Betonarme Bir Okul Binasının Deprem Performansının Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Depremler, Türkiye’nin aktif fay sistemleri üzerinde yer alması nedeniyle yapısal güvenliği etkileyen başlıca doğal afetlerden biridir. Son yıllarda meydana gelen yıkıcı depremler, özellikle eski tasarım yönetmeliklerine göre inşa edilmiş mevcut betonarme yapı stokunun deprem performansının yeniden değerlendirilmesi gerekliliğini ortaya koymuştur. Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği 2018’e (TBDY-2018) göre okul binaları, deprem sonrasında hizmet vermeye devam etmesi beklenen kamu yapıları arasında sınıflandırılmaktadır. Bu nedenle, hizmet sürekliliğinin sağlanabilmesi için yeterli performansı sağlamaları gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada, mevcut betonarme bir okul binasının deprem performansı ProtaStructure 2026 yapısal analiz programı kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Yapıya ait rölöve çalışmaları, beton örtüsünün kaldırılması, donatı taraması ve beton basınç dayanımını belirlemek amacıyla gerçekleştirilen çalışmalar ayrıntılı yerinde incelemeler yoluyla belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler doğrultusunda, yapının üç boyutlu yapısal modeli oluşturulmuş ve yapının bulunduğu konuma ait deprem tehlike parametreleri, yerel zemin koşulları ve malzeme özellikleri yapısal modele tanımlanmıştır. Daha sonra TBDY-2018’de tanımlanan DD-1 ve DD-3 deprem yer hareketi düzeyleri için doğrusal olmayan artımsal itme analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, bazı taşıyıcı elemanların ileri hasar ve göçme bölgelerine ulaştığını ve yapının yönetmelikte tanımlanan hedef performans düzeylerini sağlamadığını göstermiştir. Bu bulgular, mevcut betonarme kamu yapılarının deprem performanslarının ayrıntılı analiz yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesinin yapısal güvenliğin belirlenmesi açısından kritik önem taşıdığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ProtaStructure
• Betonarme
• Okul binası
• Doğrusal olmayan analiz
• Deprem performansı

Seismic Performance Assessment of a Reinforced Concrete School Building

Öz

Earthquakes represent one of the major natural hazards affecting structural safety in Türkiye due to the country’s location along active fault systems. Recent destructive earthquakes have highlighted the necessity of reassessing the seismic performance of the existing reinforced concrete (RC) building stock, particularly structures constructed according to older design codes. According to the Turkish Building Earthquake Code 2018 (TBEC 2018), school buildings are classified as public facilities that are expected to remain operational after earthquakes; therefore, they must provide sufficient structural performance to ensure life safety and continuity of service. In this study, the seismic performance of an existing RC school building was evaluated by ProtaStructure 2026 structural analysis software. Building survey studies, including concrete cover removal, reinforcement scanning, and tests conducted to determine the concrete compressive strength, were carried out through detailed on-site investigations. Based on the obtained data, a three-dimensional structural model was developed, and seismic hazard parameters, local soil conditions, and material properties corresponding to the building location were incorporated into the structural model. Subsequently, nonlinear incremental pushover analyses were performed for the DD-1 and DD-3 earthquake ground motion levels defined in TBEC 2018. The analysis results indicated that some structural members reached the advanced damage and collapse regions, demonstrating that the building does not satisfy the target performance levels specified in the code. The findings reveal that detailed seismic performance assessment of existing reinforced concrete public buildings using advanced analytical methods is of critical importance for accurately evaluating structural safety.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ProtaStructure
• Reinforced concrete
• School building
• Nonlinear analysis
• Seismic performance

