SİSMİK TEHLİKE ANALİZ YÖNTEMLERİNİN ÜLKEMİZDEKİ BÜYÜK BETON BARAJLARIN TOPLAM RİSKİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Risk sınıflama sistemi, uygun sismik parametrelerinin seçiminde baraj güvenliği çalışanları için önemli bir rehber olarak değerlendirilmekte kritik baraj projelerinin güvenlik değerlendirmelerinde öncelik sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, baraj yapıları için toplam risk analizin genel bir değerlendirmesi yapılmış ve farklı sismik tehlike analizlerinin (deterministik ve olasılıksal), risk hesapları üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla ülkemizde yüksekliği 14,5 ile 186 m arasında değişen 14 adet beton baraj dikkate alınmıştır. Gerek deterministik gerekse olasılıksal esaslı değerlendirme sonucuna göre barajların %50sinin orta risk sınıfı içine girdiği, geri kalanının ise yüksek risk sınıfına sahip olduğu görülmüştür.

INFLUENCE OF ANALYSIS METHODS FOR SEISMIC HAZARD ON TOTAL RISK OF LARGE CONCRETE DAMS IN TURKEY

The risk classification system is an important guide for dam safety officials to select appropriate evaluation procedures and to assign priorities for seismic safety evaluations of the most critical dams. In this study, general evaluation of total risk analysis is performed and effect of different seismic hazard methods (deterministic and probabilistic) on risk calculations is investigated. For this purpose, fourteen concrete dams with a structural height ranging from 14.5 to 186 m are taken into consideration. Both deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard analyses show that 50 percent of dams have high-risk class and reminders have moderate-risk class.

