Kırsal Alanda URM Binasının Deprem Davranışı Değerlendirmesi

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 25, 607 - 614, 31.08.2021

Başak Zengin

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.936853

Öz

Türkiye nüfusunun yaklaşık% 30'u kırsal kesimde yaşıyor ve donatısız/betonarme olmayan yığma bina (URM) olarak adlandırılan yapılarda yaşamaktadırlar. Bu tip binalar, ahşap karkaslı kerpiç yapılar, ahşap destekli yığma-kerpiç yapılar ve betonarme lentolarla desteklenen tuğla ve briket yığma yapılardan oluşmaktadır. Yığma yapıların yapımı, tuğla ve yığma gibi yapı malzemelerinin kolay bulunabilirliği nedeniyle kolay ve düşük maliyetli olduğundan yaygın olarak rastlanmaktadır.
Ancak bu binalar, özellikle pek çok açıdan kötü inşa edilmiş yığma binalar, son depremlerde çok kötü performans göstermiş, can ve mal kaybına neden olmuştur.
Bu nedenle bu yapıların iyileştirilmesi veya güçlendirilmesi talebinin can ve mal kurtarılması açısından çok önemli olduğu ve bu amaçla sismik araştırma ve değerlendirmenin gerekli olduğu bir kez daha görülmüştür. Bu çalışmada esnek diyaframlı tuğla yığma yapının deprem davranışı SAP200 Sonlu eleman programı kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Düz ve hatıl olmak üzere iki tip yığma bina modellenmiştir. Yer değiştirme, Taban kesme ve Gerilme verileri Analiz sonuçları elde edilmiş ve iki model için karşılaştırılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Deprem, Tuğlalı Yığma Yapı, Sismik analiz

Seismic Behavior Evaluation of URM Building in Rural Area

Öz

Approximately 30% of Turkey's population lives in rural areas and they are seated in structures, which called unreinforced masonry building (URM). These types of buildings consist of mudbrick structures with wooden carcasses, masonry-adobe structures with wooden supports, and brick and briquette masonry structures supported by reinforced concrete lintels. The construction of masonry structures is easy and low cost because of the easy availability of building materials such as brick and masonry, so it is frequently preferred.
However, these buildings, especially poorly constructed masonry buildings in many respects, have performed very badly in recent earthquakes, causing loss of life and property.
For this reason, it was once again seen that the demand for the improvement or strengthening of these structures is very important in terms of saving life and property, and that seismic research and evaluation are necessary for this purpose. İn this study, the earthquake behavior of the brick masonry structure with a flexible diaphragm is evaluated using SAP200 Finite element program. Two types of masonry buildings were modeled which are plain and bond beams. Displacement, Base shear, and Stress data The analysis results are obtained and compared for two models.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Earthquake, Brick masonry building, Seismic evaluation.

Kaynakça

• Banerjee, S., Nayak, S., & Das, S. (2020). Shear and flexural behaviour of unreinforced masonry wallets with steel wire mesh. Journal of Building Engineering, 30.
• Brijpuriya R., & Sharma, A. (2019). Seismic Evaluation of URM Building with Flexible Diaphragm using Nonlinear Static and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), 48–54.
• Capozucca, R., Magagnini, E., & Pace, G. (2018). FE Modelling of Experimental Brickwork Masonry Building Under Eccentric Shear Force. The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 11(1), 1036–1058.
• Ceylan, S., & Somuncu, M. (2018). Yıl Uluslararası Coğrafya Sempozyumu International Geography Symposium on the 30 th Anniversary of TUCAUM 3-6 October.
• Chourasia, A., Singhal, S., & Parashar, J. (2019). Experimental investigation of seismic strengthening technique for confined masonry buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 25, 100834.
• Dutta, S. C., Mukhopadhyay, P. S., Saha, R., & Nayak, S. (2015). 2011 Sikkim earthquake at the eastern Himalayas: Lessons learnt from the performance of structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 75, 121–129.
• Furtado, A., Ramos, T., Rodrigues, H., Arêde, A., Varum, H., & Tavares, P. (2015). In-plane Response of Masonry Infill Walls: Experimental Study using Digital Image Correlation. Procedia Engineering, 114, 870–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.042
• Gautam, D., & Chaulagain, H. (2016). Structural performance and associated lessons to be learned from world earthquakes in Nepal after 25 April 2015 (MW 7.8) Gorkha earthquake. Engineering Failure Analysis, 68, 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.06.002
• Göker, Ş., & Karaşahin, A. (2015). Depremde hasar gören kırsal yapılar için bir yapısal hasar değerlendirmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 6(1), 31–38.
• Gupta, A., & Singhal, V. (2020). Strengthening of Confined Masonry Structures for In-plane Loads: A Review. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 936(1).
• Korkmaz, S. Z. (2007). Kırsal konutların deprem güvenliğinin arttırılması (Doctoral dissertation, Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü)
• Losanno, D., Ravichandran, N., Parisi, F., Calabrese, A., & Serino, G. (2021). Seismic performance of a Low-Cost base isolation system for unreinforced brick Masonry buildings in developing countries. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 141, 106501.
• Nucera, F., Santini, A., Tripodi, E., Cannizzaro, F., & Pantò, B. (2012). Influence of geometrical and mechanical parameters on the seismic vulnerability assessment of confined masonry buildings by macro-element modelling. In Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 24–28.
• Pinar, U., Nihat, M., Evci, A., & Ergün, S. (2018). Assessment of Seismic Damage on the Exist Buildings Using Fuzzy Logic. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 300(1), 012062.
• Saygılı, Ö. (2020). Seısmıc Performance Evaluatıon of a Masonry Buıldıng Subjected to Near And Far Field Ground Motions- ProQuest. Civil Engineering Journal, 3.
• Sharma, A., & Khare, R. (2016). Pushover Analysis for Seismic Evaluation of Masonry Wall. International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research, 5(3).
• Usta, P., Arici, A., Evci, A., & Kepenek, E. (2017). Sustainability of traditional buildings located in a rural area. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 5(2), 231–236.