Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center

Structural Engineering Reconnaissance of theAugust 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey, Earthquake

Halil Sezen
University of California, Berkeley
Kenneth J. Elwood
University of California, Berkeley
Andrew S. Whittaker
University of California, Berkeley
Khalid M. Mosalam
University of California, Berkeley
John W. Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
John F. Stanton
University of Washington

PEER 2000/09
DEC. 2000

Structural Engineering Reconnaissance of theAugust 17, 1999 Earthquake:
Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey

Halil Sezen
University of California, Berkeley
Kenneth J. Elwood
University of California, Berkeley
Andrew S. Whittaker(formerly of University of California, Berkeley)State University of New York at Buffalo
Khalid M. Mosalam
University of California, Berkeley
John W. Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
John F. Stanton
University of Washington

PEER Report 2000/09
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research CenterCollege of Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
December 2000i

ABSTRACTIn late August and early September 1999, a team of structural engineers representing the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center traveled to Turkey to study damaged andundamaged buildings, bridges, industrial facilities, and lifeline infrastructure affected by the1
August 17, 1999, Izmit earthquake. The PEER
reconnaissance team sought to improve the understanding of the performance of the built environment and to identify gaps in a PEER research agenda that is developing knowledge anddesign tools for performance-based earthquake
engineering.
The Mw 7.4 earthquake occurred on the
North Anatolian fault in northwestern Turkey
at 3:02 a.m. local time. The hypocenter of theearthquake was located near Izmit, 90 km eastof Istanbul. Official figures placed the loss oflife at approximately 17,225, with more than
44,000 injured. Approximately 77,300 homes
and businesses were destroyed and 245,000
more were damaged. The total direct loss wasestimated to be more than US$ 6 billion.
Chapter 1 of this report overviews thegeneral seismicity of the area affected by theearthquake. Chapter 2 reviews briefly the practice of building seismic design and construction in
the region, confirming that the construction of reinforced concrete buildings without special details
for ductile response (by far the most prevalent form of construction in the epicentral region) was
permitted up to the time of the earthquake. The performance of reinforced concrete frame and wallbuildings is presented in some detail in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents information on the performance of industrial facilities including electrical substations, a petrochemical plant, and an oil
refinery. The performance of these facilities during the August 17 earthquake could be considered
to be representative of that of industrial facilities of a similar age (1960s and 1970s) in the United
2

iii

3

States and Europe. Chapter 5 summarizes and concludes with brief recommendations related toseismic design practices and performance-based earthquake engineering practice.

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 Large permanent drift in weak first story of reinforced concrete building
2 Collapsed and damaged reinforced concrete apartment buildings in Degirmendere
3 Fault trace through naval station building
4 PEER reconnaissance team in front of damaged fertilizer plant tanks
5 Damaged fertilizer plant storage tanks
6 Damaged electrical substation equipment
7 Aerial view of Tüpras refinery
8 Flooding and damage resulting from sinking coastline near Gölcük
9 Soil-bearing capacity failure

iv1 Introduction
1.1

1999 Izmit Earthquake
At 3:02 a.m. local time, on August 17, 1999, a Mw 7.4 earthquake occurred on the North
Anatolian fault in northwestern Turkey. The hypocenter was located at a depth of 15.9 km at 40.70N,
29.91E, near Izmit, the capital of Kocaeli province, 90 km east of Istanbul. The official death toll was
more than 17,225, with approximately 44,000 people injured and thousands left homeless. The
majority of deaths and injuries were in the cities of Golcuk, Adapazari, and Yalova (see Figure 1-1).
Approximately 77,300 homes and businesses were destroyed, and 244,500 damaged. The total direct
cost of the earthquake was estimated to be U.S.$ 6 billion.
Following the earthquake, the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, which
is headquartered at the University of California, Berkeley, sent a reconnaissance team to the epicenterregion. The team consisted of Ken Elwood, Khalid Mosalam, Halil Sezen, and Andrew Whittaker of
UC Berkeley; John Stanton of the University of Washington; John Wallace of UCLA; and Atila
Zekioglu of Ove Arup and Partners, Los Angeles. The team was joined by Jay Love and Chris Smithof Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, and Nesrin Basoz of K2 Technologies, San Jose. A
geotechnical engineering team supported by PEER and others complemented this team.
1.2

Seismological and Geotechnical Aspects
The 1500-km-long North Anatolian fault, which has many characteristics similar to the San
Andreas fault in California, is one of the most extensively studied right-lateral strike-slip faults in theworld. During the August 17 earthquake, approximately 110 km of the North Anatolian fault ruptured,with a maximum horizontal offset of 5.5 m (west of Golcuk) and a maximum vertical offset of morethan 2.3 m (east of Golcuk). Figure 1-1 shows the measured horizontal and vertical offsets at selected
locations. Figure 1-2 is a photograph of the vertical offset near the Ford plant in Golcuk; team member
Atila Zeikoglu is standing in front of the ledge formed by the faulting.
The peak ground accelerations recorded in the region affected by the earthquake are shown in
Table 1-1. Ground motion data were collected by the Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute of Bogazigi University, and the Earthquake Research Department of
the General Directorate of Disaster Affairs. The closest distance to the fault rupture plane and siteclassifications are also shown in the table. Strong motion stations are listed according to their locations
from east to west
An acceleration time history recorded at the Yarimca (YPT) station across the Izmit Bay from
Golcuk is shown in Figure 1-3. The secondary shaking evident at 40 sec appears in most acceleration
time histories from the Izmit earthquake. However, when these accelerations histories are integrated,
this high-frequency shaking has very little effect on the ground velocity and ground displacement.
Response spectra for selected acceleration histories for 5% damping are shown in Figure 1-4. (The
instrument at Sakarya failed to record the ground motion in the north-south direction.) The spectra
have been divided into north-south (Figure 1-4a) and east-west components (Figure 1-4b). Since thefault line runs approximately east-west, these components can be interpreted as approximately faultnormal and fault-parallel, respectively.

Table 1-1

Recorded peak ground accelerations

Distance*
StationPeak Acceleration
Site class

N-S

E-W

VerticalDuzce (DZC)

14Soft soil

37

32

36

Sakarya (SKR)

3

Stiff soil

NA

41

26

Izmit (IZT)

8

Rock

17

22

15

Yarimca (YFr)

4Soft soil

32

23

24

Iznik (IZN)

30Soft soil

9

13

8

Bursa (BRS)67

Stiff soil

5

5

3

Arcelik (ARC)

17

Stiff soil

21

13

8

Gebze (GBZ)

17

Stiff soil

26

14

20

Yapi Kredi (YKP)

63

Rock

4

4

3

Istanbul Airport (DHM)69

Stiff soil

9

8

6

Fatih (FAT)65

Soft soil

18

16

13

Ambarli (ATS)79Soft soil

25

18

8

*Distance from rupture
1.3

Scope and Organization of Report
This report presents information on the development of building and seismic codes in Turkey(Chapter 2), behavior of buildings (Chapter 3), and industrial facilities (Chapter 4) in the epicenterregion. The observations presented in the following chapters are those of the PEER reconnaissanceteam. Because there was minimal damage to bridges during the earthquake, only summary information
is presented below. Chapter 5 presents a brief summary and conclusions.
The reconnaissance team documented the collapse of two bridges. Each collapse was a result offault rupture beneath the piers. Figure 1-5 shows the collapse of the bridge over the Trans-European
Motorway. This bridge was composed of four 26-m-long simply supported spans. Each of the spans
was positioned on elastomeric bridge bearings. Each span lost the support of at least one end. Figure 16 is a view of the bearings and an unseated span from one abutment. Another bridge near Akyazi
collapsed (see Figure 1-7), reportedly due to movement of the supporting piers; much of the bridge issubmerged in the photograph.

Figure 1-1 Map of affected region showing locations and size (meters) of horizontal offsets and a
vertical offset (in parentheses)

Figure 1-2 Vertical offset near Ford Plant in Golcuk

a. east – west component

b. north – south component
Figure 1-3 Acceleration time histories from the Yarimca (YPT) Station

a. north – south components
b. east – west components
Figure 1-4 Acceleration Response Spectra for 5% Damping

Figure 1-5 Failure of a bridge over the Trans-European Motorway
Figure 1-6 Unseating of the simply supported span from the abutment-mounted bearings

Figure 1-7 Collapsed and submerged bridge near Akyazi

2

Evolution of Seismic Building Design
Practice in Turkey

2.1

Introduction

This chapter describes the practice of seismic design and construction of buildings in Turkey from1940 to the present. Because reinforced concrete is the most common building material in Turkey,
emphasis is placed on reinforced concrete design and construction.
Two codes influence the design and construction of reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey: TS500, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (Turkish 1985), termed the “buildingcode” in this report, and Specification for Structures To Be Built in Disaster Areas (Ministry of
Public Works and Settlement 1975, 1997), termed the “seismic code.”
The building code presents requirements for the proportioning and detailing of reinforced
concrete components, and is similar to ACI-318 (ACI 1999) except for the detailing of earthquake
effects, which is not covered by the building code. Summary information on the building code ispresented in Section 2.3.
Since 1940, the seismic code has included procedures for calculating earthquake loads onbuildings. In 1968, restrictions on component sizes and rebar details were introduced for thedesign of ductile components. Earthquake loads for buildings are calculated using the seismiccode similar to U.S. practice in which earthquake loads are calculated using the Uniform Building
Code (ICBO 1997). Additional information on the various editions of the code, from 1940
through 1997, is presented in Section 2.4.
The following sections of this chapter present information on major earthquakes in Turkey in the20th century (Section 2.2), the requirements of the Turkish building code for reinforced concrete(Section 2.3), and Turkish seismic design codes (Section 2.4). A comparison of U.S. and Turkish
codes is presented (Section 2.5). Summary remarks are presented in Section 2.6.

9

2.2

Major Earthquakes in Turkey in the 20th Century

Major earthquakes in Turkey have led to substantial changes in the practice of seismic design andconstruction. Fifty-seven destructive earthquakes struck Turkey in the 20th century, mostoccurring along the 1500-km-long North Anatolian fault (see Chapter 1, Figure 1-1). The largest
earthquakes on this fault occurred in 1939, 1943, 1944, 1966, 1967, 1992, and 1999 (twoearthquakes), resulting in more than 90,000 deaths, 175,000 injuries, and the destruction of
650,000 residential and office buildings.
Table 2-1 lists key events in the evolution of seismic codes in Turkey. Destructive earthquakes
have usually resulted in revisions to the codes. In this table and hereafter in this report, "ductile
detailing" refers to the use of reinforcement details that provide ductile response in components.
The M7.9 Erzincan earthquake of December 27, 1939, in northeastern Turkey, was the largest
earthquake in Turkey in the 20th century. The city of Erzincan was devastated and approximately
32,000 people died. Following that earthquake, the Turkish Ministry of Public Works andSettlement formed a committee to prepare a seismic zone map. The formation of this committee
was the first step toward developing regulations for the seismic design of buildings in Turkey.
Table 2-1 Key events in the evolution of seismic design codes in Turkey
Year
1939
1940

Event
Erzincan earthquake (M7.9)
Committee formed to develop a seismic zonation map for Turkey

1958
1961
1963
1966
1967
1968
1975
1992
1997
1999

First seismic code published
Earthquake zone map prepared; map promulgatedin 1945

1942
1943
1944
1947
1949
1953

Code development

Tosya earthquake (M7.2)
Gerede earthquake (M7.2)

Seismic code revised
Seismic code revised
Seismic code revised
Seismic code revised

Ministry of Reconstruction andResettlement established
Seismic code revised
Earthquake zone map revised
Varto earthquake (M7.1)
Adapazari earthquake (M7.1)
Seismic code revised
Seismic code revised; ductile detailing introduced
Erzincan earthquake (M6.9)
Seismic code revised; ductile detailing required
Izmit earthquake (M7.4)
Düzce earthquake (M7.2)

2.3

Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete

The Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete provide general proportioning anddetailing procedures for reinforced concrete components. Early versions (e.g., 1969) were basedon allowable stress design and were similar to other building codes. Major changes wereintroduced into the code in 1981 and 1985.
The latest version of the building code (1985) permits calculations using both allowable stressdesign and strength design. For designs in which earthquake loads are considered, stresses forcalculations are made using the two following load combinations, U,
U = G+P+E(2-1)

U = G + 0.9E

(2-2)

where G is the dead load effect, P is the live load effect, and E is the earthquake effect.
Earthquake loads were calculated following the procedures given in the seismic code of the time.
However, the building code did not contain any special seismic detailing requirements, and thedesigner was referred to the seismic code for such information.
2.4

Evolution of Turkish Seismic Design Codes

2.4.1

Years 1940 to 1953

The first seismic design code for buildings was published in 1940, one year after the destructive
Erzincan earthquake. The 1940 seismic code was similar to the Italian seismic code of that time
(Bayülke 1992; Duyguluer 1997). The base shear, V , was calculated as the product of a lateralforce coefficient, C , and the weight of the building, W , namely
V = CW(2-3)

The value of C was set equal to 0.10 regardless of location. The base shear force was distributed
over the height of the building using a uniform load pattern.
An earthquake zonation map for Turkey was prepared in 1942 and promulgated in 1945. The map
listed all provinces in Turkey (Duyguluer 1997). Three seismic zones were identified in the map:
first degree (hazardous); second degree (less hazardous); and no hazard. No earthquake analysis
was required for the no-hazard zone. The interzonal boundaries followed administrative
boundaries. According to Duyguluer, the zonation of a province or region was based on theobserved or projected intensity of earthquake shaking.

The 1947 code utilized the 1942 maps. The values assigned to C were established on the basis ofseismic zone. In first-degree zones, C was set equal to 0.10; in second-degree zones, C was set
equal to 0.05. Allowable stresses were increased by 25% for component checking using
earthquake load combinations.
In 1949, the zonation map was drawn and appended to the revised code. The coefficients were
further reduced to between 0.02 and 0.04 in the first-degree zone, and to between 0.01 and 0.03 inthe second-degree zone. The specific value assigned to C was a function of soil and construction
type. Duyguluer (1997) noted that the “...proper coefficient was to be established by the design
engineer in charge in accordance with the soil formation at the construction site and theconstructional characteristics of the building, and approved by the supervising agency.” Theweight of the building was calculated as
W = ∑ wi(2-4)

w i = g i + np i

(2-5)

i

and

where w i is the weight of the floor, g i is the dead load of the floor, n is a live load coefficient(equal to 0.33 for houses, 0.5 for commercial buildings, and 1.0 for high-occupancy buildings),
and p i is the live load of the floor. Allowable stresses were increased by 50% for component
checking using earthquake load combinations, rather than 25% per the 1947 code.
The 1953 code introduced load combinations for earthquake effects. Stresses, U, for earthquake
design were calculated using
U = G + P + E + 0.5J

(2-6)

where J is the wind-load effect. No minimum requirements were set for detailing reinforced
concrete components.
2.4.2

Years 1954 to 1967

In the 1961 revision of the seismic code, the procedure for calculating the lateral force coefficient,C , was changed to read
C = C0 n1 n2(2-7)

where C 0 is a coefficient that varies with building height, and n 1 and n 2 are coefficients thatvary with building material, soil conditions, and earthquake zone. Figure 2-1 shows the variationof C 0 with height. For heights greater than 40 m, C 0 was increased by 0.01 for every 3.0 m
above 40 m. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 list values for n1 and n 2 . In Table 2-2, soil type 1 is “hard andmonolithic rock,” soil type II is “sand, gravel, and compact soils...,” and soil type III is “lessstrong soils other than mentioned” (IAEE 1966).
Table 2-2 Values of n 1
Building Type

Soil Classification

Steel

Reinforced Concrete

I

0.6

0.8

II

0.8

0.9

III

1.0

1.0

Table 2-3 Values of n 2
Earthquake zonen2

First degree

1.0

Second degree

0.60

Third degree

0.60

In 1963 the earthquake zonation map was substantially revised and the number of zones wasincreased to four: Zone 1 (first degree), Zone 2 (second degree), Zone 3 (third degree), and Zone
4 (no hazard). The four zones were defined on the basis of the maximum expected shaking using
the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. In Zone 1, shaking greater than or equal to MMI
VIII was expected; in Zone 2, shaking equal to MMI VII was expected; in Zone 3, shaking equal
to MMI VI was expected; and in Zone 4, shaking less than or equal to MMI V was expected.
Figure 2-2 is the 1963 earthquake zonation map for Turkey. Because the interzonal boundaries
shown in this figure continued to follow administrative boundaries, it was possible to movedirectly from a first-degree zone (maximum shaking) to a no-hazard or out-of-danger zone (minor
shaking).
2.4.3

Years 1968 through 1971

The 1968 seismic code was substantially different from earlier codes. The 1968 code changed theprocedures for calculating earthquake demands on building components, introduced requirements
for detailing reinforced concrete components, and introduced modern concepts relating to spectral
shape and dynamic response. The design base shear of Equation 2-3 was calculated using theweight estimate of Equation 2-5 and a lateral force coefficient, C, that was defined as

C = C o αβγ(2-8)

where C 0 is a seismic zone coefficient and equal to 0.06, 0.04, and 0.02 for Zones 1, 2, and 3,
respectively; α is a soil coefficient equal to 0.80 for rock, 1.00 for sand, gravel, and hard clay, and1.20 for “...loose soil containing water and poorer soils...”; β is an importance factor equal to 1.50
for critical, high-occupancy, or historically important buildings, and 1.00 otherwise; and γ was a
dynamic coefficient, which is calculated as 0.5/T for fundamental period, T, greater than 0.5 sec
but not less than 0.3, and 1.00 for T less than or equal to 0.5 sec. A coefficient, γ , introduced
spectral shape into the Turkish seismic code for the first time. The code wrote that thefundamental period could be calculated as
H
T = 0.09 -------D(2-9)

where H is the height of the building in meters above the foundation, and D is the width of thebuilding in the direction under consideration.
The base shear was distributed over the height of the building using the following equation
wi hi
F i = V -------------∑ wi hi(2-10)iwhere h i is the height of the floor above the foundation. Equation 2-10 served to replace theuniform load profile of earlier codes with a load profile similar in shape to the typical first modeshape in a building.
Geometry and detailing requirements for reinforced concrete components were also introduced in
the 1968 code. Minimum dimensions were specified for beams (150 mm x 300 mm [width times
depth]), columns (the smaller of 0.05 times the story height and 240 mm), and shear walls (0.04
times the story height and 200 mm).
The code did not specify minimum spacing for beam stirrups and column ties, but required that“...sufficient transverse reinforcement shall be provided...” and “...where beams frame intocolumns, the spacing of stirrups and column ties shall be half the spacing at the mid-regions ofthese members, within a distance not less than the effective depth of the deepest member framing
into the joint. Column ties shall be continued within the story beams. ...”

The addendum to the 1968 code included requirements for the use of shear walls. Specifically, thecode wrote that if the height of a building exceeded a threshold value (12 m in a first-degree zone,
15 m in a second-degree zone, and 18 m in a third-degree zone), shear walls “...extending along
the height of the building shall be provided to transfer lateral earthquake loads to the foundation.”
2.4.4

Years 1972 through 1996

The earthquake zonation map was updated in 1972 and the seismic code was revised in 1975. Keychanges to the zonation map included an increase in the number of zones from 4 to 5. Important
additions to the seismic code included new methods for calculating earthquake loads on buildings
and ductile detailing requirements for reinforced concrete. Information on earthquake effects andanalysis, design, and detailing are presented below.
In 1968 the Ministry of Reconstruction and Resettlement embarked on a project to update theearthquake zonation maps based on new information on geologic structure, plate tectonics,
historical seismicity, and earthquake occurrence (Duyguluer 1997). Zones were defined on thebasis of maximum observed earthquake shaking in the period 1900 through 1970, measured interms of the Modified Mercalli Intensity, namely, Zone 1 for MMI greater than or equal to IX;
Zone 2 for MMI equal to VIII; Zone 3 for MMI equal to VII; Zone 4 for MMI equal to VI, andZone 5 for MMI less than or equal to V.
The lateral force coefficient of the 1975 code was defined as
C = C o KIS(2-11)

where C o is a seismic zone coefficient and equal to 0.10, 0.08, 0.06, and 0.03, for Zones 1, 2, 3,
and 4, respectively; K is a coefficient related to the type of framing system, I is an importancefactor (identical to β in the 1968 code), and S is a spectral coefficient. Values of K for different
framing systems are presented in Table 2-4. The spectral coefficient was calculated as
1
S = -------------------------------0.8 + T – T o(2-12)

where T and T o are the fundamental periods of the building and soil column, respectively. Figure
2-3 presents spectral shapes for soil types I through IV, respectively. Soil types were classified on
the basis of blow counts or shear wave velocity, and values for T o were set for each type. Shearwave velocities for soil types I through IV were set at greater than 700 m/sec for I, 400 to 700 m/
sec for II, 200 to 400 m/sec for III, and less than 200 m/sec for IV. The fundamental period was
taken as the smaller of the value calculated using Equation 2-9 and0.07N ≤ T ≤ 0.10N(2-13)

where N is the number of stories in the building above the foundation and “... the value of thecoefficient ... shall be determined by interpolation between the values of 0.07 and 0.10 according
to the degree of general structural flexibility.”
Table 2-4 Structural type coefficient, K, from 1975 code
Filler wall
type1

K

All building framing systems except as hereafter classified

-

1.00

Buildings with box systems with shear walls

-

1.33

a

0.60

b

0.80

c

1.00

a

1.20

b

1.50

c

1.50

a

0.80

b

1.00

c

1.20

Structure Typea. ductile momentresisting frame
Buildings with frame systems where the frame
resists the total lateral force
b. nonductile momentresisting frame

Shear wall systems with ductile frames capable of resisting at least 25% of thetotal lateral force

1. Filler wall types: a = reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry walls; b = unreinforced masonry block

partition walls; c = light partition walls or prefabricated concrete partition walls

Geometry and detailing requirements for reinforced concrete components were modified in the1975 code. Minimum dimensions were specified for beams (200 mm x 300 mm [width times
depth, = B x D]), columns (the smaller of 0.05 times the story height and 250 mm), and shear
walls (0.05 times the story height and 150 mm). Minimum reinforcement ratios and sizes were set
for beams (minimum stirrup diameter of 8 mm and minimum stirrup spacing of B or 0.5D) andshear walls ( ρ = 0.0025, 0.0020 for horizontal and vertical reinforcement, respectively;
maximum rebar spacing of 300 mm or 1.5 times the wall thickness). Figure 2-4 shows sample
detailing requirements for beams and shear walls. Minimum floor slab thicknesses were set at 100
mm. Infilled joist slab construction (termed "asmolen" construction) was permitted only inbuildings taller than 12 m if shear walls were used as the lateral force-resisting system.
The 1975 code provided much information on minimum details for columns. The minimum
rectangular column dimension was limited to 250 mm or 0.05 times the story height; themaximum column width-to-depth ratio was 3.0. The minimum and maximum longitudinal rebar
ratios were 0.01 and 0.035, respectively. Columns were divided into three regions as shown inFigure 2-5: confinement regions at each end of the column clear height, a middle region, andbeam-column joint regions. The confinement region was defined as the distance not smaller than
0.167 times the column clear height or 450 mm, measured from the slab soffit or beam top
surface. The volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement, ρ , in this region was set atf'ρ = 0.12 ----cfy(2-14)

where f' c and f y are the concrete compressive strength and rebar yield strength, respectively.
Hooks of 135° were required on ties in confinement regions; the minimum tie diameter was 8mm, and the minimum and maximum tie spacings were 50 mm and 100 mm, respectively. In the
middle region, tie sizes were based on gravity and earthquake forces (calculated using Equation 211). The maximum tie spacing, s 1 in Figure 2-5, was the smaller of 200 mm and 12 times thediameter of the longitudinal rebar.
2.4.5

Years after 1997

The earthquake zonation map was updated (Figure 2-6) and the seismic code revised in 1997. In
addition to the equivalent static load method (Equation 2-3), the mode superposition method andlinear and nonlinear dynamic analyses were introduced for the seismic design of buildings. The
lateral force coefficient was replaced by A ( T ) ⁄ R a ( T ) , where A is the spectral acceleration
coefficient calculated as
A ( T ) = A o IS ( T )(2-15)The effective ground acceleration coefficient, A 0 , is 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1 for the first four
seismic zones, respectively. Note that the fifth seismic zone was specified to have no earthquake
hazard. The importance factor, I, is 1.0 for ordinary structures and varies between 1.0 and 1.5. The
spectrum coefficient, S, which defines the design acceleration spectrum, is given by threeequations in the short-period, constant-acceleration, and constant-velocity ranges, respectively.
These ranges are delineated by spectrum characteristic periods, T A and T B , which vary as afunction of soil type. The maximum spectral amplification is 2.5. The seismic load reduction
factor in this code is similar to the response modification factor in U.S. codes, except that theseismic load reduction factor reduces linearly from the maximum value of R, which is tabulated in
the code, to 1.5 at zero period. The value of R depends on the assumed ductility (high or normal)of the system and varies between 3 and 8.
Reinforced concrete buildings are classified as systems of either high or nominal ductility basedon the detailing of the components. Detailing requirements are more stringent for systems withhigh ductility. Transverse reinforcement requirements for beams are presented in Figure 2-7.
These requirements apply for frames of both high and nominal ductility.

The detailing requirements for columns of high and nominal ductility levels are most similar. The
minimum cross-section dimensions are 250 mm by 300 mm. Information on the transverse
reinforcement requirements along the height of a column are shown in Figure 2-8. All hoops
must have 135° seismic hooks at both ends. Cross ties may have 90° hooks at one end. The sum of
the column strengths at a beam-column joint must exceed 120% of the sum of the beam strengths
at that joint. The shear strength of a column must exceed the shear force associated with theplastic moments in the column. The only major provision that is not applicable for columns of
nominal ductility level is the spacing of transverse reinforcement along the confinement zones(Figure 2-8), which is required to be half the spacing in the column middle region. Lap splices ofcolumn longitudinal rebar should be made in the middle third of the column. If column rebar are
spliced at the bottom of a column, the splice length is increased to 125% or 150% of thedevelopment length of the bar in tension, depending on the number of bars being spliced. For
columns in frames of nominal ductility, the maximum spacing of the transverse reinforcement
between the confinement zones is increased by a factor of 2 over the spacing shown in Figure 2-8.
For shear walls, the minimum wall thickness is the smaller of 0.067 times the story height and
200 mm.
2.5

Comparison of United States and Turkish Codes of Practice

Figure 2-9 presents 5% damped linear elastic acceleration response spectra for rock and soft soil
sites calculated using the provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (ICBO 1997) and the1997 Turkish Specification for Structures To Be Built in Disaster Areas (Ministry 1997) for theregions of highest seismicity in each country. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) spectra shownin this figure do not include near-field amplification factors, N a and N v , that must be applied if
the site of the building is within 15 km of a major active fault. Putting these factors aside, thespectral demands of the two current codes are very similar.
Figure 2-10 presents the lateral force coefficient spectra (C in Equation 2-3) for the 1975 and1997 Turkish codes and the 1997 UBC for reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames on rockand soft soil sites. Such frames were chosen for the purpose of comparison because reinforced
concrete moment-resisting frames are the most common seismic framing system in Turkey forbuilding construction. To construct the "allowable-stress-design" spectra for the 1975 Turkish
code, K was taken as 0.80 and 1.50 for ductile and nonductile reinforced concrete moment frames,
respectively; C 0 was set equal to 0.10. The ordinates were then increased by 40% to construct"strength-design" spectra to facilitate comparison with the 1997 Turkish seismic code and the1997 UBC. To construct the spectra for the 1997 Turkish code, A0 and the importance factors
were set equal to 0.40 and 1.0, respectively, and R was set equal to 4 and 8 for reinforced concrete
moment-resisting frames of nominal and high ductility, respectively. To construct the spectra forthe 1997 UBC, soil types S B and S E were assumed for the rock and soft soil sites, respectively;
near-field factors were not considered; the importance factor was set equal to 1.0, and R was set
equal to 3.5 and 8.5 for ordinary moment-resisting frames (OMRF) and special moment-resisting
frames (SMRF), respectively. (The OMRF and SMRF of the UBC correspond approximately toframes of nominal and high ductility in the Turkish code, respectively.)

For modern reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames of high ductility (the SMRF in theU.S.), the ordinates of the 1997 Turkish lateral-force-coefficient spectra exceed those of the 1997
UBC for both rock and firm soil sites. Recognizing that the prescriptive details of the 1997 UBC
and the 1997 Turkish code for frames of high ductility are similar, the performance of buildings
designed to either code should be similar if the standards of construction are comparable.
Table 2-5 presents values of R in the 1997 UBC and the 1997 Turkish codes for different framing
systems. These values are similar for each type of framing system. Further review of the twocodes indicates similarities in most other regards. Because the linear-elastic acceleration response
spectra (Figure 2-9) are similar in both codes for the regions of highest seismicity, buildings
designed and constructed in accordance with these two codes should perform equally if theconstruction quality is similar.
Table 2-5 Response modification factors in current seismic codes
Country
Lateral force-resisting system

1997 Turkey1,2

1997 USA2

Reinforced concrete shear wall

6

5.5

Reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame

8

8.5

Steel eccentrically braced frame

7

7

Steel moment-resisting frame

8

8.5

1. Framing systems of high ductility
2. 1997 codes in Turkey and USA

2.6

Summary Remarks

Revisions to the practice of earthquake engineering in Turkey have generally followed major,
damaging earthquakes. This trend is not unique to Turkey because changes in design practice inJapan, Mexico, and the United States have followed major earthquakes in those countries.
Provisions for special detailing of reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames for ductile
response were introduced in Turkey in 1975. Such requirements were similar to those introducedin the United States in the early 1970s. However, the construction of buildings with ductile details
was not mandated as it was in California in the 1970s. Rather, buildings could be constructedwithout special details for ductile response (frames of nominal ductility) or ductile details (framesof high ductility). Because it was cheaper to construct stronger buildings without special details
for ductile response (nonductile detailing) than weaker buildings with ductile detailing,
nonductile moment-resisting frame construction was most prevalent in Turkey up to the time of
the Izmit earthquake.
The current codes of practice in Turkey and the United States are similar in terms of strength anddetailing requirements. However, two key changes to the Turkish Specification for Structures To
Be Built in Disaster Areas are recommended:1. A factor that accounts for the close proximity of a structure to a fault (i.e., a near-field factor)
should be included in the design force equation.
2. Special details for ductile component response and the use of rules for ductile system response
should be mandatory in moderate and severe seismic zones, regardless of the lateral forcesused for design.

