Earthquakes, Existing Buildings and Seismic Design Codes in Turkey

A.Ilki & Z.Celep

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering ISSN 1319-8025 Volume 37 Number 2 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365-380 DOI 10.1007/s13369-012-0183-8

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your work, please use the accepted authors version for posting to your own website or your institutions repository. You may further deposit the accepted authors version on a funders repository at a funders request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication.

1 23

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380 DOI 10.1007/s13369-012-0183-8

R E S E A R C H A RT I C L E - C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

A. Ilki Z. Celep

Earthquakes, Existing Buildings and Seismic Design Codes in Turkey

Received: 1 November 2010 / Accepted: 9 March 2011 / Published online: 26 January 2012 King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 2012

Abstract From worldwide observations made after the occurrence of earthquakes, as well as the tremendous amount of experimental, analytical and numerical studies, significant contributions have been made for a better understanding of the characteristics of earthquakes, and effects of earthquakes on existing structural systems. Consequently, seismic design codes are revised in a parallel fashion by integrating new concepts towards more realistic considerations of seismic demand, seismic response and seismic capacity. In this paper, after outlining the performance of existing buildings in Turkey during recent earthquakes (particularly Kocaeli 1999 and Duzce 1999 Earthquakes), and by focusing on the observed common structural deciencies, a brief summary of the evolution of the Turkish Seismic Design Code in the last decades is presented. It is important to note that the poor seismic performance of existing buildings in Turkey outlined in this study is not directly related to the inefciency of the relevant seismic design codes, but rather to extremely low quality construction and the absence of a strict inspection system at the time of their construction. It should also be highlighted that the lessons learnt from the catastrophic consequences of recent earthquakes, revisions in the seismic design code and the developments in the material and workmanship characteristics have significantly improved the quality of newer constructions in Turkey in the last decade. Keywords Buildings Codes Damage Earthquake Performance Seismic Turkey

A. Ilki (B) Structural and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey E-mail: ailki@itu.edu.tr Z. Celep Civil Engineering Department, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

123

Author's personal copy

366 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380

1 Introduction In last two decades several catastrophic earthquakes hit Turkey causing thousands of casualties and injuries, as well as significant economic losses. Among these, Erzincan (1992), Kocaeli (1999) and Duzce (1999) earthquakes were the most severe ones, with magnitudes of 6.9, 7.4 and 7.2, respectively [13]. According to a recent investigation, the probability of an earthquake with magnitude 7.0 or greater to affect Istanbul, the cultural and economic center of Turkey, is around 41 4% in the next 30 years [4]. Therefore, seismic safety of existing building stock, is a major concern in Turkey, where various versions of seismic design code have been published since 1940 always adopting more strict requirements. In spite of presence of a seismic design code for quite a long time, catastrophic consequences were observed after all major earthquakes. These consequences were mainly due to substandard construction practice in the absence of a strict inspection system, although the seismic design codes were reecting the up-to-date seismic knowledge level. Parallel to the developments in the eld of earthquake engineering in the world, many vitally important concepts and details have been included in the seismic design codes at each revision. In this paper, after briey outlining the seismic performance of existing buildings against 1999 Kocaeli and Duzce Earthquakes, with a special focus on common structural deciencies, the evolution of Turkish Seismic Design Code is presented. For the sake of completeness, information on the demographical and the economical characteristics of Turkey is also summarized briey. 2 Demographic and Economic Data As it is well known, the catastrophic consequences of severe earthquakes do not stem only from the technical engineering issues, but are also strongly dependant on the economical, social and cultural situation. The basic demographic and economical data of Turkey is presented in Table 1, together with the data obtained for Japan, European Union (EU) and United States of America (USA) for a better perception. Table 1 demonstrates that Turkey spanning between Asia and Europe has quite a large area, compared to Japan and EU countries, and it has a fairly high and young population. Population growth rate is around 1% Turkeys gross domestic product (GDP) is approximately one-seventh of that of Japan and GDP per capita in Turkey is around one-quarter of that of Japan. Considering the consequences of past seismic events of similar magnitudes in Turkey, Japan and USA (for example 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake in Turkey, 1995 Kobe Earthquake in Japan and 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake in USA) together with the economical data presented in Table 1, one can easily assess that the life losses, the injuries and the extent of structural damages are closely related to the economic development of the country. 3 Data on Existing Building Stock Unfortunately, a reliable and scientic building inventory covering all areas of Turkey and reecting the current situation is not available. However, information obtained in the census carried out by the State Statistical Institute [5] can be used for evaluating the type of buildings and their structural systems. According to the census results total number of buildings in Turkey by 2000 is 7,838,675. The distribution of buildings in terms of usage, number of stories and construction year are presented in Figs. 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The authors of the present paper had chances to investigate the damages after several earthquakes in Turkey. Some typical damages observed in existing reinforced concrete structures are shown in Fig. 4. Basic weaknesses of reinforced concrete structures mostly observed can be classied as:
Table 1 Basic demographic and economic data Country Turkey Japan EU USA 9,800,000 301,000,000a 36.6a 0.89a 13.060b 43.800b 2 .9 b

Area (km2 ) 780,000 378,000 4,300,000 Population 71,000,000a 127,000,000a 490,000,000a Median age 28.6a 43.5a NA Population growth (%) 1.04a 0.09a 0.16a 9 b b GDP (USD) 10 640 4.218 13.080b GDP/capita (USD) 9.100b 33.100b 29.900b b b GDP growth rate (%) 6 .1 2 .2 3 .2 b a 2007 estimates b 2006 estimates (source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html)

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380 367

Fig. 1 Building distribution according to usage (%)

Fig. 2 Building distribution according to the number of stories

Fig. 3 Building distribution according to the construction year (%)

Fig. 4 Various failures due to a insufcient lap-splices of column reinforcement, b insufcient amount and detailing of transverse bars and c insufcient shear strength of a short column

Insufcient lateral load capacity due to inadequate concrete strength and insufcient reinforcement, Insufcient lateral stiffness due to inadequate frame formation, Insufcient ductility due to inadequate lateral reinforcement, Inadequate detailing of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, Insufcient stiffness of soft rst stories, Insufcient strength of columns with respect to beams at joints.

