Performance of RC buildings after Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes: lessons toward performance based design

Two simultaneous earthquakes occurred in the Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık and Kahramanmaraş-Elbistan districts of Turkey on February 6, 2023, and with magnitudes of 7.7 and 7.6, respectively. These events caused the highest estimated loss recorded in Turkey within the last century from natural disasters....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 2023-10, Vol.22 (4), p.883-894
Hauptverfasser: Binici, Baris, Yakut, Ahmet, Kadas, Koray, Demirel, Ozan, Akpinar, Ugur, Canbolat, Afsin, Yurtseven, Firat, Oztaskin, Orkun, Aktas, Selin, Canbay, Erdem
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 894
container_issue 4
container_start_page 883
container_title Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration
container_volume 22
creator Binici, Baris
Yakut, Ahmet
Kadas, Koray
Demirel, Ozan
Akpinar, Ugur
Canbolat, Afsin
Yurtseven, Firat
Oztaskin, Orkun
Aktas, Selin
Canbay, Erdem
description Two simultaneous earthquakes occurred in the Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık and Kahramanmaraş-Elbistan districts of Turkey on February 6, 2023, and with magnitudes of 7.7 and 7.6, respectively. These events caused the highest estimated loss recorded in Turkey within the last century from natural disasters. The key reason for the extensive loss was the proximity of eleven cities to the earthquake epicenters. Middle East Technical University teams investigated the building sites in Gaziantep, Kahramanmaras, Hatay, Adiyaman and Adana. The ground motion recordings revealed that in certain locations of Gaziantep, Kahramanmaraş and Hatay, the ground motion levels exceeded the maximum credible earthquake level defined for a return period of 2,475 years in the Turkish Earthquake Code. Residential building performance was investigated with respect to the construction year, which is a good indicator of compliance with modern seismic codes and inspection procedures. About 97% of the collapsed buildings were constructed prior to 2000, whereas over 5,000 buildings, which were built after 2000, collapsed or required urgent demolition. Most of the buildings with minor or greater structural damage sustained heavy infill wall damage rendering occupancy impossible. Aside from damage in older construction with significant structural deficiencies, the damage in some of the more recent and better constructed buildings was observed to be surprisingly poor. This can be attributed to the level of ground motion, significant ductility demands, poor material and workmanship and damage to non-structural elements. With the estimated total loss of above 100 billion dollars and over 50,000 casualties, the current seismic design criterion based on ductility and acceptance of structural damage should be re-evaluated to ensure a more resilient urban environment in high seismic regions.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11803-023-2206-8
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2881354728</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2881354728</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-38a7dad2b585c346647066111d4f50c7b77ba79d021eef781854b8f2f4bf1e993</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1KAzEUhYMoWKsP4C7gOpqbzCSpOyn1BwuKKLgLmUnSTm1n2mQG8Wl8Gt_LDCPoxtW9i3POvedD6BToOVAqLyKAopxQxgljVBC1h0YwmXCSU_66n3YhgXAhskN0FOOKUpExLkbIPbrgm7Axdelw4_HTFBddtbZVvYjY-NYFfG-WwSTBxgTz9YlnJrTLXWfeXLzEaxdjU0fcNu8mWLz9E1aY6Cy2LlaL-hgdeLOO7uRnjtHL9ex5ekvmDzd306s5KTmIlnBlpDWWFbnKS56lbyUVAgBs5nNaykLKwsiJpQyc81KByrNCeeazwoNLbcfobMjdhmbXudjqVdOFOp3UTCngeSaZSioYVGVoYgzO622oUrsPDVT3NPVAUyeauqepew8bPDFp64ULv8n_m74BGtd4xw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2881354728</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performance of RC buildings after Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes: lessons toward performance based design</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Binici, Baris ; Yakut, Ahmet ; Kadas, Koray ; Demirel, Ozan ; Akpinar, Ugur ; Canbolat, Afsin ; Yurtseven, Firat ; Oztaskin, Orkun ; Aktas, Selin ; Canbay, Erdem</creator><creatorcontrib>Binici, Baris ; Yakut, Ahmet ; Kadas, Koray ; Demirel, Ozan ; Akpinar, Ugur ; Canbolat, Afsin ; Yurtseven, Firat ; Oztaskin, Orkun ; Aktas, Selin ; Canbay, Erdem</creatorcontrib><description>Two simultaneous earthquakes occurred in the Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık and Kahramanmaraş-Elbistan districts of Turkey on February 6, 2023, and with magnitudes of 7.7 and 7.6, respectively. These events caused the highest estimated loss recorded in Turkey within the last century from natural disasters. The key reason for the extensive loss