Co
0.10

40 m

6m

0.09

6m

0.08

6m

0.07

6m

0.06

16 m

Figure 2-1 Distribution of coefficient C 0 with height above grade in 1961 seismic code

Figure 2-2 1963 earthquake zonation map (IAEE 1966)

Figure 2-3 Spectral coefficients, S, from 1975 seismic codeFigure 2-4 Detailing requirements for beams and shear walls from 1975 seismic codeFigure 2-5 Detailing requirements for columns from 1975 seismic codeFigure 2-6 Earthquake zonation map of Turkey in the 1997 seismic code

Figure 2-7 Transverse reinforcement requirements for beams in the 1997 seismic codeFigure 2-8 Column confinement zones and detailing requirements in the1997 seismic codeFigure 2-9 Comparison of elastic response spectra from the 1997 UBC and the Turkish seismiccodes

a. soft soil sites

b. rock sites
Figure 2-10 Comparison of lateral force coefficient, C, in the 1997 UBC, and 1975 and 1997
Turkish seismic codes

3

Reinforced Concrete Frame andWall Buildings

3.1 Introduction
One of the missions of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center is todevelop procedures and guidelines for performance-based earthquake engineering. The damage
resulting from the Izmit earthquake gave the reconnaissance team a unique opportunity to study
response limit states for selected buildings impacted by the earthquake. This chapter summarizes the
key observations of the reconnaissance team regarding residential and commercial reinforced concrete
construction in Turkey. Construction practices are described and the responses of moment-resisting
frames and the behavior of shear walls are summarized. In the epicentral region, the two most widelyused framing systems for residential and commercial construction are reinforced concrete momentresisting frames and shear walls, and most of the loss of life and damage in the Izmit earthquake was a
result of the poor performance of reinforced concrete buildings.
3.2 Construction Practice
The quality of the construction of residential and commercial buildings in the epicentral region
varied widely. Both individuals and registered contractors undertake building construction work.
Commercial construction is typically built by registered contractors and was generally of better quality
than residential construction. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the level of inspection by regulatory
officials of building construction work undertaken by registered contractors and individuals waslimited prior to the earthquake.
The reconnaissance team found evidence of both extremely good and extremely poorcommercial construction. One example of excellent quality construction is the building of Figure 3-1
that was located in central Yalova. Residential construction quality also ranged from excellent to poor.
Although construction work by registered contractors was generally of better quality than that byindividuals and homeowners, the quality of contractor-completed construction was often poor by U.S.
standards. Figure 3-2 shows a completed shear wall in a multistory
apartment building in Yalova. The vertical and horizontal rebar in
the shear wall can be seen on the exterior face of the wall. Althoughbuildings in Yalova suffered damage in the earthquake, theapartment building was not damaged despite the poor quality of theconcrete evident in the photograph.
An example of residential apartment construction by ahomeowner in a village outside of Gölcük is shown in Figure 3-3.
The shoring is composed of cut and trimmed tree limbs. (In most
instances, conventional steel and timber shoring is used forapartment construction over four stories.) Timber planks are used toform columns, beams, and slabs. Photographs of the second floor of
the apartment building are presented in Figure 3-4. Slabs typicallyspan in one-direction and are approximately 100 mm in thickness.
Beams span 2 m to 4 m, range in depth up to 500 mm, and are
Figure 3-1 High quality
typically 200 mm wide. Bent-up rebar can be seen in Figure 3-4.
apartment construction, Yalova
Transverse ties with 90° hooks are used. The beam rebar details are
nonductile. Blade columns (long and narrow in plan) are routinely used in apartment buildings toenable the builder to construct the columns within the thickness of the wall. Some column details canbe seen in Figure 3-4. Vertical rebar are spliced at the floor level. Typical splice lengths areapproximately 1 m and no additional ties are provided in the splice region. Transverse reinforcementwith 90° degree hooks is typical. Joint shear reinforcement is not provided. The column rebar details
are nonductile.

Figure 3-2 Poor quality construction of a shear wall inan apartment building in Yalova

Figure 3-3 Homeowner apartment building construction

Smooth rebar is commonly used for reinforced concrete construction in the epicentral region.
The yield strength of such rebar is approximately 275 MPa. Smooth rebar is used because it is lessexpensive and more readily available than deformed rebar, and is also easier to bend and cut on site.
The strength and quality of the concrete varied widely as noted above. Concrete is typically batched onsite for low-rise residential and commercial construction, and standard quality control procedures suchas slump tests are rarely used. Low-strength concrete was identified in a number of damaged buildings
visited by the reconnaissance team. Some samples were weak enough to crush by hand.
The reconnaissance team was surprised by the volume and type of residential construction.
Specifically, there was much unoccupied new residential construction, and there were many
incomplete single- and two-story additions to existing construction. Local experts explained that
homeowners often added stories to existing apartments or constructed new multistory apartments as ahedge against inflation. The quality of such construction was often poor; it is highly likely that much ofthis construction was neither engineered nor approved by the local jurisdiction.

Figure 3-4 Typical gravity framing including beam and column details

3.3 Moment-Resisting Frame Construction
3.3.1 Typical Framing Systems for Residential Construction
Residential buildings in the epicentral region typically range in height between two and sevenstories. Sample two- and four-story buildings are shown in Figures 3-5a and 3-5b, respectively.
Because federal agencies limit the building first-story footprint-to-plot ratio, cantilever construction in
the form of beams or asmolen floor framing (see Section 3.3.2) is often employed at the second-floor
level to maximize the gross floor area of the building. Cantilever construction can be seen in bothbuildings of Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-6 presents photographs of a three-story building that was under construction at thetime of the earthquake. A plan of the second-floor framing is shown in Figure 3-7. The column andbeam orientation shown in Figure 3-7 suggests that the framing system is much stiffer and stronger inthe direction perpendicular to the street (parallel to the y-axis of Figure 3-7), assuming that similar
rebar are used in all beams and columns in this building. The ratio of total column area to planfootprint in this building is 1.3%.

a. Two-story building

b. Four-story building
Figure 3-5 Typical framing systems in epicenter region

A plan of the roof framing of a five-story moment-resisting frame building is shown in Figure
3-8. The column orientations and locations are such that there are no moment-resisting frames of morethan one bay in either direction of the building in the fifth story. Such framing likely possesses limited
strength and stiffness that, if coupled with nonductile reinforcement details, results in a vulnerable
building in the event of earthquake shaking.

a. north-south elevation

Figure 3-6 Three-story moment-resisting frame east of
Gölcükb. east-west elevation showing fault ruptureFigure 3-7 Floor plan for the three-story building shownin Figure 3-6

Figure 3-8 Plan of roof framing for a five story apartment

3.3.2 Typical Construction Details
Many apartment buildings in the epicentral region are constructed with a tall first story forcommercial (shop) occupancy. Typical story heights range between 3.5 to 4.5 m in the first story and2.8 to 3.0 m in the upper stories. Most columns in such construction are blade columns with an aspectratio of approximately 3. Column plan dimensions range between 150 mm x 500 mm to 250 mm x 800
mm. The longitudinal rebar ratio ranges between 1% and 2%; 12 to 16 mm diameter smooth rebar are
generally used. Transverse ties are smooth rebar of 6 to 10 mm diameter with 90° hooks. The spacingof transverse ties is typically 200 to 250 mm along the clear height of the column.
Typical beam spans ranged between 3 and 5 m. Beam
depths and widths ranged between 200 to 250 mm and 500
mm to 600 mm, respectively. Transverse ties are smooth rebarof 6 to 10 mm diameter with 90° hooks. The spacing oftransverse ties is typically 200 to 250 mm along the clear
length of the beam. Bent-up longitudinal rebar, often used forreasons of economy to provide shear resistance to gravity
loads and to increase negative moment resistance for gravity
loads at supports, do not resist shear force if the loads arereversed due to earthquake shaking.
Information on column and beam rebar details isprovided in Figure 3-9. Corner column rebar are spliced above
the floor slab with lap lengths of 40 to 70 bar diameters. SideFigure 3-9 Typical modern beam andface column rebar are either spliced per corner rebar orcolumn rebar details
terminated above and below the joint with 180° hooks. No
transverse reinforcement for the purpose of confinement isprovided in the hinge, joint, or splice regions. Bent-up beam rebar is shown in the typical section.

Interior and exterior infill walls are constructed ofeither hollow clay tile or lightweight gas-concrete blocks.
The hollow clay tile block is more widely used than thegas-concrete block and is extremely brittle. The block infill
is not reinforced nor is it anchored to the structural framingwith masonry ties. Block infill walls are built in contact
with the structural framing and add significant stiffness andstrength to the framing system. Photographs of hollow clay
tile block are shown in Figure 3-10.
Figure 3-10 Hollow clay tile block used
for infills

Common slab systems include the one-way and asmolen slabs. One-way slabs range inthickness from 80 mm to 120 mm, and span distances up to 4 m. For longer spans and heavy loadings,
the one-way, or asmolen, joist system is typically used. This system is composed of one-way joists thatare formed by hollow clay tile blocks; the slab between the joists is cast directly atop the blocks. The
thickness of the asmolen slab is usually 300 mm (200 mm block and 100 mm slab) or 320 mm (250mm block and 70 mm slab). Figure 3-11 shows the underside of three asmolen floor systems.

Figure 3-11 Asmolen floor system in a four-story building

3.4 Behavior of Moment-Resisting Frame Construction
Moment-resisting frame construction fared poorly during the Izmit earthquake. According to
official estimates, more than 20,000 moment-frame buildings collapsed, and many more sufferedmoderate to severe damage. Three- to seven-story apartment buildings were hard hit, although many
had been constructed in the past 20 years. Many of the collapses are attributed to the formation of softfirst stories that formed as a result of differences in framing and infill wall geometry between the firstand second stories, the use of nonductile details, and poor quality construction.
Figure 3-12 shows the collapse of six moment-resisting frame buildings in a village on theoutskirts of Gölcük. Every moment-resisting frame building on this street collapsed, and 122 people
died in these buildings. Nonductile details were observed in every (collapsed) moment-frame buildingon this street.

Figure 3-12 Collapse of moment frame buildings, Gölcük

Figure 3-13 Collapse of moment-frame and wallbuildings, Adapazari

Similar collapses were common in the epicentral region. Figure 3-13 shows the extent of thedestruction in Adapazari, a major city approximately 10 km from the line of rupture. Many of thesebuildings were constructed with hollow clay tile infill in the frames perpendicular to the sidewalk.
Because the buildings often housed shops and commercial space in the first-story, glass panels and nothollow clay tile infill walls were placed between the first story columns adjacent to the sidewalk, buttile infill was used in the upper stories. Such an arrangement of tile infill created stiffness
discontinuities in these buildings, which may have contributed to their collapse.
3.4.1 Moment-Frame Buildings Straddling or Adjacent to Line of Rupture
Not all moment-frame buildings that straddled the line of rupture collapsed. The fault ran
directly beneath the building shown in Figure 3-6, but this building suffered only modest damage
despite approximately 1 m of horizontal offset beneath the foundation. The lack of damage can be
attributed to the stiffness of the building’s 1-m-deep raft foundation. Three hundred meters from thebuilding of Figure 3-6, a moment-frame school building that straddled the fault collapsed completely(Figure 3-14). Figure 3-15 shows collapsed and damaged moment-frame buildings on the Gölcük naval
base. The horizontal offset of the fault beneath these buildings was on the order of 4 m. Fault rupture
beneath a five-story building (Figure 3-16) located approximately 200 m east of the naval base caused
a partial collapse.

Figure 3-14 Collapsed school building that straddled the line of rupture

Figure 3-15 Collapsed and damaged moment-frame buildings on the Gölcük navy basea. Collapsed building

b. View of failed first story

Figure 3-16 Collapsed building that straddled the line of rupture“Near-field” is the common term used to define the zone within 5 to 10 km of a major fault.
Earthquake shaking in the near field is often severe, as illustrated by recorded ground motions obtained
from the Northridge (1994) and Kobe (1995) earthquakes. Widespread collapse of older construction is
to be expected in the near field due to the intensity of the earthquake shaking. Although many momentframe buildings in the near field of the Izmit earthquake suffered gross damage or collapsed, some
fared surprisingly well. Shown in Figure 3-17, the four-story moment-frame building is sited within 2
m of the line of rupture and yet suffered no visible damage despite 1.2 m of horizontal offset and 2.35
m of vertical offset on the fault. Figure 1-2 shows another view of the same building. The reasons forsuch good performance of this 10- to 30-year-old frame building with masonry infill are unknown.

Figure 3-17 Undamaged building located within 2 m of the line of rupture

3.4.2 Variability of Moment-Frame Building Response
Figure 3-18 is a photograph of two six-story nonductile moment-frame buildings in Gölcük.
One of the buildings collapsed completely, whereas the building immediately adjacent suffered only
superficial damage in the form of minor cracking in the first-story columns. Much of the first story of
the collapsed building was intact. Careful examination of the first stories in both buildings showed thatthe buildings had similar plan footprints and common construction details. It is likely that the twobuildings were nearly identical and that the same contractor constructed both buildings. Both buildings
were probably subjected to similar levels of earthquake shaking, yet one building remained in theelastic range and performed well, while the other collapsed. This raises many questions regarding limit
states for nonductile moment-frames. Small differences in the strength of these nonductile buildings
caused by the use of different construction materials and different construction practices andworkmanship could account for the substantial difference in performance.

b. collapsed six-story building
a. lightly damaged six-story building
Figure 3-18 Variability of building response

3.4.3 Role of Infill Walls in Response of Moment-Frame Buildings
Hollow clay tile and gas-concrete masonry infill walls are widely used in the epicentral region.
As noted in Section 3.3.2, these walls are unreinforced and nonductile. The walls abut the frame
columns but are not tied to the frame. The high in-plane stiffness of the masonry infill that isdeveloped by diagonal strut action can dictate the response of the more flexible moment-resisting
frame. Figures 3-19a and 3-19b show complete and partial damage to hollow clay tile walls in fourand thirteen-story buildings, respectively. The four-story building was under construction at the time ofthe earthquake; the thirteen-story building was constructed in the early 1970s.

a. four-story buildingb. thirteen-story building
Figure 3-19 Varying degrees of damage to infill masonry walls

Damage to infill masonry walls was concentrated in the lower stories of buildings because ofhigher demands on the strength of the moment-frame-infill wall system. Figure 3-20 illustrates the
distribution of damage to infill walls in two buildings, one near Gölcük, and one in Degirmendere. In
these buildings, the lateral stiffness of the masonry infill walls is likely of the same order or greaterthan that of the moment-frames. For these buildings not to collapse following the failure of the infill
walls the moment-frames must have possessed significant strength and some limited ductility.

a. infill wall damage in Gölcük

b. infill wall damage in Degirmendere

Figure 3-20 Damage to infill masonry walls

Figure 3-21 shows two views of a collapsed apartment building in Gölcük. The first two storiesof this building failed completely but damage in the upper three stories was limited. The long infill
walls in the upper three stories have significant elastic strength and stiffness—probably much greater
stiffness and strength than the moment-resisting frame. If the infill walls in the upper three stories ofthe building are indicative of the infill in the failed stories, the first- and second-story infill walls likely
played an important role in the collapse of the building. The brittle fracture of the first- and secondstory infill masonry walls would have overloaded the nonductile first- and second-story frame
columns, resulting in a complete failure.

b. view of infill wall perpendicular to sidewalka. view of front face of building
Figure 3-21 Collapsed apartment building in Gölcük

The first two stories of the building in Figure 3-22 collapsed. The infill masonry walls andmoment-frame construction in the third and fourth stories (first and second stories of the collapsedbuilding) suffered major damage. Damage in this building reduced with increased height above thesidewalk. Failure of the infill masonry in the first and second stories of the building likely precipitatedthe collapse of the building.
Irregular placement of infill masonry walls can produce discontinuities of stiffness in momentframe buildings. Consider the building in which the moment-frame is both flexible and weak bycomparison with the upper stories (Figure 3-23). In the first story of this building, infill masonry walls
are present in the back face of the building and in the two faces perpendicular to the sidewalk. The
front of the building was open in the first story. The lateral stiffness of the building was likely large inthe direction perpendicular to the sidewalk and much smaller parallel to the sidewalk. Deformation isconcentrated in the first story of this building, parallel to the sidewalk, due to the weakness andflexibility of the moment-frame and the lack of infill masonry in the front of the building. The firststory columns in this building were badly damaged and likely close to failure.

