A Mobile Application-Based Data Collection Framework to Enhance the Seismic Performance of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings

Öz

The seismic assessment of existing building stock, particularly in megacities such as Istanbul, is constrained by insufficient data and the time-intensive nature of data collection. This bottleneck persists despite the prevalence of aging structures that no longer comply with current seismic design codes. This paper proposes a mobile application–based framework for collecting building data to improve seismic performance and strengthen public awareness. The framework comprises six sequential steps—seismic hazard and casualties, building risk prioritization, damage evaluation, rapid/preliminary assessment, detailed assessment, and project planning—and provides progressively more accurate information as more data are collected. A mobile application was developed to test the framework and has been downloaded more than 8,000 times. Across Steps 1–5, a total of 3381, 393, 2, 5 and 2 reports were generated. Application of the methodology to sample buildings showed that 87% of the structures fell within the expected performance range, while the remainder exhibited better-than-predicted performance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seismic risk prioritization
• Data collection
• Reinforced concrete structures
• Rapid assessment

Kaynakça

1. [1]. KOERI. (2020). İstanbul İli Olası Deprem Kayıp Tahminlerinin Güncellenmesi Projesi.
2. [2]. Bellotti, D., Cavalieri, F., & Nascimbene, R. (2023). Influence of Closure External Panels Modelling on the Seismic Response of Non-Residential Precast Buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2023.2197517
3. [3]. Perrone, D., Calvi, P. M., Nascimbene, R., Fischer, E. C., & Magliulo, G. (2018). Seismic performance of non-structural elements during the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17(10), 5655-5677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0361-5
4. [4]. Zito, M., Nascimbene, R., Dubini, P., D’Angela, D., & Magliulo, G. (2022). Experimental Seismic Assessment of Nonstructural Elements: Testing Protocols and Novel Perspectives. Buildings, 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111871
5. [5]. KONDA. (2020). Earthquake Report.
6. [6]. Cosenza, E., Del Vecchio, C., Di Ludovico, M., Dolce, M., Moroni, C., Prota, A., & Renzi, E. (2018). The Italian guidelines for seismic risk classification of constructions: technical principles and validation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(12), 5905-5935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0431-8
7. [7]. Pampanin, S. (2021). Simplified Analytical/Mechanical Procedure for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation and Loss Assessment of Buildings. In Advances in Assessment and Modeling of Earthquake Loss (pp. 3-25). Springer, Cham.
8. [8]. Lizundia, B., Durphy, S., Griffin, M., Holmes, W., Hortacsu, A., Kehoe, B., Porter, K., & Welliver, B. (2015). Update of FEMA P-154: Rapid visual screening for potential seismic hazards. In Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures 2015 (pp. 775-786).

