EARTHQUAKE RISK ANALYSIS AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF DISTRICTS OF ISTANBUL

Year 2018, , 741 - 750, 20.07.2018

İşıl Sanrı Karapınar

https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.444771

Abstract

The
main purpose of this study is to obtain the seismo-tectonic characteristics of
Istanbul, based on earthquake risk and vulnerabilities of existing structures
against a potential earthquake in the region. The hazardous areas of Istanbul
with the distribution of structural damage due to different possible earthquake
magnitudes with different return periods are determined and hazard maps are
produced for the selected 30 districts of Istanbul. By using the
Gumbel-Gutenberg-Richter approaches, in order to estimate the maximum magnitude
of a possible earthquake to occur in Istanbul within a prescribed period, four
different scenario earthquakes are developed according to four different return
periods of 25, 50, 75 and 100 years and the earthquake risk for the province of
city of Istanbul is obtained. As a result, this study reveals the damage
distribution in the selected districts of Istanbul by the help of the estimated
possible future earthquakes.

Keywords

Earthquake, hazard map, probabilistic seismic analysis, damage estimation

İSTANBUL İLÇELERİNİN DEPREM RİSK ANALİZİ VE HASAR DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Abstract

Bu
çalışmanın temel amacı deprem riskine ve mevcut yapıların bölgedeki potansiyel
bir depreme karşı zayıflıklarına dayalı olarak İstanbul'un sismo-tektonik
özelliklerini elde etmektir. Farklı geri dönüş süreleri ile olası deprem
büyüklükleri nedeniyle oluşacak yapısal hasarın dağılımıyla İstanbul'un riskli
alanları belirlenmiş ve İstanbul ili için seçilen 30 ilçe için risk haritaları
üretilmiştir. Gumbel-Gutenberg-Richter yaklaşımlarını kullanarak, İstanbul'da
olası bir depremin öngörülen periyotta maksimum büyüklüğünü tahmin edebilmek
için, 25, 50, 75 ve 100 yıllık dört farklı dönüş periyoduna göre dört farklı
senaryo deprem geliştirerek, İstanbul için deprem riski elde edilmiştir. Sonuç
olarak, bu çalışma tahmin edilen olası depremlerin yardımıyla İstanbul'un
seçilmiş ilçelerindeki hasar dağılımını ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

Deprem, risk haritası, olasılıklı sismik analiz, hasar tahmini

References

• [1] KAGAN, Y.Y., “Are Earthquakes Predictable?”, Geophysical Journal International, 131, 505-525, 1997.
• [2] GUTENBERG, B., RICHTER, C.F., “Frequency of Earthquakes in California”, Bulletin Seismological Society of America, 34, 185-188, 1944.
• [3] GUMBEL, E.J., “Statistics of Extremes”, Columbia University Press, New York, USA, 1958.
• [4] FREEMAN, S.A., NICOLETTI, J.P., TYRELL J.V., “Evaluations of Existing Buildings for Seismic Risk- A Case Study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington”, Proceedings of the 1st US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 113–122. Oakland, CA, USA, 1975.
• [5] FREEMAN, S.A., “Prediction of Response of Concrete Buildings to Severe Earthquake Motion”, Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete Structures, SP-55, American Concrete Institute, 589-605. Detroit, Michigan, USA, 1978.
• [6] FREEMAN, S.A., “Development and Use of Capacity Spectrum Method”, Proceedings of 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 269. Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., 1998.
• [7] FEMA 273, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USA.
• [8] FEMA 274, 1997. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USA.
• [9] FEMA, 2002. Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, HAZUS’99 (SR 2) Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington DC, USA.
• [10] MCGUIRE, R.K., “Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis”, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, MNO-10, 2004.
• [11] FAJFAR, P., “Capacity Spectrum Method Based on Inelastic Demand Spectra”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28, 979-993, 1999.
• [12] CHOPRA, A.K., GOEL, R.K., “Capacity-demand-diagram Methods Based on Inelastic Design Spectrum”, Earthquake Spectra, 15, 637-656, 1999.
• [13] http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/zeqdb/
• [14] FEMA 303, 1997. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations For New Buildings and Other Structures,. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
• [15] Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), 2002. The Study on A Disaster Prevention / Mitigation Basic Plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey.
• [16] ATKINSON, G.M., BOORE, D.M., “Some comparisons between recent ground-motion relations”, Seismological Research Letter, 68, 24-40, 1997.
• [17] SPUDICH, P., JOYNER, W.B., LINDH, A.G., BOORE, D.M., MARGARIS, B.M., FLETCHER, J.B., “SEA99: A Revised Ground Motion Prediction Relation for Use in Extensional Tectonic Regimes”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89, 1156-1170, 1999.
• [18] ERDİK, M., AYDINOGLU, N., “Earthquake Vulnerability of Buildings in Turkey”, Internal Report, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, 2000.
• [19] FEMA 356, 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.