Re: New Earthquake Regulation 2016 - 2017 - 2018 TOLGA BEY GREETINGS, I have read your article at length. Some issues may be misunderstood. there may be some again, I apologize in advance for that... 1-thank you for the link you gave. I personally attended the new steel regulation trainings of Mr. Cem Topkaya twice. I had attended another seminar before him. I had the opportunity to review the regulation once completely and several times through the training notes of the ide structure. As you know, this regulation is nothing new. It is the Turkish translation version of the American regulation. Thank you to those who contributed. but what I object to is that it is presented as something new. When I attended the first regulation presentation in Ankara, the presenters brought up the event with claims such as "it will not be the same as before", "it is no longer possible to design a structure with one model", "linear analysis is going to waste" Later, American software fans also put forward the thesis that "domestic software is going to waste" with a bigger claim... 2-ts648 is not a regulation but a standard. the aforementioned "REGULATION ON DESIGN, ACCOUNT AND CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES OF STEEL STRUCTURES" is a regulation on its name. The approach that this one repeals/will repeal the other cannot go beyond a claim. While ts648 was in effect, our friends (and me too) using external software were using asd 89. The administrations accepted this as well. In this respect, there was no one who adopted the ts648 and said, "May it stay". there was no one who used it. 3-regulation, law, constitution...everything changes depending on the development of human knowledge. As they say, "the only thing that does not change is change itself". exactly. and even as the years pass, not only the speed but also the acceleration of the change increases. this is inevitable. I'm not against it. The issue I criticize (specifically the earthquake regulation), what kind of error/missing/defect did the 2007 earthquake regulation contain. Is there an article, a study, a research on a destroyed building? Is there any indication that the defect is caused by regulation? Has this been shared with the community? Has an agreement been reached? I'm saying this. Look, the production of projects contrary to the 2007 earthquake regulations still continues. In other words, our engineer brothers cannot understand the regulation. or doesn't take the time to understand or rely on software. In particular, can the administrations test what percentage of the 2007 earthquake regulation was applied in the project calculations made with foreign software? I say that when the regulation is newly dated, everything will not work out. The main point is our mind, our understanding, our sense of responsibility. The regulation offers minimum conditions to people, but the sense of responsibility for work is a separate issue. I wanted to draw attention to this. 3-The new steel regulation refers to the new earthquake regulation at many points. From this point of view, it needs to be understood/implemented/applied together. but one has been published in the official gazette and the other is not yet. even this is currently a deficiency in the implementation of the steel regulation. 4-The new steel regulation is limited only to building type steel structure systems and systems containing similar columns/beams/cross members. and systems with a wall thickness of less than 2.5 mm pipe/box elements and structures containing other steel profiles with a thickness of less than 4 mm. For example, systems containing cold bending profile (CF) carrier system element in GES systems are also not within the scope of this regulation. For example, a silo design cannot be made. For example, an antenna tower, a wind turbine, a high-voltage line carrier… cannot be built. so our work is still unfinished... 5- The new steel regulation article 1.2 says: "... the sources given in annex-4 for the design rules not included in these principles or the relevant Turkish standard, and OTHER STANDARD, REGULATION WITH ACCEPTED INTERNATIONAL VALIDITY... ...can be used. When I say nobody looks at this regulation, I mean this. 6-ide structure has taken great steps with great efforts in the last few years. I agree with this. I follow it closely. I congratulate it...as per my belief in this, I have both only reinforced concrete and steel+reinforced concrete version 8 out of the 8 version, and the old version 7.
7-Excuse me, I read your article several times. Your good intentions and feelings of protecting the profession are clearly seen between the sentences. "regulation" several times in your article Instead of using the word "law", I wanted to let you know that this is a mistake, and I beg your pardon.
It also brings with it a lot of errors. for this, problem definitions/solutions containing basic information should be the goal of engineers with the simplest explanations. this is my opinion. I mean, a regulation cannot boast of many pages. If it falls into repetition, it makes people tired. I have been struggling to understand the new earthquake regulation since the beginning of 2017. I find the language of explanation wrong. The writing technique that constantly refers to another article is tiring for me. explanations for exception provisions, etc.... tiring, very tiring.. 9-new steel regulation and new earthquake regulation may be beneficial to our nation. It's a great effort to write/make/translate it. But the real problem lies before us. We will read first. we will understand later. Then we will test if we understood correctly. If we misunderstood, we will try again... software/software needs to examine more carefully, administrations need to be far ahead of us. 10- I hope that I can explain my purpose. 11-Congratulations on your new year. greetings, respect, respect. By the way, I can't help but remember our brother ismail right five for all his good efforts...
German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish