Bina yapımında denetim ve sigortanın sorumluluk araçları olarak kullanılması
Başlık çevirisi mevcut değil.
- Tez No: 75574
- Danışmanlar: PROF. DR. ŞULE ÖZÜEKRAN
- Tez Türü: Yüksek Lisans
- Konular: Mimarlık, Architecture
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
- Yıl: 1998
- Dil: Türkçe
- Üniversite: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi
- Enstitü: Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
- Ana Bilim Dalı: Mimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı
- Bilim Dalı: Bina Yapım Yönetimi Bilim Dalı
- Sayfa Sayısı: 112
Özet
İnşaat sektöründe sorumluluk araçları olarak denetim ve sigortanın çeşitli ülkelerde yorumlanış biçimlerinin araştırıldığı bu çalışmada, literatür araştırması yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Sorun, Türkiye'de bina kalitesindeki olumsuzlukların, bazı ülkelere göre daha fazla olmasıdır. Çeşitli ülkelerde kalitenin denetim, sorumluluk ve sigorta ile sağlandığı bu literatür araştırması ile saptanmıştır. Soruna getirilecek öneri ve çözümlere ışık tutması amacıyla, bu ülkelerde denetim araçları olarak sorumluluk ve yapı sigortası kullanımının, çeşitli ülkelerdeki farklı yorumlanış biçimleri incelenmiştir. Türkiye'de bu soruna çözüm getirmek üzere son on sene içinde çeşitli çalışmalar yapılmış, İntes tarafından hazırlanıp soruna çözüm olabileceği düşünülen bir yasa tasarısı Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı Afet İşlerine sunulmuştur. Öneri halen görüşme programı kapsamındadır. Bayındırlık Bakanlığı da Mayıs 1998 itibariyle yeni bir taslak hazırlamıştır. Yapı kalitesinde denetim ve sorumluluk yoluyla daha olumlu düzeyde olan çeşitli ülkelerde de Türkiye'deki çözüm geliştirme aramalarına paralellik gösteren arayışlar vardır. Bu arayışlarda Avrupa Topluluğu (EC) kapsamında Avrupa ülkeleri konseyi de çalışmalar yürütmektedir, Çalışmanın 1. Bölümünde amaç, sınırlamalar ve yöntem belirtilmiştir. Literatür araştırması yöntemiyle çalışma yürütülmüştür. Dünyada bina sektöründe oluşturulmuş olan sistemler, hasarlar oluşmadan önlemek ve oluştuktan sonra gidermek amacıyla geliştirilmiştir. Hasarlar ihmal, hata ve kusurlardan oluşan, zaman içinde gelişebilen performans sapmalarıdır. Bu sapmaların giderilmesi için geliştirilmiş sistemlerde sorumlular ve araçlar da mevcuttur. Bölüm 2 'de hasar, ortaya çıkış nedenleri, tespitindeki araç ve taraflar incelenmiştir. Müşteri ve üreticiler, bu anlamda sorumluluk taşımaktadır. Bu üreticiler içinde ana yüklenici, en ağır sorumluluk taşıyan taraftır. Bölüm 3'te hasarların oluşmadan önlenmesi ve oluştuktan sonra giderilmesi için farklı ülkelerde geliştirilmiş sistemlerde taraflar ve araçlar incelenmiştir. Hasar giderme sistemlerinde araçlar olarak kullanılan ürün sigortası ile sorumluluk ve mesleki tazminat sigortası yurt dışında sıklıkla kullanım alanı bulmaktadır. Sigortanın araç olarak kullanılmasıyla yüksek maliyetli binaların hasar riski dağıtılmaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuç ve tartışma kısmında Türkiye'deki mevcut durum, hasar nedenleri açısından detaylı olarak incelenmiş ve öneriler geliştirilmiştir.
