Planda çıkıntı düzensizliğine sahip betonarme yapıların TBDY 2018 ve DBTBHY 2007 'ye göre davranışının incelenmesi
Study of behavior of concrete buildings with A3 regulatory according to TBDY  2018 and DBTBHY 2007
Yazar: AHMET ŞAHİN ÖZGÖREN
Danışman: PROF. DR. TÜLAY AKSU ÖZKUL
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / İnşaat Mühendisliği Ana Bilim Dalı / Yapı Mühendisliği Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 2019
Konu: İnşaat Mühendisliği = Civil Engineering

Özet:
Konusu A-3 Planda Çıkıntı Düzensizliği'ne sahip binaların TBDY2018 ve DBYBHY 2007'ye göre deprem hesabı yapılmış ve davranışı karşılaştırılmıştır. Model olarak kalıp planları aynı fakat perde yerleşimleri farklı üç ayrı bina kullanılmıştır. Taşıyıcı sistemler sünek çerçeve ve perdelerden oluşan plak döşemeli betonarme yapılardır. Analiz sonucunda elde edilen periyotlar,kütle katılım oranları ve taban kesme kuvvetleri karşılaştırılmıştır. 
Tezin devamında TBDY2018'ye göre planda ve düşeyde düzensizlik kontrolleri yapılmıştır. Döşemelerden perdelere deprem kuvvetlerinin güvenle aktarılması için gerekli kontroller yapılmıştır. Deprem perdelerinin betonarme hesapları ve kesme güvenliği kontrolleri gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Son olarak ise TBDY2018'ye göre döşemelerde rijit diyafram kabulü yapılıp yapılmaması durumunda her üç model için periyotlar, taban kesme kuvvetleri ve perdelerin karşıladığı taban kesme kuvvetleri oranları karşılaştırılarak rijit diyafram kabulünün A-3 düzensizliği bulunan bir yapıdaki etkileri gözlenmiştir.
Tez çalışması aşağıdaki bölümlerden oluşmaktadır:
Birinci bölümde, çalışma konusunun tanıtılması, çalışmanın amacı ve kapsamı, daha önce yapılan çalışmalar hakkında bilgiler yer almaktadır.
Çalışmanın ikinci bölümünde, deprem yönetmeliğinde tanımlanan  düzensizlik durumları hakkında genel bilgi verilmiştir.
Üçüncü bölümde, bina sistemlerinin deprem yükünün hesabı için yönetmelikte verilen deprem yükü hesap yöntemleri incelenmiş ve bu yöntemler hakkında bilgi verilmiştir.
Sayısal örneklerin olduğu dördüncü bölümde ise aynı kalıp planlarına sahip fakat farklı perde yerleşimine sahip 3 ayrı model için TBDY2018 ve DBYBHY 2007'ye göre deprem hesabı yapılmış ve davranışı karşılaştırılmıştır. Tezin devamında TBDY2018'ye göre planda ve düşeyde düzensizlik kontrolleri yapılmıştır. Döşemelerden perdelere deprem kuvvetlerinin güvenle aktarılması için gerekli kontroller yapılmıştır. Deprem perdelerinin betonarme hesapları ve kesme güvenliği kontrolleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Son olarak ise TBDY2018'ye göre döşemelerde rijit diyafram kabulü yapılıp yapılmaması durumunda her üç model için periyotlar, taban kesme kuvvetleri ve perdelerin karşıladığı taban kesme kuvvetleri oranları karşılaştırılarak rijit diyafram kabulünün A-3 düzensizliği bulunan bir yapıdaki etkileri gözlenmiştir.
Beşinci bölümde ise sayısal örneklerde elde edilen sonuçlar verilmiş ve bu sonuçlar yorumlanmıştır.
TBDY 2018'de boyutsuz harita spektral katsayıları Gölcük ilçesinin koordinatlarına bağlı olarak  belirlenmiştir. DBYBHY 2007'ye göre aynı deprem bölgesinde bulunan iki ayrı yerleşim yeri için TBDY 2018'e  göre farklı yatay elastik tasarım spektrumu belirleneceği gözükmektedir. DBYBHY 2017'de bulunan deprem bölgeleri sınıflandırmasının tamamen kaldırıldığı gözükmektedir. TBDY 2018'e  göre analiz yapılırken DBYBHY 2007'ye göre farklı olarak çatlamış kesitler kullanılmıştır. Çatlamış kesitlerin kullanılması binanın periyotlarının artmasına sebep olmuştur. Periyotların artması gelen taban kesme kuvvetlerini azaltma yönünde etkisi olmuştur.Her iki yönetmeliğe göre elde edilen elastik tasarım spektrumu değerleri karşılaştırıldığında TBDY 2018'e  göre elde edilen değerlerin daha fazla olduğu gözükmüştür. Taşıyıcı sistem davranış katsayısının kontrolünde TBDY 2018'e  göre perdelere gelen devrilme momenti ile binanın taplam devrilme momenti karşılaştırılırken  DBYBHY 2007'ye göre perdelere gelen taban kesme kuvveti ile binanın toplam taban kesme kuvveti karşılaştırılmaktadır.

Abstract:
The subject of the thesis The earthquake calculation and the behavior of the buildings which have A3 irregularity according to TBDY2018 and DBYBHY 2007 were compared. The results obtained from the analysis, mass participation rates and base cutting forces were compared.
According to TBDY2018, the plan and vertical irregularity was checked. The necessary controls have been made to transfer earthquake forces safely from floors to walls. Reinforced concrete calculations and shear safety controls of earthquake walls were performed.