was the proximity of eleven cities to the earthquake epicenters. Middle East Technical University teams investigated the building sites in Gaziantep, Kahramanmaras, Hatay, Adiyaman and Adana. The ground motion recordings revealed that in certain locations of Gaziantep, Kahramanmaraş and Hatay, the ground motion levels exceeded the maximum credible earthquake level defined for a return period of 2,475 years in the Turkish Earthquake Code. Residential building performance was investigated with respect to the construction year, which is a good indicator of compliance with modern seismic codes and inspection procedures. About 97% of the collapsed buildings were constructed prior to 2000, whereas over 5,000 buildings, which were built after 2000, collapsed or required urgent demolition. Most of the buildings with minor or greater structural damage sustained heavy infill wall damage rendering occupancy impossible. Aside from damage in older construction with significant structural deficiencies, the damage in some of the more recent and better constructed buildings was observed to be surprisingly poor. This can be attributed to the level of ground motion, significant ductility demands, poor material and workmanship and damage to non-structural elements. With the estimated total loss of above 100 billion dollars and over 50,000 casualties, the current seismic design criterion based on ductility and acceptance of structural damage should be re-evaluated to ensure a more resilient urban environment in high seismic regions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1671-3664</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1993-503X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11803-023-2206-8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Building codes ; Buildings ; Casualties ; Civil Engineering ; Construction ; Control ; Design ; Design criteria ; Disasters ; Ductility ; Ductility tests ; Dynamical Systems ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Earthquake damage ; Earthquakes ; Geotechnical Engineering &amp; Applied Earth Sciences ; Ground motion ; Inspection ; Movement ; Natural disasters ; Nonstructural members ; Residential areas ; Residential buildings ; Seismic activity ; Seismic design ; Seismic engineering ; Structural damage ; Urban environments ; Vibration</subject><ispartof>Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2023-10, Vol.22 (4), p.883-894</ispartof><rights>Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration 2023</rights><rights>Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration 2023.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-38a7dad2b585c346647066111d4f50c7b77ba79d021eef781854b8f2f4bf1e993</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-38a7dad2b585c346647066111d4f50c7b77ba79d021eef781854b8f2f4bf1e993</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11803-023-2206-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11803-023-2206-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,27933,27934,41497,42566,51328</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Binici, Baris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yakut, Ahmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kadas, Koray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirel, Ozan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akpinar, Ugur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canbolat, Afsin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yurtseven, Firat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oztaskin, Orkun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aktas, Selin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canbay, Erdem</creatorcontrib><title>Performance of RC buildings after Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes: lessons toward performance based design</title><title>Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration</title><addtitle>Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib</addtitle><description>Two simultaneous earthquakes occurred in the Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık and Kahramanmaraş-Elbistan districts of Turkey on February 6, 2023, and with magnitudes of 7.7 and 7.6, respectively. These events caused the highest estimated loss recorded in Turkey within the last century from natural disasters. The key reason for the extensive loss was the proximity of eleven cities to the earthquake epicenters. Middle East Technical University teams investigated the building sites in Gaziantep, Kahramanmaras, Hatay, Adiyaman and Adana. The ground motion recordings revealed that in certain locations of Gaziantep, Kahramanmaraş and Hatay, the ground motion levels exceeded the maximum credible earthquake level defined for a return period of 