Impact of Building Height on Seismic Response, Economic Viability, Environmental Performance and Social Well-being in Earthquake-Prone Türkiye

Öz

This study presents a comprehensive comparative evaluation of high-rise and low-rise building typologies in Türkiye’s seismically active regions, addressing their seismic behavior, economic viability, environmental footprint, and socio-psychological impacts. Utilizing Finite Element Method (FEM) simulations and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), the research integrates structural modeling with long-term performance metrics, supported by generalized data derived from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake and national statistical sources. In accordance with TBDY-2018, high-rise buildings are defined as those exceeding 15 stories or 60 meters in height, while low-rise buildings typically fall below this threshold. The analysis indicates that, under normalized seismic loading conditions, low-rise buildings exhibit lower inter-story drift and base shear demands, reflecting different dynamic responses. Economically, high-rise developments are associated with 20–30% higher life-cycle costs, primarily due to maintenance, vertical transportation systems, and energy-intensive infrastructure requirements. From an environmental perspective, high-rise structures consume approximately 30% more operational energy and emit up to 35% more CO₂ over their lifespan, attributed to mechanical system dependence and higher embodied carbon in construction materials. Additionally, socio-psychological assessments reveal that high-rise living often correlates with increased social isolation, reduced neighborhood interaction, and adverse effects on mental well-being, whereas low-rise environments tend to support stronger community ties. While recognizing the inherent design and regulatory distinctions between these typologies, this study employs harmonized analytical methods to derive context-specific insights, offering guidance for urban planners and policymakers seeking to align seismic safety with sustainable, livable development strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seismic Resilience
• Building Typologies
• Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
• Environmental Impact
• Social Well-being
• Sustainable Urban Development
• Construction Management
• Urban Planning
• Green Building

Deprem Riski Altındaki Türkiye’de Bina Yüksekliğinin Sismik Davranış, Ekonomik Uygunluk, Çevresel Performans ve Sosyal Refah Üzerindeki Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin deprem açısından aktif bölgelerinde yer alan yüksek ve alçak katlı bina tipolojilerinin sismik davranış, ekonomik sürdürülebilirlik, çevresel etki ve sosyo-psikolojik sonuçlar açısından kapsamlı ve karşılaştırmalı bir değerlendirmesini sunmaktadır. Sonlu Elemanlar Yöntemi (FEM) simülasyonları ve Yaşam Döngüsü Maliyet Analizi (LCCA) kullanılarak yapılan araştırma, yapısal modellemeyi uzun vadeli performans göstergeleriyle bütünleştirmekte ve 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremi ile ulusal istatistiksel kaynaklardan elde edilen genel verilere dayanmaktadır. TBDY-2018 yönetmeliğine göre, yüksek katlı binalar 15 katı veya 60 metreyi aşan yapılar olarak tanımlanırken, alçak katlı binalar bu eşiklerin altında kalan yapılardır. Normalize edilmiş sismik yükleme koşulları altında yapılan analizler, alçak katlı binaların daha düşük katlar arası ötelenme (interstory drift) ve temel kesme kuvveti taleplerine sahip olduğunu ve bu yapıların farklı dinamik tepkiler gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ekonomik açıdan bakıldığında, yüksek katlı yapıların bakım, düşey ulaşım sistemleri ve enerji yoğun altyapı gereksinimleri nedeniyle yaşam döngüsü maliyetlerinin %20–30 oranında daha yüksek olduğu görülmektedir. Çevresel açıdan ise, yüksek katlı binaların yaklaşık %30 daha fazla işletme enerjisi tükettiği ve yaşam süreleri boyunca %35’e varan oranda daha fazla CO₂ salımı yaptığı belirlenmiştir; bu durum, mekanik sistem bağımlılığı ve yapı malzemelerinde yer alan gömülü karbon miktarının yüksekliği ile ilişkilidir. Sosyo-psikolojik değerlendirmeler, yüksek katlı yaşamın sıklıkla artan sosyal izolasyon, azalan komşuluk etkileşimi ve zihinsel iyi oluş üzerinde olumsuz etkilerle ilişkili olduğunu; buna karşın, alçak katlı çevrelerin daha güçlü topluluk bağlarını desteklediğini göstermektedir. Bu tipolojiler arasındaki yapısal ve düzenleyici farklılıklar dikkate alınarak, çalışma bağlama özgü içgörüler üretmek amacıyla bütüncül analiz yöntemleri kullanmakta; böylece, sismik güvenlik ile sürdürülebilir ve yaşanabilir kentsel gelişim stratejilerini uyumlu hâle getirmeyi amaçlayan şehir plancılarına ve karar vericilere yol göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sismik Dayanıklılık
• Bina Tipolojileri
• Yaşam Döngüsü Maliyet Analizi (YDMA)
• Çevresel Etki
• Sosyal Refah
• Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Gelişim
• İnşaat Yönetimi
• Kentsel Planlama
• Yeşil Bina