Figure 3-22 Failure of two stories of moment-frame building with infill masonry

Figure 3-23 Formation of a soft and weak story

3.5 Response of Moment-Frame Components
Previous sections of this discussion on moment-frame construction have focused on the
response of moment-frame systems. This section of the report addresses the response of thecomponents of moment-frames, namely, beams, columns, beam-column joints, and slabs.
3.5.1 Beams
The reconnaissance team observed little damage to interior moment-frame beams because
columns were generally weaker than beams. One type of beam damage is shown in Figure 3-24. The
building in this figure suffered a partial story collapse because the fault ruptured beneath the building.
The beams shown in the frame elevation were forced to accommodate the partial collapse and were
badly damaged at the beam-column connection due to slip of the smooth longitudinal beam rebar. In
many cases, beam bottom rebar was inadequately anchored in and through beam-column joints.

Figure 3-24 Damage to a nonductile reinforced
concrete beam

Figure 3-25 Failure of lap splices in a moment frame
conncetion

3.5.2 Columns
The majority of moment-frame component failures were in columns and were due to (a) the useof nonductile details and unconfined lap splices, (b) excessive beam strength, and (c) interaction
between the columns and the infill masonry walls.
Lap splices in moment-frame columns were typically made immediately above the floor
framing or the foundation. The photograph of the exposed lap splice of Figure 3-25 is from a moment-

frame building in Adapazari. The lap splices in this column were approximately 35 bar diameters inlength and were located in a plastic hinge zone. Widely spaced transverse ties with 90° hooks wereused in this column; no cross ties were present. The 90° hooks on the ties opened during theearthquake, and the limited strength and confinement afforded by the ties were lost.

Figure 3 –26 Typical transverse reinforcement details in columns
a. view of damaged blade column
b. transverse tie details in blade column

Shear reinforcement was lacking in most damaged columns observed by the reconnaissanceteams. The transverse tie details of Figures 3-26, 3-27, and 3-28 were common, namely smooth rebar,
widely and often unequally spaced ties (200 to 250 mm), and 90° hooks. The wide spacing of the ties
resulted in shear failures (Figure 3-26), buckling of longitudinal rebar (Figure 3-27), and poorconfinement of the core concrete (Figure 3-28).

Figure 3-27 Shear failure of a moment-frame blade
columnFigure 3-28 Lack of transverse reinforcement in momentframe column

Shear failures in short columns were common. A typical example of such a failure is a schoolbuilding in Adapazari, shown in Figure 3-29. The damaged column of Figure 3-29b is shown in Figure
3-29a in a blue circle.

Figure 3-29 Shear cracking in short columns
a. building elevationb. diagonal cracking in column

Column-infill masonry wall interaction resulted in severe damage to and failure of many
moment-frame columns. Consider the building east of Gölcük that is shown in part in Figure 3-30. The
infill hollow clay tile masonry on each side of the central column in this figure failed completely andthe column hinged at each end. The column to the left of the central column was captured
approximately 1 m above the floor by the residual hollow clay tile. The shear cracks that wereobserved in this captive column formed in the column at the top face of the remaining infill masonry.
Concentrated damage at the ends of momentframe columns was observed throughout theepicentral region. Examples of such damage arepresented in Figures 3-31, 3-32, and 3-33. Large
rotations at the ends of the columns (Figure 331) produced severe cracking and loss ofconcrete. (Note the relative proportions of thecolumns and the beam in this figure.) Out-ofplane deformations in the column of Figure 332a led to loss of cover concrete in the hinging
zone. The transverse ties in this column were
widely spaced (200 mm) and composed of
Figure 3-30 Damage resulting from column-infill
masonry wall interactionsmooth rebar with 90° hooks. Such connection
details have limited rotation capacity. The beamand slab framing (Figure 3-32b) lost seating on

the column. The first-story columns of a collapsed building are shown in Figure 3-33; the second-storyof the building is to the left of the columns. Note the smooth failure surface on the top right side of thecolumns.

Figure 3-31 Concentrated damage at ends of moment-frame columns due to excessive drift

a. damage from out-of-plane deformationb. unseating of beam-slab system from column
Figure 3-32 Damage and failures at ends of moment-frame columns

3.5.3 Beam-Column Joints
Typical damage to beam-column joints is shown in Figures 3-34, 3-35, and 3-36. The collapseof a building in Adapazari (Figure 3-35) was due to the failure of beam-column joints. Much of theframing (Figure 3-35a) is essentially intact but many of the beam-column joints are heavily damaged.
One of the damaged joints is shown in Figure 3-35b. Beam rebar anchorage in the joint is inadequate
and no transverse ties are present in the joint.
Figure 3-36 is a photograph taken in a building under construction in Adapazari at the time ofthe earthquake. Severe damage in the beam-column joints is evident, but horizontal transverse ties in
the joints maintained the integrity of the joints. (See Section 3.7.3 for a more complete description ofthis building.)

Figure 3-33 Damage to moment-frame
columns

Figure 3-34 a. Damage to momentframe beam-column joints

Figure 3-34 b. Damage to momentframe beam-column joints,
reinforcement in joint

Figure 3-35 a. Building collapse due to failure of beamcolumn joints

Figure 3-35 b. Damage to one beam column joint

Figure 3-36 is a photograph taken in a building under construction in Adapazari at the time ofthe earthquake. Severe damage in the beam-column joints is evident, but horizontal transverse ties in
the joints maintained the integrity of the joints. (See Section 3.7.3 for a more complete description ofthis building.)

Figure 3-36 Damage to a new moment-frame beam-column joint3.5.4 Asmolen Slab Floor System
The asmolen slab floor system, described in Section 3.3.2, is commonly used in the epicentral
region. In this type of construction, the hollow clay tile, which is used as permanent formwork, is not
positively attached to the slab or the joist-beam framing.

Figure 3-37 Typical damage to asmolen floor systems

Damage to such systems was widespread. Figure 3-37 shows typical damage to the asmolen
floor system. Deformation of the joist-beam framing led to sections of the hollow clay tile formwork
dislodging and falling to the floor below. Although failure of the hollow clay tile blocks in the floor
system is not considered structural damage, falling tile blocks constitute a hazard to life.
3.6 Shear-Wall Construction
Buildings constructed using shear walls as the primary lateral load-resisting system performed
quite well in the 1999 Izmit earthquake. Some buildings with a dual wall-frame lateral load resisting
system were damaged because the shear walls were not sufficiently stiff to keep the deformations of
the nonductile framing system in the elastic range. Story collapses were not observed in buildings
containing a substantial number of shear walls, but it should be noted that shear walls were not widelyused in the epicentral region.
3.6.1 Behavior of Shear-Wall Construction
Outside Istanbul, few buildings in western Turkey are constructed with shear walls as theprimary lateral load-resisting system. However, those wall buildings in the epicentral region, such as
the building under construction in Figure 3-38 and the apartment buildings of Figure 3-39, performed
well. Shear walls were used as the lateral load-resisting system in both the transverse and longitudinal
directions of the building in Figure 3-38. This building suffered minor damage to the infill walls. The
lateral force-resisting systems in the two apartment buildings shown in Figure 3-39 included momentframes along the major axis of the buildings and shear walls along the minor axis. These buildingswere located in a residential area near Gölcük where all of the nearby moment-frame apartmentbuildings collapsed (see Figure 3-12).

Figure 3-39 Undamaged apartment building in Gölcük
Figure 3-38 Shear wall building under construction at thetime of the earthquake

The building shown in Figure 3-40 experienced damage at the stiffness discontinuity in theshear wall. The fault ruptured directly beneath this building. The limited damage in this instanceconstitutes excellent performance.

Figure 3-40 a. Shear wall building damaged due to fault
ruptureFigure 3-40 b. Close up of damage to a shear wall

The reconnaissance team toured a number of buildings that would be classed as dual wallframe systems in the United States. However, because design provisions for such systems did not exist
in Turkey prior to 1997, these buildings would have been designed as either shear walls or momentresisting frames. The most significant damage observed by the team in a dual wall-frame building isshown in Figure 3-41a. The wall and first-story exterior columns shown (Figure 3- 41b) failed andshortened. These components displaced out of the plane of the wall, as seen in Figure 3-41b.

Figure 3-41 a. Collapse of dual wall-frame five story
building, Adapazari

Figure 3-41 b. Close-up of failure of the shear wall andperimeter columns

Figure 3-42 a. Damaged wall-frame building due toground failure and wall rotation

Figure 3-42 b. shear wall settlement

Another example of damage to beams and columns in a dual wall-frame building is shown in
Figure 3-42. No cracks were observed in the shear wall, but the right end of the wall settled
approximately 0.5 m (Figure 3-42b) due to bearing failure of the supporting soils. Although the shear
wall was likely sufficiently stiff to protect the nonductile frame, the rotation at the base of the shear
wall and settlement of the footings beneath the moment-frame columns contributed to the failure of thefirst-story columns.
Blade columns or short shear walls were often constructed nearstairwells (Figure 3-43). These walls or blade columns were detailed
similarly to regular moment-frame columns with light transverse
reinforcement with 90° hooks and no cross ties. The failures shown are
similar to those observed in moment-frame columns.

Figure 3-43 Damage to short wall / blade column

3.7 Performance of Selected Buildings
Modern standards for the seismic evaluation of buildings (FEMA 1997) dictate decisions
regarding system response using information on component response. For the system performancelevel of collapse prevention, system failure is linked to the first failure of a component (typicallymeasured in terms of deformation demands or demand-capacity ratios). Such correlation of system andcomponent response is misleading and often overly conservative if the seismic and gravity loadresisting systems are redundant. One objective of the reconnaissance team was to gather information
related to limiting states of response of building systems, with an emphasis on the limit state ofcollapse prevention. The following sections describe in some detail the performance of four buildings:
A through D. The first three buildings (A, B, and C) sustained severe damage to critical components
but did not collapse. The fourth building (D) performed poorly but as a result of ground failure.
3.7.1 Building A

Figure 3-44 Front elevation of Building A
Figure 3-45 Rear elevation of Building A showing
intact infill masonry walls

3.7.1.1 Description
Building A, shown in Figures 3-44 and 3-45, waslocated at the eastern outskirts of Gölcük. Much of
the first story of this moment-frame building (notseen in Figure 3-44) was located below grade. The
grade level sloped down from the front to the backof the building. A sketch of the first-floor plan of
the building is shown in Figure 3-46. Most of thehollow clay tile infill masonry failed during theearthquake but some remained intact at the rear of
the building in the sixth story (see Figure 3-45).

3.7.1.2 Component Failures
Structural damage was concentrated in the first-story columns at the front of the building
Figure 3-47) and around the stairwell at the rear of the building (Figure 3-48). Nonductile detailing
was evident in each damaged component viewed by the reconnaissance team.

Figure 3-47 Damage to first story columns

Figure 3-48 Damage at the rear stairwell

The staircases in the rear stairwell were cast integrally with the exterior columns. The landings
were located approximately 1 m below the beam-column joints (Figure 3-48). No transverse
reinforcement was present in these joints. The lateral support provided by the landings and thestaircases resulted in short column construction and led to shear failures immediately above thelandings. Figure 3-48 shows severe damage to the staircases that suggests that the staircases resisted
significant lateral forces during the earthquake via strut action. The lateral stiffness of the staircases isevinced by the damage they suffered but likely was not included in the earthquake analysis of thebuilding (which is also common practice in the United States).
The distribution of damage to columns in the first story is shown in Figure 3-46. Figures 3-49,
3-50, and 3-51 show column failures. Nonductile detailing is evident, including widely spaced
perimeter transverse ties with 90° hooks and no cross ties, and lap splices located at the floor level withno confining transverse reinforcement.

Figure 3-51 Axial failure at lap splicein Column C (See Figure 3-46)

Figure 3-49 Shear failure of Column
A (See Figure 3-46)

Figure 3-50 Axial failure of column B(See Figure 3-46)

3.7.1.3 System Response
A comprehensive performance-based evaluation methodology should be able to predict
distributions of damage similar to that identified above assuming an accurate characterization ofearthquake shaking. The performance of Building A brings into question the procedures currently
adopted in the United States for system evaluation for the performance level of collapse prevention. (Inthis report, “collapse” is defined in terms of the failure of the gravity load-resisting system.)
As shown in Figures 3-46 and 3-47, the first and third rows of columns were badly damaged
but the second row of columns suffered no significant damage. All columns in the first three rows were
the same size; rebar in the first and third rows of columns were essentially identical. If the interior
columns in the first row failed initially, conventional approaches would suggest that lateral forces wereredistributed to other stiff components (including the second row of columns) and gravity loads weretransferred to the undamaged columns in the first and second rows. The increase in the gravity andearthquake effects should have been greater on the second-row columns than on the third-row
columns, yet the columns in the third row failed and the columns in the second row were undamaged.
New knowledge regarding the transfer of lateral loads and gravity from failed components to othercomponents of a building frame is needed to obtain accurate estimates of building performance.

Although several columns in the first story of the building failed in shear and axial
compression, the building did not collapse. Clearly system response cannot be judged on the basis of
the most highly loaded (forces or deformations) component in the building, as is the practice in FEMA
273, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 1997). The gravity loadresisting system of the building did not collapse for a number of reasons that include (a) frame actionin the stories above the damaged columns and (b) residual axial-load capacity in the heavily damaged
columns.
After the columns in the first row failed in shear and shortened, the slab and beam framing
deflected in the shape of a catenary (see the sag in the floor slabs in Figure 3-44) and gravity loads
were carried to the adjacent undamaged columns by axial tension in the beams and slabs. Vierendeel
truss action in the upper stories also likely transferred gravity loads to adjacent undamaged columns.
Provision for such redundancy in framing systems would reduce the likelihood of building collapse
and substantially uncouple system-level response from component-level response. The catenary andVierendeel truss mechanisms may be very effective in stabilizing the structure when interior columns
are lost. To ensure that beams and slabs are able to maintain catenary deflections, bottom
reinforcement should be continuous through any columns that may fail under lateral loads.
Recent studies (Moehle et al. 2000) have shown that columns heavily damaged in shear are still
capable of supporting axial loads. Residual axial strength in these columns would reduce the need toredistribute gravity loads as described in the previous paragraph. The failed columns in the first row
were squat so that after failure in shear, the upper segments of the columns bore on the lower
segments, albeit not concentrically. (Contrast this behavior with that described earlier for narrowcolumns; see Figure 3-32). The core concrete in the failed columns in the third row continued to carrygravity loads after the earthquake because the cores of the columns remained partially intact. The useof transverse reinforcement in the amount needed to keep the core of a column intact at large
deformation would further reduce the likelihood of building collapse.
3.7.2 Building B
3.7.2.1 Building Description
Building B (Figure 3-52) was located 5km east of Gölcük. The six-story reinforced
concrete frame building was unoccupied at thetime of the earthquake. The footprint of thebuilding was approximately 12 m by 16 m.

Figure 3-52 Elevation of Building B

3.7.2.2 Component Failures
A corner column in the third story of Building B failed during the earthquake, as seen in Figure3-52. Part of the roof framing of the adjacent building can be seen immediately below the failed
column, indicating that the third-story column failed due to the impact of the adjacent building. Figure3-53 shows more details of the failed column and the roof slab of the adjacent building.

