See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338236311

COMPARISON OF 2018 AND 2007 TURKISH EARTHQUAKE REGULATIONS

Article  in  International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences · October 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 1,987

3 authors, including:

Nihat Atmaca Adem Atmaca

Gaziantep University Gaziantep University
30 PUBLICATIONS   256 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   537 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

2nd International Energy and Engineering Conference 2017 View project

4th International Energy & Engineering Congress - UEMK 2019 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adem Atmaca on 30 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The International Journal of Energy & Engineering Sciences, 2019, 4 (2) 19-25 19
ISSN: 2602-294X - Gaziantep University

COMPARISON OF 2018 AND 2007 TURKISH EARTHQUAKE

REGULATIONS
Nihat Atmaca1,*, Adem Atmaca 2, Seydi Kılçık3
1
Civil Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
[email protected]
2
Energy Systems Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
[email protected]
3
Civil Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.

ABSTRACT

The new building earthquake regulation of Turkey has been published on 18 March 2018. There
are two different methods in the new code: Linear and nonlinear earthquake analysis methods.
In the present study, the different structural applications of a school project located in Gaziantep
province of Turkey analyzed by using linear earthquake calculation methods. The structure has
modeled with three different ways; only with Reinforced Concrete columns, with Reinforced
Concrete columns and Shear Walls, only with Shear Walls. In analysis, 2007 regulation on
buildings in earthquake zones are compared with the new Turkish 2018 earthquake code. The
software SAP 2000 is used for the calculations and program outcomes are used for comparisons.
Base shear forces, maximum displacement and force values and overturning moment findings
are calculated in each structural configuration. The advantages and disadvantages of the new
earthquake code are discussed in detail using earthquake analysis results.

Keywords: 2018 Turkish earthquake regulations, Base shear forces, Joint displacements, 2007
Turkish regulations on buildings in earthquake zones.

1. INTRODUCTION

Turkey is located on the active earthquake fault zones. There is a great effort to minimize risks
in case of an earthquake in Turkey. If we look up a general history of the earthquake regulations
in Turkey, it will give us an opportunity to commentate of earthquake regulations progress in
Turkey.

The first earthquake regulation has been adapted from Italy earthquake regulations in 1940.
However the regulations should have been revised and amended according to the technological
and social developments in society. It is generally observed that Seismic performances had
found to be unsuitable or significant design deficiencies due to revised and amended regulations
during construction of many buildings [1].

Earthquake regulations in Turkey [2]:

 1940 - Italian Building Instructions for Construction in Earthquake Districts,

 1944 - Earthquake Districts Provisional Building Instructions,
 1949 - Turkish Ground Movement Region Building Regulation,
 The International Journal of Energy & Engineering Sciences, 2019, 4 (2) 19-25 20
ISSN: 2602-294X - Gaziantep University

 1953 - Regulation on Structures to Be Built In Ground Movement Regions,

 1962- Regulation on structures in disaster zones (ABYYHY),
 1968 - Regulation on structures in disaster zones (ABYYHY),
 1975 - Regulation on structures to be built in disaster zones (ABYYHY),
 1998 - Regulation on structures in disaster zones (ABYYHY),
 2007 - Regulation on buildings in earthquake zones (DBYBHY),
 2018 - Turkey building earthquake regulation (TBDY) [3].

After 1999 Gölcük earthquake, a new earthquake regulation has been published in 2007 [4].
The new earthquake regulation has been inevitable after devastating earthquakes in last decade.
The new building earthquake regulation of Turkey has been published on 18 March 2018.
Similar to the 2007 earthquake regulations, there are two different methods in the new
earthquake code: Linear and nonlinear earthquake analysis methods.

The main purpose of this study is to show the differences between the 2007 and 2018 earthquake
regulation of the Turkey via changing the structural modelling types of a case study. A school
project is chosen as a case study. The different structural configurations analysed individually
by using linear earthquake calculation method. The equivalent seismic load method according
to the 2007 and 2018 earthquake regulations has been applied and analysed for Reinforced
Concrete (RC) column, with RC column and Shear Wall, only with Shear Wall frame models
by using SAP2000 software.

2. DIFFERENCES IN 2007 AND 2018 TURKISH EARTHQUAKE

REGULATIONS
The new building earthquake regulation of Turkey has been published on 18 March 2018.
Similar to the 2007 earthquake regulations, there are two different methods in the new
earthquake code: Linear and nonlinear earthquake analysis methods.

There are many differences between the two regulations.

There were four different earthquake zones in 2007 earthquake regulations. However the
earthquake zone areas are defined in a different way in the new 2018 earthquake regulations.
The new regulation focused on the specific site of earthquake risk and locational soil behaviour
of structures. It is aimed to get precise results in predefined locations.

There are also changes related to earthquake ground motion. In 2007 earthquake regulation, the
earthquake acceleration coefficient was taken as only a unit value according to the location of
the structure. The new regulation takes different values such as the short and long period of
earthquake acceleration coefficients.

There are also differences in definitions of soil classes. In the previous regulation the soil classes
were divided into 4 classes (Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4). In the new regulation the soil classes are divided
into 6 classes. (ZA, ZB, ZC, ZD, ZE and ZF).There is also a change in the building importance
coefficient. The building importance coefficient used in the previous earthquake regulation has
been changed from 1.4 to 1.5 values. The new regulation includes criteria for earthquake design
 The International Journal of Energy & Engineering Sciences, 2019, 4 (2) 19-25 21
ISSN: 2602-294X - Gaziantep University

classes and building height classes. One of the most important changes in the new regulation is
the usage of the coefficient of behaviour and the coefficient of strength (D).

