ELAZIG GUNISIGI NEWSPAPER – April 2011
LEGISLATION AND PRACTICES
Lately, we are often witnessing buildings collapsing even without a disaster. This is a concerning situation, which experts are emphasizing at every opportunity. The life-threatening aspect of this situation is, I believe, already sufficiently acknowledged.
Currently, there is no building inventory in any part of our country. We can only express approximate results. The building inventories in each province, as well as their current earthquake resistance, must be determined. This would be the first step. We are aware of the scale of the danger; at least 60% of the existing building stock in our country is seismically inadequate. Those who want evidence for this can refer to the 1992 Erzincan, 1999 Marmara, and 2003 Bingöl earthquakes. However, despite this, no permanent steps have been taken in this regard.
Every step to be taken regarding earthquakes, zoning, projects, and construction must be implemented in cooperation with relevant institutions and organizations, as it is of great importance for the future of our country. Today, a world-class earthquake regulation is in effect. Alongside this, the valuable work of professors in related departments in universities regarding projects and construction is well-documented in the literature. For all these rules to be effective, they must be applied in projects and construction. That brings the issue of inspection into focus.
In Turkey, the general construction inspection began with the building inspection law accepted on June 29, 2001, which was initially applied in only 19 provinces. Ten years later, this inspection was expanded nationwide. To explain the open points in the building inspection law would require a separate article. With significant gaps in the law, understanding how earthquake-resistant buildings will be produced in an earthquake-prone country becomes quite difficult. After a law is passed, it is hard to even follow the changes, as many clauses are added or removed. However, if laws and regulations were prepared with mutual consultations, we could develop works that are more suitable for our system and structure.
Previously, in a survey, I revealed that many municipalities in first-degree earthquake zones lack civil engineers. So, what about the buildings built until now? Who inspected them? Who monitored them? Have you checked how many civil engineers work in municipalities that issue over a thousand construction permits annually? How can such a large number of projects be properly monitored by just a few engineers, even if they work very hard? While there are limits on freelance civil engineers to prepare projects, why is there no limit on the engineers who perform inspections?
It is possible to multiply the questions, but frankly, finding reasonable answers is difficult. The issue does not end with building inspection alone. A great step was taken to inspect concrete quality: the "G CERTIFICATE." The G Certificate involved important inspections regarding the concrete’s ability to withstand earthquake forces, which was a major asset for the building. However, this law was relaxed, and in a short time, the certificate was issued to all concrete plants, whether deserving or not.
One might wonder which of our many problems to focus on. Should we focus on the existing building stock, which is waiting to collapse in an earthquake due to insufficient seismic resistance, or on the project and inspection deficiencies in newly built structures?
Dialogue should not be limited only to political crises. It should be used as a tool in every issue concerning our country.
The future belongs to those who have an understanding that even inspects the inspector.