Frame buildings are not an answer for earthquakes: The case of the February 2023 earthquakes in Türkiye

Abstract

The February 2023 earthquakes in Türkiye caused widespread devastation and fatalities, highlighting the critical contrast in the seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with moment-resistant frames and those with structural walls. This study employs analyses of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems using selected accelerograms from the earthquakes to evaluate the behavior of these structural systems. Three SDOF systems representing flexible and stiffer frame buildings, alongside RC wall buildings, were examined. The results highlighted the susceptibility of frame buildings to severe damage and collapse compared with the excellent performance of RC wall buildings. Moreover, the study emphasizes a shift of design focus from life safety to functional recovery. It also identifies potential scenarios regarding consecutive earthquake effects. Overall, the findings advocate adequately designed RC wall buildings for enhanced seismic performance and immediate occupation following major earthquakes.

Keywords

Reinforced concrete frames reinforced concrete wall buildings tunnel-form seismic behavior post-earthquake shear wall damage index drift aftershock functional recovery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AFAD (2023a) 06 Şubat 2023 Pazarcık-Elbistan Kahramanmaraş (Mw: 7.7–Mw: 7.6) Depremleri Raporu (6 February 2023, Pazarcık–Elbistan Kahramanmaraş (Mw: 7.7–Mw: 7.6) Earthquakes Report). Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Turkey, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Earthquake and Disaster Risk Reduction General Directorate, Earthquake Department, Türkiye, June.

AFAD (2023b) Turkish accelerometric database and analysis system. Available at: https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/ (accessed 31 August 2023).

Amadio

Fragiacomo

Rajgelj

(2003) The effects of repeated earthquake ground motions on the nonlinear response of SDOF systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 32(2): 291–308.

ASCE/SEI 7-22 (2022) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Binder

Wheeler

(1960) Building code provisions for Aseismic design. In: Proceedings of the Second World conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 11–18 July, pp. 1843–1875. Tokyo, Japan: Science Council of Japan.

Carr

(2011) INSPECT, Computer Program Library. Canterbury, New Zealand: University of Canterbury.

Cecen

(1979) Response of ten story, reinforced concrete model frames to simulated earthquakes. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.

Cetin

Ilgaç

Can

Çakır

(2023) Preliminary reconnaissance report on February 6, 2023, Pazarcık Mw=7.7 and Elbistan Mw=7.6, Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Report no. METU/EERC 2023-01, February. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

Clough

(1966) Effect of stiffness degradation of earthquake ductility requirements. Report no. 66-16. Berkeley, CA: Structures and Materials Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California.

10.

Das

Gupta

Srimahavishnu

(2007) Damage-based design with no repairs for multiple events and its sensitivity to seismicity model. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 36(3): 307–325.

11.

Dönmez

(2015) Seismic performance of wide-beam infill-joist block RC frames in Turkey. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 29(1): 04014026.

12.

Fintel

(1991) Shearwalls—An answer for seismic resistance. ACI Concrete International, July, pp. 48–53.

13.

Guendelman

Lindenberg

(2010) Cambios en Solicitaciones Sismicas en Edificios [Changes in seismic demands in buildings]. In: Seminario Efectos del Terremoto en el Nuevo Diseño Sismico y Estructural en Chile, ICH, Santiago, Chile, November 2010. (in Spanish)

14.

Hatzigeorgiou

Liolios

(2010) Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30(10): 1010–1025.

15.

International Conference of Building Officials (1961) Uniform Building Code. Los Angeles, CA: International Conference of Building Officials.

16.

ITU (2023) 6 Şubat 2023–04.17 Mw 7,8 Kahramanmaraş (Pazarcık, Türkoğlu), Hatay (Kırıkhan), 13.24 Mw 7.7 Kahramanmaraş (Elbistan / Nurhak-Çardak) Depremleri, Nihai Rapor (February 6, 2023–04:17 Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş (Pazarcık, Türkoğlu), Hatay (Kırıkhan), 13:24 Mw 7.7 Kahramanmaraş (Elbistan / Nurhak-Çardak) earthquakes, final report), Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, March.

17.

Kawoosa

(2023) 10,000 tremors—How Turkey has been rattled by aftershocks since the Feb. 6 earthquake. Reuters, 1. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/TURKEY-QUAKE/AFTERSHOCKS/dwpkdzklevm/

18.

Lagos

Kupper

Lindenberg

Bonelli

Saragoni

Gueldelman

Massone

Boroschek

Yanez

(2012) Seismic performance of high-rise concrete buildings in Chile. International Journal of High-rise Buildings 1(3): 181–194.

19.

MEUCC (2023) Damage assessment inquiry system. Available at: https://hasartespit.csb.gov.tr/ (accessed 31 August 2023).

20.

Ministry of Interior (2023) Ministry news. Available at: https://www.icisleri.gov.tr/bakanimiz-sn-soylu-11-bolgede-57-bin-enkazin-50-bini-bitti (accessed 31 August 2023).

21.

Presidency of Strategy and Budget (2023) Türkiye earthquakes recovery and reconstruction assessment. Presidency of the Republic of Turkey, Presidency of Strategy and Budget.

22.

Rodriguez

(2015) Evaluation of a proposed damage index for a set of earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 44: 1255–1270.

23.

Rodriguez

(2018) Damage index for different structural systems subjected to recorded ground motions. Earthquake Spectra 34(2): 773–793.

24.

Shimazaki

Sozen

(1984) Seismic drift of reinforced concrete structures. Technical report, Hazama-Gumi, Tokyo, pp. 145–165.

25.

Sozen

(1989) Earthquake response of buildings with robust walls. In: Fifth Chilean conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile.

26.

USGS (2023) M 7.8—Pazarcik earthquake, Kahramanmaras earthquake sequence. Available at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/map (accessed 13 October 2023).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB