See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328318684

In-Plane Seismic Response Analyses of a Historical Brick Masonry Building

Using Equivalent Frame and 3D FEM Modeling Approaches

Article in International Journal of Architectural Heritage · October 2018

DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2018.1529208

CITATIONS READS

13 327

4 authors:

Kultigin Demirlioglu Semih Gonen

Oslo Metropolitan University Oslo Metropolitan University
6 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Serdar Soyoz Maria Pina Limongelli

Bogazici University Politecnico di Milano
42 PUBLICATIONS 466 CITATIONS 135 PUBLICATIONS 949 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

COST Action TU1402: Quantifying the Value of Structural Health Monitoring View project

Resilience of Cultural Heritage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Semih Gonen on 26 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Architectural Heritage
Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration

ISSN: 1558-3058 (Print) 1558-3066 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarc20

In-Plane Seismic Response Analyses of a Historical

Brick Masonry Building Using Equivalent Frame
and 3D FEM Modeling Approaches

Kultigin Demirlioglu, Semih Gonen, Serdar Soyoz & Maria Pina Limongelli

To cite this article: Kultigin Demirlioglu, Semih Gonen, Serdar Soyoz & Maria Pina Limongelli
(2020) In-Plane Seismic Response Analyses of a Historical Brick Masonry Building Using
Equivalent Frame and 3D FEM Modeling Approaches, International Journal of Architectural
Heritage, 14:2, 238-256, DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2018.1529208

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1529208

Published online: 16 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 106

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarc20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE
2020, VOL. 14, NO. 2, 238–256
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1529208

In-Plane Seismic Response Analyses of a Historical Brick Masonry Building Using

Equivalent Frame and 3D FEM Modeling Approaches
a b
Kultigin Demirlioglu , Semih Gonen , Serdar Soyozb, and Maria Pina Limongelli c

a
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul,
Turkey; cDepartment of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article aims at contributing to the seismic performance assessment of a historic brick masonry Received 9 May 2018
building by finding a strength reduction coefficient through the use of linear and nonlinear Accepted 24 September 2018
modeling approaches, using Finite Element Method and Equivalent Frame modeling. To reduce KEYWORDS
the uncertainties, ambient vibration tests (AVT) were implemented. Series of simulations was Ambient vibration survey;
performed using nonlinear dynamic analyses and incremental dynamic analysis curves were equivalent frame method;
compared with the pushover curves. Results indicate that the mass-proportional pushover curve Historical masonry;
meets the mean of results obtained from IDA and the strength reduction coefficient falls into the nonlinear dynamic analysis;
range given in EN 1998–1 for unreinforced masonry. pushover analysis; strength
reduction factor

1. Introduction irregularity based on horizontal, vertical, offset, and

irregularity in number of openings, and carried out a
Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings constitute a sig-
comparative study between EFM and FEM. Lourenco
nificant portion of the existing ordinary building stock and
(1996) carried out a comprehensive research to provide
cultural heritage structures. Having been built with tradi-
several tools for the analysis of URM structures in plane
tional methods and existing available materials in their
stress conditions. Magenes and Calvi (1997) investi-
vicinity, structural assessment of these structures comprises
gated developing a procedure for the assessment of
major difficulties such as lack of knowledge regarding the
strength, deformability, and energy dissipation capacity
existing material properties and structural features as well
of URM walls based on in-plane seismic response of
as lack of performance criteria for the evaluation. However,
brick masonry. D’Ayala and Speranza (2003) focused
these types of structures are vulnerable to natural hazards
on definition of collapse mechanisms and seismic vul-
such as earthquakes and their seismic performance should
nerability of historic masonry buildings. Salonikios
be evaluated. In order to reduce the uncertainties asso-
et al. (2003) studied URM plane frames for seismic
ciated with the evaluation and modeling of URM buildings,
capacity evaluation of existing masonry structures
various non-destructive testing methodologies maybe
according to FEMA guidelines. Betti, Galano, and
applied. In this context, one of the most efficient and
Vignoli (2015) investigated the seismic behavior of
novel approaches is system identification using ambient
URM buildings with flexible diaphragms by means of
vibrations and the use of modal parameters for updating
a comparison between two nonlinear modeling
the FEM models. Also, the simplified Equivalent Frame
approaches. Endo, Pela, and Roca (2017) presents a
Method (EFM) has been widely used for its practicality and
comparison of different nonlinear analyses methods
being less affected by the existent uncertainties.
applied to a masonry structure. Acito et al. (2014)
Existing literature comprises many examples of
carried out a comprehensive investigation on the causes
ambient vibration testing, seismic performance, and
at the base of the collapse of a clock tower in Finale
vulnerability assessment of masonry structures. Dolce
Emilia (Italy), and performed static linear and non-
(1991), Pasticier, Amadio, and Fragiacomo (2008),
linear analyses, and full nonlinear dynamic analyses in
Demirel (2010), and Lagomarsino et al. (2013) con-
order to provide detailed information for the recon-
ducted extensive nonlinear seismic performance assess-
struction. Cavalagli and Gusella (2015) executed the
ment of masonry buildings using EFM. Siano et al.
static and dynamic assessment of the dome of the
(2017) investigated the classification and measure of
Basilica of Santa Maria degli Angeli, using limit analysis