Kaynakça

1. [1] O. Hansu and A. Oğuz, “Seismic Risk, Structural Vulnerabilities, and Retrofitting Solutions: Lessons from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake,” Osmaniye Korkut Ata University Journal of The Institute of Science and Technology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1427–1452, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.47495/okufbed.1573919
2. [2] AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management Authority), “2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake report,” Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), Türkiye, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.afad.gov.tr.
3. [3] T. Okada, “Development and present status of seismic evaluation and seismic retrofit of existing reinforced concrete buildings in Japan,” Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. B, Phys. Biol. Sci., vol. 97, no. 10, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2183/pjab.97.021.
4. [4] R. Kant and M. S. Thakur, “Study on seismic performance of reinforced concrete high-rise building with buckling restrained braces dissipation devices,” E3S Web Conf., 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202450503001.
5. [5] X. Wu and D. Lin, “Seismic assessment of high-rise buildings through dynamic nonlinear analysis,” Ann. Geophys., 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-8770.
6. [6] M. Benek and S. Aktan, “Seismic risk evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings: A case study for Çanakkale-Türkiye,” J. Adv. Res. Nat. Appl. Sci., 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.28979/jarnas.1467032.
7. [7] X. Zhang and H. Far, “Beneficial and detrimental impacts of soil-structure interaction on seismic response of high-rise buildings,” Adv. Struct. Eng., 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/13694332241255747.
8. [8] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient buildings sector,” UNEP, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/2021-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction.