Figure 3-53 Details of damage to third-story column of Building B

3.7.2.3 System Response
Although one column in the third story of the building was completely destroyed due to impactof the roof slab of the adjacent building, the building did not collapse. The gravity load-resisting
system in the building did not collapse because of frame action in the stories above the destroyedcolumn. The performance of Building B also raises a number of questions once again about theprocedures currently adopted in the United States for system evaluation for the performance level ofcollapse prevention. The performance of Building B raises the questions: (1) should component loss be
accounted for in the design of the building for the performance level of collapse prevention? and (2) If
so, how?
The loss of one or more components in a moment-frame building can substantially modify themagnitude and behavior of the remaining components. Assuming that the location(s) of the failed
component(s) are known, nonlinear methods of analysis can be used to evaluate the forces anddeformations in the damaged building frame. Two challenges with such analysis are (1) identifying thenumber and locations of components to be removed from the mathematical model and (2) including
the effects of column failure and load redistribution.
Procedures for selecting the number and locations of components to be removed from themathematical model have not been developed. The number and locations will vary as a function of theearthquake histories used for analysis and evaluation. Demand-to-capacity ratios (deformations forductile actions and forces for nonductile actions) could perhaps be used to identify combinations ofcomponents for removal from the mathematical model. Two approaches could be used to assesssystem response following the failure of selected components: (1) remove the components from themathematical model before analysis and (2) remove the components from the model during theanalysis when deformations or forces, or demand-capacity ratios exceed a threshold value. Approach 1
is more conservative than Approach 2. Approach 1 could be used with nonlinear static or dynamic
analysis. Approach 2 would be used only with nonlinear dynamic analysis.
The rapid loss of a column or beam can lead to a dynamic amplification of the gravity loads
that are transferred to adjacent components. Procedures for calculating the amplification factor are notavailable at this time. Studies are very recently completed at PEER by Rodgers and Mahin on steel
moment-frame buildings and by Elwood and Moehle on nonductile reinforced concrete moment-framebuildings to evaluate the effect of component failure on system response.
3.7.3 Building C

3.7.3.1 Building Description
Building C, shown in Figure 3-54, was located near the
Adapazari city center. The five-story reinforced concrete framebuilding included a high retail space in the first story. The retailspace shown in Figure 3-55 included a mezzanine level on thewest side of the building. The building was not occupied at thetime of the earthquake.

Figure 3-54 Elevation of Building C

3.7.3.2 Component Failures
Most of the first-story columns connected to the mezzanine level failed in shear (Figure 3-55).
The mezzanine level reduced the clear length of the columns, resulting in shear failures before themoment capacities of the columns could be developed. Damage to the stair framing and short shear
wall connected to the mezzanine level can also be seen.
One of the failed columns at the rear of the building had a very steep shear crack (Figure 3-56)
that suggested that the column was carrying high axial loads. Following a more detailed inspection of
the building, the reconnaissance team concluded that the column was part of a two-story addition,
which was separated from the five-story building by an expansion joint. No plausible explanation forthe steep shear crack is proposed. The beam-column joints at the top of the first-story columns on theeastern façade were damaged but did not fail because transverse reinforcement was provided in the
joint region; see Figure 3-57. The beam-column joint at the north-east corner of the first story washeavily damaged, as shown in Figure 3-58, but continued to carry gravity loads.

Figure 3-55 View of retail space in the first story of the
Building C

Figure 3-56 Shear crack in the first story column in therear of Building C

Figure 3-57 Damaged bean-column joints at top of first story
columns, Building C

Figure 3-58 Damaged beam-column joint at top of firststory corner column, Building C.

3.7.3.3 System Response
The residual drift in the first story of the building was approximately 300 mm to the east.
Although the building to the west of Building C overturned due to bearing failure of the soils beneathits 1-m-thick foundation, soil deformation and failure did not appear to contribute to the damage in
Building C.
To predict incipient collapse of a building or to evaluate buildings for the performance level ofcollapse prevention, new information on how gravity loads are supported in buildings with severelydamaged or failed components is needed. The severely damaged interior columns of Figure 3-55 could
support little or no gravity load. This observation suggests that much of the gravity load in the building
must have been distributed to the perimeter first-story columns by Vierendeel truss action in the upper
stories. Many of these perimeter columns suffered damage to their beam-column joints, but the use oftransverse reinforcement prevented joint failure and gravity load resistance was maintained.
Although the residual drift of the first story of the building adjacent to the front sidewalk wasapproximately 5%, the P - ∆ effects did not lead to collapse of the building. Three factors probably
contributed to the stability of the building. First, the shear wall near the stairwell (see Figure 3-55),
although heavily damaged, likely had significant residual lateral stiffness and strength. Second, theaxial loads in the columns were low as a percentage of fc'Ag. Third, the residual drift at the rear of the
five-story building was much less than 5% and the framing at the rear of the building may havepartially stabilized the building.
3.7.4 Building D
3.7.4.1 Building Description
Building D was a six-story moment-frame building located in the center of Adapazari. An
elevation of the building is shown in Figure 3-59. Based on similar construction of the same age in
Adapazari, the foundation for Building D was probably a mat or raft with a thickness of approximately
1 m.

Figure 3-59 Elevation of Building D

3.7.4.2 System Response
Building D is an example of poor system performance that was not accompanied by component
damage or failure. This building suffered little damage as a result of the earthquake shaking but could
not be occupied because it settled more than 1 m due to liquefaction and bearing failure of the
supporting soils (see Figure 3-60). It is likely that this failure of the supporting soils limited theshaking experienced by the building. Services and utilities to the building were destroyed and ingressand egress were most difficult. The poor performance of this building underscores the need toexplicitly account for soil and foundation behavior in performance-based earthquake engineering.
Although the building would have satisfied the performance level of collapse prevention (as defined in
FEMA 273 [FEMA 1997] and Vision 2000 [SEAOC 1995]), it would not have satisfied the egress
requirements of the life-safety performance level. To achieve performance beyond collapse prevention,site improvements to avoid liquefaction would have been required.

Figure 3-60 Settlement of Building D due to liquefaction and soil-bearing failure

3.7.5 Summary Remarks
The purpose of the discussion of selected buildings is to identify issues relating to building
performance that must be addressed in the development of guidelines and tools for the implementationof performance-based earthquake engineering.
At the time of this writing, building (system) response is often judged on the basis of the mosthighly damaged component in the building. Clearly, this approach, although conservative, is neither
accurate nor cost effective. Poor behavior of one or two random components does not necessarily leadto poor system behavior, although poor behavior of one or two key components may lead to system
collapse if mechanisms for redistribution of gravity loads do not exist in a building.
Much remains to be learned about the collapse of buildings and the design of buildings on soils
prone to liquefaction or failure. Research on the following topics is needed to improve analysis,

evaluation, and design procedures to ensure with high confidence and low cost that buildings will notcollapse.
1. Triggers for axial load failure of ductile and nonductile reinforced concrete columns under
combined loadings based on large- or full-scale test data.
2. Mechanisms for redistribution of gravity loads in the event of component(s) failure, andcharacterization of gravity-load amplification effects due to component failure.
3. Analytical tools for predicting component strength and stiffness loss under combined loadings basedon evaluation of large-scale experimental data.
4. Procedures for eliminating components from mathematical models to simulate component failures.
5. Large-scale 3-D earthquake simulator testing of buildings with weak and brittle components tovalidate the analysis, evaluation, and design procedures developed in 1 through 4 above.

Editors note: This text follows as closely as possible from the paper copy of Chapter 3 “Reinforced Concrete Frames andWall Buildings” by H.Sezen et al. Structural Engineering Reconnaissance of the Kocaeli (Izmit) Turkey Earthquake ofAugust 17 1999. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, (PEER Report 2000-09), December 2000. A
few figures have been substituted where color originals did not exist. Minor text and layout modifications were made.
Higher resolution images of all images are available through EQIIS image database http://nisee.berkeley.edu/eqiis.html by
searching under the “Izmit (Kocaeli), Turkey earthquake, Aug. 17, 1999”
C. James, 2001

4 Industrial Facilities
4.1 Overview of Construction and Damage
4.1.1 Introduction
Several areas of concentrated heavy industry surround the Sea of Marmara and Izmit Bay,
extending west to Adapazari; approximately 40% of heavy industry in Turkey was located here
before the earthquake. Figure 4-1 is a map of the eastern end of Izmit Bay showing the locationsof several cities mentioned in the remaining sections of this chapter. Figure 4-2 is an aerial
photograph of Körfez looking west along Izmit Bay. Extensive damage to many industrial
facilities was observed over a wide strip that was centered on the fault line.

Figure 4-1 Map of the eastern end of Izmit Bay
Twenty-four facilities representing different industries in the Izmit and Adapazari regions weresurveyed in the weeks following the earthquake. Since many of these facilities were designed
according to current U.S. and European standards, their performance is relevant to otherseismically active regions of the world. The following sections summarize observations fromsome of those industrial facilities visited by members of the PEER reconnaissance team. An
alphabetical list of the facilities visited by the reconnaissance team, relevant construction
information, and an approximate number of employees are presented in Table 4-1. The
construction date for facilities under construction at the time of the earthquake is listed as 1999+
in the table; zero employees are listed for these facilities.
The managers of the industrial facilities visited by the reconnaissance team were most generous
in granting the team permission to tour damaged buildings and structures. In a number offacilities permission to enter was granted on the clear understanding that no photographs betaken. A number of these facilities are described in the following sections but no photographs arepresented.

Figure 4-2 Aerial photograph of industrial facilities in Körfez looking west
The widespread damage to industrial facilities had a substantial impact on the economy of theregion, measured here in terms of direct and indirect losses. Direct losses were a result ofstructural damage and nonstructural damage, including damage to mechanical, electrical, andplumbing systems. For the purpose of this report, classification schemes for structural andnonstructural damage were developed; these schemes are presented in Tables 4-2 and 4-3,
respectively. The observed structural and nonstructural damage to the facilities of Table 4-1 arelisted in Table 4-4.
The following three subsections present summary information on typical industrial-facility
construction practice in Turkey, followed by information on damage to petrochemical facilities,
automotive facilities, power generation and transmission facilities, and assorted industrial
facilities.

4.1.2 In-Situ Reinforced-Concrete Structures
In-situ reinforced concrete beam-column frame construction is common in smaller and older
industrial facilities in Turkey. The quality of the construction in these facilities was typically
substantially better than the quality of residential or commercial construction. Of the 24 facilities
visited by members of the PEER reconnaissance team, 14 were constructed with reinforced
concrete moment-resisting frames. Most of the damaged in-situ concrete structures viewed by
the reconnaissance team were constructed without the use of modern ductile details.
4.1.3 Prefabricated Reinforced-Concrete Structures

For reasons of economy and speed of construction, prefabricated or precast reinforced concrete
members are used commonly for the construction of industrial facilities. Typical spans in thefacilities visited by the reconnaissance team varied between 15 m and 25 m. The typical heightof these precast structures ranged between 6 m and 8 m.

Figure 4-3 Prefabricated reinforced concrete construction
Three of the popular precast structural systems in Turkey are shown in Figure 4-3. The frame of
Figure 4-3a is composed of individual columns and long-span rectangular or tapered beams, eachwith a pinned support at one end and a sliding support at the other end. The typical spacing ofthese frames was approximately 6 m. The pinned support was typically composed of one or two
anchorage dowels, which served to prevent lateral movement but permitted rotation. The sliding
support permitted lateral displacement and rotation. Typical plan dimensions of columns in theseframes were 400 mm x 400 mm to 500 mm x 500 mm. Reinforced concrete planks spanned
between the frames and were supported on pockets cast into the precast beams. Typical plankconstruction and a damaged dowel connection are shown in Figure 4-4; the beam and slab on theright-hand side of the column were close to collapse. Substantial damage and a lack of transverse
reinforcement are evident in the column and beam corbels. Fixity at the base of the columns of
Figure 4-3a was achieved by grouting the column in a deep socket or footing that was linked toother footings by grade beams and a thick slab at the top of the foundation. Typical interior andexterior foundation socket-column base details are shown in Figures 4-5a and 4-5b, respectively.
The grade beams between the exterior socket foundations can be seen in Figure 4-5b. (The 6.5-mhigh columns in the Çamlica Soft Drink production facility [Figure 4-3a] were reported to beinstalled in 4-m-deep socket foundations.)

Figure 4-4 Typical plank roof construction and damaged doweled connections
Another common prefabricated structural system in this part of Turkey is shown in Figure 4-3b.
This system includes a precast T-shaped member at the top of the central column that serves toconnect the column to simply supported roof beams. The connection of the T-shaped unit to thecolumn is detailed to transfer moment and shear, but likely for gravity-load effects only. The
lengths of the T-shaped unit and the simply supported roof beams are selected on the basis ofgravity-load actions in a two-span continuous beam; namely, the doweled connections between
the units are located at the points of contraflexure. Such an approach would minimize the volume
of material in the roof beams for gravity-load effects only. Figure 4-6 shows damage to a steel
pipe production facility, which was under construction at the time of the earthquake. The roof
panels had not been installed, and as such there was no diaphragm at the roof level. The seismic
load paths in this building, both parallel and perpendicular to the frames of Figure 4-3b, would
have been questionable even if the roof panels had been installed. As is evident in the figure,many of the columns acted as cantilevers and hinged at their bases during the earthquake. The
precast T-units of Figure 4-3b rotated off the top of the two central columns in the middle of thephotograph Figure 4-6 and are upside down. There was minimal reinforcement joining the Tshaped units to the columns below.

Figure 4-5 Foundation connection for prefabricated reinforced concrete facilities
A cross section through a third prefabricated framing system in use in Turkey at the time of theearthquake is shown in Figure 4-3c. The gravity-load framing system in this figure is composedof a light steel (3-D) space frame that is supported by steel trusses that span between the precast
reinforced concrete columns. Socket foundations of the type shown in Figures 4-5a and 4-5b
were typically used for the precast columns. Such construction was somewhat common inmodern facilities constructed by joint ventures of Turkish and international companies, such as
the KordSA, BekSA, Ford, and Toprak Cleaning facilities.

a. failed central columns and T-shaped units

Figure 4-6 Damaged precast reinforced concrete framed building
4.1.4 Steel-Frame Structures
Braced and moment-resisting steel frames are used for some single-story and many multistory
industrial facilities. One such facility, under construction at the time of the earthquake for DuSA,
is shown in Figure 4-7. The framing system in this five-story building suffered no damage but
much of the reactive weight in the form of the concrete-on-metal deck floors and masonry
perimeter walls was not present at the time of the earthquake. The building was designed anddetailed in the United States using U.S. standards for such facilities. The seismic momentresisting frame in the elevation of (Figure 4-7a) used bolted end-plate connections. On theperpendicular elevation (Figure 4-7b), eccentrically braced steel frames were used to resist
seismic loads. On this elevation, part of a three-story masonry wall peeled off the exterior steel
framing and collapsed; the remaining part of the wall can be seen to the right of the crane base.

a. elevation showing steel moment frames

b. elevation showing steel eccentrically braced frames

Figure 4-7 Five-story steel-framed industrial facility under construction
4.2 Petrochemical Industry
4.2.1 Introduction
There is a heavy concentration of petrochemical facilities near Körfez on the northern side of
Izmit Bay. Many of the badly damaged facilities were located within 15 km of the epicenter
where levels of earthquake shaking were moderate to high. The fiscal health of many of thecompanies operating these facilities is highly dependent on an adequate supply of raw materials,
and product from other industrial facilities in the region. The failure of or gross damage to somefacilities in the epicentral region had a cascading fiscal effect on other businesses in the region.
The Tüpras refinery (Section 4.2.2) and the Petkim petrochemical plant (Section 4.2.3) were twosuch facilities.

4.2.2 Tüpras Refinery
4.2.2.1 Introduction
The most spectacular damage to an industrial facility was observed at the state owned andmanaged Tüpras oil refinery near Körfez (see Figure 4-8: a photograph taken shortly after theearthquake by an unknown photographer). Prior to the earthquake, the Tüpras refinery produced
more than 200,000 barrels of oil-related product per day, approximately one-third of Turkey’s
total output. The Tüpras product was primarily for domestic consumption, much of which was
local to industry in the Körfez region. The Tüpras refinery was designed and constructed in theearly 1960s by U.S. contracts and according to U.S. standards of practice at that time (Danis
1999). As such, the damage observed to the Tüpras refinery would not be unexpected atrefineries of a similar age that are located on the West Coast of the U.S. The plant was expanded
in size and production in 1974 and 1983.