Özet (Çeviri)
In this paper which is about the application of supervision and insurance as means of liability in the construction sector, the work is carried out by searching through literature written all over the world about this specific subject. Though property insurance, liability and professional indemnity insurance, which are the main topics of insurance covered in this research, are widely used, the concept of liability is also widely used in many countries. Supervision, that is technical control, and insurance are means of liability of products and producers, and liability is used to increase and find an optimum level of building quality. The matter of low building quality is growing into a problem in Turkey and some work intending to prevent this situation has been carried out in the past ten years. There are two suggestions of statute law about the supervision of buildings and they are in the program of the Ministry of Public Works (see appendix at the end). Many countries other than Turkey, use the concept of liability in supporting the building quality. While this study was carried out, it was concluded that some countries have similar ways of application of liability. It was found out that countries from the same origin, or sharing the same language, or once upon a time shared their same history, act similarly towards the subject. A building is not a cheap product. It is one of the most expensive goods the consumer has to pay for. When the consumer pays a high price, he wants to get high quality for it. If the building is well supervised during the construction it will obviously be of high quality. This supervision is mainly based on the entire concept of liability. Liability seems to be the only way to prevent damage. There are two ways of damage becoming apparent in buildings. The first is error and omission, the second is defects. Failure and damage are two words that are strictly linked to oneanother. Failure in thr performance of the building is a large concept that involves every kind of error and defect. The building is for the use of the client of course, and then the successive owner, if any. The client is the natural or the legal person for whom the building is built. Insome countries, the successive owners are within the concept of clients, and in some, they are not. The producer has a wider definition. The term builder is sometimes used for the producer. Producers can be divided in two main categories, those who have entered into a contractual relationship with the client and those who have not, but nevertheless owe the client a duty and are therefore producers. In most, but not all, countries any part commissioned by the client is, of course, liable to him during a specified period after the delivery of the completed works. When producers, voluntarily or not, do their job erroneously or omit to do something which they ought to have done, they commit errors and omissions. Such actions, or omission of actions will normally lead to a defect in the building as transferred to the client in the delivery, and a defect may lead to a damage. A defect does not develop with time but either is or is not present, though it may be unnoticed. Damage, on the other hand develops with time. Damage can become apparent at any level of the production. Even on behalf of strict supervision, some defects may not be seen and become damages. Errors and omissions also lead to damages. This situation has many reasons, which are mostly based on the main contractor. Other producers, like the architect, the design engineers, consultants, material suppliers and though rare, clients, may not be involved. Small everyday problems, like the unexpected drying out of wood, or a slight crack on the outer surface of concrete are outside the concept of liability. The contract, at this point, draws the borderline. In Turkey and in many other countries, contracts between the client and the main contractor are the most strict ones, They enable the client or the contractor to sue each other without reason. This kind of contract is usually written and so it is quite easy to point the liable person. There may be contracts between the client and the material suppliers or the sub contractors and sometimes, there may be not. In all situations sub-contractors and material suppliers are carry liability towards the main contractor. In many countries with a proper liability system the client has contracts with all these parties. Whatever the nature of the duty of the producer is there are certain means of exculpation of the producer which seem to be quite fair. The most important one of these is Act of God. It is established that the damage is caused by an external, irresistible, unforeseeable event which has made correct execution of the works impossible, then a producer cannot be held responsible. There are at least three trends which point towards a rise in the occurance of building failures. Firstly, as the general standard of living increases, so do the public's expectations as to the quality of goods and services. This undoubtedly has an impact on people's demands on those who produce the goods and services which provide the basis for their living standard. Building, is of course, an essantial part of that basis. The public, whether as consumers of dwellings or as users of and investors in private and public building projects feel entitled to complain about low quality in their builtenvironment. This trend is probably independent of whether the public's complaints about shortcomings are justified or not. Secondly and further to this subjective trend, another reason for the increase in risk is that the legal dividing line between justified and unjustified complaints is moving. Whether the line moves smoothly or in jumps the general trend is towards giving the public increased legal rights in their dealings with those who produce their buildings. New insurance arrangements are put on the market to protect- at a cost- the client and the investor. Thirdly there are numereous reasons for an increased risk because of new building technologies. The new technologies often introduce new risks, so do the clients' demands on the fast completion of the works, because of the interest on capital outlay. For Turkey and still for many other countries, the