Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study

Year 2021, Volume: 21 Issue: 3, 681 - 695, 30.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.889442

Abstract

Concrete, stone, steel, and wooden materials are used in the construction of pedestrian over/underpasses. However, there has still been uncertainty when preferring the construction of over or underpass. In this study, an inventory of pedestrian overpasses and underpasses in Karabuk-Safranbolu region was presented in the light of various parameters. Two kinds of overpasses (constructed as steel and reinforced concrete) and an underpass were selected, and cost analyses were carried out comparatively. Additionally, face-to-face surveys were carried out with 300 people in 3 different over/underpass locations, and the results were evaluated by SPSS (statistical package for social sciences) ANOVA (analysis of variance). The advantages and disadvantages of over/underpasses in terms of cost, safety, ease of use/comfort, saving of time, user preference, aesthetic, construction period are revealed by means of the survey studies, data collected by General Directorate of Highways (KGM) and on-site observations, and then presented with tables and graphics. There has not been any standard, regulation, code, or design and safety criteria for the construction of underpasses/overpasses in our country and it is thought that this study will contribute to decision-making process of related authorities such as municipalities, general directorate of highways, etc.

References

  • Aksu, Ö.V., 2014. Examination of design criteria in pedestrian bridges: Sample of Trabzon city. Istanbul University Forest Faculty Journal, 64(1), 12-28.
  • KGM, 2013. Highway Technical Guide. General Directorate of Highways, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • KGM, 1997. Highway Traffic Code. General Directorate of Highways, Resmî Gazete, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Mahdavinejad, M., Hosseini A., Alavibelmana M., 2012. Enhancement HSE factors in pedestrian underpass regarding to chemical hazards, Mashhad, İran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51(12), 10-14.
  • Mutto M., Kobusingye O.C, Lett R.R, 2002. The effect of on pedestrian injuries on a major highway in Kampala-Uganda”. African Health Sciences 2(3) 89-93.
  • Otak I., 1997. Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook, Washington State Department of Transportation County Road Administration Board, Washington, USA.
  • Önelçin P., Alver Y., 2018. Investigation of illegal road users’ behavior at overpass locations and the effect of an escalator on the overpass usage ratio. Pamukkale University Engineering Sciences Journal, 24(6), 1100-1106.
  • Yao W., Jian L., Hong C., Lei W., 2014. Identification of contributing factors to pedestrian overpass selection. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 1(6).
  • http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1051, (04.09.2019).
  • http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist, (04.09.2019).
  • http://beyazgazete.com/haber/2018/3/30/guncelleme-bayburt-ta-iki-arac-menfez-cukuruna-dustu-aciklamasi-8-olu-4-yarali-4407368.html, (04.09.2019).

Muhtelif Parametreler Işığında Üstgeçit/Altgeçit Mukayesesi: Karabük-Safranbolu Örneği

Year 2021, Volume: 21 Issue: 3, 681 - 695, 30.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.889442

Abstract

Yaya geçitlerinin inşasında ahşap, betonarme, çelik veya kompozit malzemeler kullanılmaktadır. Ancak günümüzde, inşa edilecek olan yaya üst/altgeçitlerinden hangisinin tercih edilmesi gerektiği hususunda çeşitli belirsizlikler bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada Karabük-Safranbolu bölgesinde yer alan yaya üst ve altgeçitlerinin çeşitli parametreler ışığında bir envanteri oluşturulmuştur. Çelik ve betonarme olarak inşa edilmiş iki farklı üstgeçit ile bir altgeçit seçilerek mukayeseli bir şekilde maliyet analizleri yapılmıştır. Ayrıca 3 farklı lokasyonda her biri 100’er kişi olmak üzere toplamda 300 kişiyle yüz yüze anket çalışmaları gerçekleştirilmiş, elde edilen sonuçlar SPSS (statistical package for social sciences) ANOVA (analysis of variance) ile değerlendirilmiştir. Anket çalışmaları, Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü’nden (KGM) elde edilen veriler ve yerinde gözlemler ile kullanıcılar tarafından ortaya konulan güvenlik, kullanım kolaylığı/konfor, zaman tasarrufu, altgeçit/üstgeçit tercihi, estetiklik gibi hususlarda avantaj ve dezavantajları tablo ve grafikler eşliğinde ortaya konulmuştur. Ülkemizde altgeçit/üstgeçitlerin imalatında yeterli düzeyde standart, tasarım ve güvenlik kriteri bulunmamakta olup çalışmanın Belediyeler, KGM gibi yetkili mercilerin karar verme süreçlerinde yararlanabileceği bir kaynak olacağı düşünülmektedir.

References

  • Aksu, Ö.V., 2014. Examination of design criteria in pedestrian bridges: Sample of Trabzon city. Istanbul University Forest Faculty Journal, 64(1), 12-28.
  • KGM, 2013. Highway Technical Guide. General Directorate of Highways, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • KGM, 1997. Highway Traffic Code. General Directorate of Highways, Resmî Gazete, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Mahdavinejad, M., Hosseini A., Alavibelmana M., 2012. Enhancement HSE factors in pedestrian underpass regarding to chemical hazards, Mashhad, İran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51(12), 10-14.
  • Mutto M., Kobusingye O.C, Lett R.R, 2002. The effect of on pedestrian injuries on a major highway in Kampala-Uganda”. African Health Sciences 2(3) 89-93.
  • Otak I., 1997. Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook, Washington State Department of Transportation County Road Administration Board, Washington, USA.
  • Önelçin P., Alver Y., 2018. Investigation of illegal road users’ behavior at overpass locations and the effect of an escalator on the overpass usage ratio. Pamukkale University Engineering Sciences Journal, 24(6), 1100-1106.
  • Yao W., Jian L., Hong C., Lei W., 2014. Identification of contributing factors to pedestrian overpass selection. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 1(6).
  • http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1051, (04.09.2019).
  • http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist, (04.09.2019).
  • http://beyazgazete.com/haber/2018/3/30/guncelleme-bayburt-ta-iki-arac-menfez-cukuruna-dustu-aciklamasi-8-olu-4-yarali-4407368.html, (04.09.2019).
There are 11 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Engineering
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Halil İbrahim Yumrutaş 0000-0002-3696-7016

Şeyda Çınar Sarısoy 0000-0002-2307-0955

Publication Date June 30, 2021
Submission Date March 2, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 21 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Yumrutaş, H. İ., & Çınar Sarısoy, Ş. (2021). Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 21(3), 681-695. https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.889442
AMA Yumrutaş Hİ, Çınar Sarısoy Ş. Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi. June 2021;21(3):681-695. doi:10.35414/akufemubid.889442
Chicago Yumrutaş, Halil İbrahim, and Şeyda Çınar Sarısoy. “Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study”. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 21, no. 3 (June 2021): 681-95. https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.889442.
EndNote Yumrutaş Hİ, Çınar Sarısoy Ş (June 1, 2021) Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 21 3 681–695.
IEEE H. İ. Yumrutaş and Ş. Çınar Sarısoy, “Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 681–695, 2021, doi: 10.35414/akufemubid.889442.
ISNAD Yumrutaş, Halil İbrahim - Çınar Sarısoy, Şeyda. “Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study”. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 21/3 (June 2021), 681-695. https://doi.org/10.35414/akufemubid.889442.
JAMA Yumrutaş Hİ, Çınar Sarısoy Ş. Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2021;21:681–695.
MLA Yumrutaş, Halil İbrahim and Şeyda Çınar Sarısoy. “Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study”. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 21, no. 3, 2021, pp. 681-95, doi:10.35414/akufemubid.889442.
Vancouver Yumrutaş Hİ, Çınar Sarısoy Ş. Comparison of Overpass / Underpass in the Light of Various Parameters: Karabuk-Safranbolu Case Study. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2021;21(3):681-95.