123

Author's personal copy

368 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380

Many existing low-rise reinforced concrete frame buildings in Turkey can also be considered as conned masonry due to their weak reinforced concrete structural systems. In such cases, inll walls resist the seismic loads rather than weak reinforced concrete frames. Basic weaknesses of such buildings are: Low ductility of inll walls, Lack of integrity of masonry units in walls, Insufcient integration of inll walls with frames, Poor quality of construction materials, Large window and door openings, Low out-of-plane strength and stiffness of inll walls.

These basic weaknesses stemming from many different design and construction errors are main reasons of the catastrophic consequences experienced after earthquakes. These errors, which cause premature failures of structural members or structures, are basically due to improper application practices on-site. The most common application errors in reinforced concrete structures include low-strength concrete, insufcient transverse bars, inadequate lap-splices of column reinforcement, insufcient bond between plain round bars and concrete, and deterioration of structural system by time due to low-quality materials and lack of maintenance. Most common problem related to design, especially due to architectural constraints, is irregularity of the structural system. Among other common reasons of damage are inadequate consideration of ground conditions in the lay out and design of the structural system, addition of illegal stories to the existing structural systems without taking necessary measures, and unconsciously removing or damaging certain structural members (such as columns and beams in reinforced concrete structures or walls in masonry structures), which are not conveniently located or dimensioned for the occupants. It is worth noting that most of the low-rise buildings in cities are legally engineered structures. Normally, they are expected to be designed and constructed with proper engineering service. However, due to lack of a sufcient inspection mechanism, particularly a large number of buildings constructed before 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake, do not satisfy requirements of the related national codes and standards. Consequently, they cannot be classied as properly engineered buildings. 4 Seismicity in Turkey The seismic zone map issued in 1972 and the current seismic risk map of Turkey are given in Fig. 5. In this gure, distribution of the historical hazardous earthquakes is also presented. As seen in Fig. 5, the seismic zone maps are in agreement with the distribution of hazardous earthquakes. The previous seismic zone map issued in 1972 had been valid until 1996 [8]. It should be noted that Zone I covers areas with highest risk, while Zone V covers the areas having minimum seismic risk. According to Ozmen [9], 45, 26 and 15% of the population live in Zones I, II and III, respectively, while only approximately 15% of the population lives in Zones IV and V. Furthermore, it is worth noting that further information on the history of the seismicity maps of Turkey and additional seismic maps can be found elsewhere [10]. 5 Evolution of Seismic Design Code in Turkey While many catastrophic earthquakes have hit various areas of Turkey in history [11], the rst major catastrophic natural disaster experienced by Republic of Turkey was the Erzincan earthquake in 1939. The magnitude of the earthquake was 7.8 and caused a loss of more than 33,000 lives and destruction of 140,000 homes [1]. This earthquake was a milestone for adoption of the concept of earthquake-resistant design and construction in Turkey. Consequently, the rst set of explicit legal provisions for earthquake-resistant design was established in 1940 by the Ministry of Public Works, followed by another version in 1942 annexed with a seismic zone map. This seismic regulation was revised in 1944 within the articles of Law No. 4623 [12]. The law stated that any building built without complying with the requirements of the regulation would be demolished. However, this stipulation (and its future versions) did not clearly state which authority is to do the demolishment and consequently no demolishment was done [12]. The seismic regulation was updated in 1949 and 1953 to reect the amendments of the seismic zone map without any major change in the code [13]. By the establishment of Ministry of Reconstruction and Resettlement in 1958, the disaster prevention policy was upgraded and the formulation of the base shear coefcient was revised in 1961 [2]. The next revisions in 1968 and 1975 brought important enhancements to the seismic design and introduced the international developments to the engineering society in Turkey. The concept of ductility was rst time mentioned at member and structural levels in

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380 369

Fig. 5 a Seismic zone map in 1972 [1], b current seismic zone map (source: Ministry of Public Works and Settlements, http:// www.deprem.gov.tr), and c historical hazardous earthquakes around Turkey (source: [6,7])

1975 code. The principles of the capacity design were introduced by the 1998 code together with important detailing issues for seismic design. The most recent version of the code issued in 2007, particularly has been a very important step towards the displacement-based design through the related requirements for the seismic assessment of existing buildings and retrotting. The evolution of the seismic design code is summarized in more detail below. 5.1 1940 Seismic Regulation [14] This was the rst seismic regulation in Turkey. Besides several rules related to construction, materials and workmanship, this code gave the fundamental base shear coefcient of 0.10 for calculation of the lateral seismic load. In case of presence of the wind load (W ), the design lateral load ( H ) is calculated by Eq. 1, where only half of the live load ( P ) is considered in addition to the dead load (G ). On the other hand, half of the wind load (W ) is included as well. No specic distribution of the lateral load along the height of the building was dened in this code. H = 0.10 G + P 2 + W 2 (1)