Figure 4-9. Tupras refinery showing part of the tank farmFigure 4-8. Tank farm fires at Tupras
refineryFigure 4-10. Tupras refinery

Figure 4-11. Loading and unloading jetty at Tupras
refinery

The damage to the Tüpras refinery was widespread and included port facilities, storage tanks,cooling towers, stacks, and crude-oil processing units. Much of the damage was fire related: an
indirect consequence of the earthquake shaking. The fire-fighting capability of the refinery waslost immediately following the earthquake because of multiple ruptures of the water pipelinefrom Lake Sapanca, 45 km east of the refinery. (The refinery received all of its water from thislake.) In the days immediately following the earthquake, the resulting fires were contained byaerial bombardment with foam (Danis 1999). At the height of the conflagration, a 3-km region
around the refinery was evacuated (Danis 1999). The fires were extinguished by water drawn
from Izmit Bay by using portable diesel pumps and flexible hose that didn’t arrive at the refinery
until three days after the earthquake. Had this fire-fighting equipment been stockpiled at therefinery in advance of the earthquake, the fires that took five days to extinguish would have been
put out much sooner. For information, the reconnaissance team visited the Tüpras refinery on
September 1, 1999, two weeks after the earthquake and approximately ten days after the fires
had been extinguished. (Valuable lessons for refineries on the West Coast of the U.S. can belearned from the problems encountered by the fire-fighting and emergency-response staff at the
Tüpras refinery.)Figures 4-9, 4-10, and 4-11 are aerial photographs of the refinery taken by members of thereconnaissance team two weeks after the earthquake. Figure 4-9 shows the main processing
facility and part of the tank farm (in the foreground). The jetty that serviced the refinery is notshown but is located at the left-hand edge of the figure. Another view of the main processing
facility shows the failed heater stack (see the circled section in Figure 4-10). Some of the burned
fuel-oil tanks can be seen in the upper right middle of the figure. The remains of the timbercooling tower that burned following the earthquake can be seen in the middle right of thephotograph between the burned tanks and the northern perimeter of the main processing facility.
Substantial pollution can be seen (Figures 4-9 and 4-10), which resulted from the failure andbreaching of fuel-oil tanks, much of which was successfully contained by the earthen berms thatsurrounded the tanks. According to refinery staff, some oil spilled into Izmit Bay due to fractured
pipes and from an oil tanker that pulled away from the loading jetty immediately following theearthquake.

4.2.2.2 Loading Jetty
The loading and unloading jetty shown in the aerial photograph (Figure 4-11) serviced therefinery only. Failure of this jetty prevented the loading and unloading of all fuel-oil products at
the refinery. Ships tied up to the long arm of the T-shaped jetty (oriented north-west to south-east
in the figure, where the top of the page is north). The jetty was composed of a reinforced
concrete deck that was supported on steel piles. Modest ground failure was observed around theapproach to the jetty. The support to the crude-oil pipeline (Figure 4-12) that ran along theseawall near the jetty was lost. Figure 4-13 is a photograph of the damaged jetty from point A of
Figure 4-11. Gross damage to the jetty and the elevated pipeway and pipes is evident to the leftof the tug. These pipes transferred fuel oil and other products between the refinery and ships tied
to the jetty. Figure 4-14 is a photograph of the damaged jetty, from point B of Figure 4-11, that
resulted from the failure of some of these piles. The loading and unloading jetty was separated
from the vertical leg of the jetty. Refinery staff told members of the reconnaissance team that theheavy steel grating joining the two components of the jetty dropped into the water, indicatingthat the two components moved independently during the earthquake. The reconnaissance teamobserved steady leaks from one of the pipes at ground level, which was filled with volatile
gasoline, more than ten days after the earthquake.

Figure 4-12. Failed crude oil pipeline along the sea wall at
the Tupras refinery

Figure 4-13. Damaged loading and unloading
jetty

Figure 4-14. Damage to jetty and elevated pipeway in Tupras refinery

4.2.2.3 Tank Farms and Floating Roof Tanks

Because fires burned out of control for several days in the tank farms, international attention was
focused on the Tüpras refinery immediately following the earthquake. Refinery staff reported
that the first major fire ignited in a floating-roof tank that contained naphtha, which is a highly
volatile flammable liquid mixture distilled from petroleum. The fire reportedly spread quickly
because the refinery staff had on site only sufficient foam to fight a small fire, not fires
associated with the breaching and ignition of a fuel tank.
Many of the 100+ tanks in the Tüpras refinery farm were constructed with floating roofs. Figures
4-15, and 4-17 are photographs of Tank 211, which is located immediately adjacent to many ofthe burned tanks (see Figure 4-18). Figure 4-17 is a photograph of the detail at the junction of theedge of the floating roof and perimeter wall, showing the perimeter seal. Sloshing of the fluid in
the tank likely damaged the perimeter seal, which permitted the fluid to escape from thecontainment. Such observations have been made in other earthquakes (ASCE 1997). Oil evident
on the top of the floating roof (Figure 4-17) spread over much of the roof. Danis (1999) reported
substantial damage to a large number of tanks (30+) in the farm; the inability of perimeter seals
to retain the sloshing fluid in the tanks resulted in failure or sinking of these floating roofs. Eachof these damaged floating roofs required repair or replacement before the tanks could be returned
to service. Repair of the damaged or sunken roofs would have involved draining the tanks,
decontamination of the roof, and replacement of the perimeter seals.

Figure 4-15. Tank 211 in the Tupras refinery tank farmFigure 4-17. Perimeter seal of floating roof in Tank
211

Sloshing of fluid produced overtopping in several tanks (see Figure 4-19) and gross damage tothe tank wall near the tops of walls in other tanks (see Figure 4-20). The oil lost from these tanks
was contained within the earthen berms surrounding the tanks.
Members of the reconnaissance team found no evidence of substantial sliding of the tanks
although none were anchored to their foundations. According to the refinery staff, this is typicalpractice in Turkish tank farms. Although hard piping was attached at the base of each tank, there
was no evidence of pipe failure at any (unburned) tank visited by members of the team. Had
there been appreciable movement of the tanks, many pipe failures would have occurred (ASCE1997).

Figure 4-18. Partial view of Tupras tank farm showing Tank 211
and two burn zones

Figure 4-19. Overtopping of tank wall due to sloshing and failure of perimet
seals

Figure 4-21. Photograph from top of Tank 211 facing south
Figure 4-20. View of tank wall damage

Figure 4-22. Photograph from top of Tank 211 looking
approximately south

Figure 4-23. Tank destroyed by fire in burn zone

Considered write-offs by the management (Danis 1999), approximately 20 tanks in the Tüpras
refinery farm were damaged or destroyed by fire. Figures 4-21 and 4-22 are overlapping left-toright photographs of burned tanks taken from the top of Tank 211 looking south toward the mainprocessing facility. For reference, the mountains in the background of these photographs arelocated on the other side of Izmit Bay, to the south of the cities of Gölcük and Degirmendere. An
overtopped tank can be seen to the left of the middle of Figure 4-21. Figures 4-23 and 4-24 arephotographs of two tanks destroyed by fire. The tank in Figure 4-23 is located in tank burn zone
1 of Figure 4-18. The tank of Figure 4-24 is located in tank burn zone 2 of Figure 4-18. Twisted
wreckage of the walls, walkways, and floating roof of the tank in Figure 4-24 can be seen in
Figure 4-25. Figure 4-26 is a photograph of one tank, located immediately adjacent the burnedtank of Figure 4-25 and linked to this tank by hard piping. Gross expansion of this fixed roof
tank due to intense heating from the burning tank is evident. This tank can be seen to the right ofthe middle of Figure 4-22.

Figure 4-24. Tank destroyed by fire in burn zone

Figure 4-25. Destroyed walls, walkways and floating
roof of tank in Figure 4-24

Figure 4-26. Gross expansion of fixed roof tank adjacent to tank of Figure 4-24

Although the Tüpras refinery tank farm suffered gross damage as a result of the fires following
the earthquake, the damage could have been truly disastrous. The fire-fighting skills of therefinery staff and good decision making by the refinery management team kept these fires fromspreading to other tanks on the farm and to adjacent industrial facilities, many of whichcontained large amounts of volatile materials, such as the adjacent IGSAS plant that producesammonia and fertilizer.
4.2.2.4 Main Processing Facility
The main processing facility is located between the tank farm and the loading jetty. An earthen
berm and a road separate the facility from the tank farm. A total of four cooling towers, three
made of wood and the fourth of reinforced concrete, were sited at the edge of the berm. One of
the three wooden towers burned to the ground, another wooden tower was destroyed byearthquake shaking, and the third wooden tower suffered only slight damage. The reinforced
concrete cooling tower appeared to be undamaged.
The main processing facility is composed of three crude-oil processing units. Constructed in
1983, one of the three units was destroyed by the collapse of an approximately 110-m-tall
reinforced concrete heater stack in the middle of the unit. Figure 4-27, a photograph of the failed
heater stack, was taken from the end of the loading and unloading jetty. The upper two thirds(approximately) of the heater stack collapsed. Failure of the stack likely initiated at a stiffness
discontinuity in the reinforced concrete stack where large-size ductwork entered the stack. (Seethe undamaged heater stack to the left of the collapsed stack. Large-size ductwork enters thisstack at approximately the same level at which the collapsed stack failed.) The top of the stackfell into a heater unit (Figure 4-28) and the lower portion of the failed stack collapsed onto
pipework at the perimeter of the facility (Figure 4-29). Refinery staff reported that some
pipework was fractured by the collapsing heater stack, which ignited fires in the crude-oil unit.
These fires buckled structural components that supported the furnace and the pipeways.
The reconnaissance team did not observe any substantial damage to other parts of the mainprocessing facility. Typical steel and reinforced concrete framing in the facility are shown in
Figures 4-30a and 4-30b.

Figure 4-28. Damage to heater unit caused bycollapse of heater stack

Figure 4-30a. Undamaged steel-braced framing,
Tupras refinery

Figure 4-29. Damage to pipework caused by collapseof heater unit

Figure 4-30b. Undamaged reinforced concrete
framing, Tupras refineryFigure 4-31. Collapsed wooden cooling tower at the
Petkim petrochemical facility

Figure 4-32. Damage to nonductile reinforce concrete
in Petkim cooling tower

4.2.3 Petkim Petrochemical Plant
The Petkim (or Yarimca) petrochemical facility at Körfez is one of the largest state-owned
facilities in Turkey. Similar to the Tüpras refinery, the Petkim facility supplies many industrial
facilities in the region in and around Körfez, including a number of companies manufacturingcomponents of tires. The Petkim petrochemical facility was constructed between 1965 and 1975;
the main plant in the facility was fully operational in late 1969.
Parts of the Petkim facility were severely damaged. Maximum accelerations of approximately
0.32g were recorded at the YPT station (see Chapter 1), which was located within 200 m of thecollapsed three-cell tower. Figure 4-31 shows the complete collapse of an older three-cellwooden cooling tower; but a four-cell tower adjacent to the collapsed tower suffered no damage.
A reinforced concrete cooling tower approximately 400 m from the YPT station was badly
damaged. Nonductile reinforced concrete columns at the perimeter of the cooling tower and atop
a continuous reinforced concrete perimeter were severely damaged at the bases (Figure 4-32).
Figure 4-33 shows typical damage and rebar details at the base of one column. The column inthis figure was constructed with round longitudinal rebar. The transverse ties were widely spaced
and 90° hooks were employed. It is evident in the figure that the transverse ties failed leading to
dilation and failure of the core concrete in the hinge zone.

Figure 4-34. Loading and unloading
facility, Petkim petrochemical plant

Figure 4-35. Failure of battered reinforced concrete piles
beneath jetty, Petkim facility
Figure 4-33. Rebar details anddamage in reinforced concretecooling tower at Petkim

The Petkim petrochemical plant, similar to the Tüpras refinery, had a dedicated port facility
through which much of the plant’s raw material and processed product passed. Ground failure
was observed near the jetty entrance. This port, like the port that serviced the Tüpras refinery,
was badly damaged by the earthquake and was not operational afterward. Many of the batteredpiles beneath the jetty (Figure 4-34) were badly damaged. Typical damage to these battered piles
is shown in Figure 4-35.
4.3 Automotive Industry
4.3.1 Introduction
Ford, Hyundai, and Toyota operate motor vehicle assembly plants in the epicentral region.
Multinational industrial companies including Pirelli and Goodyear are located east of Izmit
within a few miles of each other in the Köseköy and Alikahya regions. The Sabanci company has
several joint-venture facilities in the epicentral region, including BekSA (a joint venture with
Bekaert of Belgium), BriSA (a joint venture with Bridgestone, Japan, to manufacture rubber
goods and tires), DuSA (a joint venture with Du Pont, USA), EnerjiSA, and KordSA. All ofthese companies contribute in one form or another to the construction of motor vehicles orcomponents. With the exception of EnerjiSA, which is discussed in the following section,
information on those facilities visited by the members of the reconnaissance team follows.

4.3.2 Ford Assembly Plant
The body-shop building of a new Ford plant near Gölcük wasunder construction at the time of the earthquake. The singlestory building was composed of 6-m-tall square reinforced
concrete columns supporting one-way steel trusses and alightweight space frame spanning between the trusses. The
roof and walls were constructed of lightweight steel panels.
Figure 4-36 is a photograph of the interior of the new bodyshop.
This building was damaged during the earthquake by a
combination of shaking and fault rupture and ground failure
beneath the building. Figure 4-37 shows the degree of groundmovement within 100 m. Damage included permanent deformations in the building frame,
hinges in the cantilever columns (Figure 4-36), badly cracked and separated floor slabs, andcollapse of some wall panels. Figure 4-38 shows the damaged building.
Figure 4-36. Framing of new
body shop in Ford plant near

Figure 4-38. Exterior view of damaged Ford body shop
Figure 4-37. Ground movement near Ford plant,
Golcuk

4.3.3 Hyundai Assembly Plant
The Hyundai plant located in Alikahya opened in late 1997. The lateral force-resisting system inthe plant was composed of steel moment-resisting frames supported on a 0.6-m-deep raftfoundation. The roof was constructed using a steel space frame and galvanized steel roof panels.
Hyundai representatives reported that tensioned bolts in several column-to-roof truss connections
sheared. Nonstructural mechanical and electrical components in a utility penthouse,approximately 9 m above ground level, suffered severe damage that included separations ofelevated ducts from air handlers, movement of air handling units due to inadequate or no
anchorage, and collapse of large-size ducts and cable trays due to inadequate attachments andanchorage.

4.3.4 Toyota Assembly Plant
The Toyota factory, which is located about 40 km west of Izmit in Adapazari, was constructed in
1994 with an annual vehicle production capacity of 100,000 cars. The lateral force-resisting
system in the main plant building was composed of steel moment-resisting frames. Many of thecolumns in the building were jumbo shapes with flange thicknesses of up to 125 mm. Eachcolumn in the main building is supported on twelve 400-mm-diameter piles driven to rock at a
depth of 14 m. Approximately 3,800 piles were driven beneath the building. No structural
damage was observed in this building but nonstructural damage was widespread, including the
failure or collapse of skylights, light fixtures, storage racks, and one substation transformer.
Ground movement damaged the parking lot approximately 100 m from the main plant, the waste
treatment plant. No structural damage was observed in other buildings or facilities visited by thereconnaissance team.
4.3.5 Pirelli Tire Plant
The Pirelli tire plant in Izmit consists of approximately 20 interconnected buildings, with a total
floor area of more than 200,000 m2 according to Pirelli representatives. The oldest construction
dates back to the 1960s. One section of the oldest building in the plant, whose lateral forceresisting system was a nonductile reinforced concrete moment frame, collapsed killing one
person and injuring 20. Modest-to-severe structural damage was reported in other buildings in
the facility, including hinging of reinforced concrete columns. Nonstructural damage waswidespread and included fallen light fixtures and cable trays.
The key pieces of equipment in the plant were Banbury extrusion machines, which process all
raw elastomeric materials in the plant. Although these machines were undamaged by theearthquake, Pirelli representatives noted that these machines could not be restarted because of thedegree of structural and nonstructural damage to the buildings where the machines were located,
and they could not be easily moved elsewhere in the plant due to their size.
4.3.6 Goodyear Tire Plant
The Goodyear plant, a 500-person factory in Izmit at the time of the earthquake, is a steel-frame
plant built in 1963. Only modest nonstructural and contents damage was observed, including
collapse of light fixtures and localized failures of the fire-protection system that doused building
contents with water. The reconnaissance team did not observe any structural damage in the officebuildings.
4.3.7 BekSA
BekSA was established in 1987 and is apparently the largest independent steel wire manufacturer
in the world. (The steel wire or cord is a key component in tires, bead wire, hose wire and spring
wire.) The 57,000 m2 BekSA plant (Figure 4-39) was partially operational ten days after theearthquake. The plant and the office buildings (to the left of the plant building in the photograph)
were constructed of reinforced concrete. The main plant building suffered no apparent structural
damage, but some nonstructural damage occurred including breakage of the windows at the topof the perimeter infill walls and cracking of infill masonry walls. One of the reinforced concrete
framed office buildings collapsed completely. Many of the nonductile reinforced concrete
columns in the main office building failed in shear but did not lose their ability to carry modest
gravity loads.