2,475 years in the Turkish Earthquake Code. Residential building performance was investigated with respect to the construction year, which is a good indicator of compliance with modern seismic codes and inspection procedures. About 97% of the collapsed buildings were constructed prior to 2000, whereas over 5,000 buildings, which were built after 2000, collapsed or required urgent demolition. Most of the buildings with minor or greater structural damage sustained heavy infill wall damage rendering occupancy impossible. Aside from damage in older construction with significant structural deficiencies, the damage in some of the more recent and better constructed buildings was observed to be surprisingly poor. This can be attributed to the level of ground motion, significant ductility demands, poor material and workmanship and damage to non-structural elements. With the estimated total loss of above 100 billion dollars and over 50,000 casualties, the current seismic design criterion based on ductility and acceptance of structural damage should be re-evaluated to ensure a more resilient urban environment in high seismic regions.</description><subject>Building codes</subject><subject>Buildings</subject><subject>Casualties</subject><subject>Civil Engineering</subject><subject>Construction</subject><subject>Control</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Design criteria</subject><subject>Disasters</subject><subject>Ductility</subject><subject>Ductility tests</subject><subject>Dynamical Systems</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Earthquake damage</subject><subject>Earthquakes</subject><subject>Geotechnical Engineering &amp; Applied Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Ground motion</subject><subject>Inspection</subject><subject>Movement</subject><subject>Natural disasters</subject><subject>Nonstructural members</subject><subject>Residential areas</subject><subject>Residential buildings</subject><subject>Seismic activity</subject><subject>Seismic design</subject><subject>Seismic engineering</subject><subject>Structural damage</subject><subject>Urban environments</subject><subject>Vibration</subject><issn>1671-3664</issn><issn>1993-503X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kM1KAzEUhYMoWKsP4C7gOpqbzCSpOyn1BwuKKLgLmUnSTm1n2mQG8Wl8Gt_LDCPoxtW9i3POvedD6BToOVAqLyKAopxQxgljVBC1h0YwmXCSU_66n3YhgXAhskN0FOOKUpExLkbIPbrgm7Axdelw4_HTFBddtbZVvYjY-NYFfG-WwSTBxgTz9YlnJrTLXWfeXLzEaxdjU0fcNu8mWLz9E1aY6Cy2LlaL-hgdeLOO7uRnjtHL9ex5ekvmDzd306s5KTmIlnBlpDWWFbnKS56lbyUVAgBs5nNaykLKwsiJpQyc81KByrNCeeazwoNLbcfobMjdhmbXudjqVdOFOp3UTCngeSaZSioYVGVoYgzO622oUrsPDVT3NPVAUyeauqepew8bPDFp64ULv8n_m74BGtd4xw</recordid><startdate>20231001</startdate><enddate>20231001</enddate><creator>Binici, Baris</creator><creator>Yakut, Ahmet</creator><creator>Kadas, Koray</creator><creator>Demirel, Ozan</creator><creator>Akpinar, Ugur</creator><creator>Canbolat, Afsin</creator><creator>Yurtseven, Firat</creator><creator>Oztaskin, Orkun</creator><creator>Aktas, Selin</creator><creator>Canbay, Erdem</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231001</creationdate><title>Performance of RC buildings after Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes: lessons toward performance based design</title><author>Binici, Baris ; Yakut, Ahmet ; Kadas, Koray ; Demirel, Ozan ; Akpinar, Ugur ; Canbolat, Afsin ; Yurtseven, Firat ; Oztaskin, Orkun ; Aktas, Selin ; Canbay, Erdem</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-38a7dad2b585c346647066111d4f50c7b77ba79d021eef781854b8f2f4bf1e993</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Building codes</topic><topic>Buildings</topic><topic>Casualties</topic><topic>Civil Engineering</topic><topic>Construction</topic><topic>Control</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Design criteria</topic><topic>Disasters</topic><topic>Ductility</topic><topic>Ductility tests</topic><topic>Dynamical Systems</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Earthquake damage</topic><topic>Earthquakes</topic><topic>Geotechnical Engineering &amp; Applied Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Ground motion</topic><topic>Inspection</topic><topic>Movement</topic><topic>Natural disasters</topic><topic>Nonstructural members</topic><topic>Residential areas</topic><topic>Residential buildings</topic><topic>Seismic activity</topic><topic>Seismic design</topic><topic>Seismic engineering</topic><topic>Structural damage</topic><topic>Urban