123

Author's personal copy

370 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380

5.2 1944 Seismic Regulation [15] This regulation included a seismic zone map having two seismic zones, Zones I and II. Areas outside Zones I and II were considered to be safe in terms of seismicity. The fundamental base shear coefcient (the ratio of the base shear force to the seismic weight of the building) was adopted to be 0.020.04 and 0.010.03 for Zones I and II, respectively [2]. Selection of the appropriate value in these ranges was the responsibility of design engineers. However, approval of the inspecting authority was required for the selected value [13]. Like in previous version, in this regulation, the geotechnical conditions of the construction site and the structural characteristics were not taken into account. Furthermore, the distribution of the lateral load along the height of the building has still not been dened as well [1]. 5.3 1961 Seismic Regulation [16] In 1960s and 1970s, due to very rapid industrialization and urbanization, the amount of constructions increased tremendously, particularly in cities such as Istanbul, Izmir and Bursa. Therefore, a great portion of the existing buildings were demolished and reconstructed by increasing number of stories by considering 1961 Seismic Regulation [8]. In this version of the regulation, parameters related to the seismic zone, type of the structural system and the ground conditions were taken into account for determining the base shear coefcient. Upper limit of the base shear coefcient is assumed to be 0.10 and the distribution of the seismic loads is considered to be uniform along the height of the building. A qualitative recommendation was also present in this code to prevent excessive irregularities in plan and to minimize the potential negative effects of global torsion. However, it was not mentioned how to deal with the torsion of the structure. The code required that all parts of the building should resist seismic lateral load given in Eq. 2. In this equation, C and n were the fundamental base shear coefcient and the live load reduction factor, respectively. The live load reduction factor was given as 0.5 for ordinary buildings (residential buildings), whereas no load reduction was allowed for densely populated buildings (theaters, hotels, factories and ofce buildings). The fundamental base shear coefcient was calculated by Eq. 3, where Co was a coefcient depending on the height of the building, n1 was a coefcient related to soil conditions (Soil type I, II and III) and to type of structural system (reinforced concrete or steel), and n2 was the seismic zone coefcient (Zones I and II). The numerical values of Co and n1 are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. It should be noted that the interaction between soil and structure was somehow taken into account through the coefcient n1 . The coefcient n2 was to be taken as 1.0 and 0.6 for the seismic zones I and II, respectively. On the other hand, higher seismic demand on the lower buildings due to their relatively higher stiffness, particularly in case of stiff soil conditions, was not taken into account properly in this code. Clearly, this negligence may result with unnecessarily high seismic design loads for relatively high-rise structures, whereas the seismic design loads taken into account for low-rise structures may be on the unsafe side. H = C ( G + n P ) + W /2 C = Co n 1 n 2 (2)

(3)

It should be noted that when the wind load (W) is higher than the design lateral load calculated by Eq. 2, the design lateral load is considered to be equal to the wind load. The code permitted an increase of 50% in allowable stresses in case of seismic design. The seismic zone map was revised in 1963 and the number of seismic zones is increased from two to four including a zone where no seismic design is required [2].
Table 2 The coefcient of Co depending on building height Height of building (m) <16 1622 2228 2834 3440 > 40 Co coefcient 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 +0.01/for each 3 m

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380 371

Table 3 The coefcient n1 according to building type and ground conditions Ground type I II III I rock, hard soil, II medium soil, III soft soil Reinforced concrete 0.8 0.9 1.0 Steel 0.6 0.8 1.0

5.4 1968 Seismic Regulation [17] This code brought significant enhancements to seismic-resistant design such as: Definition of minimum dimensions for columns [depth of short side maximum (240 mm; 0.05 story height)] Definition of minimum dimensions for beams (150 300 mm, depth 3 times of the slab thickness) Definition of minimum dimensions of shear walls [width maximum (200 mm and 0.04 story height)] Connement reinforcement requirement for columns and beams in the vicinity of joints (transverse reinforcement is to be doubled with respect to the mid-height of the column and mid-span of the beam). Connement reinforcement requirement in the beamcolumn joint Consideration of dynamic characteristics of the building Introduction of the building importance factor Inverse triangular distribution of the lateral forces Increase of the base shear force due to global torsion of the building, when the eccentricity between centers of mass and rigidity exceeds 5% of the larger plan dimension of the building. In this code, base shear force (F) to consider the effects of earthquakes is to be calculated by Eq. 4. In this equation, W is the total weight of the building to be considered for the seismic analysis (Eq. 5) and C is the fundamental base shear coefcient to be calculated by Eq. 6. It should be noted that according to this code no live load reduction factor is allowed for buildings such as theaters, schools, stadiums, storage facilities. However, a live load reduction factor of 0.5 is given for health facilities, hotels, administrative or residential buildings. Co given in Eq. 6 is the seismic zone factor (0.06, 0.04 and 0.02, for Zones I, II and III, respectively), is the coefcient reecting ground conditions (0.8, 1.0 and 1.2, for hard, medium and soft soil, respectively), is the building importance factor (1.5 for important or densely populated buildings such as communication buildings, hospitals, re stations, museums, schools, stadiums, theaters, train stations, religious buildings, and 1.0 for ordinary buildings such as residential, ofce and industrial buildings, hotels, restaurants, etc.), and is the dynamic coefcient to be calculated by Eq. 7a or 7b depending on the fundamental period of the building (T) in seconds. A simple equation is also given in the code for calculation of the fundamental period of the building (Eq. 8) to be used unless the period is not calculated by using a sophisticated method. In this equation H and D are the height of the building (m) and the plan dimension of the building (m) in the direction of the considered lateral load. F = CW W = Wi = G i + n i Pi (i : story number) C = Co = 1 (T 0.5 s) = 0 .5 0.3 (T > 0.5 s) T 0.09 H T = D (s) (4) (5) (6)

