ELAZIG GUNISIGI NEWSPAPER - September 2010
EARTHQUAKE REGULATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS
Earthquakes have never been forgotten on our country’s soil, and as seen in recent history, they have caused significant loss of life and property. The severe damage to buildings, especially after earthquakes, has raised certain questions. One of the main concerns has been about how up-to-date the earthquake regulations used in the design of buildings are. As a result, after every devastating earthquake, regulations have been revised, and the rules for structural design and reinforced concrete have been made safer.
Since the establishment of the Republic, nine earthquake regulations have been published. Examining these regulations sheds light on many aspects.
- 1940 - Italian Building Regulations for Seismic Zones
- 1944 - Temporary Building Regulations for Seismic Zones
- 1949 - Turkish Earthquake Zone Building Regulations
- 1953 - Earthquake Zone Building Regulations
- 1962 - Earthquake Zone Building Regulations (EBBYHY)
- 1968 - Earthquake Zone Building Regulations (EBBYHY)
- 1975 - Earthquake Zone Building Regulations (EBBYHY)
- 1998 - Earthquake Zone Building Regulations (EBBYHY)
- 2007 - Earthquake Regulations
The 1940 and 1944 regulations are essentially translations and contain general rules related to construction but lack detailed calculations. This is partly due to the types of buildings constructed at the time. Until the 1970s, most buildings were made of masonry load-bearing systems, so design rules were prioritized over calculations.
With the 1949 regulations, earthquake calculations became mandatory for buildings, and the methodology for such calculations was outlined. Over time, these regulations have evolved, and developments in calculation methods have been closely followed. Particularly with the regulations published after 1968, the provisions for earthquake-resistant building design were fully sufficient. However, when examining the projects of older buildings, it becomes clear that either earthquake calculations were not included or if they were, they did not belong to the specific building. Municipal archives are open to anyone who wants to investigate this issue.
Although the regulations themselves are sufficient, the lack of proper attention to earthquake safety by both the designers and the supervisory authorities has been a significant issue. A key piece of evidence that regulations were not applied is the absence of earthquake calculations in building projects.
Reinforced concrete shear walls are crucial in an earthquake, acting as the protectors of a building. Even though these elements were mentioned in the 1968 regulations, their implementation only began in the 2000s. Similarly, rules regarding columns and beams are consistent with the current regulations, and are detailed with tables and figures.
If, in a country like ours where thousands of lives are lost and buildings sustain unexpected, severe damage in earthquakes, two possibilities arise: either the regulations or their implementation is inadequate. From what we have observed, buildings that were designed and constructed according to regulations should have sustained less damage in past earthquakes. Therefore, it is the implementation and oversight that need to be revisited.
As you can see, no matter how good and sufficient the rules and laws are, their benefits can only be realized when they are properly implemented. And implementation is only possible through supervision. It would not be an exaggeration to say that building inspections will play a crucial role in the future of a country, especially one located in an earthquake-prone zone like ours.
Identifying the problems correctly is a crucial part of the solution. In the coming days, we will continue to follow developments related to building inspections together. The expansion of building inspections from 19 pilot provinces to the entire country has been a delayed but very important step. We hope that changes to the building inspection law will be made without further delay.