9. [9]. RBTE. (2019). Principles for Identifying Risky Buildings, Ministry for Environment and Urban Planning,
10. [10]. Sucuoğlu, H., Yazgan, U., & Yakut, A. (2007). A Screening Procedure for Seismic Risk Assessment in Urban Building Stocks. Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), 441-458. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2720931
11. [11]. Applied Technology Council (ATC-43 Project). (1998). FEMA 306: Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Redwood City, CA.
12. [12]. Ilki, A., Comert, M., Demir, C., Orakcal, K., Ulugtekin, D., Tapan, M., & Kumbasar, N. (2014). Performance Based Rapid Seismic Assessment Method (PERA) for Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings. Advances in Structural Engineering, 17(3).
13. [13]. Applied Technology Council (2005). ATC-20-1 field manual: Postearthquake safety evaluation of buildings. Applied Technology Council: Redwood City, CA, USA.
14. [14]. Maeda, M., Al-Washali, H., & Matsukawa, K. (2019). An overview of post earthquake damage and residual capacity evaluation for reinforced concrete buildings in Japan. Proceedings of the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand,
15. [15]. MBIE. (2014). Field Guide: Rapid post disaster building usability assessment – earthquake. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).
16. [16]. Kohler, M. D., Smith, D. E., Andrews, J., Chung, A. I., Hartog, R., Henson, I., Given, D. D., de Groot, R., & Guiwits, S. (2020). Earthquake early warning ShakeAlert 2.0: Public rollout. Seismological Research Letters, 91(3), 1763-1775.
17. [17]. Kong, Q., Allen, R. M., Schreier, L., & Kwon, Y.-W. (2016). MyShake: A smartphone seismic network for earthquake early warning and beyond. Science Advances, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501055
18. [18]. Alzughaibi, A. A., Ibrahim, A. M., Na, Y., El-Tawil, S., & Eltawil, A. M. (2020, 2020). Feasibility of Utilizing Smart-phone Cameras for Seismic Structural Damage Detection 2020 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/I2MTC43012.2020.9128554
19. [19]. Kong, Q., Allen, R. M., Kohler, M. D., Heaton, T. H., & Bunn, J. (2018). Structural Health Monitoring of Buildings Using Smartphone Sensors. Seismological Research Letters, 89(2A), 594-602. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170111
20. [20]. Li, J., Xie, B., & Zhao, X. (2020). Measuring the interstory drift of buildings by a smartphone using a feature point matching algorithm. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2492
21. [21]. Na, Y., El-Tawil, S., Ibrahim, A., & Eltawil, A. (2020). Automated Assessment of Building Damage from Seismic Events Using Smartphones. Journal of Structural Engineering, 146(5). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002618
22. [22]. Ozer, E., Feng, M., & Feng, D. (2015). Citizen Sensors for SHM: Towards a Crowdsourcing Platform. Sensors, 15(6), 14591-14614. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150614591
23. [23]. Yu, Y., Han, R., Zhao, X., Mao, X., Hu, W., Jiao, D., Li, M., & Ou, J. (2015). Initial Validation of Mobile-Structural Health Monitoring Method Using Smartphones. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 11(2), 274391. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/274391
24. [24]. Harirchian, E., Aghakouchaki Hosseini, S. E., Jadhav, K., Kumari, V., Rasulzade, S., Işık, E., Wasif, M., & Lahmer, T. (2021). A review on application of soft computing techniques for the rapid visual safety evaluation and damage classification of existing buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102536
25. [25]. Sbrogiò, L., Saretta, Y., Molinari, F., & Valluzzi, M. R. (2022). Multilevel Assessment of Seismic Damage and Vulnerability of Masonry Buildings (MUSE-DV) in Historical Centers: Development of a Mobile Android Application. Sustainability, 14(12), 7145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127145
26. [26]. Xu, Z., Lu, X., Cheng, Q., Guan, H., Deng, L., & Zhang, Z. (2018). A smart phone-based system for post-earthquake investigations of building damage. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 214-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.008
27. [27]. Korkmaz, M., Akyildiz, Y. E., Demirkesen, S., Toprak, S., Nowak, P., & Ciftci, B. (2025). A Digital Twin Approach to Sustainable Disaster Management: Case of Cayirova. Sustainability, 17(21), 9626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219626
28. [28]. Aydogdu, H. H., Atasever, K., & Ilki, A. (2025). A Pre-Earthquake Regional Seismic Risk Estimation Methodology and a Prioritization Approach for Regional Risk Assessment. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 53: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2025-0156
29. [29]. Aroquipa, H., Hurtado, A., & Angel, C. (2025). Methodological framework for integrating structural health monitoring and digital-twin models for seismic assessment of heritage buildings: Case study of Basilica Maria Auxiliadora, Lima, Peru. Structures, 80, 110115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2025.110115
30. [30]. Yang, S., Guo, W., Zhang, Y., Guo, L., & Wang, Y. (2025). Intelligent monitoring of damper response during earthquakes using triboelectric nanogenerator and digital twin. Automation in Construction, 179, 106493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106493
31. [31]. TUIK. (2022). Housing Statistics. Retrieved June 1, 2022 from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Konut-Sat%C4%B1%C5%9F-%C4%B0statistikleri-Ocak-2022-45673&dil=1