(7a) (7b)

(8)

123

Author's personal copy

372 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380

According to the code, the lateral forces are to be distributed to oor levels along the height by using Eq. 9. In this equation, Fi , Wi and h i are the lateral forces applied to the i th story oor, the weight of the story and the height of the story measured from the foundation level. Fi = F Wi h i Wi h i (9)

The code permitted an increase of 50% in allowable stresses of concrete and steel in case of seismic design assuming that the design is carried out by using allowable stress approach. Furthermore, an increase of 50 and 30% in the ground allowable stresses was permitted for the ground types I (hard soil) and II (medium soil), respectively. However, it should be noted that the concept of shear wall end zones, where an increased amount of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement should be placed, was not introduced in this code. In the code and its latter revisions, the effect of earthquake was taken into account separately without considering the wind load. Consequently, analysis against earthquake and wind loads are carried out separately and design is carried out according to the most unfavorable case. In 1972, the seismic zone map was divided into ve seismic risk zones (Fig. 5a), including the zone with no seismic risk [2].

5.5 1975 Seismic Regulation [18] 1975 Seismic Regulation has been valid for more than 20 years. Therefore, as seen in Fig. 3, a great portion of existing buildings were designed and constructed, while this code was in effect. The code was the rst code, in which the term ductility was used explicitly. Furthermore, the base shear force was given as a function of structural ductility for the rst time implicitly according to the lateral load resisting system of the structure by introducing a structure type coefcient. Other important improvements in the code were: Inclusion of more detailed principles related to seismic-resistant detailing Inclusion of details about minimum cross-sectional dimensions and minimum reinforcement ratios for structural members Inclusion of more detailed requirements related to connement Inclusion of a quantitative shear design for beamcolumn joints Inclusion of the ground dominant period into the equation given for determination of the spectrum coefcient Inclusion of an explicit definition of irregular buildings (although the definitions of irregularities were not sufciently detailed) Inclusion of the requirement of the modal analysis for irregular or high-rise structures (H > 75 m) Introduction of the concept of increased longitudinal reinforcement at end zones of shear walls Consideration of an additional eccentricity of 5% of the largest plan dimension of the building. However, it should be noted that while an increase of longitudinal reinforcement at the end zones of the shear walls was introduced in the code, the connement of longitudinal bars in these end zones was not required. In the code, the base shear force was to be calculated by Eq. 10. In this equation C, Co , K, S and I are the fundamental base shear coefcient, the seismic zone coefcient (0.10, 0.08, 0.06 and 0.04, for Zones I, II, III and IV, respectively), the structure type coefcient, the dynamic coefcient and the building importance factor, respectively. The values of the structure type coefcient K, which was actually introduced for consideration of ductility capacity of various structural systems, are given in Table 4 depending on the type of the structure. As seen in this table, relatively lower ductility capacity of the shear wall structures is taken into account by increasing design base shear force in this version of the seismic design code. The dynamic coefcient (spectrum coefcient) is to be evaluated by Eq. 11, where To is the effective period of the ground in seconds. It should be noted that the dynamic coefcient should be assumed as 1.0 for one and two-story structures and all masonry buildings. For the fundamental period of buildings, in addition to Eq. 8, which has already been given in the 1968 regulation, an alternative formula was given as well (Eq. 12). In Eq. 12, N is the number of stories. The building importance factor, I was almost same as in the 1968 code (either 1.0 for ordinary buildings, or 1.5 for important or densely populated buildings. C = Co K S I Co 2 (10)

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380 373

Table 4 The structure type coefcient, K Structure type Ka

Ductile framesb (a) 0.60, (b) 0.80, (c) 1.00 Non-ductile framesb (a) 1.20, (b) 1.50, (c) 1.50 Steel frames with bracingsb (a) 1.20, (b) 1.50, (c) 1.60 Shear wallductile framesb,c (a) 0.80, (b) 1.00, (c) 1.20 Shear wall structures without frames 1.33 Masonry buildings 1.50 Others 1.00 a The minimum value of K is 1.0 for one or two-story structures b Having (a) reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry inll walls, (b) unreinforced masonry inll walls, (c) light weight or few inll walls, or prefabricated concrete inll walls c The ductile frames should resist at least 25% of the lateral loads

S=

1 1.0 |0.8 + T To |

(11)

T = (0.07 0.10) N

(12)

The distribution of the base shear force along the height of the building was again adopted according to the rst mode shape of the building (inverse triangular distribution), with an additional singular force to be applied to the top story (Ft ), to take implicitly into account the effects of higher modes approximately as given in Eqs. 13 and 14. According to this version of the code, Ft was assumed to be zero for low-rise buildings (H/D 3). Fi = ( F Ft ) Wi h i Wi h i
2

(13)

Ft = 0.004 F

H D

0.15 F

(14)

