinar Depremi Mühendislik Raporu, Ankara.
CR  - 7. Işık B., 2000., GAP bölgesinde Yeni Gözeli Köyü örneğinde konut duvarında tuğla yerine alçılı kerpiç (Alker) kullanılmasının yıllık enerji kullanımına ve hava kirliliğine etkisi, GAP Çevre 2000 Kongresi, Harran.
CR  - 8. Işık B., Boduroğlu H., 1999., Özdemir P., Earthquakes Aspects of Gypsum Stabilised Earth (Alker) Constraction for housing in the Southeast (GAP) Area of Turkey, Disaster Prevention Management, Workshop, Ankara.
CR  - 9. R.Cofirman, N. Agnew, G. Auiston and E.Doehne,Adobe mineralogy:characterisation of adobes from around the world, 6th international Conference on The Concervation of Earthen Architecture, Las Cruces,NM. 14-19 October 1990.
CR  - 10. Ren K. B. and Kagi D. A., 1995., Upgrading the durability of mud bricks by impregnation, Build Build Environ 30, P: 440.
CR  - 11. Kaplan H., Binici H.,. 1 Mayıs 2003 Bingöl Depremi Teknik Raporu.
CR  - 12. Binici H., Aksogan O., Shah T., 2005., Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a building material, Construction and Building Materials, 19, P:313-318.
CR  - 13. Binici H., Aksogan O., Bodur M.N., Akca E., Kapur S., 2007., Thermal isolation and mechanical properties of fibre reinforced mud bricks as wall materials, Construction and Building Materials, 21, P:901-906.
CR  - 14. Binici H., Aksogan O., Bakbak D., Kaplan H., Isik B., 2009., Sound insulation of fibre reinforced mud brick walls, Construction and Building Materials, 23, P:1035–1041.
CR  - 15. Binici H., Durgun M.Y., 2010., Fiber kerpiç üretimi, Dizayn Dergisi, 289, S:92-96.
CR  - 16. Kelling G., Kapur S., Sakarya N., Akça E., Karaman C., Sakarya B., and Robinson P., 2000., Basaltic Tephra: Potential new resource for Ceramic Industry. British Ceramic Transactions. V.99. N.3, P:129-136.
CR  - 7. Kapur S., Sakarya N., Karaman C., Fitzpatrick E.A. And Pagliai, M., 1995., Micromorphology of Basaltic Ceramics. British Transactions Vol. 94. No. 1. P:33-37.
CR  - 18. Acosta A., Iglesias I., Aineto M., Romero M., Rincon M., 2002., Utilisation of IGCC slag and clay steriles in soft mud bricks (by pressing) for use in building bricks manufacturing, Waste Manangement, 22, P:887-891.
CR  - 19. Isık B., Ozdemir P., Boruroglu H., Earthquakes Aspects of Proposing Gypsum Stabilized Earth (Alker) Constraction for Housing in the Southeast (GAP) Area of Turkey, Workshop on Recent Earthquakes and Disaster Prevention Management, Earthquake Disaster Prevention Research Center Project (JICA), General Director of Disaster Affairs (GDDA), Disaster Management Implementation and Research Center (METU). Ankara 10-12 March 1999.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.17780/ksujes.52504
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/180944
ER  -