The thesis consists of the following sections:
In the first chapter, Introduction to the study, purpose and scope of the study, information about previous studies.
In the second part, General information about the irregularities defined in the earthquake regulation is given.
In the third chapter, Information About Earthquake Calculation Methods.
In the fourth part, The earthquake calculation and the behavior of the buildings which have A3 irregularity according to TBDY2018 and DBYBHY 2007 were compared. The results obtained from the analysis, mass participation rates and base cutting forces were compared.
In the fifth chapter, the results obtained in the numerical examples are given and these results are interpreted.
Earthquake loads and design rules have an important place in the design and calculations of structural systems in our country. Finally, Turkey Earthquake Building Regulations 2018, The Regulation on Buildings to be Built in Earthquake Zones came into force in 2007. In building design, it is recommended to construct simple structures without irregularities in order to ensure the transfer of loads to the foundations in the shortest way. Otherwise, it is desirable to take into account the additional loads and thus the internal forces.
The general tendency in earthquake resistant structure design is to promote ductile carrier systems. In addition, the selection of a regular carrier system in horizontal and vertical sections and the attention to be paid to the joining areas of the elements are emphasized. In addition, stiffness to limit horizontal displacements in the structural system and thus, the reduction of damage to non-structural elements is another important consideration.
A3 - Planned irregularity of reinforced concrete 2 basement floor + 1 ground floor and 12 normal floors, the same layout of the plans, although the same layout of the earthquake wall different models will be analyzed and compared according to TBDY 2018 and DBYBHY 2007.
In TBDY 2018, dimensionless map spectral coefficients were determined based on the coordinates of Gölcük district. Spectral coefficients, horizontal elastic design spectrum will be determined by increasing local ground coefficients according to ZE soil class. It appears that the earthquake zones classification in DBYBHY 2007 has been completely abolished. When analyzing according to TBDY 2018, cracked sections will be used differently than DBYBHY 2007. Base shear forces, vibration periods, mass participation rates, horizontal elastic design spectrum values will be compared for each building as a result of analyzes according to TBDY 2018 and DBYBHY 2007.
Plan according to TBDY 2018, A1 torsional irregularity, A2 floor irregularity, A3 plane projection irregularity checks and vertical, B1 neighboring floors between the irregularities of strength, B2 neighboring between the floors stiffness irregularity, the continuity checks of the vertical members of the structural system will be made. The transfer of earthquake forces from slabs to wall will be controlled by calculations. If the transfer surface is not sufficient, beams will be used as transfer elements. Finally, concrete calculations and shear safety checks of earthquake shear walls will be carried out.
Design by Strength (DGT), one of the two main approaches for the design of building structure systems under earthquake impact reduced earthquake loads corresponding to the ductility capacity of the structure system defined for a specific performance goal envisaged in the approach.  Earthquake calculation of the structure system is made under reduced earthquake loads. Reduced  forces from this account, where necessary, considering the excess strength, strength demands are obtained by combining the other forces with internal forces. Element strength demands, the specified element is compared with the internal force capacities for the specified performance targets. The relative floor shifts obtained in the earthquake calculation are compared with the allowable limits. Resistance demands are below their capacity and relative floor shifts are below the allowable limits The design shown is complete. Otherwise, the element sections are changed and the calculation is repeated and the result is reached.
Equivalent earthquake load method is calculated separately in X and Y directions. In the calculations made here, the calculations are continued using the dominant natural period of the building for each direction. Calculation of base shear forces, effective ground acceleration coefficient, building importance coefficient, horizontal elastic spectrum coefficient, building mass, building natural vibration periods and carrier system behavior coefficient values are used. While the calculations are made, the masses of the rigid basement floors are not used and only the masses of the normal floors are calculated.
The results were compared according to TBDY 2018 and DBYBHY 2007 for three different models with the same A3 - irregular pattern plans and the location of the earthquake wall.
İzmit earthquake of 1999, also called Kocaeli earthquake or Gölcük earthquake, devastating earthquake that struck near the city of İzmit in northwestern Turkey on August 17, 1999. Thousands of people were killed, and large parts of a number of mid-sized towns and cities were destroyed.
The earthquake, which occurred on the northernmost strand of the North Anatolian fault system, struck just after 3:00 AM local time. Its epicentre was about 7 miles (11 km) southeast of İzmit. The initial shock lasted less than a minute and registered a magnitude of 7.4. It was followed by two moderate aftershocks on August 19, about 50 miles (80 km) west of the original epicentre. More than 17,000 people were killed and an estimated 500,000 left homeless as thousands of buildings—chief among them the Turkish navy headquarters in Gölcük and the Tüpraş oil refinery in İzmit—collapsed or were heavily damaged. High casualty figures were reported in the towns of Gölcük, Derince, Darıca, and Sakarya (Adapazarı). Farther west, in Istanbul, the earthquake caused hundreds of fatalities and widespread destruction.
The rescue and relief effort was spearheaded by the Turkish Red Crescent and the Turkish army, with many international aid agencies joining in. The immediate support offered by Greece led to a thaw in the often-contentious relationship between the two neighbouring countries. Because most of the casualties resulted from the collapse of residential buildings, there was a strong public outcry against private contractors, who were accused of poor workmanship and of using cheap, inadequate materials. Some contractors were criminally prosecuted, but very few were found guilty. Public opinion also condemned officials who had failed to enforce building codes regarding earthquake-resistant designs