A comparison of traditional building systems to reinforce concrete(By Vila)

http://www.icomos.org/iiwc/seismic/Gulhan.pdf


CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS AND DAMAGES
The building stock of the damage assessment study area can be presented mainly by 4
construction systems;
• Timber framed structures

• Frameless Brick and Masonry buildings
• Reinforced concrete framed structures
• Unframed buildings with planar reinforced concrete bearing element

Case studies on the damages of the structural systems:

In  Kocaeli-Gölcük the study was carried on three districts; Kavaklı District, Dumlupınar
District and Şehitler District. The greatest destruction was seen in Kavaklı Distirct, which is
located in the city center along the seacoast. Reinforced concrete framed buildings are
dominant (75%) and ground bearing capacity is low (poor soil condition) in that area.


Reinforced concrete frame systems are known to be one of the most sensitive systems to
earthquake loads if they are constructed with adequate engineering, correct construction
techniques, proper detailing, inspection and good workmanship. However in this region, most
of the above requirements that were not fulfilled, have become the reasons for high damage
on reinforced concrete frame structures. The highest level of damage was observed in
reinforced concrete frame systems over 5 stories. (Table 2b, Table 2c)  The damage ratios of
reinforced concrete frame buildings were less for 1-4 storey buildings in comparison to 5-8
storey buildings. The damage ratio increased as the number of stories increased.


The level of damage is less in Şehitler District, which is much more a rural settlement area.
Most of the buildings are settled towards the side of hills. The soil condition is hard and the
building stock is made up of 2-3 storey timber framed structures and 3-4 storey frameless
brick and masonry buildings by 49% and, 3-7 storey reinforced concrete framed buildings by
51%. Even though the building stock is almost fifty-fifty in reinforced concrete frame
structures and traditional systems (covering timber frame structures, masonry and frameless
brick buildings), the level of damage is much higher in reinforced concrete frame structures
when compared with the traditional style buildings. (Table 2a) Moreover the number of the
deaths (available numbers on the site study) was 287 in RC frame buildings whereas it was
only 3 in traditional style buildings.


Case study 2: SAKARYA
In Sakarya the study was carried on three districts; Cumhuriyet District, Ozanlar District and
Yahyalar District. Cumhuriyet District is located in the rural area and building stock is mostly
made up of  timber framed structure with different infill materials.  These timber framed
structures fall into two main groups. The first is called “hımış” where the timber frame is
infilled with adobe, stone masonry or brick. The other is “bağdadi” where the voids between
the timber framing elements is filled lighter materials, or with a form of plaster/lime rendering
on wooden lath. (Figure 2) (Ergünay & Gülkan, 1999) Both kinds of timber framed structures
are endowed with good earthquake resistance in spite of the fact that they are slightly
damaged, moderately damaged and rarely highly damaged. The number of reinforced
concrete frame structures were only 7, 2 of which were under construction and 5 of which
were highly damaged. (Table 3a)

Demet Gülhan (). THE BEHAVIOUR OF TRADITIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS AGAINST EARTHQUAKE AND ITS COMPARISION TO REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME SYSTEMS. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.icomos.org/iiwc/seismic/Gulhan.pdf. [Last Accessed ].