Hızlı sismik performans değerlendirme yöntemi

In recent years, hundredthousands of people have lost their lives and much more became homeless in destructive earthquakes in Turkey as well as in other countries. Those earthquakes that have been experienced so far show us that existing buildings, especially those in undeveloped or underdeveloped countries, are not safe against earthquake risk. It is also known that Turkey is on fault lines, and that there is always a risk of encountering an earthquake. Especially considering the fact that the developed and densely populated cities are on these fault lines, it is necessary to examine whether the existing buildings are earthquake resistant or not. Due to these dangers and as a result of the beginning of the urban transformation process in our country, it is necessary to know the earthquake performance of our existing buildings. However, when such factors as time, human resource, material burden required to review the earthquake regulation of 2007 of the existing building stock and regulation on the Determination of Risk Buildings are taken into account. It can be seen that this does not seem likely. In order to overcome such problems, we have sought to develop methods, which are more practical that but compatible with these regulations. It is possible to find a lot of quick evaluation methods. Street scanning method (Sucuoğlu vd., 2004), zero life loss approach (Tezcan vd., 2002), P25 method (Bal vd., 2007) and Durters method (Temur and Öztorun, 2005) are some examples for quick evaluation methods. The team formed from İstanbul Technical University, Bogazici (Bosphorous) University and Van Yüzüncü Yıl University has developed a new, rapid evaluation method in parallel with the Turkish earthquake regulation: the PERA (Quick Seismic Performance Evaluation) method. The Pera method can predict the eartquake performance of frame-based buildings without the need to model the whole structure and by making some assumptions (the ground floor is taken as the critical floor, the dimensions of beams are assumed to be 300mmx600mm and their lengths are assumed to be 5m, reinforcement rate depends on the year of construction. If construction year before 1975, reinforcement rate is taken as 0,009 if construction year after 1975 reinforcement rate is taken as 0.012. Construction unit weight is accepted as 12 kN/m.2 Equivalent earthquake load reduction coefficient (λ) is taken as 0.85. Since the aim is to determine the nearest realistic earthquake performance within the shortest time, an acceleration was therefore made by using the Smith method, which is a simpler method than the Muto method used in the PERA method, and it has been examined how this acceleration would effect the results. When this examination was carried out, it has been seen that the wind load table was inadvertently used instead of the earthquake load table within the Pera method. First, the wind load table was removed in the software and the earthquake load table was used instead of the wind load table, and the buildings were analyzed. When this change was made, it was seen that the compliance with the result-based RYTE was increased from 68.5% to 69.4%. Then, the Smith method, which is a simpler method, was used instead of the Muto method employed in the PERA method. When it is assumed in the Smith method that inflection points are in the middle, they were not used in these two tables, and, by using the Smith method instead of the Muto method, it has been seen that the compliance with RYTE was increased from 68.5% to 79.64%.