3. CASE STUDY
The structural models of the case study are analysed with linear methods according to the 2007
and 2018 earthquake regulations. The side and 3D views are given in Figures 1 and 2. There
are many differences in design step for modelling of structures. Information about these
parameters are explained in detail below.

Figure 1. Frames with only (RC) columns (Type 1), with RC columns and Shear Walls (Type
2), only with Shear Wall (Type 3) side views

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

Figure 2. Frames with only (RC) columns (Type 1), with RC columns and Shear Walls (Type
2), only with Shear Wall (Type 3) 3D views

3.1 PARAMETERS USED IN 2007 EARTHQUAKE REGULATIONS

In the present study, project of a school building that is located in Gaziantep city has been
selected as a case study. The school is located in the 3rd earthquake zone according to the 2007
earthquake regulation. The soil class has been taken as Z2 from the soil survey report. Since
the structure is located in the 3rd earthquake zone, the effective ground acceleration coefficient
Ao= 0.2 is taken from related Table (Table 2.2) of the 2007 earthquake regulation. The building
significance coefficient is 1.4 for school building. The structural behaviour coefficient is R=7
for the frames columns with shear walls and with only RC column structures.

3.2 PARAMETERS USED IN 2018 EARTHQUAKE REGULATION

According to 2018 earthquake regulations, SS = 0.395, S1 = 0.143 values have been determined
according to the location of the school building. Soil class is determined as ZC according to
soil survey report. The structural behaviour coefficient is R=7 for the frames columns with
 The International Journal of Energy & Engineering Sciences, 2019, 4 (2) 19-25 22
ISSN: 2602-294X - Gaziantep University

shear walls and with only RC column structures.The building importance coefficient 1.5 is
taken from related Table (Table 3.1) of the 2018 earthquake regulation.

SDS and SD1 values can be calculated as;

SDS=SS * FS = 0.395*1.3=0.513
SD1=S1 * F1 = 0.143*1.5=0.215

4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS

The results of the calculations according to the 2007 and 2018 earthquake regulations are given
in the Figures 3,4,5 and 6. The results are obtained by using SAP 2000 Program.

Figure 3. Joint displacement of structural types 1,2 and 3

 The International Journal of Energy & Engineering Sciences, 2019, 4 (2) 19-25 23
ISSN: 2602-294X - Gaziantep University

Figure 4. Joint reaction of structural types 1,2 and 3

Figure 5. Base Shear Reaction forces of structural types 1,2 and 3

Figure 6. Overturning moments of structural types 1,2 and 3

 The International Journal of Energy & Engineering Sciences, 2019, 4 (2) 19-25 24
ISSN: 2602-294X - Gaziantep University

The joint displacements, joint reactions, base reactions and overturning moments of three
different types of structures have been analysed by using SAP 2000 according to 2007 and 2018
earthquake regulation rules. There is an increase in base shear forces in x and y directions.
Further, the joint displacement and force values are changing according to the axes.

The joint displacements values (Fig. 3) in x and y directions are 0.44 cm and 0.88 cm for 2018
earthquake regulations. However, the values are decreasing as 0.34 cm and 0.78 cm in x and y
directions for 2007 earthquake regulations. Therefore the joint displacement results are
increasing in the new earthquake regulations according to the 2007 earthquake regulation.

The base shear forces are increasing in 2018 earthquake regulations too. The results are 20.2t
and 21.24t for 2007 earthquake regulations and 25.91t and 24.93t for 2018 earthquake
regulations in x and y directions respectively (Fig. 4).

The base reaction results are 541.96t and 425.95t for 2018 earthquake regulations but the values
are decreasing as 408.75t and 377.99t for 2007 earthquake regulations in x and y directions
respectively (Fig. 5).

The overturning moment results are very close to each other for R1 and R2 values in both
earthquake regulations. But R3 values have an increasing effect in Type 3 structure (Fig. 6).
The values are -0.17 rad in x direction and 0.12 rad in the y direction.

5. CONCLUSIONS
There are many differences between 2018 and 2007 earthquake regulations. These differences
are directly related with accurate and reliable theoretical results. The building importance
coefficient, behaviour coefficient of structure, earthquake acceleration coefficient, soil type and
some other parameters have been changed in the new earthquake regulation. These parameters
have a significant impact on the linear and nonlinear earthquake analysis. In the present study;
 It is observed that, there is an increase in joint displacement and base shear forces in x
and y directions according to 2018 earthquake regulations.
 There is a 25% and 12% increase in base reaction values for 2018 earthquake regulations
in x and y directions respectively.
 The overturning moment results are stable except for R3 in Type 3 structural
configuration.

The results are showing that 2018 earthquake regulations more conservative deformation and
loading limits rather than 2007 earthquake regulations. However, effectiveness and impact of
the theoretical background and main considerations in 2018 earthquake regulations will be
observed in real life field applications.
 The International Journal of Energy & Engineering Sciences, 2019, 4 (2) 19-25 25
ISSN: 2602-294X - Gaziantep University

REFERENCES

[1] Ellul, F., Dina, D., The Bingol, Turkey Earthquake of the 1st of May 2003, University of
Bath Architecture and Civil Engineering Department, England, 2003; pp. 10-38.
[2] Alyamaç, K. E. and Erdoğan, A. S., "Geçmişten Günümüze Afet Yönetmelikleri ve
Uygulamada Karşılaşılan Tasarım Hataları’, Deprem Sempozyumu, 2005; pp. 707–715.
[3] Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Resmi
Gazete, Sayı: 30364 (Mükerrer), 18 Mart 2018.
[4] T.C Bayındırlık ve İskân Bakanlığı, Deprem Bölgelerinde Yapılacak Binalar Hakkında
Yönetmelik, Ankara, 2007.

View publication stats