problem is based on the moral structure of the community. The French Government's terms of referance for the study, which led to the current liability and insurance system, the so-called Spinetta reform, expressly stated that 'in more than one country there is an evident need for raising the moral standards of the building industry1. There are many other countries that have built liability and insurance systems of their own. Turkey is a country where liability and building insurance in construction is not widely used, but who carries within herself a high constructional investment capacity. The need for buildings, especially residential ones is higher than many other countries. This problem has many reasons, one of which is population growth. Proposal trial methods are being carried out, and social residences seem to be a proper way of feeding this need for buildings. Still, because of this need, there is a large number of contractors who are not professionals, uneducated workers and anti- standardised material suppliers working in the construction sector. The risk of contractors is also high in Turkey, but the building quality is not the only standard of the income of producers. Even though the building quality is not high, the contractor produces such a building at a low cost and so he can sell it at a 'cheap price' and he can 'gain money1. The low workmanship level, therefore, and low quality are not automatically eliminated. In Turkey the building costs are high and therefore the risk for contractors, if they have to pay for their omissions or mistakes, is quite high. The insurance sector earns an important amount of money from the construction sector in many other countries. In Turkey however, the situation is quite different. Because the costs are high the risk for the contractor, and therefore for the insurer is also high. The premiums have to be very high to compensate the risk. Since building insurance is not obligatory, no contractor wants to 4>ay high premiums. He does not have to pay for his omission or mistake that becomes apparent in latter times, so he does not care if a defect grows into a damage.The premiums can be lessened in fact. However this can take place only if a proper system is organised. If product insurance becomes obligatory, every contractor will have to pay for the premiums. In some time contractors with no omissions or mistakes that grow into latent defects will be able to pay less for the premiums. The contractors who do not work at a certain level of quality will have to pay more and eventually be eliminated from the sector. This is a subject that has to be worked on and to do this, much more detailed researces have to be carried out. A detailed work has, in fact, been carried out while prepairing this research. Many number of countries have been searched through in order to understand and, to critisize, in a way, their systems. It is comprehanded at first sight that France has the most restored and revolutionised system among the other countries. This system is used over again in the countries that speak French. Belgium, for instance, uses almost the same system but only by going over the parts that do not fit her civil life. The reason for French getting the best results in preventing damage with the system she developed herself is that, the French government has given the highest activation and has spent the highest amount of time over the subject. Great Britain, Wales and Northern Ireland share the same system to lessen and prevent defect to grow into damage. There is the National Housing Building Council - NHBC- in England and it serves as a council prerairing standards and norms to build proper buildings. NHBC covers about ninetyfive percent of all the buildings in Great Britain, Wales and Northern Ireland. When clients feel the need to buy new homes for themselves, the banks and financial communities expect these houses to be within the concept of NHBC. While accepting houses, NHBC checks their standards. The houses that are accepted by the National Housing Building Council become under guarantee for thirty five years. Germany has a system of its own. Only Austria share Tier damage preventing system, but only to a small extent. Germany has strict rules to supervise the builders. The system of Germany cares less for insurance. She aims to prevent damage before it even appears. Having building police is a hard but a good way to supervise work carried out by builders. The systems prepared to prevent building damage can be summarized that they have grown depending on languages. English, French and German are three main languages that are widely used. There are obviously countries speaking these languages but not sharing the same system. Countries like United States, Holland and Australia have their own systems. This study is a step in ascertaining properly working applications. There is still much more to be found out. In this study, application of supervision and insurance as means of liability to get high building quality is investigated. The limits of the study, however, are not wide enough to bring out a complete proposal of law for Turkey.
Benzer Tezler
- Yüksek binaların yapım kriterleri ve bu kriterlerin İstanbul'dan dört örnek üzerinde analiz
Başlık çevirisi yok
SAADET AYTIS
Doktora
Türkçe
1997
MimarlıkMimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar ÜniversitesiYapı Bilgisi Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. GÜNDÜZ GÖKÇE
- Tuğla üretiminde risk değerlendirmesi uygulaması
Application of risk assessment in brick production
YUNUS EMRE KARSLIOĞLU
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2022
İnşaat MühendisliğiKastamonu Üniversitesiİş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. HASBİ YAPRAK
- Türkiye'de elektronik dönüşüm sürecinin vergi uygulamaları açısından değerlendirilmesi
Evaluation of the electronic transformation process in Turkey in terms of tax applications
MERT SÖKMEN
- Bileşik yıkıntısız beton deneyleri ile beton mukavemetinin belirlenmesi ve betonarme bir yapıda uygulanması
Başlık çevirisi yok
İSA YÜKSEL
- Türkiye'deki konut projeleri için BIM tabanlı otomatik bina yönetmelik uygunluk kontrol modeli: BIMTRAC3
A BIM based automated code compliance checking model for residential projects in Turkey: BIMTRAC3
MURAT AYDIN