Structural Performance Evaluation of 90 RC Buildings Collapsed during the 2011 Van, Turkey, Earthquakes

Bayraktar, Alemdar; Altunışık, Ahmet Can; Türker, Temel; Karadeniz, H.; Erdoğdu, Şakir; Angin, Zekai; Özşahin, Talat Şükrü

doi:10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000524

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have been conducted on the seismic performance of old masonry [17][18][19][20][21][22], RC buildings [23][24][25][26][27][28], and a combined RC-masonry building [29]. Bayraktar et al [30] conducted an extensive study on 90 RC buildings to investigate their performance during the 2011 Van earthquakes in Turkey. Itti et al [31] presented a comparative study on the seismic provisions of Indian and international building codes (IBC) [32] for RC buildings concerning the lateral deflection of the buildings for special moment-resisting frame of IBC, i.e., implementing the concept of lesser force and more deflection.…”

Section: Past Studies and Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Seismic Design and Performance of OMRF Building Using Indian, British, and European Codes

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In India, damage cause by some major earthquakes, such as India/Nepal 2015, Sikkim 2011, Kashmir 2005, Bhuj 2001, Latur 1993, and Uttarkashi 1991, have raised alarms to professionals. The probability of seismic risk is higher in more densely populated Indian cities, such as Bhuj, Kashmir, Sikkim, Uttarkashi, as they come under the highest seismicity zone in India. Therefore, our primary interest is to investigate the seismic performance evaluation of the buildings in these seismic prone areas. Significant research has been conducted on the seismic performance of existing buildings. However, investigations on the seismic performance of a building with different country codes for the same earthquake event has not been explored, which is crucial in providing a deeper knowledge of the seismic performance of buildings. This paper presents a comparative study of an Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame (OMRF) building designed using three major codes, Indian (IS: 456-2000, IS: 1893-2002), British (BS: 8110-1997) and European (EC-2, EC-8). Six typical building models considered with earthquake (WiEQ), and without earthquake (WoEQ), and their assessments were interpreted using non-linear static analysis for determining their seismic performance. Seismic performance is compared in terms of base shear coefficient (BSC) and drift ratio that shows WiEQ models, at the drift ratio of 1.5%, the BSC was as follows; 0.78, 0.88, and 0.96 for the models designed for British, Euro, and Indian codes, respectively. The results show that the building models, that have been designed for the Indian codal provisions for both cases, performed well as compared to the other country codes. Base shear and drift ratio are the vital parameters that vary considerably among the building models. This aspect of the Indian code makes it a safer design methodology with higher reserve strength and a reasonably good displacement capacity before reaching the Collapse Prevention (CP) performance level.

show abstract

Section: Past Studies and Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Seismic Design and Performance of OMRF Building Using Indian, British, and European Codes

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relationship between concrete strength (f c ) and damage state is shown in Figure 2. Several reports presented after moderate to major earthquakes have revealed that concrete quality is not adequate in RC buildings [5,7,22]. This figure shows that only 15 buildings (~7.8 %) exhibit the concrete strength greater than 20 MPa, which is the minimum limit specified in TEC2007 [21].…”

Section: Properties Of Investigated Buildingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These collapses and severely damaged buildings are generally attributed to the low concrete grade, insufficient reinforcement detailing, inadequate workmanship, irregularities, etc. [3][4][5][6][7]. Although some buildings suffered moderate and minor damage only, this does not indicate that they have adequate strength and are safe for future earthquakes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MVP interaction based seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings

2019

JCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MVP interaction based seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings Consuming less time as compared to detailed evaluation techniques, preliminary seismic vulnerability assessments are widely utilized worldwide. In this paper, a new procedure called MVP Method (moment (M), shear (V) and axial (P)), is proposed to evaluate seismic performance of RC buildings. The procedure needs structural and architectural parameters and considers the interaction of moment, shear, and axial load capacities and demands. Simple equations are proposed for each capacity and demand so as to calculate the building performance score. The proposed procedure was verified on 192 buildings, and the success rate ranged from 86.5 to 89.1 %.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2015, 106 of these structures were completed, which was a new world record. [1] The significant social and economic impacts of recent earthquakes [2,3] and the worldwide surge in high-rise construction have drawn attention to the challenges of the design and assessment of tall buildings. [4,5] Three major issues in the application of current building codes for the design of tall buildings are• The current codes do not explicitly quantify performance due to their empirical nature.• Seismic design coefficients (e.g., response coefficient, R, and amplification factor, C d ) are used to relate elastic design to inelastic responses.However, because these coefficients are primarily calibrated for low-to medium-rise buildings based on engineering judgment, [6] they may not be suitable for high-rise buildings.• Common codes are developed to provide design requirements for general structures rather than a specific class of structures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of design drift limit on the seismic performance of RC dual high‐rise buildings

Esteghamati

Banazadeh

Huang

2018

Structural Design Tall Build

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current building codes aim to ensure the acceptable performance of structures implicitly.Because these provisions are empirically developed for low-to medium-rise buildings, their applicability to high-rise building warrants further investigation. In this paper, the effect of design drift limit on the seismic performance of reinforced concrete dual high-rise buildings is considered.Nine buildings are designed for 3 drift limits: the code limit (i.e., 2%), one that is lower than the code limit (i.e., 1.5%), and one that is higher than the code limit (i.e., 3%). For each drift limit, buildings of 3 heights (20, 25, and 30 stories) are designed. Finite element models are constructed in OpenSees, and incremental dynamic analysis is performed. The results are used to develop probabilistic seismic demand models, where model parameters are determined using maximum likelihood estimation to incorporate equality and censored data. Reliability analysis using probabilistic demand models is conducted to derive seismic fragility and demand hazard curves. In addition, the collapse performance of the drift limits is evaluated using the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P695 procedure. The study results show that the design drift limit affects the building's seismic performance, and the effect depends on the performance level considered.Moreover, from a structural integrity perspective, a larger design drift limit does not induce a significantly higher risk and might yield a more cost-effective design. KEYWORDSdesign drift limit, high-rise structures, incremental dynamic analysis, performance-based earthquake engineering, probabilistic models, reliability analysis | INTRODUCTIONThe minimum height of a structure to be considered as a high-rise building varies from 10 stories to 60 m. The number of buildings with a height of 200 m or more has increased by 392% in the last 15 years. In 2015, 106 of these structures were completed, which was a new world record. [1] The significant social and economic impacts of recent earthquakes [2,3] and the worldwide surge in high-rise construction have drawn attention to the challenges of the design and assessment of tall buildings. [4,5] Three major issues in the application of current building codes for the design of tall buildings are• The current codes do not explicitly quantify performance due to their empirical nature.• Seismic design coefficients (e.g., response coefficient, R, and amplification factor, C d ) are used to relate elastic design to inelastic responses.However, because these coefficients are primarily calibrated for low-to medium-rise buildings based on engineering judgment, [6] they may not be suitable for high-rise buildings.• Common codes are developed to provide design requirements for general structures rather than a specific class of structures. Therefore, following the same design procedures could yield structures with different performance. For example, ASCE 7-10 (and earlier versions) [7] allows the same drift limits for high-rise structures as for low-and me...

show abstract

Structural Performance Evaluation of 90 RC Buildings Collapsed during the 2011 Van, Turkey, Earthquakes

Cited by 21 publications

References 13 publications

Comparative Study of Seismic Design and Performance of OMRF Building Using Indian, British, and European Codes

Comparative Study of Seismic Design and Performance of OMRF Building Using Indian, British, and European Codes

MVP interaction based seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings

The effect of design drift limit on the seismic performance of RC dual high‐rise buildings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About