Kaynakça

1. [1] Doğangün, A., Yön, B., Onat, O., Emin Öncü, M., Sağıroğlu, S. (2021). Seismicity of East Anatolian of Turkey and failures of infill walls induced by major earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 15(04), 2150017.
2. [2] Utkucu, M., Kurnaz, T. F., İnce, Y. (2023). The seismicity assessment and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the plateau containing large dams around the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Eastern Türkiye. Environmental Earth Sciences, 82(15), 371.
3. [3] TBEC-2018. (2018). Specifications for design of buildings under seismic effects. Ankara, Turkey.
4. [4] Gupta, P., Gupta, C. (2024). Seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete flat slab buildings using ETABS. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(7), 4995-5007.
5. [5] Ozkul, T. A., Kurtbeyoglu, A., Borekci, M., Zengin, B., Kocak, A. (2019). Effect of shear wall on seismic performance of RC frame buildings. Engineering Failure Analysis, 100, 60-75.
6. [6] Erdem, R. T. (2016). Performance evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings with softer ground floors. Gradevinar, 68(1), 39-49.
7. [7] Bento, S., Simoes, A. (2021). Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Buildings, 11(10), 440.
8. [8] Panahi, M., Rezaie, F., Meshkani, S. A. (2014). Seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings in Tehran city based on AHP and GIS. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14(4), 969-979.

9. [9] Zhang, J., Lata, A., Guo, X., Xu, Z. (2025). Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete school buildings based on the concept of balanced seismic shear force distribution. Structures, 71, 108184.
10. [10] Ghimire, N., Chaulagain, H. (2021). Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete school building in Nepal. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(2), 249-262.
11. [11] Kuria, K. K., Kegyes-Brassai, O. K. (2023). Nonlinear static analysis for seismic evaluation of existing RC hospital building. Applied Sciences, 13, 11626.
12. [12] Bilgin, H. (2015). Seismic performance evaluation of an existing school building in Turkey. Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics, 1(4), 161-167.
13. [13] Ferreira, T. M., Rodrigues, H., Vicente, R. (2020). Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings in urban centers. Sustainability, 12(5), 1996.
14. [14] Gkournelos, P. D., Triantafillou, T. C., Bournas, D. A. (2021). Seismic upgrading of existing reinforced concrete buildings: A state-of-the-art review. Engineering Structures, 240, 112273.
15. [15] Erdem, R. T., Uyan, B. (2025). Evaluation of irregular reinforced concrete buildings according to different soil classes. Revista de la Construcción, 24(1), 183-195.
16. [16] Chopra, A. K., Goel, R. K. (2002). A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 561-582.
17. [17] Kalkan, E., Kunnath, S. K. (2007). Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings. Engineering Structures, 29(3), 305-316.
18. [18] Uva, G., Porco, F., Fiore, A. (2012). Appraisal of masonry infill walls effect in the seismic response of RC framed buildings: A case study. Engineering Structures, 34, 514-526.
19. [19] Ismaeil, M. (2018). Seismic capacity assessment of existing RC building by using pushover analysis. Civil Engineering Journal, 4(9), 2034-2043.
20. [20] Habibi, A., Izadpanah, M., Namdar, Y. (2022). A new modal lateral load pattern for improving pushover analysis to estimate nonlinear responses of structures. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 23(4), 289- 302.
21. [21] Oz, I., Omur, M. (2025). Evaluating the seismic fragility and code compliance of turkish reinforced concrete buildings after the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake. Applied Sciences, 15(10), 5554.
22. [22] Kwong, N. S., Chopra, A. K. (2018). Determining bidirectional ground motions for nonlinear response history analysis of buildings at far-field sites. Earthquake Spectra, 34(4), 1931-1954.
23. [23] Kalkan, E., & Chopra, A. K. (2010). Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1068.
24. [24] Vamvatsikos, D., Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491-514.
25. [25] Erdem, R. T., Karal, K. (2022). Performance evaluation and strengthening of reinforced concrete buildings. Revista de la Construcción, 21(1), 459-475.
26. [26] Latifi, R., Rouhi, R. (2020). Seismic assessment and retrofitting of existing RC structures: Seismostruct and seismobuild implementation. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 8(2), 84-93.
27. [27] ProtaStructure. (2026). ProtaStructure 2026. Prota Software, Ankara, Turkey.
28. [28] TS-498. (1997). Design loads for buildings. Ankara, Turkey.