It is important to note that the permission to increase the allowable stresses of concrete and steel was reduced to 33% from 50% in the code. Additionally, the permitted increase of the ground allowable stress was reduced to 33% for the ground types I, II and III. No increase for the ground allowable stresses was permitted for the ground type IV, as well as for the concrete and steel allowable stresses for structures on the ground type IV. It should be noted that while the building weight to be considered for calculation of the base shear force was similar to the 1968 code (Eq. 5), the values of live load reduction factor (n) were slightly revised. This value was 0.8 for storage type structures, 0.6 for schools, theaters, concert halls, shops, dormitories, and 0.3 for residential buildings, ofces, hospitals, hotels. It is important to emphasize that the reinforced concrete design and construction code in Turkey was revised in 1984 and 2000 [19,20]. After 1984, while still the use of allowable stress design was permitted, the ultimate strength design was encouraged explicitly. Consequently, after mid-1980s, design engineers began to use the ultimate strength design instead of the allowable stress approach. In the most recent version of the reinforced concrete design and construction code published in 2000, the use of the allowable stress design is not permitted any more. In 1996, the seismic zone map has been revised once more (Fig. 5b). In the revised seismic zone map, which still has ve seismic zones, the area for Zone I is significantly increased.

5.6 1998 Seismic Regulation [21] After more than 20 years of the publication of the 1975 code, a revised version was published in 1998 just 1 year before the catastrophic earthquakes experienced in 1999. Therefore, the 1998 code and the earthquakes experienced created a milestone in terms of earthquake-resistant design and construction, as well as the demand of public for safe housing. Presently, most engineers in Turkey believe that the buildings constructed after 19981999 are much safer against earthquakes than the older buildings.

123

Author's personal copy

374 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380

Table 5 The building importance factor, I Purpose of occupancy or type of building 1. Buildings to be utilized after the earthquake and buildings containing hazardous materials (a) Buildings required to be utilized immediately after the earthquake (hospitals, re ghting buildings, telecommunication facilities, transportation stations and terminals, power generation and distribution facilities, ofcial administration buildings, etc.) (b) Buildings containing or storing toxic, explosive and ammable materials, etc. 2. Intensively and long-term occupied buildings and buildings preserving valuable goods (a) Schools, dormitories, military barracks, prisons, etc. (b) Museums 3. Intensively but short-term occupied buildings Sport facilities, cinema, theatre and concert halls, etc. 4. Other buildings Buildings other than dened above (residential and ofce buildings, hotels, building-like industrial structures, etc.) Table 6 Characteristic spectrum periods Local site class Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 T A (s) 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.20 T B (s) 0.30 0.40 0.60 0.90 Importance factor (I)

1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0

The most important advances introduced through the 1998 code are: Inclusion of the detailed capacity design principles Explicit definition of the design earthquake in terms of occurrence probability Explicit definition of the acceptable structural performance under the design earthquake Definition of the elastic design spectrum Definition of the seismic load reduction factor depending on the structural characteristics, including dynamic properties and ductility of the structural system and the over-strength factor Inclusion of detailed requirements on connement and explicit rules for reinforcement detailing Quantitative definition of irregularities. The capacity design principles in the code provide that plastic hinges form at beams by assuring that columns are stronger than beams framing into the same joint. Furthermore, the shear capacity of beams and columns as well as shear walls is kept higher than their bending capacity, so that ductile failure is ensured in case of seismic loads higher than that considered in seismic design. The design earthquake considered in the code corresponds to an earthquake with the return period of 475 years for ordinary buildings (for building importance factor 1.0) and 2,475 years for the most important buildings (for building importance factor 1.5). The probabilities of exceedence for these two cases are 10 and 2% in 50 years, respectively. In the code, the spectral acceleration coefcient A(T) is given by Eq. 15, where Ao , I and S(T) are the effective seismic acceleration coefcient (seismic zone coefcient), the building importance factor and the elastic spectrum coefcient evaluated for 5% damping ratio. The effective seismic acceleration coefcient ( Ao ) is to be taken as 0.40, 0.30, 0.20 and 0.10, for the seismic zones I, II, III and IV, respectively, (Fig. 5b). The building importance factor (I) is given with more details in the code compared to its previous versions, (Table 5). Spectrum coefcient (S(T)) is determined through Eqs. 16a, 16b, 16c as a function of the fundamental period the building (T) and the characteristic spectrum periods (T A and T B ), which are to be determined depending on the ground type. The characteristic spectrum periods for various ground conditions are given in Table 6. In this table, it is apparent that Z1 represents strongest ground conditions, while Z4 corresponds to the weakest. The variation of spectrum coefcient with respect to the fundamental period of the building is shown in Fig. 6. It should be noted that the fundamental period of the building can be calculated by Eq. 17 or Eq. 18. Equation 17 is the well-known Rayleigh equation, where mi is the mass of the i th story, F f i is the ctitious lateral load acting on the i th story and d f i is the corresponding displacement of the i th story in the direction of F f i . On the other hand, Eq. 18 is an empirical relation, where Ct is a coefcient and depends on structural system of the building (0.08 for steel frames, 0.07 for reinforced concrete frames, 0.05

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380 375

(a)
2.5

S(T)

S(T) = 2.5 (TB / T )0.8

1.0

TA

TB

(b) 0.30
A o I S(T)/R a(T)
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
0 0.5 1 T(s) 1.5 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Fig. 6 a Elastic spectrum coefcient S(T) and b spectral acceleration coefcient depending on the fundamental building period T for four seismic zones

for shear wall buildings) and H N is the total height of the building. A(T ) = Ao I S (T ) T (0 T T A ) TA (15)