CONTACT Semih GONEN semih.gonen@boun.edu.tr Department of Civil Engineering, Boğaziçi University, 34342, Bebek/Istanbul, Turkey
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uarc.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis

and finite element model approaches with nonlinear
mechanical behavior. Clementi et al. (2017c) studied
the case study of Santa Maria della Carità Church and
examined how the relevant annex have an impact on
the seismic response of this historical complex and how
this kind of asymmetric mass may commonly affect the
behavior of historic churches. Quagliarini, Maracchini,
and Clementi (2017) proposed a critical review of the
Equivalent Frame Model (EFM) evaluating the advan-
tages and disadvantages of the method. Also, significant
contributions to large scale seismic vulnerability evalua-
tion of masonry building aggregates were made by
Formisano (2017a, 2017b) and Formisano et al.
(2015), utilizing the numerical calibration of a speedy
procedure which was applied to the historical center to
envisage the seismic response of masonry aggregates,
and investigating its effectiveness. Moreover, using 3D
FE modeling technique with the concepts of homoge-
nized material and smeared cracking, Valente and
Milani (2016) conducted comparative seismic analyses
of eight masonry existing towers with different geo-
metric features, and Clementi et al. (2017a) analyzed
the static behavior and the seismic vulnerability of the
“San Francesco ad Alto” building in Ancona (Italy).
Aras et al. (2011) investigated the modal properties of
a historical palace by ambient vibration survey and then
used them to tune the FE model of the structure.
Similarly, Clementi et al. (2017b) obtained the modal
data of the historical palace damaged by an earthquake
using OMA and then tuned their FE model with the
experimental modal properties and mode shapes found.
Cavalagli, Comanducci, and Ubertini (2017) and
Ubertini et al. (2018) present two interesting examples
of long-term monitoring of historical structures and
subsequent use of model updating and seismic assess-
ment of the structures. Gentile and Saisi (2007), Sesigür
et al. (2016), Binda et al. (2011), Ramos et al. (2010),
Casarin and Modena (2008), and Cimellaro, Pianta,
and De Stefano (2012) are among many examples that
performed operational modal analysis for structural
dynamic identification of monumental historical
structures.
In the concept of linear analysis, a strength reduction
coefficient for a specific target performance is determined
on the basis that the structure will perform in the nonlinear
range and show some ductility under the design earth-
quake. Then, this coefficient is used to reduce the earth-
quake loads to perform the linear analysis of structures.
The linear analysis has been widely used for decades, but
the engineering practice is shifting toward the new displa-
cement-based design/assessment approach especially after
the intense research carried out in that field. Nonetheless,
outside the field of research, linear elastic analyses are still
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 239
widely used for evaluation and assessment purposes.
Therefore, investigating the strength reduction coefficient
for different types of structures may help to check and to
verify the results found by professional engineers working
in the industry.
In this study, seismic performance of a historical
URM building in Istanbul, Turkey was investigated
and a strength reduction coefficient was sought. First,
a 3D Finite Element model of the structure was gener-
ated and modified by using the dynamic properties of
the structure found from Operational Modal Analysis
(OMA) using ambient vibrations signatures.
Subsequently, linear dynamic analysis was conducted
on this model. Results of the linear dynamic FE analysis
showed that seismic behavior of the structure is domi-
nated by the front façade’s in-plane behavior and these
results were used to feed the 2D EFM model of the
front façade with necessary information. Afterward,
nonlinear static (pushover) analyses were performed
as mode-proportional and mass-proportional pushover
(PO) analyses. As for the nonlinear dynamic analyses,
to account for the uncertainty in the earthquake input,
15 different earthquake records complying with the
design spectrum were used and nonlinear time history
analyses (NLTHA) were performed. The results were
compared in terms of the pushover curves and incre-
mental dynamic analysis curves.
Results stress the importance of the vibration-based
identification as the modification of uncertain para-
meters in the model resulted in more realistic assess-
ment. Also, comparison of the nonlinear static and
dynamic analyses results revealed that mass-proportional
pushover analysis results match the mean of the results
obtained from incremental dynamic analyses; therefore,
it may be a more applicable method for seismic perfor-
mance assessment of URM walls. With regards to the
use of linear methods in the analysis, they can be bene-
fited from for the initial assessment or to feed more
complex nonlinear models and to verify the locations
of the hinges in the EFM model. Moreover, it was
demonstrated that strength reduction coefficient value
for the structure falls into the range of behavior factor
given for unreinforced masonry in Eurocode 8 Part 1
(EN 1998–1 2005), confirming its validity.
2. Building information
In this study, a registered historical masonry building
constructed in 1925 in Kadikoy, Istanbul is under
investigation (Figure 1). It consists of a basement,
ground and first floors of heights 3.45 m, 4.84 m, and
4.45 m, respectively, and has approximately a rectan-
gular plan with dimensions 33 m by 19 m (Figure 2).
240 K. DEMIRLIOGLU ET AL.

