Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 307–330

Earthquake performance assessment and rehabilitation of two historical unreinforced masonry buildings

Original Research Paper


The paper describes the earthquake performance assessment of two historical buildings located in Istanbul exposed to a Mw = 7+ earthquake expected to hit the city and proposes solutions for their structural rehabilitation and/or strengthening. Both buildings are unreinforced clay brick masonry (URM) structures built in 1869 and 1885, respectively. The first building is a rectangular-shaped structure rising on four floors. The second one is L-shaped with one basement and three normal floors above ground. They survived the 1894, Ms = 7.0 Istanbul Earthquake, during which widespread damage to URM buildings took place in the city. Earthquake ground motion to be used in performance assessment and retrofit design is determined through probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard assessment. Strength characteristics of the brick walls are assessed on the basis of Schmidt hammer test results and information reported in the literature. Dynamic properties of the buildings (fundamental vibration periods) are measured via ambient vibration tests. The buildings are modelled and analyzed as three-dimensional assembly of finite elements. Following the preliminary assessment based on the equivalent earthquake loads method, the dynamic analysis procedure of FEMA 356 (Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 2000) and ASCE/SEI 41-06 (Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 2007) is followed to obtain dynamic structural response of the buildings and to evaluate their earthquake performance. In order to improve earthquake resistance of the buildings, reinforced cement jacketing of the main load carrying walls and application of fiber reinforced polymer bands to the secondary walls are proposed.


Unreinforced masonry Historical building Earthquake performance assessment Strengthening 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ambraseys NN, Finkel CF (1991) Long-term seismicity of Istanbul and of the Marmara sea region. Terra Nova 3: 527–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE/SEI 41-06: (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  3. Erdik M, Demircioğlu MB, Şeşetyan K, Durukal E, Siyahi B (2004) Assessment of probabilistic earthquake hazard in the Marmara region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24: 605–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eurocode 6 (1996) Design of masonry structures–Part 1-1: general rules for buildings: rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  5. Eurocode 8 (1998) Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, Part 1–4: General rules: strengthening and repair of buildings. ENV 1998-1-4 European committee for standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. FEDRA v.05/05: (1997) Finite element analysis program for masonry buildings according to Eurocode 6. RUNET software & expert systems, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  7. FEMA 303, NEHRP: (1997) Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. FEMA 356: (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), RestonGoogle Scholar
  9. IBC: (2006) International building code. International Code Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. LabView 8 (2007) National InstrumentsGoogle Scholar
  11. NAVFAC (1992) Masonry structural design for buildings, Technical Manual No. 5-809-3, Navy manual, NAVFAC DM-2.9, Air force manual No. 88-3, Chapter 3, Departments of the Army, the Navy and the Air ForceGoogle Scholar
  12. SAP: (2000) Static and dynamic finite element analysis of structures, advanced v11. Computers and Structures Inc., CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. Specification for buildings to be built in seismic zones (2007) Ministry of public works and settlement. Government of Republic of TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  14. Tassios TP, Mamillan M (1994) Valutatzione strutturale dei monumenti antichi, ASSIRCO (Associazione italiana ristrutturazione e consolidamento costruzioni). Edizioni Kappa, RomaGoogle Scholar
  15. UNIDO/UNDP (1983) Construction under seismic condition in the Balkan region. vol. 5: Repair and Strengthening of reinforced concrete, stone and brick masonry buildings, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  16. UNIDO/UNDP (1984) Construction under seismic condition in the Balkan region. vol. 6: repair and Strengthening of cultural monuments, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  17. Tomazevic M, Lutman M, Weiss P (1993) The seismic resistance of historical urban buildings and the interventions in their floor systems: an experimental study. Mason Soc J 12(1): 1993Google Scholar
  18. Tomazevic M, Lutman M, Weiss P (1996) Seismic upgrading of old brick masonry urban houses: Tying of walls with steel ties. Earthq Spectra 12(3)Google Scholar
  19. Tomazevic M (1999) Earthquake resistant design of masonry buildings. Imperial College Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI)Boğaziçi University, ÇengelköyIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA), Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC)Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (EC-JRC)IspraItaly

Personalised recommendations