Figure 4-39. BekSA plant

4.3.8 DuSAThe DuSA plant in Alikahya exports tire cord fabric and nylon yard, which are a key
components in the production of automotive tires and industrial fabrics. The framing in the main
plant building was a precast reinforced concrete frame supported on a 1-m-thick raft foundation.
The reconnaissance team was not permitted to enter the main plant building. Heavy damage wasreported by DuSA representatives and observed by the team. Figure 4-40 is a photograph of theperimeter of the main plant building that shows a partial collapse of the main building andunseating of precast beams from the corbels on the precast reinforced concrete columns.
Substantial nonstructural damage was reported by DuSA representatives, including the failure ofa continuous hot-process unit, equipment movement, overturning due to anchorage failures, andfracture of pipes due to relative movement of equipment.

Figure 4-40. Damage to the DuSA main plant buildingA new steel-frame building was under construction at the time of the earthquake. Photographs of
the framing were presented earlier in Figure 4-7. The structural frame suffered no damage. No
damage was observed to nonstructural components in (ductwork and process equipment) andaround (unanchored tanks and piping) of the new building.
4.3.9 KordSA
KordSA is a large producer of tire-cord fabric and industrial fabric. KordSA representatives
reported that the plant was 50% operational one week after the earthquake. The main plantbuilding (Figure 4-41) was constructed in 1973 with braced steel framing in the tower andprecast reinforced concrete framed construction elsewhere. Only minor structural damage wasobserved in the tower, with buckled steel braces and damaged bolted connections. (Nophotographs were permitted by KordSA inside the main plant building.) The precast reinforced
concrete framing in the main plant building suffered little-to-no structural damage (Figure 4-42).
Some of the parapets atop the precast framing collapsed, as can be seen in the photograph. Only
modest nonstructural damage was observed in the interior areas visited by the reconnaissanceteam.

Figure 4-41. KordSA main building showing steel bracedframed tower

Figure 4-42. Perimeter of precast reinforced
concrete framed KordSA main plant building

A product storage area was added to the main plant after the original construction. The lightsteel-framed roof of this storage area collapsed (Figure 4-43), likely due to the differential
movement of two parallel walls, also visible. A number of the short columns in the wall to theright failed in shear. The masonry infill above these short columns fell through the roof of thestorage area.

Figure 4-43. Roof collapse in storage area of KordSA plant4.4 Power Generation and Transmission Systems
4.4.1 Introduction
The seismic vulnerability of substation equipment and the damage experienced by power
generation and transmission systems in the epicentral region was of much interest to PEER. The
EnerjiSA power generation facility was visited by the reconnaissance team 11 days after theearthquake. Summary information on EnerjiSA is presented in Section 4.4.2. The loss of thesubstation at Adapazari, one of the key substations in the epicentral region, substantiallyhampered recovery efforts in the first few days following the earthquake. Much effort was
focused on restoring the substation to service as quickly as possible. The substation was back inservice before the reconnaissance team visited the substation ten days after the earthquake.
Information on the observed damage in the Adapazari substation is presented in Section 4.4.3.
4.4.2 Power Generation
EnerjiSA supplies electricity and processed steam for selected Sabanci companies, including
BriSA, ToyotaSA, KordSA, DuSA, and BekSA. EnerjiSA began production in 1997 as a 40-MW
single-unit power plant. At the time of the earthquake, EnerjiSA was bringing online a 130-MW
power unit and an additional 160 ton/hr of steam-generation capacity.
Transformers in the EnerjiSA facility were mounted on rails to facilitate installation andmaintenance. Simple braking mechanisms were used to prevent movement of the transformers
and protect the equipment that is attached tothe transformer such as bushings. Figure 4-44
shows one of the rail-mounted transformers in
the EnerjiSA transformer yard. Movement
along the rails of each transformer in the yard
was observed. The typical movement, ranging
between 50 and 100 mm, was most likely too
small to endanger the interconnected
equipment. However, one transformer, which
was not in service at the time of theearthquake, rolled or slid more than 1 m,
dropped off the ends of the two support rails,
and overturned (Figure 4-45). Two low-voltage
bushings failed during the earthquake and had been replaced by the time the reconnaissance teamvisited EnerjiSA.
Figure 4-45. Toppled transformer in EnerjiSA
transformer yard

A heat-recovery steam boiler (Figure 4-46a) that had been installed but not brought online at thetime of the earthquake slipped off its foundation during the earthquake. The fillet welds joining
the boiler framing to the base plates atop the reinforced concrete foundation failed (Figure 446b); these welds were small and of very poor quality.
The base plate connections of steel framing to components of both the existing and the newsteam generation systems failed. Figure 4-47a shows two-level framing to an in-service chimney.
Figure 4-47b shows the damage at the base plate connection. Figure 4-48a is a photograph ofsteel braced framing in the new steam-generation system. Figure 4-48b shows damage to thegrouted base plate connection and steel brace that was located on the far side of the steel bracingin Figure 4-48a. The shear key (Figure 4-48b) was not embedded in the concrete pedestal
beneath the grout pad but in the grout pad only.
4.4.3 Power Transmission
The 380 kV substation in Adapazari services the city of Adapazari and surrounding townships
and industrial facilities. The reconnaissance team visited the substation ten days after theearthquake by which time much of the damaged hardware had been replaced by components
stockpiled at the substation and in Ankara.

Figure 4-46a. Damaged boiler, EnerjiSA plant

Figure 4-46b. Failed fillet-weld connection of boiler
framing to baseplate

Figure 4-47a. Damage to steel framing to EnerjiSA
in-service steam generator

Figure 4-47b. Damaged baseplate connection,
EnerjiSA in-service steam generator

An aerial photograph of the substation is shown in Figure 4-49. Much switching gear and two
power transformers can be seen in the photograph. Numerous porcelain insulators failed during
the earthquake; some of the fractured units can be seen in Figures 4-50a and 4-50b. Figure 4-51
is a view of pre- and post-earthquake-installed circuit breakers in the substation; rigid bus
connectors span the service road. The V-headed shaped circuit breakers were in service at thetime of the earthquake. The T-headed circuit breakers replaced the failed V-headed circuit
breakers and had been installed well prior to the visit by the reconnaissance team. Those V-

headed circuit breakers that failed during the earthquake typically had longer runs ofinterconnected equipment than those V-headed circuit breakers that survived the earthquake.

Figure 4-48b. Failed fillet weld connection of new boiler framing to
baseplate, EnerjiSA

Figure 4-48a. Damaged framing to newsteam generator, EnerjiSA

Figure 4-49. Aerial view of the Adapazari substation

V-headed gas circuit breakers from a number of manufacturers were in service at the time of theearthquake. Many of the cantilever ABB circuit breakers failed during the earthquake. None of
the braced Hitachi circuit breakers of Figure 4-52 were damaged.
The substation staff reported that no bushings failed during the earthquake. The reconnaissanceteam also found no evidence of failed transformer bushings. The power transformers of Figures
4-53a and 4-53b were carefully inspected for damage; no damage was found. The brakes onthese rail-mounted transformers failed to function during the earthquake; the maximum
movement of these transformers was approximately 300 mm. Such movement appeared not todamage the transformers, the transformer bushings, or the interconnected equipment.

Figure 4-50a. Failed porcelain insulators

Figure 4-50b. Failed porcelain circuit breakers

Figure 4-51a. View along service road showing preand post- earthquake circuit breakers

Figure 4-51b. New T-shaped circuit breakers

Figure 4-52. Braced Hitachi gas circuit breaker, Adapazari substation

Figure 5-53a. Elevated support frames and power transformers,
Adapazari substation

Figure 4-53b. Power transformer,
Adapazari substation

4.5 Other Heavy Industry
4.5.1 Bastas Plant
Bastas manufactures fluorescent lightbulbs. Although the plant suffered no structural damage
from the earthquake and power was available immediately after the earthquake using on-site
emergency generators, nonstructural damage to a glass furnace forced the shutdown of the plant.
The furnace was mounted on an unanchored frame that moved approximately 35 mm.

Compressed air to the furnace was lost when a valve was damaged on a temperature-control
rack. The resulting change in the fuel-air mixture led to molten brass solidifying in the lines ofthe furnace and the destruction of a custom-made tube in the furnace. The lead-time to replace
the custom-made tube was at least six to eight weeks, forcing the plant to close for this time
because the tube was key to the function of the furnace and the plant.

Figure 4-54 Collapsed precast reinforced concrete building, Cap textile plant.

4.5.2 Çap Plant
The Çap textile facility is located 3 km west of Akyazi, which is east of Adapazari, on alluvium
deposits between two rivers that are 500 m apart near the plant. The plant was composed of two
3-bay (transverse) by 15-bay (longitudinal) precast reinforced concrete buildings. The framing of
the two buildings appeared to be most similar. The typical interior column was 6 m high and 250
mm by 600 mm in plan, with the strong direction of the column in the transverse direction.
Figure 4-3b is part of the transverse cross section in the building. One of the two precast
buildings collapsed (Figure 4-54). The second building suffered severe damage. In this precast
building, many of the columns hinged at the bases, and wall and roof panels collapsed.
4.5.3 Habas Plant
The Habas plant in Izmit provides liquefied gases to commercial plants and medical facilities in
the Izmit and surrounding regions. The major damage at Habas was the collapse of two of thethree liquid gas storage tanks shown in Figure 4-55.
Three identical 14.63-m-diameter tanks were built in 1995. Each tank consisted of two
concentric stainless steel shells, one with an outside diameter of 14.63 m and the other with anoutside diameter of 12.80 m. Figure 4-56 is a photograph of the undamaged tank. The gap
between the shells is filled with insulation. Both shells were supported on a 14.63-m-diameter,
1.07-m-thick reinforced concrete slab that was in turn supported by sixteen 200-mm-diameter
reinforced concrete columns. Each column was 2.54 m in height and reinforced with 16 No. 16mm-diameter longitudinal bars and 8-mm-diameter ties at 100 mm on center.

Figure 4-55. Liquid gas plants at the Habas plant

Figure 4-56. View of Reinforced concrete framing atbase of undamaged tank, Habas plant

The two tanks containing liquid oxygen collapsed as seen in Figure 4-57. The tank andsupporting structure containing liquid nitrogen was undamaged except for some hairline cracks
in the columns. Habas representatives reported that the liquid oxygen tanks were 85% full, andthe liquid nitrogen tank was 25% full at the time of the earthquake. The outer shells of thecollapsed tanks buckled (Figure 4-58). Photographs of some of the failed columns beneath one of
the liquid nitrogen tanks are presented in Figure 4-59.

Figure 4-58. Buckling of the outer stainless steel
shell in liquid oxygen tank
Figure 4-57. Collapse of liquid oxygen tanks

Figure 4-59a. Failed columns beneath slab under liquid
oxygen tank, Habas facility

Figure 4-59b. View of failed columns beneath liquid
oxygen tank, Habas facility

4.5.4 Mannesmann Boru Plant
The Mannesmann Boru steel-pipe plant in Izmit was constructed in the mid-1950s. The plant iscomposed of two separate facilities for the fabrication of small- and large-diameter pipe. Eachfacility includes production buildings and warehouses. An administration building and storage
yards are common to both facilities.
Damage was observed in reinforced concrete and steel buildings. In twobuildings, shear cracking was prevalent in nonductile columns with shortshear spans due to the presence of infill masonry walls. In one of thelarge-pipe production buildings, the anchor bolts of a steel momentresisting frame elongated and fractured. In the storage yard at the largepipe area, two cranes that were constructed in the early 1970s sufferedidentical failures of the box sections supporting one leg of the crane.
Figure 4-60a is a photograph of an undamaged crane in the yard. Figure 460b shows the failed leg of another crane in the yard.
Mannesmann Boru used the adjacent SEKA paper-mill port facility for
Figure 4-60a.
Undamaged crane athandling raw materials and pipe product. As
discussed in the following section, the SEKA
port facility was badly damaged in theearthquake, forcing Mannesmann Boru to use
alternative and less efficient methods for moving
raw materials and product.

4.5.5 SEKA Plant
SEKA is a state-owned paper mill that is locatednext to the Mannesmann Boru plant. Paper andcardboard products are produced and processed in this plant, which includes five paper mills,
each with two paper machines. Before the earthquake, SEKA moved raw materials and finishedproduct through its port facility. The SEKA port facility is composed of two separate jetties, bothof which failed during the earthquake. Figure 4-61a shows one of the two jetties that were
supported on hammerhead reinforced concrete columns that were constructed in the 1960s. The
influence of the horizontal framing immediately above the waterline on the failure of thehammerhead columns is not known. Figure 4-61b is a photograph of the second jetty that is ofreinforced concrete construction like the jetty of Figure 4-61a but with substantially different
framing. The jetty of Figure 4-61b was also severely damaged with one section of the jetty
dropping more than 300 mm below the adjacent sections.
Figure 4-60b. Collapsed crane leg,
Mannessmann Boru pipe storage facility

Three reinforced concrete silos containing water collapsed. Figures 4-62a and b are photographsof an undamaged and a collapsed silo, respectively. The diameter of the silos was approximately
6 m. The collapsed silos were supported on six small square nonductile columns with minimal
longitudinal reinforcement. The undamaged silos of Figure 4-62a were supported on larger(square) columns than those of the collapsed silos.

Figure 4-61a. Failure of hammerhead reinforced
concrete jetty piers, SEKA paper mill

Figure 4-61b. View of failed jetty, SEKA paper mill

Figure 4-62b. Collapsed silo, SEKA paper mill

Figure 0-14-62a. Undamaged silo at SEKA papermill

4.5.6 Liquid Gas Tanks
Cylindrical (bullet) liquid gas tanks of the type shown in Figure 4-63 were common in the
Körfez industrial parks. Most of the tanks of this type were not anchored and had hard pipe
connections of the type seen in Figure 4-63b. These connections are most susceptible to damage
due to movement and rotation of the tank with respect to the supporting saddle. Movement androtation of the tank with respect to the pedestal are clearly evident in Figure 4-63b.
Many spherical liquid petroleum gas (LPG) tanks were located in the epicentral region in a large
number of industrial facilities. These tanks were typically supported by braced steel frames orreinforced concrete frames. No damage to these tanks was observed by members of thereconnaissance team.