environments</topic><topic>Vibration</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Binici, Baris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yakut, Ahmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kadas, Koray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirel, Ozan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akpinar, Ugur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canbolat, Afsin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yurtseven, Firat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oztaskin, Orkun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aktas, Selin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canbay, Erdem</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Binici, Baris</au><au>Yakut, Ahmet</au><au>Kadas, Koray</au><au>Demirel, Ozan</au><au>Akpinar, Ugur</au><au>Canbolat, Afsin</au><au>Yurtseven, Firat</au><au>Oztaskin, Orkun</au><au>Aktas, Selin</au><au>Canbay, Erdem</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performance of RC buildings after Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes: lessons toward performance based design</atitle><jtitle>Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration</jtitle><stitle>Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib</stitle><date>2023-10-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>883</spage><epage>894</epage><pages>883-894</pages><issn>1671-3664</issn><eissn>1993-503X</eissn><abstract>Two simultaneous earthquakes occurred in the Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık and Kahramanmaraş-Elbistan districts of Turkey on February 6, 2023, and with magnitudes of 7.7 and 7.6, respectively. These events caused the highest estimated loss recorded in Turkey within the last century from natural disasters. The key reason for the extensive loss was the proximity of eleven cities to the earthquake epicenters. Middle East Technical University teams investigated the building sites in Gaziantep, Kahramanmaras, Hatay, Adiyaman and Adana. The ground motion recordings revealed that in certain locations of Gaziantep, Kahramanmaraş and Hatay, the ground motion levels exceeded the maximum credible earthquake level defined for a return period of 2,475 years in the Turkish Earthquake Code. Residential building performance was investigated with respect to the construction year, which is a good indicator of compliance with modern seismic codes and inspection procedures. About 97% of the collapsed buildings were constructed prior to 2000, whereas over 5,000 buildings, which were built after 2000, collapsed or required urgent demolition. Most of the buildings with minor or greater structural damage sustained heavy infill wall damage rendering occupancy impossible. Aside from damage in older construction with significant structural deficiencies, the damage in some of the more recent and better constructed buildings was observed to be surprisingly poor. This can be attributed to the level of ground motion, significant ductility demands, poor material and workmanship and damage to non-structural elements. With the estimated total loss of above 100 billion dollars and over 50,000 casualties, the current seismic design criterion based on ductility and acceptance of structural damage should be re-evaluated to ensure a more resilient urban environment in high seismic regions.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s11803-023-2206-8</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1671-3664
ispartof Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2023-10, Vol.22 (4), p.883-894
issn 1671-3664
1993-503X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2881354728
source SpringerNature Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Building codes
Buildings
Casualties
Civil Engineering
Construction
Control
Design
Design criteria
Disasters
Ductility
Ductility tests
Dynamical Systems
Earth and Environmental Science
Earth Sciences
Earthquake damage
Earthquakes
Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences
Ground motion
Inspection
Movement
Natural disasters
Nonstructural members
Residential areas
Residential buildings
Seismic activity
Seismic design
Seismic engineering
Structural damage
Urban environments
Vibration
title Performance of RC buildings after Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes: lessons toward performance based design
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-03T08%3A38%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performance%20of%20RC%20buildings%20after%20Kahramanmara%C5%9F%20Earthquakes:%20lessons%20toward%20performance%20based%20design&rft.jtitle=Earthquake%20Engineering%20and%20Engineering%20Vibration&rft.au=Binici,%20Baris&rft.date=2023-10-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=883&rft.epage=894&rft.pages=883-894&rft.issn=1671-3664&rft.eissn=1993-503X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11803-023-2206-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2881354728%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2881354728&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true