Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Identifying buildings with high collapse risk based on samos earthquake damage inventory in İzmir

  • S.I. : The M7.0 Samos Island (Aegean Sea) Earthquake of 30th October 2020
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Samos Earthquake caused the collapse of about fifty buildings in İzmir city center, resulting in over 120 fatalities. The response spectra of the ground motions at the soft soil sites in Izmir revealed that the spectral accelerations in the period range of 0.5–1.5 s are similar to the spectral accelerations defined by the response spectrum corresponding to the 72-year return period. Despite experiencing accelerations lower than those defined by the Turkish Code design spectrum (475-year return period), significant damage was observed due to the deficiencies of the building stock. Several factors such as soft story, lack of code-compliant transverse steel reinforcement, and low concrete strength have contributed to the devastating loss. Studies in the last two decades on deformation capacity estimation of RC columns showed that key parameters for collapse drift limits are the axial load ratio (i.e., axial force demand to capacity ratio) and transverse reinforcement amount. Most of the collapsed buildings in the past Turkish earthquakes had low concrete strength resulting in high column axial load ratios with limited drift capacity. In order to identify the collapse of vulnerable buildings, a simple procedure is proposed based on vertical and lateral pushover analysis results. The method relies on estimating the average axial load ratios of the most critical columns and their seismic drift demands. An axial load ratio-drift demand limit state model was developed to identify the buildings with high collapse risk. The model was validated with the damaged buildings in İzmir after the Samos earthquake to capture the buildings with poor performance even under service level earthquakes. The proposed model is practical as it only requires the floor plan and concrete compressive strength. It is found to be legitimately accurate to identify and prioritize the buildings prone to collapse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI 41–17. Reston, VA.20- TEC.

  • Ansal A (Coordinator) (2003) Istanbul Seismic Master Plan, Istanbul Municipality, 1344 p.

  • Binici B, Yakut A, Ozcebe G, Erenler A (2015) Provisions for the seismic risk evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings in turkey under the urban renewal law. Earthq Spectra 31(3):1353–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binici B et al (2019) Seismic behavior and improvement of autoclaved aerated concrete infill walls. Eng Struct 193:68–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin KO, Mylonakis G, Sextos A, Stewart JP (Eds) (2020) Seismological and engineering effects of the M 7.0 Samos Island (Aegean Sea) Earthquake, Hellenic Association of Earthquake Engineering: Report 2020/02, Earthquake Engineering Association of Turkey, Earthquake Foundation of Turkey, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (USA), Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association: Report GEER-069, https://doi.https://doi.org/10.18118/G6H088, December, 374 p.

  • Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) (2005) Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, European Prestandard ENV- Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of existing buildings. Brussels.

  • Elwood JK (2003) Shake table tests and analytical studies on the gravity collapse of reinforced concrete frames. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California.

  • Ghannoum WM, Matamoros AB (2014) Nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for concrete columns. ACI Special Publication, Symposium Paper 297:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulay FG, Kaptan K, Bal EI, Tezcan SS (2011) P25 - Scoring method for the collapse vulnerability assessment of R/C buildings. Procedia Engineering 14:1219–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunes O (2014) Turkey’s grand challenge: disaster-proof building inventory within 20 years. Case Studies in Construction Materials 2:18–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan AF, Sozen MA (1997) seismic vulnerability assessment of low-rise buildings in regions with infrequent earthquakes. ACI Struct J 94(1):31–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadysiewski S, Mosalam KM (2009) Modeling of Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls Considering In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Interaction, Report No. PEER 2008/102, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Berkeley, CA.

  • Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div ASCE 97(7):1969–1990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurt EG, Binici B, Kurç Ö, Canbay E, Akpınar ÖG (2011) Seismic performance of a deficient reinforced concrete test frame with infill walls. Earthq Spectra 27(3):817–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn AC, Moehle JP, Mahin SA, Holmes WT (1996) Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building columns. Earthq Spectra 124(4):715–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • METU (2011) Report on Seismic and Structural Observations from Mw 7.2 October 23 2011 Van Earthquake, Research Center, Report No: METU/EERC 2011–04, (In Turkish) November, 76 p.

  • METU (2020) The Samos (İzmir-Seferihisar Offshore) Earthquake [30 October 2020 Mw=6.6] Field Observations On Seismic and Structural Damage, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Middle East Technical University, Report No: METU/EERC 2020–03, November.

  • Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (MEU) (2018) Provisions for Identifying Buildings under Seismic Risk, (In Turkish) 55 p.

  • Mosalam KM, Günay S (2015) Progressive collapse analysis of reinforced concrete frames with unreinforced masonry infill walls considering in-plane/out-of-plane interaction. Earthq Spectra 31(2):921–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OpenSees (2018) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, http://opensees.berkeley.edu.

  • Ozcelik R, Binici B, Akpinar U (2013) Seismic retrofit of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames with chevron braces. Struct Build Proc Inst Civil Eng 166(7):326–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J 98(2):135–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, p 721

    Google Scholar 

  • Pujol S, Ramirez JA, Sozen MA (1999) Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns subjected to cyclic shear reversals. ACI, Special Publication 187(1999):255–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Scawthorn C (2000) The Marmara, Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999 : Reconnaissance report, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER); Buffalo, New York; US 190 p., Technical Report MCEER, 00–0001, March.

  • Sucuoglu H, Yilmaz T (2001) Duzce, Turkey: a city hit by two major earthquakes in 1999 within three months. Seismol Res Lett 72(6):679–689. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.72.6.679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sucuoglu H, Yazgan U, Yakut A (2007) A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in Urban building stocks. Earthq Spectra 23(2):441–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki T, Choi H, Sanada Y, Nakano Y, Matsukawa K, Paul D, Gülkan P, Binici B (2017) Experimental evaluation of the in-plane behaviour of masonry wall infilled RC frames. Bull Earthq Eng 15:4245–4267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talaat M, Mosalam KM (2009) Modeling progressive collapse in reinforced concrete buildings using direct element removal. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 38(5):609–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TBEC (2018) Turkish Building Earthquake Code, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ankara, Turkey.

  • Turgay T, Durmus MC, Binici B, Ozcebe G (2014) Evaluation of the predictive models for stiffness, strength, and deformation capacity of rc frames with masonry infill walls, ASCE. J Struct Eng 140(10):06014003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yakut A (2004) Preliminary seismic performance assessment procedure for existing RC buildings. Eng Struct 26:1447–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yakut A, Ozcebe G, Yucemen S (2006) Seismic vulnerability assessment using regional empirical data". Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 35:1187–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Yakut.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Binici, B., Yakut, A., Canbay, E. et al. Identifying buildings with high collapse risk based on samos earthquake damage inventory in İzmir. Bull Earthquake Eng 20, 7853–7872 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01289-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01289-5

Keywords

Navigation