9. [9] A. Oğuz and O. Hansu, “Disaster Governance and Recovery Efficiency in Türkiye and Japan: A Comparative Analysis of Post-Earthquake Reconstruction,” SETSCI Conference Proceedings, vol. 23, pp. 126–134, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.36287/setsci.23.56.001.
10. [10] Kandilli Observatory, “Seismic activity and building vulnerability in Türkiye,” Bogazici University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr.
11. [11] R. W. Wassmer, “Do higher land costs for new single-family housing inhibit economic activity in U.S. metropolitan areas?” Econ. Dev. Q., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 325–337, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/08912424211006174.
12. [12] M. Damlakhi, “Evaluation of low-rise neighborhoods and high-rise neighborhoods in the context of new urbanism,” Soc. Sci. Dev. J., 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.31567/ssd.551.
13. [13] World Bank, Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity. World Bank, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2019/06/17/lifelines-the-resilient-infrastructure-opportunity.
14. [14] Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), “Construction cost index, December 2024,” Turkish Statistical Institute, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/en.
15. [15] Z. Kan, M. Kwan, M. Ng, and H. Tieben, “The impacts of housing characteristics and built-environment features on mental health,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 19, no. 5, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095143.
16. [16] S. Kalantari and M. Shepley, “Psychological and social impacts of high-rise buildings: A review of the post-occupancy evaluation literature,” Hous. Stud., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1147–1176, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2020.1752630.
17. [17] World Health Organization, “Social isolation and loneliness among older people: Advocacy brief,” WHO, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030749.
18. [18] N. Nzimande and F. Morris-Kolawole, “Does size really matter for the place attachment of high-rise and low-rise housing estates? A Budapest case study,” Sustainability, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031195.
19. [19] World Health Organization, Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders: Global Health Estimates. WHO, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/depression-global-health-estimates.
20. [20] A. Oğuz and O. Hansu, “Climate-Adaptive Modular Micro-Living for Urban Regeneration: A Passive Design and Low-Carbon Construction Framework,” SETSCI Conference Proceedings, vol. 23, pp. 149–154, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.36287/setsci.23.62.001.
21. [21] AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management Authority), “Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği (TBDY-2018),” T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Ankara, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/03/20180318M1-2.htm.
22. [22] International Code Council, “2018 International Building Code (IBC),” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2018/chapter-2-definitions.
23. [23] Rockpanel, “High-rise buildings and fire safety,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.rockpanel.co.uk/product-benefits/firesafety/high-rise-buildings.
24. [24] R. Gifford, “The consequences of living in high-rise buildings,” Architectural Science Review, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 2–17, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5002.
25. [25] H. Lee, “Psychological characteristics of high-rise residents,” International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 10–20, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2014.876905.
26. [26] L. Jing, “Environmental impact of two types of residential building,” Urban Environment & Urban Ecology, 2003.
27. [27] W. Xu, C. Jimenez-Bescos, and J. K. Calautit, “Evaluating the impact of neighbouring structures on a high-rise residential block’s performance,” Building Simulation Conference Proceedings, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2021.30210.
28. [28] R. Rambabu, “Base isolation and energy dissipating system in earthquake resistant building design,” CVR J. Sci. Technol., 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.32377/cvrjst2603.
29. [29] M. R. B. Karimi and M. C. Geneş, “Optimized values for lead core rubber bearings for minimum response quantities,” in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Civil Eng., Archit. Urban Planning Elites, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.33422/6th.caueconf.2023.08.10.
30. [30] M. Noureldin and J. Kim, “Simplified life cycle cost estimation of low-rise steel buildings using fundamental period,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 3, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032706.
31. [31] N. Ding, T. Chen, Y. Zhu, and Y. Lu, “State-of-the-art high-rise building emergency evacuation behavior,” Physica A: Stat. Mech. Appl., vol. 561, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2020.125168.
32. [32] L. Ma, R. Azari, and M. Elnimeiri, “A building information modeling-based life cycle assessment of the embodied carbon and environmental impacts of high-rise building structures: A case study,” Sustainability, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020569.
33. [33] International Energy Agency (IEA), “High-rise refurbishment,” IEA Reports, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/high-rise-refurbishment.
34. [34] M. Sarcheshmehpour and H. Estekanchi, “Life cycle cost optimization of earthquake-resistant steel framed tube tall buildings,” Structures, vol. 30, pp. 585–601, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.038.
35. [35] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction,” UNEP, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/2022-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction.
36. [36] United States Geological Survey (USGS), “Urban seismic hazards,” USGS, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/urban-seismic-hazards.
37. [37] The Global Footprint Network, “Ecological footprint of urban buildings,” Global Footprint Network, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.footprintnetwork.org.
38. [38] A. K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 2012.
39. [39] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions, and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, 2004.
40. [40] E. Budak, H. Sucuoglu, and O. Celik, “Response parameters that control the service, safety, and collapse performances of a 253 m tall concrete core wall building in Istanbul,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 21, no. 1, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01527-4.
41. [41] F. Shadram and J. Mukkavaara, “Improving life cycle sustainability and profitability of buildings through optimization: A case study,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 4, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12040497.
42. [42] B. R. Viswalekshmi and D. Bendi, “A comprehensive model for quantifying construction waste in high-rise buildings in India,” Waste Manage. Res., 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231178227.
43. [43] UN-Habitat, Enhancing Urban Safety and Security: Global Report on Human Settlements 2007. UN-Habitat, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/09/grhs.2007.6.pdf.
44. [44] P. T. Thoi, T. H. Nguyen, and E. Harms, “Spaces of social capital across pandemic time: COVID-19 responses in Ho Chi Minh City’s high-rise and low-rise neighborhoods,” City & Community, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/15356841231198458.
45. [45] W. Dawood, M. Nazim, O. El-Mahdy, and M. Adam, “Soil-structure interaction assessment for seismic performance of high-rise RC building on piled-raft foundation,” Eng. Res. J. (Shoubra), 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.21608/erjsh.2024.263591.1274.
46. [46] K. Lai, C. Sarkar, S. Kumari, M. Y. Ni, J. D. Gallacher, and C. Webster, “Calculating a national anomie density ratio: Measuring the patterns of loneliness and social isolation across the UK’s residential density gradient using results from the UK Biobank study,” Landsc. Urban Plan., vol. 215, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104194.
47. [47] World Green Building Council (WorldGBC), “Advancing net zero status report 2021,” WorldGBC, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://worldgbc.org/article/worldgbc-details-built-environment-progress-to-achieving-net-zero-in-latest-report/.