PDF

___

1. Tosun, H., Zorluer, İ., Savaş, H., Taşkıran, Ö., Demirkol, H. ve Kar, A., Temel Sorunlarından Oluşan Baraj Göçmeleri, Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Geoteknik Yayınlar Serisi: 99/1, Eskişehir.
2. Wieland, M., Earthquake Safety of Existing Dams, First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 16p, 3-8 September, 2006.
3. Castro, G., Poulos, S.J. ve Leathers, F., Reexamination of Slide of Lower San Fernando Dam, J. Geotech. Eng., 111, 2, 10931107, 1985.
4. Jansen, R.B.(Ed.), Advanced Dam Engineering for Design, Construction and Rehabilitation, Van Noswtrand Reinhold, NewYork, 1988.
5. Tosun, H., Dolgu Baraj Depremselliği ve Tasarım Esasları, DSİ Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, 2002.
6. Wieland, M., Large Dams The First Structures Designed Systematically Against Earthquakes,The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 8p, October 12-17, 2008.
7. Seyrek, E., Orhan, A. ve Tosun, H., Ceyhan Havzası Baraj Yerleri Deterministik Sismik Tehlike Analizi, II. Ulusal Baraj Güvenliği Sempozyumu, Eskişehir, 575-582, 13-15 Mayıs, 2009.
8. Kramer, S.L., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1996.
9. Seyrek, E., Baraj Yeri Sismik Tehlike Analizlerinde Sayısal Çözümleme Modelleri ve Bir Uygulama, Doktora Tezi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2009.
10. McGuire, R.K., Deterministic vs. Probabilistic Earthquake Hazards and Risks, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21, 377-384, 2001.
11. Fat-Helbary, R. ve Tealb, A.A., A Study of Seismicity and Earthquake Hazard at the Proposed Kalabsha Dam Site, Natural Hazards, 25, 117-133, 2002.
12. Al-Homoud, A., Evaluation of Strong Motion Acceleration for Embankment Dam Design Considering Local Seismotectonics, Natural Hazards, 29, 37-56, 2003.
13. Tosun, H., Zorluer, İ., Orhan, A., Seyrek, E., Türköz, M. ve Savaş, H., Seismic Hazard and Total Risk Analyses for Large Dams in Euphrates Basin in Turkey, Engineering Geology, 89, 1-2, 155-170, 2007.
14. Tosun, H. ve Seyrek, E., Total Risk Analyses for Large Dams in Kizilirmak Basin, Turkey, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10, 979-987, 2010.
15. Seyrek, E. ve Tosun, H., 2011, Deterministic Approach to the Seismic Hazard of Dam Sites in Kizilirmak Basin, Turkey, Natural Hazards, 59, 787-800, 2011.
16. Fraser, W.A. ve Howard, J.K., Guidelines for use of the Consequence-Hazard Matrix and Selection of Ground Motion Parameters, Technical Publication, Depatment of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dam, 2002.
17. Idriss, I.M. ve Archuleta, R.J., Evaluation of Earthquake Ground Motions, Report for Divison of Dam Safety and Inspections Office Energy Regulatory Commission, 2007.
18. ICOLD, Selecting Seismic Parameters for Large Dams-Guidelines and Recommendations, ICOLD Committee on Seismic Aspects of Dams Design, Bulletin 72, 1989.
19. FEMA, Federal Guidelines for Dam SafetyEarthquake Analyses and Design of Dams, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2005.
20. Shrikhande, M. ve Basu, S. A Critique of the ICOLD Method for Selecting Earthquake Ground Motions to Design Large Dams, Engineering Geology, 80, 37-42, 2005.
21. Bureau, G.J. ve Ballentine, G.D., A Comprehensive Seismic Vulnerability and Loss Assessment of the State of South Carolina using HAZUS, Part VI. Dam Inventory and Vulnerability Assessment Methodology, 7th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA., July 21-25, 2002.
22. Bureau, G.J., Dams and Appurtenant Facilities in Earthquake Engineering Handbook (edited by Chenh, W.F and Scawthorn, C.), CRS press, Bora Raton, 2003.
23. Erdik, M., Doyuran, V., Gülkan, P. ve Akkaş, N., İstatistiksel Yaklaşımla Türkiyedeki Deprem Tehlikesinin Değerlendirilmesi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Deprem Araştırma Merkezi,Ankara, 1985.
24. Şaroğlu, F., Emre, O. ve Kusçu, I., Türkiye Diri Fay Haritası, MTA Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, 1992.
25. Erdik, M., Biro, Y.A., Onur, T., Sesetyan, K. and Birgoren, G., Assessment of Earthquake Hazard in Turkey and Neighboring Regions, Annali Di Geofisica, 42, 6, 1125-1138, 1999.
26. Kayabalı, K. ve Akın, M., Seismic Hazard Map of Turkey Using the Deterministic Approach, Engineering Geology, 69, 127-137, 2003.
27. Ulusay, R., Tuncay, E., Sönmez, H. ve Gökçeoğlu, C., An Attenuation Relationship Based on Turkish Strong Motion Data and IsoAcceleration Map of Turkey, Engineering Geology, 74, 265-291, 2004.
28. Reiter, L., Earthquake Hazard Analysis-Issues and Insights, Columbia University Pres, New York, 1990.
29. Wells, D.L. ve Coppersmith, K.J., New Empirical Relationships Among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 4, 974- 1002, 1994.
30. Mark, R.K., Application of Linear Statistical Models of Earthquake Magnitude Versus Fault Length in Estimating Maximum Expectable Earthquakes, Geology, 5, 464 466, 1977.
31. Gutenberg B. ve Richter, C.F., Frequency of Earthquakes in California, Bull. Seismol.Soc. Am., 34, 185-188, 1944.
32. Campbell, K.W., Near-Source Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration, Bulletin Seism. Soc. Am., 71, 6, 2039-2070, 1981.
33. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B. ve Fumal, T.E., Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report, U.S. Geol. Surv., Open-File Rept. 93-509, 1993.
34. Campbell, K.W. ve Bozorgnia, Y., Near-Source Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Worldwide Accelerograms Recorded from 1957 to 1993, Proc. Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, Illinois, 283-292, 1994.
35. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B. ve Fumal, T.E., Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work, Seis. Res. Let., 68, 128-153, 1997.
36. Gülkan, P. ve Kalkan, E., Attenuation Modeling of Recent Earthquakes in Turkey, Journal of Seismology, 6, 3, 397-409, 2002.
37. Kalkan, E. ve Gülkan, P., Site-Dependent Spectra Derived from Ground Motion Records in Turkey, Earthquake Spectra, 20, 4, 1111-1138, 2004.
38. Ambraseys, N.N., Douglas, J., Karma, S.K. ve Smit, P.M., Equations for the Estimation of Strong Ground Motions from Shallow Crustral Earthquakes Using Data from Europe and the Middle East: Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration and Spectral Acceleration, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 3, 1-53, 2005.