Investigation of an Existing RC Building with Different Rapid Assessment Methods

Abstract

The importance of studies, researches and prevention about earthquake have risen after destructive earthquakes in the world especially in recent years . In order to reduce the damages of the earthquakes firstly the performance of buildings needs to be determined. Evaluation of all building under earthquake is impossible due to number of building stocks, time and personnel. Therefore, rapid assessment methods were developed for determine seismic safety of existing buildings.Rapid assessment methods can be used instead of detailed structural analysis because of the buildings stocks amount. These rapid assessment methods can be used for deciding which buildings need further structural analysis and decide to   seismic safety level of the buildings. In this study, three of these rapid assessment methods were used for a building that was damaged after 2003 Bingöl earthquake. Japon Seismic Index Method, Canadian Seissmic Screening Method and Turkish First Stage Evaulation Method were used.The study also gives usability of these rapid assessment method. The performance score of the building was calculated sperately with the use of the mentioned three methods and then compared. Building priority ranking obtained by means of the methods were found out to be identical with each other. The priority of the existing building stocks rapid evaluation methods can be used conveniently. 

References

1. References
2. Benavent-Climent, A. (2011). A seismic index method for vulnerability assessment of existing frames: application to RC structures with wide beams in spain. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(2), 491-517.
3. Celep, Z. (2003). “Seismic Safety of the Regional School Building ofBingöl”, Accessed July 20, http://web.itu.edu.tr/celep/files/18.pdf
4. Çelik, C.O., A.İlki, C. Yalçın, and E. Yüksel. 2007. “Dogu ve Batı Avrupa Kentlerinde Degisik Tip Binaların Deprem Riskinin Hızlı Degerlendirmesi Üzerine Bir Deneyim.” Sixth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, 16-20 October 2007.
5. DRBB (Determination of Risk-Bearing Buildings). 2013. Afet Riski Altındaki Alanların Dönüştürülmesi Hakkında Kanunun Uygulama Yönetmeliğinde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Yönetmelik. Türkiye Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı.
6. Foo, S., N. Naumoski, and M. Cheung. 2002. “Seismic Risk Reduction of Existing Buildings.” Accessed July 20. ftp://199.246.24.198/pub/SEISMIC/canada_taiwan_2002.pdf
7. Foo, S., & Davenport, A. (2003). Seismic hazard mitigation for buildings.Natural hazards, 28(2-3), 517-536.
8. Işık, E., Kaya, C., and T. Tapancı (2015). “Effects of Material Strength on StructuralPerformance for the Irregularity Structure”, International Journal of Novel Research in Civil Structural and Earth Sciences, 2(2), p.23-28

9. Kömür, M. and M.Altan, (2005). “Determination Of Seismic Performance Index Of RcBuildings By Using Fuzzy Logic”, Journal of VTechnical Vocational School of Selçuk University, 4(2), p.96-110.
10. Kudak, E., “Comparison of Structural Analysis Results with Japanese Seismic Index Method”, Master Thesis,Yıldız Techical University, 172p., 2005.
11. McKevitt, W. E., P.A.M. Timler, and K.K. Lo. 1995. “Nonstructural Damage from the Northridge Earthquake.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 22: 428–437.
12. NRRC ( National Research Council of Canada). 1993. Manual for Screening of Buildings for Seismic Investigation. Canadian Standard. Ottowa: National Research Council of Canada
13. Özdemir, R., and Taşkın, B. (2006). Seismic safety screening method for Istanbul Metropolitan City. In Proceedings of 10th East Asia Pacific conference on structural engineering and construction (EASEC 10). Bangkok, Thailand (pp. 3-5).