32. [32]. AFAD. (2018). Turkish Seismic Hazard Map.
33. [33]. NOAA. (2025). National Geophysical Data Center / World Data Service (NGDC/WDS): NCEI/WDS Global Significant Earthquake Database. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5TD9V7K [Accessed: 28 November 2025]
34. [34]. Styron, R., & Pagani, M. (2020). The GEM Global Active Faults Database. Earthquake Spectra, 36(1_suppl), 160-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020944182
35. [35]. Delph, J. R., Biryol, C. B., Beck, S. L., Zandt, G., & Ward, K. M. (2015). Shear wave velocity structure of the Anatolian Plate: anomalously slow crust in southwestern Türkiye. Geophysical Journal International, 202(1), 261-276.
36. [36]. Doğan, T. P., Kızılkula, T., Mohammadi, M., Erkan, İ. H., Tekeli Kabaş, H., & Arslan, M. H. (2021). A comparative study on the rapid seismic evaluation methods of reinforced concrete buildings. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102143
37. [37]. Aydogdu, H. H., Demir, C., Kahraman, T., & Ilki, A. (2023, October). Evaluation of rapid seismic safety assessment methods on a substandard reinforced concrete building stock in Istanbul. In Structures (Vol. 56, p. 104962). Elsevier.
38. [38]. Albayrak, U., Canbaz, M., & Albayrak, G. (2015). A rapid seismic risk assessment method for existing building stock in urban areas. Procedia Engineering, 118, 1242–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.476
39. [39]. Güler, E., & Canbaz, M. (2020). Yapıların deprem riskinin sokak tarama yöntemi ile belirlenmesi: Sivrihisar örneği. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(3), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.31796/ogummf.736221
40. [40]. Bal, İ. E., Crowley, H., Pinho, R., & Gülay, F. G. (2008). Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28(10-11), 914-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.005
41. [41]. Yakut, A. (2004). Preliminary seismic performance assessment procedure for existing RC buildings. Engineering Structures, 26(10), 1447-1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.05.011
42. [42]. Turkish Earthquake Code, (2018).
43. [43]. Bal, I., Gulay, F., & Tezcan, S. (2008). A new approach for the preliminary seismic assessment of RC buildings: P25 scoring method. Proceedings of 14th WCEE, 12-17.
44. [44]. Heath, D. C., Wald, D. J., Worden, C. B., Thompson, E. M., & Smoczyk, G. M. (2020). A global hybrid VS 30 map with a topographic slope–based default and regional map insets. Earthquake Spectra, 36(3), 1570-1584
45. [45]. IBB. (2007). Istanbul. Microzonation Project: European Side.
46. [46]. IBB. (2009). Istanbul. Microzonation Project: Anatolian Side.
47. [47]. Bilal, M., & Askan, A. (2014). Relationships between Felt Intensity and Recorded Ground-Motion Parameters for Türkiye. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(1), 484-496. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130093
48. [48]. CSI, S. (2016). CSI Analysis Reference Manual For SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE and CSiBridge.
49. [49]. Chadwell, C., & Imbsen, R. (2004). XTRACT: A tool for axial force-ultimate curvature interactions. In Structures 2004: Building on the past, securing the future (pp. 1-9).
50. [50]. Chiou, B., Darragh, R., Gregor, N., & Silva, W. (2008). NGA project strong-motion database. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 23-44.
51. [51]. Ghobarah, A. (2004). On drift limits associated with different damage levels. International workshop on performance-based seismic design,
52. [52]. Doğan, M. (2012). P25 ve DURTES Öndeğerlendirme Yöntemleri ve 1999 Düzce Depreminde Hasar Görmüş Binalara Uygulanması
53. [53]. Tezcan, S. S., Bal, I. E., & Gulay, F. G. (2011). P25 scoring method for the collapse vulnerability assessment of R/C buildings. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 34(6), 769-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2011.591548
54. [54]. JBDPA. (2015). Guidelines for Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, and Technical Manual for Seismic Evaluation and Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings.
55. [55]. Tajiri, S., et al. (2024). Japanese and Turkish joint detailed survey of RC buildings damaged by the 2023 Turkey earthquake. In Proceedings of the 18th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE2024), Milan, Italy.
56. [56]. Shegay, A. et al. (2024). Performance of RC buildings in the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes. In Proceedings of the 2024 NZSEE Conference (9–11 April 2024), Tākina Wellington Convention and Exhibition Centre, New Zealand.
57. [57]. AFAD (2025). Regulation on General Principles for Post-Disaster Building Damage Assessment. Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye, June 22, 2025, No. 32934.
58. [58]. Aydogdu, H. H., & Ilki, A. (2023). Validation of a performance based rapid seismic assessment methodology (PERA2019) based on actual earthquake damages. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.
59. [59]. Danciu, L., Nandan, S., Reyes, C. G., Basili, R., Weatherill, G., Beauval, C., Rovida, A., Vilanova, S., Sesetyan, K., & Bard, P.-Y. (2021). The 2020 update of the European Seismic Hazard Model-ESHM20: Model Overview. EFEHR Technical Report, 1.
60. [60]. Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., & Brox, T. (2015). U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention
61. [61]. Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A. (2014). Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556.