Figure 4-63a. Typical support arrangement forcylindrical liquid gas tanks

Figure 4-63b. Typical damage to liquid gas tanks

5

Summary and Conclusions

5.1

Summary

A team of structural engineers representing the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)
Center visited the area affected by the August 17, 1999, Izmit earthquake in late August and early
September 1999. The Mw 7.4 earthquake occurred on the North Anatolian fault in northwestern
Turkey at 3:02 a.m. local time. The hypocenter of the earthquake was located near Izmit, 90 km
east of Istanbul. Official figures placed the loss of life at 17,225, with more than 44,000 injured.
Approximately 77,300 homes and businesses were destroyed and 245,000 were damaged. The
total direct loss was estimated to be more than US$ 6 billion.
The PEER reconnaissance team traveled to Turkey to study damaged and undamaged buildings,
bridges, industrial facilities, and infrastructure. Two key objectives of the reconnaissance effort
were (1) to improve the understanding of the performance of the built environment and (2) to
identify gaps in the PEER research agenda, which is developing knowledge and design tools for
performance-based earthquake engineering. Documenting collapsed structures was not a highpriority of the reconnaissance team, and no such documentation is provided in this report.
This report begins with an introduction to building seismic design and construction practice in theregion impacted by the earthquake, and follows with a description of the performance of damaged
and undamaged structures. The review of design and construction practice (Chapter 2) confirmedthat the construction of reinforced concrete buildings without special details for ductile response(by far the most prevalent form of construction in the epicentral region) was permitted up to thetime of the earthquake.
The performance of reinforced concrete frame and wall buildings is presented in Chapter 3.
Typical construction practice did not make use of special details for ductile component behavior
because (a) the use of special details was not mandated by the codes of practice or local
authorities and (b) buildings without the special details were easier to construct. Construction
quality varied widely and ranged from excellent to poor. The quality of residential construction
was typically moderate to poor. The performance of components of moment-frame buildings(beams, columns, joints) and wall buildings is described. Much of the observed poor performance
was directly related to the use of (a) nonductile reinforcement details and (b) inappropriate
framing sizes (e.g., strong beams and weak columns). Another key contributor to poor building139performance was widespread ground failure or liquefaction that likely protected some buildings
from severe earthquake shaking but which resulted in gross building settlement or overturning. A
detailed discussion on the performance of four buildings is presented in Section 3.5. Componentsof three of the four buildings were either severely damaged or destroyed but none of thesebuildings collapsed. The effect of component failure on system response is studied in this section,and issues related to preventing collapse of gravity-load-resisting frames are explored.
Chapter 4 presents information on the performance of industrial facilities. Because many of thesefacilities were designed in the 1960s and 1970s using U.S. or European codes of practice, andgiven that the construction quality in these structures was typically good to excellent, theperformance of these older facilities during the August 17 earthquake could be considered to be
representative of that of industrial facilities of a similar age in the United States and Europe. Of
particular relevance to facility operators in the United States was the performance of the Tüpras
refinery and the life-threatening problems faced by the refinery staff immediately following theearthquake. One important lesson from the Tüpras experience is that earthquake preparedness is
key to rapid response and timely recovery.
5.2

Conclusions and Recommendations

A short list of conclusions and recommendations related to design and construction practice inTurkey is enumerated below.
1. Nonductile detailing should not be allowed in moderate and severe seismic zones, regardlessof the lateral forces used for design.
2. A factor that accounts for the proximity of a building site to a fault (i.e., a near-field factor)
should be included in the design force equation.
3. Construction on ground prone to liquefaction should be avoided.
4. Building frames that have been designed for gravity loads alone, and without a clear load pathfor lateral loads, should be treated as a high priority for retrofitting.
5. Continuous shear walls on stiff and strong foundations are an effective means of retrofitting
nonductile reinforced concrete buildings. Existing independent column foundations should betied together with grade beams in retrofit construction.
6. In new and retrofit reinforced concrete construction, smooth reinforcing bars should not be
used other than for stirrups and ties.
7. Careful attention should be paid to concrete mix design, quality control, and placement.
The work and observations of the reconnaissance team raise many questions related to theperformance of reinforced concrete buildings and the implementation of performance-based
earthquake engineering in the United States and abroad. Some of the important questions are1. Why do apparently similar buildings subjected to apparently similar earthquake shaking perform very differently? What are the determining features that differentiate their behaviors?
2. What are the causes of collapse in gravity-load-resisting frames? Can we better capture theeffect of component failure on system response? Can we develop gravity-load-framing systems that are less prone to collapse?
3. Can we better characterize the effect of ground failure on earthquake ground motion? Can
cost-effective methods for ground improvement be developed for new and retrofit construction?
4. Why did some buildings within meters of the fault, or in some cases straddling it, survive withlittle to no damage, while others of apparently similar construction but further from the fault
collapse? Is earthquake shaking very close to the line of rupture less severe than that a shortdistance from it?

Appendix: Performance of the Adapazari
City Hall
A.1 Introduction
Construction of Adapazari City Hall was started in 1959 and completed in 1964. This
five-story reinforced concrete frame building was heavily damaged during the July 22, 1967,
Akyazi M7.1 earthquake and retrofitted using conventional methods in the eight-month period
after that earthquake. Adapazari was 36 km east of the epicenter of the 1967 earthquake. The
estimated intensity in Adapazari was MMI 7.
The building is located in downtown Adapazari where many buildings either collapsed or
suffered substantial damage during the August 17, 1999, Kocaeli earthquake. Since theretrofitted building suffered only minor damage, it was used as the headquarters of the city crisis
center to direct earthquake-relief efforts. Aftershocks of the August 17 earthquake and the main
shock of the November 12, 1999, Duzce M7.2 earthquake caused existing cracks to open moreand new cracks to form in the frame members and infill walls.

A.2

Background Information

Like most other buildings in Adapazari, the City Hall building does not have a basement,
since the water table lies 1 to 2 m below grade. The building is located on relatively soft soil
deposits (Anadol et al. 1972). The foundation is composed of tapered footings (Figure A-1)
connected with 400 mm by 900 mm grade beams in the x (longitudinal) direction and 500 mm
by 1500 mm base beams in the y (transverse) direction.
The building has a clear height of 17 m above ground level. The plan footprint is 14.2 m
by 40 m with 13 frames in the transverse direction and 3 frames in the longitudinal direction. A
typical floor plan and elevation in the original structure are shown in Figure A-1. The shear wallsin the transverse direction were not placed symmetrically in plan and created a stiffness
eccentricity of 3.7 m. Anadol et al. (1972) reported that the concrete strength was 16 MPa (2350psi) and that the yield strength of the smooth reinforcing bars was 220 MPa (32 ksi).
Resistance to lateral forces in the original structure was provided by two shear walls and
35 columns. The depth of the columns varied between 300 mm and 700 mm, and the widthvaried between 230 mm and 400-mm. Typical floor framing consisted of a 370-mm-deep joist
system infilled with lightweight bricks, and 370-mm-deep beams varying in width from 400 mm
to 1000 mm. The lightweight brick infill walls, which ranged between 100 mm and 150 mm inthickness, were not designed to carry lateral or gravity loads. Light steel sections were welded to
the window frames at each story level on the facade. These steel sections were not part of thegravity- or lateral-load-resisting system.

A- 1

A.3

1967 Akyazi Earthquake: Damage and Bung Retrofit

The damage observed after the 1967 M7.1 Akyazi earthquake was concentrated in theshear walls (Figure A-2) and columns in the lower stories. As shown in Figure A-3a, no ties wereobserved in one column (Grid A-1 in Figure A-1). In this figure "Etriye yok" translates as "Notie." Figure A3b shows shear failure in a column; this column was located at Grid T4 in thebasement. Damage to stairwells, slabs, and beams was also reported at several floors. Large
shear cracks were observed in many of the infill walls.
The 1967 retrofit program included repair and strengthening of damaged slabs, beams,
columns and shear walls, and the addition of new beams and shear walls. Columns weretypically retrofitted by the addition of transverse reinforcement and an increase in the column
size by 140 mm to 180 mm. New transverse perimeter shear walls were added on Grids 1 and 13,
and transverse interior shear walls were added on Grids 8, 9, and 10 to match existing walls on
Grids 4, 5, and 6. Short longitudinal walls were placed in the four corners of the building. Figure
A-4 shows the locations of the new reinforced concrete shear walls. ("B.A. perde" translates as"RC shear wall"). Existing perimeter longitudinal beams were retrofitted and new perimeterlongitudinal beams were added as indicated in Figure A-5. The new longitudinal walls are shown
hatched in this figure.
The fundamental periods of the building were calculated to be 1.38 and 1.08 sec in thelongitudinal and transverse directions, respectively (Anadol et al 1972). After the retrofit work
had been completed, the periods of the building were measured at 1.10 sec and 0.31 sec in thelongitudinal and transverse directions, respectively (Aytun 1972). A summary of the building
characteristics before and after retrofitting is given in Table A-1.

Table A-1 Characteristics of Adapazari City Hall (Anadol 1972)
Original building

Retrofitted building

Average soil pressure

7.20 ton/m2

7.92 ton/m2

Strength of the building
Fundamental period (x-dir)Fundamental period (y-dir)Total weight
Stiffness eccentricity

Stronger in the y direction
1.38 sec
1.08 sec
4370 tons
ex=17.7%,ey=14.2%

Almost equal in both directions
1.10 sec
0.31 sec
4732 tons
ex=0%,ey=1.1%

Estimated ductility
Lateral force coefficient

1.5-2.0
C=0.044
C=0.07A- 2

A.4

1999 Kocaeli Earthquake and Aftershock

The North Anatolian fault ruptured within 10 km of the City Hall and devastated many
reinforced concrete moment-frame buildings in the immediate vicinity of the City Hall, but thisretrofitted building sustained negligible structural damage. The nonstructural components andcontents suffered only modest damage. Because the City Hall was one of the few buildings in
downtown Adapazari that suffered little to no structural damage, it was used as an Emergency
Crisis Center to direct response and recovery after the earthquake. Figure A-6 presents two
photographs of the City Hall taken in mid-November 1999.
The solid line in Figure A-7 presents the 5% damped pseudo-acceleration response
spectrum prepared using the east-west ground acceleration history recorded a few kilometersfrom the City Hall during the August 17, 1999, earthquake. The zero-period acceleration for thisrecorded ground motion was 0.41g. The spectral acceleration at 1 sec, the approximate period of
the City Hall building, was 0.4g. Because the building sustained little to no structural damage,and assuming that the strength of the building was no greater than 15% of the weight (calculatedby doubling the allowable-stress-design lateral-force coefficient of 0.07), the intensity of shaking
at the site of the building was likely substantially less than that indicated by the solid line in the
figure. Parenthetically, the elastic spectral demands associated with the earthquake shaking in
Adapazari were large, and it is not surprising that many nonductile reinforced concrete moment
frame buildings in this city collapsed because the spectral demands greatly exceeded the lateralstrength of these buildings that likely did not exceed 5% to 10% of their weight.
On November 11, 1999, an aftershock of the August 17 earthquake produced substantial
shaking in Adapazari. The dashed line in Figure A-7 is the 5% damped pseudo-acceleration
response spectrum prepared using the east-west ground acceleration history recorded at the site
described in the previous paragraph. The zero-period acceleration for this motion was 0.35g.
Additional damage to structural and nonstructural components in the City Hall was reported.
The lack of damage to the structural frame of the City Hall building, and the almost
complete destruction of reinforced concrete moment-frame buildings around it clearly show thatreinforced concrete walls are an effective means of retrofitting older reinforced concrete
construction in Turkey. The strategic placement of new structural walls can reduce the plan andvertical irregularities of an existing building, thereby substantially improving its performance.
The addition of a modest number of structural walls to the original City Hall building more thandoubled the strength and substantially increased the stiffness of the building. The walls protected
the vulnerable nonductile columns and joints from the gross damage and collapse that wasobserved in adjacent buildings.

A.5

Summary Remarks

The excellent performance of the retrofitted Adapazari City Hall in the August 17, 1999,
main shock and the November 11, 1999, aftershock is, by comparison with the poor performanceof most reinforced concrete moment-frame buildings in the immediate vicinity of the City Hall, aclear endorsement for retrofitting using reinforced concrete shear walls. The introduction of amodest number of strategically placed ductile structural walls into an existing nonductile
reinforced concrete moment-frame building will protect the vulnerable nonductile components

A- 3and substantially improve the performance of the building. Such conventional methods ofretrofitting are the most promising and cost effective means of reducing the vulnerability of thelarge inventory of nonductile moment-frame buildings in Turkey.

Figure A-1 Typical plan and elevation of the original building (Anadol et al. 1972)

A- 4

Figure A-2 Building damage after the 1967 Akyazi earthquake

Figure A-3 Damage in the original building columns in the 1967 Akyazi earthquake

A- 5

Figure A-4 Typical floor plan after retrofit showing the location of new shear walls (Anadol
et al. 1972)

Figure A-5 Front elevation after the retrofit in 1968 (Anadol et al. 1972)

A- 6

a. back view (V and 1 axes on plan, Fig. A-1)

b. front view (A and 13 axes on plan, Fig. A-1)
Figure A-6 City Hall after the November 12, 1999, Duzce earthquake

A- 7

Figure A-7 Acceleration spectra for the August 17, 1999, Izmit main shock; the November
11, 1999, Izmit aftershock; and the November 12, 1999, Duzce main shockA- 8

References
ACI. 1999. Building code requirements for structural concrete. ACI 318-99. Farmington Hills,
Mich.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1997. Guidelines for seismic evaluation and design ofpetrochemical facilities. Reston, Va.: ASCE.
Anadol, K., U. Arioglu, and E. Arioglu. 1972. The restoration and reinforcing project of the Sakarya
Municipal Building which was damaged during the 1967 Akyazi earthquake. In Symposium on
Earthquake Engineering and Earthquake Related Problems in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Scientificand Technical Research Council of Turkey, Middle East Technical University. (In Turkish).
FEMA. 1997. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA 273. Washington D.C.: [Federal Emergency Management Agency].
Applied Technology Council. 1995a. Structural response modification factors. Report ATC-19.
Redwood City, Calif.: Applied Technology Council.
Applied Technology Council. 1995b. A critical review of current approaches to earthquake resistantdesign. Report ATC-34. Redwood City, Calif.: Applied Technology Council.
Aytun, A. 1972. Experimental determination of natural vibration periods of structures. In Symposium
on Earthquake Engineering and Earthquake Related Problems in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Scientificand Technical Research Council of Turkey, Middle East Technical University. (In Turkish).
Bayulke, Nejat. 1992. Reedition history of seismic design code of Turkey. Bulletin of the International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 26: 413–29.
Danis, Husamettin. 1999. General Manager. Turkish Petroleum Refineries Corp., Tupras. Personalcommunication.
Duyguluer, M. F. 1997. The history of seismic design code of Turkey. Bulletin of the International
Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 31: 177–92.
Gulkan, P. 2000. Building code enforcement prospects: The failure of public policy. Earthquake
Spectra 16 (Supplement A): 351–67.
International Association for Earthquake Engineering. 1966. Earthquake resistant regulations: A
world list, pp. 307–18. Tokyo: Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-kai.

153

International Conference of Building Officials. 1997. Uniform Building Code, volume 2, Structural
engineering design provisions. Whittier, Calif.: ICBO.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. 1997. Specification for structures to be built in disasterareas, Part III—earthquake disaster prevention. [Istanbul]: Government of Republic of Turkey.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. 1995. Specification for structures to be built in disasterareas. [Istanbul]: Government of Republic of Turkey.
Moehle J. P., K. J. Elwood, and H. Sezen. October 2000. Gravity load collapse of building frames
during earthquakes. In ACI Special Publication Behavior and design of concrete structures forseismic performance. American Concrete Institute Fall 2000 Convention. Toronto: American
Concrete Institute.
Turkish Standards Institute. 1985. TS-500, building code requirements for reinforced concrete.
Ankara, Turkey.
Vision 2000. 1995. Performance based seismic engineering of buildings. Prepared by StructuralEngineers Association of California. Sacramento, Calif.: [SEAOC].