Seismic risk assessment for the mega-city of Istanbul: Ductility, strength and maximum interstory drift demands

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

Volumn 27, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 1101-1117

  Bakir, Pelin Gundes ^a,b   De Roeck, Guido ^b   Degrande, Geert ^b   Wong, Kevin K F ^c  

^a ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c University of Utah   (United States)

Author keywords

Base isolation; Butterworth filters; Earthquake; Earthquake damage estimation; Inelastic response spectra; Nonlinear dynamic analysis; Nonlinear response history; Seismic vulnerability; Strong motion accelerograms

Indexed keywords

CONCRETE BUILDINGS; DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE; EARTHQUAKES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC RESPONSE;

BUTTERWORTH FILTERS; EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE ESTIMATION; INELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRA; NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC VULNERABILITY; STRONG-MOTION ACCELEROGRAMS;

SEISMOLOGY;

CATASTROPHIC EVENT; DUCTILITY; DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE; EARTHQUAKE RUPTURE; FAULT; KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE 1999; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC ISOLATION; STRONG MOTION; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

DUZCE; EURASIA; ISTANBUL [TURKEY]; TURKEY;

EID: 34848889742     PISSN: 02677261     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bakir P.G., and Boduroglu H.M. Earthquake risk and hazard mitigation in Turkey. Earthquake Spectra 18 3 (2002) 427-447
2. Bakir P.G. Proposal for a national mitigation strategy against earthquakes in Turkey. Nat Hazards 33 3 (2004) 405-425
3. Motosaka M., and Somer A. Ground motion directionally inferred from a survey of minaret damage during the 1999 Kocaeli and Duzce earthquakes. J Seismol 6 3 (2002) 419-430
4. Donmez C., and Pujol S. Spatial distribution of damage caused by the 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Earthquake Spectra 21 1 (2005) 53-69
5. Elnashai A.S. Analysis of the damage potential of the Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake of 17 August 1999. Eng Struct 22 (2000) 746-754
6. Yucemen M.S., Ozcebe G., and Pay A.C. Prediction of potential damage due to severe earthquakes. Struct Saf 26 3 (2004) 349-366
7. Yakut A., Gulkan P., Bakir B.S., and Ylmaz M.T. Re-examination of damage distribution in Adapazar: structural considerations. Eng Struct 27 7 (2005) 990-1001
8. Sezen H., Whittaker A.S., Elwood K.J., et al. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction practise in Turkey. Eng Struct 25 1 (2003) 103-114
9. Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV. Estimation of damage potential of recorded earthquake ground motion using structural damage indices. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, London; 2002.
10. Hart G.C., and Wong K.K.F. Structural dynamics for structural engineers. 1st ed. (1999), Wiley, USA
11. Bakir PG, De Roeck G, Degrande G, Wong KKF. Site dependent response spectra and analysis of the characteristics of the strong ground motion due to the 1999 Duzce earthquake in Turkey. Eng Struct 2006, accepted for publication.
12. Somerville P.G., Smith N.F., Graves R.W., and Abrahamson N.A. Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismol Res Lett 68 1 (1997) 199-222
13. Miranda E. Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF systems. J Struct Eng-ASCE 127 9 (2001) 1005-1012
14. Chopra A.K. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. 2nd ed. (2000), Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA
15. Boore D.M., and Akkar S. Effect of causal and anti-causal filters on elastic and inelastic response spectra. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 32 11 (2003) 1729-1748
16. Gundes Bakir P., and Vaccaro R.J. Displacements, damage measures and response spectra obtained from synthetic accelerograms processed by causal and acausal Butterworth filters. Struct Eng Mech Int J 23 4 (2006) 409-430
17. Brune J.N. Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75 (1970) 611-614
18. Boore DM. Personal communications, 2005.
19. Crowley H., and Pinho R. Period-height relationship for existing European reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthquake Eng 8 (2004) 93-119 [special issue 1]
20. Bertero VV, Bendimerad FM, Shah HC. Fundamental period of reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame structures. John Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 87. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Stanford University, 1988.
21. Clinton J.F., Bradford S.C., Heaton T.H., and Favela J. The observed wander of the natural frequencies in a structure. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96 1 (2006) 237-257
22. Todorovska M, Trifunac M, Hao T-Y. Variations of apparent building frequencies-lessons from full-scale earthquake observations. In: First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (a joint event of the 13th ECEE and 30th General Assembly of the ESC), Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No. 1547, September 2006.
23. Trifunac M.D., Ivanovic S.S., and Todorovska M.I. Apparent periods of a building I: Fourier analysis. J Struct Eng-ASCE 127 5 (2001) 517-526
24. Naeim F. Research overview: seismic response of structures. Struct Des Tall Build 7 (1998) 195-215
25. Luco J.E., Trifunac M.D., and Wong H.L. On apparent changes in dynamic behavior of a nine-story reinforced concrete building. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77 6 (1987) 1961-1983
26. Pinho R, Calvi GM, Crowley H. State of the knowledge on the period elongation of RC buildings during strong ground shaking. In: First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (a joint event of the 13th ECEE and 30th General Assembly of the ESC), Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No. 1535, September 2006.
27. Park Y.J., and Ang A.H.S. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng-ASCE 111 4 (1985) 740-757
28. AnatolianQuake.Org. 〈http://bridge.ecn.purdue.edu/∼anatolia/〉.
29. SeismoSoft. Seismostruct-a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. Available from URL: 〈http://www.seismosoft.com〉, 2004 [online].
30. Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N., and Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114 8 (1988) 1804-1826
31. Martinez-Rueda J.E., and Elnashai A.S. Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater Struct 30 197 (1997) 139-147
32. Meremonte M, Ozel O, Cranswick E, Erdik M, Safak E, Overturf D, et al. Damage and site response in Avcilar, west of Istanbul. Abstracts, American geophysical union, fall meeting. San Francisco, CA, USA, December 13-17, 1999. p. F673-4.E.
33. Japan International Cooperation Agency. The study on a disaster prevention/Mitigation basic plan in Istanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of Turkey. Report FEMA 273 (Guidelines) and Report 274 (Commentary), Washington, DC, 1997.
34. Istanbul earthquake master plan. Istanbul municipality website: 〈http://www.ibb.gov.tr〉 2003. 1344pp.