Determination of Road Functionality for Küçükçekmece District Following a Scenario Earthquake for Istanbul

Abstract

Istanbul has been affected by earthquakes throughout its history. The most recent earthquake to shake Istanbul was on August 17 1999, along the North Anatolian Fault, 12 km southeast of the Izmit Province, with a magnitude of 7.4. Following the 1999 Izmit earthquake, the earthquake risk in Istanbul started to draw attention and many scientific studies were conducted on the potential earthquake risk in this city. Based on these studies, predictions are that Istanbul is going to face a major earthquake in the near future and this will cause severe damage to the built environment. It is estimated that the damage caused by the anticipated earthquake will be extensive as a consequence of Istanbul’s low quality building stock of Istanbul. The buildings that have the possibility of being damaged cause debris around them. If roadside buildings collapsed during the earthquake, the scattered parts of the buildings could cause roads to lose their functionality. Not only building damage but also transportation damage analysis is necessary to use risk mitigation studies and decisions, being that experiences showed that the functionality of transportation structure effects post-earthquake emergency response and recovery operation seriously. This study aims to reveal a method for road functionality in Küçükçekçekmece following a potential Istanbul Earthquake by using building collapse direction and bridge damage. 

Keywords

• Road functionality,bridge damage,building collapse,debris spreading distance,building damage,earthquake damage analysis,building age,building code,risk analysis,remote sensing

References

1. Ambraseys N, Finkel C (1991) Long‐term seismicity of Istanbul and of the Marmara Sea region Terra Nova 3:527-539
2. Le Pichon X, Chamot‐Rooke N, Rangin C, Sengör A (2003) The North Anatolian fault in the Sea of Marmara Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth (1978–2012) 108
3. Parsons T, Toda S, Stein RS, Barka A, Dieterich JH (2000) Heightened odds of large earthquakes near Istanbul: An interaction-based probability calculation Science 288:661-665
4. Holmes W, Kircher C, Petak W, Youssef N (2008) Seismic performance objectives for tall buildings: A report for the tall buildings initiative, PEER 2008/101 Berkeley (CA): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
5. Meacham B, Bowen R, Traw J, Moore A (2005) Performance-based building regulation: current situation and future needs Building Research & Information 33:91-106 doi:10.1080/0961321042000322780
6. Karaman H, Şahin M, Elnashai AS (2008a) Earthquake loss assessment features of maeviz-istanbul (hazturk) Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12:175-186
7. Karaman H, Şahin M, Elnashai AS, Pineda O (2008b) Loss assessment study for the zeytinburnu district of istanbul using maeviz-istanbul (hazturk) Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12:187-198
8. JICA, IMM (2002) The Study on A Disaster Prevention / Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey. Pacific Consultants International, OYO Corporation, Istanbul

9. Jeong S-H, Elnashai AS (2006) New three-dimensional damage index for RC buildings with planar irregularities Journal of Structural Engineering 132:1482-1490
10. FEMA H-M (2003) MR3 Technical Manual Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model Elnashai AS et al. (2008) Overview and applications of Maeviz-Hazturk 2007 Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12:100-108
11. Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer J (2004) A Probabilistic Displacement-based Vulnerability Assessment Procedure for Earthquake Loss Estimation Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2:173-219 doi:10.1007/s10518-004-2290-8
12. Di Pasquale G, Ferlito R, Orsini G, Papa F, Pizza A, Van Dyck J, Veneziano D (2004) Seismic scenario tools for emergency planning and management.
13. Erdik M, Cagnan Z, Zulfikar C, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu M, Durukal E, Kariptas C Development of rapid earthquake loss assessment methodologies for Euro-Med region. In: Proc. 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2008.
14. IMM DvZIM- (2009) İstanbul Olası Deprem Kayıpları. İstanbul
15. Molina S, Lindholm C (2005) A logic tree extension of the capacity spectrum method developped to estimate seismic risk in Oslo, Norway Journal of Earthquake Engineering 09:877-897 doi:doi:10.1142/S1363246905002201
16. Strasser FO et al. (2008) A Comparative Study of European Earthquake Loss Estimation Tools for a Scenario in Istanbul Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12:246-256 doi:10.1080/13632460802014188
17. Özmen B (2000) 17 Ağustos 1999 İzmit Körfezi Depremi’nin Hasar Durumu (Rakamsal Verilerle). Afet İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Deprem Araştırma Dairesi, Ankara.
18. Fraser C, Baltsavias E, Gruen A (2002) Processing of Ikonos imagery for submetre 3D positioning and building extraction ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 56:177-194
19. Gupta R, Saraf A, Saxena P, Chander R (1994) IRS detection of surface effects of the Uttarkashi earthquake of 20 October 1991, Himalaya International Journal of Remote Sensing 15:2153-2156
20. Kaya Ş, Curran P, Llewellyn G (2005) Post‐earthquake building collapse: a comparison of government statistics and estimates derived from SPOT HRVIR data International Journal of Remote Sensing 26:2731-2740
21. Turker M, San B (2003) SPOT HRV data analysis for detecting earthquake-induced changes in Izmit, Turkey International Journal of Remote Sensing 24:2439-2450
22. Chang, S. E. and Nojima, N. (1998). “Measuring Lifeline System Performance: Highway Transportation Systems in Recent Earthquakes.” 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, WA. EERI.
23. Kameda, H. (2000). “Engineering Management of Lifeline Systems Under Earthquake Risk.” 12th World Conference on Eartquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
24. Rojahn, C., Scawthorn, C., Khater, M., and Ballantyne, D. B. (1992). “Transportation Lifeline Losses in Large Eastern Earthquakes.” Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in the Central and Eastern US, New York, NY, USA. ASCE, p 87–101.
25. Werner, S. D. and Taylor, C. E. (2002). “Component Vulnerability Modeling Issues for Analysis of Seismic Risks to Transportation Lifeline Systems.” Acceptable Risk Processes: Lifelines and Natural Hazards, Monograph No. 21, S. D. Werner and C. E. Taylor, eds., Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, Reston VA USA.
26. FHWA (1995a). Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, Vol. FHWA-PD-96-001. Office of Engineering Bridge Devision, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
27. TUIK (2014) 2014 Address Based Census System Registration (ADNKS). Turkey Statistical Institute. http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/adnksdagitapp/adnks.zul. Accessed August 2015 2015
28. DesRoches, R., J. E. Padgett, A. S. Elnashai, Y. S. Kim, and D. Reed. "MAE Center transportation test bed." In Proceedings of the 8th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California. 2006.
29. DesRoches, Reginald, Roberto T. Leon, and Shirley Dyke. "Response modification of bridges." Mid-America Earthquake Center CD Release 03-08 (2003).