Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Figure 5. Selected damage distributions for mid-rise RC apartment buildings.Table 1. Characteristics of sites shown in Figure 5SourceDist.to DamageGroundSitefault distribution Soils failure1: Hereke RMS 4 km Type I Stiff Unknown2: Yalova West RMS 4 km Type II Stiff Minor3: Izmit A RMS 7 km Type I Stiff None4: Izmit SE RMS 3 km Type II Stiff None5: Adapazari A RMS 8 km Type I Stiff Major6: Degirmendere RMS 1 km Type I Stiff Moderate7: Izmit B CAR 8 km? Type I Stiff None8: Gölcük Hill AIJ 2 km Type I Stiff None9: Gölcük Coast AIJ 1 km Type II Soft Minor10: Adapazari B EERI 4 km Type II Soft NoneSuperimposition might for example arise in a survey zone which has buildingsdamaged by both ground shaking and liquefaction. Even within the relatively smallzone of central Adapazari, two distinct types of damage were observed, either thosewith structural damage caused by ground shaking, or those on liquefied soil, whichsuffered foundation failures, manifested as settlement or tilting of the building, withlittle or no evidence of damage due to ground shaking in the form of cracks,deformation or partial or complete collapse. Although in many ways this is aplausible explanation for these damage distributions, there are a number of points thatdo not support it, namely:• Table 1 shows no clear relationship between the type of damage distributionsand the occurrence of extensive ground failure.• As noted previously, intensity scales used in damage surveys such as thesetend not to include liquefaction-related damage. Thus, by strict application ofsuch scales, a building that had suffered major tilting as a result of groundfailure, but otherwise remained undamaged structurally, should be classified402