S ( T ) = 1 + 1.5

(16a) (16b)

S ( T ) = 2 .5 ( T A T T B ) S ( T ) = 2 .5 TB T
N 0.8

(T TB )

(16c)

T1 = 2
i =1

mi d 2 fi/
i =1

Ff id f i

(17)

3/4 T1 = T1 A = Ct HN

(18)

For using inelastic capacity of the structures (at least partially), certain level of inelastic deformations (controlled damages) beyond elastic limits are allowed under the design earthquake explicitly, provided that the building does not collapse, life safety is ensured and damages are kept within the controlled limits. For utilizing inelastic deformations, the structural system should have a certain level of ductility. According to the code, the buildings can be designed considering two levels of ductility; normal or high. There are several rules, particularly in terms of the application of the capacity design, construction details and irregularities for classifying the structural systems as normal or high ductility. Since inelastic deformations are allowed, the lateral load demand evaluated by using the elastic design spectrum is reduced depending on the characteristics of the structural system by the seismic load reduction factor Ra (T) given by Eqs. 19a, 19b. Obviously, if the structural system possess the characteristics such that the system can be classied as a high ductility system, the reduction in lateral loads is higher than that of a normal ductility structural system. The variation of the spectral

123

Author's personal copy

376 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380

Table 7 The structural system coefcients, R Building structural system Systems Systems of normal of high ductility level ductility level 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 3 4 4 4 8 7 6 7 6 5 4 5 8 6 7 6 8 7

(1) Cast-in-situ reinforced concrete buildings (1.1) Buildings in which seismic loads are fully resisted by frames (1.2) Buildings in which seismic loads are fully resisted by coupled structural walls (1.3) Buildings in which seismic loads are fully resisted by solid structural walls (1.4) Buildings in which seismic loads are jointly resisted by frames and solid and/ or coupled structural walls (2) Precast reinforced concrete buildings (2.1) Buildings in which seismic loads are fully resisted by frames with connections capable of cyclic moment transfer (2.2) Buildings in which seismic loads are fully resisted by single-story hinged frames with xed-in bases (2.3) Buildings in which seismic loads are fully resisted by prefabricated solid structural walls (2.4) Buildings in which seismic loads are jointly resisted by frames with connections capable of cyclic moment transfer and cast-in-situ solid and/or coupled structural walls (3) Steel buildings (3.1) Buildings in which seismic loads are fully resisted by frames (3.2) Buildings in which seismic loads are fully resisted by single-story hinged frames with xed-in bases (3.3) Buildings in which seismic loads are fully resisted by braced frames or cast-in-situ reinforced concrete structural walls (a) Concentrically braced frames (b) Eccentrically braced frames (c) Reinforced concrete structural walls (3.4) Buildings in which seismic loads are jointly resisted by frames and braced frames or cast-in-situ reinforced concrete structural walls (a) Concentrically braced frames (b) Eccentrically braced frames (c) Reinforced concrete structural walls

acceleration coefcient A(T ) = Ao IS (T )/Ra (T ) for the four different seismicity levels is also presented in Fig. 6. The spectral acceleration coefcients are obtained for an ordinary (building importance factor I = 1.0) reinforced concrete frame building with a seismic load reduction factor of 4 (typical for a reinforced concrete frame of normal ductility) constructed on the soil class Z1(T A = 0.1 s, TB = 0.3 s). Ra (T ) = 1.5 + ( R 1.5) T (T TA ) TA (19a) (19b)

Ra ( T ) = R ( T > T A )

As seen in Eqs. 19a, 19b the seismic load reduction factor Ra can be calculated as a function of the structural system coefcient, R, which can be determined through Table 7. It should be noted that the value of the seismic load reduction factor does not represent the structural system ductility only, but it includes the over-strength factor as well. Finally, the reduced base shear force (Vt ) can be calculated by Eq. 20, where W is the total weight of the building to be calculated in a similar method as in the 1975 Code by considering dead load and reduced live load. Furthermore, in this revision the lateral drift limits were also revised. Vt = W A(T ) 0.10 Ao I W Ra ( T ) (20)

Requirements on the combinations of the seismic loads with the other loads are given in the related codes for typical buildings, such as the reinforced concrete design and construction code [20]. In this code, the wind and seismic loads are not considered in one single combination together. Some typical design combinations given in this code are 1.4G + 1.6Q, G + Q + E, 0.9G + E, G + 1.3Q + 1.3W and 0.9G + 1.3 W, where G, Q, E and W represent dead, live, seismic and wind loads, respectively. It is worth noting that while the code was quite comprehensive in terms of reinforced concrete structures, recommendations on steel structures were not equally detailed. This was due to the fact that number of steel

