Farklı Dolgu Duvar Malzemesine Sahip Binaların Deprem Davranışının İncelenmesi

Yıl 2022, , 82 - 88, 29.06.2022

Pınar Usta

https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1107332

Cited By: 2

Öz

Binalarda yapı malzemesi olarak farklı yığma malzemeler yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Betonarme yapıların deprem etkisi altındaki mevcut durumu incelendiğinde, betonarme yapılarda kullanılan malzemelerin özelliklerine bağlı olarak betonarme yapıların davranışlarında farklılıklar olduğu görülmektedir. Deprem etkisinde betonarme yapıların mevcut durumu incelediğinde betonarme yapıların kullanılan malzemelerin özelliklerine göre yapı davranışında farklılıklar meydana gelmiştir. Bu durumun sebebi tercihe dilen malzemenin fiziksel özellikleriyle ilişkilidir. Betonarme yapıların çerçeve sistemi dolgu duvarlarla tamamlanmaktır. Türkiye’de inşaa edilen betonarme yapılarda dolgu duvarlarda gazbeton ve tuğla malzemeler kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışmada, dolgu duvarlı betonarme yapıların deprem etkileri altındaki mevcut durumunu analiz etmek için sonlu elemanlar programı kullanılmıştır. SAP2000 sonlu elemanlar programı kullanılarak betonarme çerçeveli bir yapı modeli tasarlanmış, model yapısında iki farklı malzeme tercih edilmiş ve dört farklı model kombinasyonu tasarlanmıştır. İlk iki model dolgu duvarlı olarak tasarlanmıştır ancak zemin kat ve diğer modeller tüm bina için dolgu duvarlı olarak tasarlanmıştır. Doğrusal olmayan statik itme analizleri yapılarak taban kesme, deplasman ve kat öteleme değerleri elde edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak tüm sonuçlar grafiklerle sunulmuştur. deprem etkisi altında birim hacim ağırlığı düşük
olan gaz beton malzemeli modelden elde edilen verilerin tuğla malzemeli modele göre daha sağlıklı olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dolgu duvar, Deprem, Gazbeton, Tuğla, Betonarme bina

Investigation of Seismic Behavior of Buildings With Different Infill Wall Materials

Öz

Different masonry materials are commonly used construction materials for buildings. When the current situation of reinforced concrete structures under earthquake effect is examined, it is seen that there are differences in the behavior of the reinforced concrete structures depending on the properties of the materials that are used in the reinforced concrete structures. The reason for this situation is related to the physical properties of the preferred material. The frame systems of reinforced concrete structures are completed with infill walls. Aerated autoclaved concrete and conventional brick materials are used as infill wall materials in most of the reinforced concrete structures built in Turkey. In this paper, the finite element program was used to analyze the current state of reinforced concrete structures with infilled walls under the earthquake effects. A reinforced concrete framed structure model was designed using the SAP2000 finite element program, two different materials were preferred in the model structure and four different model combinations were designed. The first two models are designed with infill walls, but the ground floor and the other models are designed with infill walls for the whole building. Nonlinear static pushover analyses were conducted, and base shear, displacement, and story drift values were obtained. As a result, all the results were presented by graphics. the data obtained from the model with Aerated autoclaved concrete material, which has a low unit volume weight under the effect of the earthquake, is healthier than the model with conventional brick material.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Infillwalls, Earthquake, AAC, conventional Brick, Reinforced Concrete

Kaynakça

• 1. Flanagan RD, Bennett RM. In-plane Behavior of Structural Clay Tile İnfilled Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1999;125(6):590–9.
• 2. Hao H, Ma G, Lu Y. Damage Assessment of Masonry Infilled RC Frames Subjected to Blasting Induced Ground ExcitationsHao, H. Journal of Engineering Structures. 2002;24:799–809.
• 3. Rajesh C, Kumar RP, Kandru S. Seismic Performance of RC Framed Buildings with and without Infill Walls. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT). 2014;3(10):281–9.
• 4. Abd-Elhamed A, MS. Effect of Infill Walls on Response of Multi Storey Reinforced Concrete Structure. Construction and Architectural Engineering. 2015;9(5):514–8.
• 5. Goel K. Influence of Masonry Infill Walls on Seismic Performance of RC Framed Structures-A Comparison of AAC and Conventional Brick Infill. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). 2015;2(6).
• 6. Cosgun C,, Mangir A. Earthquake Performance of Collapsed School Building under Van- Tabanli (Mw= 7.2) Earthquake. Challenge. 2018;4(4):159–75.
• 7. Usta P, Evci A. Using Reinforced AAC Panels to Against Earthquake Loads. In: International Symposium on Innovations in Civil Engineering and Technology (ICIVILTECH 2019) . Afyonkarahisar – TURKEY.; 2019.
• 8. AFAD. Earthquake Statistic. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/genelistatistikler (açık erişim;13.04.2021). 2022.
• 9. AFAD. Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Türkiye Deprem Tehlike Haritaları (in Tukish) [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.turkiye.gov.tr/afad-turkiye-deprem-tehlike-haritalari
• 10. Rathore HS, Maru S. Seismic Evaluation of AAC Block and Brick Wall Fully Infilled Building and Building Having Soft Storey at Different Floor as Per IS 1893-2016. International journal of scientific research in science, engineering and technology, . 2018;4.
• 11. Jadhao V, P, Pajgade P, S. Influence of Masonry Infill Walls on Seismic Performance of RC Framed Structures: A comparison of AAC and conventional brick infill. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology. 2013;4:148–53.
• 12. Bilgin H, Uruçi R. Effects of structural irregularities on low and mid-rise RC building response. Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics. 2018 Jun 9;4(2):33.
• 13. Arunkumar S,, Devi G. Seismic demand study of soft storey building and it’s strengthening for seismic resistance. Int J Emerg Trends Technol Comput Sci, . 2016;5(2):52–7.
• 14. Tezcan S, Yazıcı A, Özdemir Z., Erkal A. Zayıf Kat-Yumuşak Kat Düzensizliği. In: , Altıncı Ulusal Deprem Mühendisliği Konferansı. İstanbul; 2007.
• 15. Altuntop MA. Analysis Of Building Structures With Soft Stories. [İstanbul]: Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences; 2007.
• 16. Tezcan T, Başaran H, Demir A, Bağci M. Yumuşak Kat Oluşumunda Duvar Etkisi ve Türk Deprem Yönetmeliğinin Konuya Yaklaşımı. Electronic Journal of Construction Technologies. 2013;9(1).
• 17. SAP 2000 Ver. 23. Computer Program. Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers and Structures INC; 2006.
• 18. FEMA-356. Prestandart and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington (DC); 2000.
• 19. Ahmed A, Ali A, Khalid H, Ahmad M. Role of masonry infill wall on the seismic behavior of typical four-storey building in Pakistan. In: In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing; 2018.