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380 377

structures was very low compared to reinforced concrete structures before the 1999 earthquakes. In contrast to the fact that all types of structural systems have almost same level of seismic safety, if designed and constructed properly, the damage experienced by inadequate reinforced concrete structures (so-called reinforced concrete structures, built without receiving proper engineering service) caused a misconception such that reinforced concrete structures are not seismically safe, but steel structures are. Consequently, while still being in marginal numbers with respect to reinforced concrete structures, the amount of steel construction has increased significantly after the 1999 earthquakes, necessitating more comprehensive seismic provisions in the code. 5.7 2007 Seismic Regulation [22] Based on the demand of people and the ofcial institutions for earthquake safe environment after the earthquakes experienced in 1999, many structures were investigated in terms of seismic safety and some of these were retrotted. However, due to lack of ofcial guidelines and standards about seismic safety assessment and retrotting, in many cases non-standard and sometimes inappropriate approaches were being used by design engineers while analyzing or retrotting the existing buildings. Therefore, the most recent version of the seismic design code published in 2007 includes the issues on seismic safety assessment of existing buildings and retrotting comprehensively. The code has only minor revisions in the provisions related to reinforced concrete buildings to be newly designed. However, the seismic safety requirements for steel structures, which were not addressed in sufcient comprehensiveness in the previous codes, are covered comprehensively in the code. With this version, the title of the code, which was Regulation for structures in disaster areas since 1961, has been changed as Regulation for buildings in seismic areas. Consequently, issues related with other disasters (such as ood and re) are removed from the code. The most important advances introduced through the 2007 version of the code are: Inclusion of a new extensive chapter on seismic safety assessment and retrotting of existing buildings Inclusion of a linear elastic method for seismic safety assessment considering the inelastic behavior in terms of approximate allowable demand/capacity ratios given depending on the damage level Inclusion of the performance-based assessment principles for existing structures in seismic safety evaluation and retrotting Inclusion of different levels of design earthquakes (such as service, design and maximum earthquakes) and performance levels (such as immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention) to be considered for various types of buildings Inclusion of single-mode and multi-mode push-over analysis for seismic safety assessment and retrotting Inclusion of nonlinear time history analysis Inclusion of principles and details related with conventional retrotting techniques (such as concrete jacketing, strengthening with steel members, and shear wall additions) and retrotting using innovative materials (such as ber reinforced polymers). As known, in performance-based assessment, seismic performance of the building is determined based on the extent and distribution of structural member damages. In the code, the damage levels are determined depending on the concrete compressive strain at the extreme compression ber (either on the cover or core depending on the damage level) and tensile reinforcement strain, which are calculated through the rotations of plastic hinges when push-over analysis is carried out. When distributed plasticity assumption is used, the critical strains can be evaluated directly. 5.8 Change of Code Recommended Seismic Load in Time Based on the above explanations, a summary of the variation of the base shear coefcient over time for a four-story reinforced concrete building having ductile frames and located on Z2 type ground in the south part of Istanbul is presented in Fig. 7. It should be noted that slight changes of the given values may be possible based on assumptions related with the dynamic characteristics of the building and the ground. Furthermore, it should be taken into consideration that Istanbul was designated as Seismic Zone II until 1996. After 1996, south part of Istanbul has been designated as Seismic Zone I. While there are buildings of various heights in different parts of Turkey, in cities majority of existing buildings consist of four to ve-story reinforced concrete frame buildings similar to the building considered for the calculation of the base shear coefcients in Fig. 7.

123

Author's personal copy

378 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380

Fundamental base shear coefficient

0.15 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.00 1944 1961 1968 1975 1998 2007

Year

Fig. 7 The variation of the base shear coefcient required by the code by time (excluding the 1940 regulation)

5.9 Other Issues It is important to note that while the Turkish Seismic Design Code has been upgraded in certain time intervals, it is not possible to claim that buildings have been constructed following the codes valid in the time of their construction due to lack of sufcient enforcement of the code. Unfortunately, only a small portion of the existing buildings has been constructed in accordance with the Seismic Design Code until the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake, which has been a milestone in terms of public awareness. This earthquake has deeply affected public and constructors in terms of potential threat to human lives and economy. Interestingly, the experienced disaster has been far more effective on the awareness of the public and the attitude of constructors than the revisions in the Seismic Design Code. An interesting example of non-compliance with the code regulations is the requirement on the seismic joints between the adjacent buildings. Although several requirements on the seismic joints are present in the code since 1940 Seismic Regulation, one can hardly see any proper seismic joint between existing adjacent buildings, even nowadays. It should be noted that further information on Turkish Seismic Design Code and its evolution by time can be found elsewhere [1,2,8,13,23]. 6 Conclusions Milestones of evolution of seismic design in Turkey can be summarized as below: By 1940 Seismic Regulation: The rst set of rules for seismic design was introduced and a fundamental base shear coefcient of 0.10 was considered. By 1944 Seismic Regulation: Seismic zones were included (after the revision in 1942). Fundamental base shear coefcient was revised (reduced) as 0.040.01. By 1961 Seismic Regulation: Soilstructure interaction was taken into account implicitly based on type of the structure and the ground type. By 1968 Seismic Regulation: Ductility concept was somehow introduced implicitly through column and beam connement in the vicinity of joints. Connement of the joint cores by transverse bars was required. Minimum dimensions for columns, beams and shear walls for seismic design were dened. Dynamic characteristics of buildings were considered in the evaluation of base shear force. Building importance factor was introduced. Inverse triangular distribution of lateral forces was adopted. Torsional irregularity was taken into account. By 1975 Seismic Regulation:

123

Author's personal copy

Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380 379

Ductility was mentioned explicitly both in member and structural levels and taken into consideration during both analysis and design. Seismic zone map issued in 1972 was taken into consideration. More detailed principles related with seismic-resistant detailing were introduced. Simple definition for classication of irregular and regular structures based on the structural conguration was introduced. Dynamic analysis requirement for irregular and high-rise structures was included. Quantitative shear design for joints was required. Concept of increased longitudinal reinforcement at the end zones of the walls was introduced. By 1998 Regulation: Capacity design principles were introduced. Explicit definition of design earthquake in terms of occurrence probability was included. Explicit definition of acceptable structural performance against design earthquake was given. Elastic design spectrum was dened. Seismic load reduction factor as a function of ductility was introduced. More detailed definition of building importance factor was included. More detailed requirements on connement and explicit rules for reinforcement detailing were included. Definition and classication of irregularities were given quantitatively.

By 2007 Regulation: New and extensive chapter is added on seismic safety assessment and retrotting. This chapter includes elastic and inelastic performance based analysis approaches. Different design earthquakes and performance levels are dened for various types of buildings. Principles and details of retrotting techniques either using conventional or advanced materials are included. The authors believe that performance-based design, which is included in the most recent version of the Turkish Seismic Design Code for seismic safety assessment and retrotting of existing buildings, will progress rapidly to be utilized in seismic-resistant design of new structures as well.
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge Turkish Earthquake Foundation and Prof. Nahit Kumbasar for providing previous versions of the Seismic Design Code.

References
1. AIJ/JSCE/BU: Damage report on 1992 Erzincan earthquake, Turkey. Technical Report by Joint Reconnaissance Team of Architectural Institute of Japan, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Bogazici University, Istanbul (1993) 2. AIJ/JSCE/JGS: Report on the damage investigation of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey. Technical Report by Joint Reconnaissance Team of Architectural Institute of Japan, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, The Japanese Geotechnical Society (2001) 3. Aydan, O.; Ulusay, R.; Kumsar, H.; Tuncay, E.: Site investigation and engineering evaluation of the Duzce-Bolu earthquake of November 12, 1999. Technical Report, Turkish Earthquake Foundation, TDV/DR 0951 (2000) 4. Parsons, T.: Recalculated probability of M 7 earthquakes beneath the Sea of Marmara, Turkey. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 109, Art. No. B05304 (2004) 5. State Statistical Institute, Results of Census in 2000. Ankara (2000) 6. The study on a disaster prevention/mitigation basic plan in Istanbul including seismic microzonation in the Republic of Turkey. Technical Report prepared for JICA and IMM, Pacic Consultants, Oyo Corporation (2002) 7. Utsu, T.: Table of world historical earthquakes (1990) 8. Aydinoglu, M.N.: From seismic coefcient to performance based design: 40 years of earthquake engineering from an engineers viewpoint. In: Proceedings of 6th Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Maya Basin Yayin, 2007, pp. 1541 (in Turkish with English abstract) 9. Ozmen, B.: Damage due to August 17, 1999 Izmit Bay Earthquake. Technical Report, Turkish Earthquake Foundation, TDV/DR 01053 (2000) 10. Pampal, S.; Ozmen, B.: Development of earthquake zoning maps of Turkey. In: Proceedings of Sixth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Maya Basin Yayin, 2007 (in Turkish with English abstract) 11. Ambraseys, N.N.: Comparison of frequency of occurrence of earthquakes with slip rates from long-term seismicity data: the cases of Gulf of Corinth, Sea of Marmara and Dead Sea fault zone. Geophys. J. Int. 165, 516526 (2006) 12. MWH Engineering and Consultancy.: Country strategy paper for natural disasters in Turkey. Draft Final Report submitted to Japan International Cooperation Agency (2004)

123

Author's personal copy

380 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:365380

13. Gulkan, P.: Building code enforcement at municipal level in Turkey: failure of public policy for effective building hazards mitigation. Disaster Management Implementation and Research Center, Middle East Technical University (2000) 14. Ministry of Public Works.: Zelzele Mntkalar Muvakkat Yap Talimatnamesi. (Temporary building regulation in earthquake zones.) Devlet Matbaas, Ankara (1940) (in Turkish) 15. Ministry of Public Works.: Zelzele Mnt kalar Muvakkat Yap Talimatnamesi. (Temporary building regulation in earthquake zones.) Yeni Cezaevi Matbaas, Ankara (1944) (in Turkish) 16. Ministry of Public Works and Housing.: Afet Blgelerinde Yaplacak Yaplar Hakknda Ynetmelik. (Regulation for structures in disaster areas.) Devrim Basm ve Cilt Evi, Ankara (1961) (in Turkish) 17. Ministry of Public Works and Housing.: Afet Blgelerinde Yaplacak Yaplar Hakknda Ynetmelik. (Regulation for structures in disaster areas.) Ba sbakanlk Devlet Matbaas, Ankara (1968) (in Turkish) 18. Ministry of Public Works and Housing.: Afet Blgelerinde Yaplacak Yaplar Hakknda Ynetmelik. (Regulation for structures in disaster areas.) Ofcial Gazette (1975) (in Turkish) 19. TSE-TS-500.: Requirements for design and construction of reinforced concrete structures. Turkish Standards Institution, Ankara (1984) (in Turkish) 20. TSE-TS-500.: Requirements for design and construction of reinforced concrete structures. Turkish Standards Institution, Ankara (2000) (in Turkish) 21. Ministry of Public Works and Housing.: Afet Blgelerinde Yaplacak Yaplar Hakknda Ynetmelik. (Regulation for structures in disaster areas.) Ofcial Gazette (1998) (in Turkish) 22. Ministry of Public Works and Housing.: Deprem Blgelerinde Yaplacak Binalar Hakknda Ynetmelik. (Regulation for buildings in seismic areas.) Ofcial Gazette (2007) (in Turkish) 23. Bayulke, N.N.: Reedition history of seismic design code of Turkey: historical development of the earthquake resistant building design code of Turkey. Bull. IISEE 26, 413429 (1992)

123