Figure 1. Elevation drawings of the URM building (Technical Report, 2013).

Figure 2. (a) The illustration of the load-bearing system of the URM building and (b) plan of the ground floor (Technical Report on
the building 2013).

In-situ field examination revealed that the building
mostly keeps its original form with some minor inter-
ventions. Besides, connection of intersecting walls and
clamping between bearing walls and floor systems were
observed to be in good condition. There were no local
failures and cracking between bearing wall and the
floor system, and at corners, even though the structure
experienced the Marmara earthquakes (Kocaeli,
Mw = 7.4 and Duzce, Mw = 7.2). No damage indicator
due to out-of-plane behavior of structure parts was
observed. In addition, the quoin application installed
in the construction period of this existing structure
provides a strong clamping between the intersecting
walls, and thus prevents the detachment of them
against out-of-plane collapse (Javed et al. 2006).
Finally, based on the investigation of the technical
drawings of the existing structure and the wall-slab
connections made us consider that the connections
would prevent out-of-plane behavior; therefore, only
in-plane behavior was taken into account in this study.
Regarding load-bearing systems, the walls are com-
posed of solid clay bricks and Khorasan mortar which
is a widely used local mortar in the construction of
historical masonry structures in Turkey. The composi-
tion of the clay bricks and the mortar (it is common
that Khorasan mortar includes hydraulic lime, kaolin,
calcite, refined Khorasan clay, etc.) is not known but
the mechanical properties of the masonry were deter-
mined via in-situ and laboratory tests. The slabs of
ground floor and first floor consist of brick arch floor
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 241

Table 1. Shear and compression test results.

Sample
No Location Test Type Value
Z-1 Ground In situ 0.49 Shear Strength
Floor (MPa)
Z-2 Ground In situ 0.68
Floor
Z-3 Ground In 0.32
Floor laboratory
Z-4 Ground In 0.58
Floor laboratory
Z-5 Ground In situ 0.27
Floor
I-6 1st Floor In situ 0.21
I-9 1st Floor In situ 0.24
1 Ground In 6.80 Compressive Strength
Figure 3. (a) In situ shear testing and (b) a core sample extracted Floor laboratory (MPa)
from the bearing wall (Technical Report on the building 2013). 2 Ground In 4.50
Floor laboratory
3 1st Floor In 7.20
laboratory
systems, where the steel beams of INP180 are installed
with an interval of 60 cm, and the roof slab is made of
oak timber elements. The wall thicknesses vary between to reduce the connatural complexity of masonry and
68–88 cm in the basement, 45–76 cm in the ground uncertainties, ambient vibration tests (AVT) were per-
floor, and 32–65 cm in the first floor. formed. Full-scale AVT under operating conditions was
implemented for the system identification of the build-
ing, using a cabled DAQ system, five force-balance
2.1. Material tests accelerometer sensors, and multiple setups. Sensor
It was reported that in order to determine mechanical properties include very-low self-noise, resulting in 155
properties of the URM walls, both in-situ and labora- dB dynamic range and user-selectable full g-scale range:
tory shear and compression tests were implemented from ± 0.25g to ± 4g. Two sensors were placed on
(Figure 3). Three prisms samples from the ground ground level and three sensors on first floor in ortho-
floor and two from the first floor were extracted from gonal directions to capture the bending and torsional
different locations of the masonry building and after- modes. Thirty minutes of data was taken for each setup
ward these samples were loaded by hydraulic jacks for with a sampling frequency of 200 Hz.
in-situ shear tests. In addition to in-situ tests, two other The global dynamic characteristics of the building
core samples were extracted from the masonry walls at was extracted from AVT by utilizing Frequency
ground floor and tested in laboratory conditions. Also, Domain Decomposition (Brincker, Zhang, and
compression test was performed on brick-mortar sam- Andersen 2001) which is an output-only identification
ples, which were randomly extracted from different technique in frequency domain. As its name suggests, it
places of the floors. operates in the frequency domain and has the advan-
As reported, the results in Table 1 summarize the tage of being fast and user friendly. For the first step in
findings of the material tests, which demonstrates the implementing the identification algorithm, the Power
difficulty in determination of the mechanical properties Spectral Density (PSD) matrix is estimated. In this
of historical masonry constructions. work, PSD matrix estimation is done with the Welch
Due to the distribution of strength values of various method, using the number of Fast Fourier Transform
samples, the average values were taken for the com- (FFT) as 4096 points, a Hanning window and an over-
pressive strength of the masonry wall as 5.65 MPa, and lapping of 50%. Then, the estimate of the output PSD,
the shear strength values were adopted as 0.2 MPa and Ԍyy, is decomposed by taking the singular value decom-
0.15 MPa for the ground and first floors, respectively. position (SVD) of the PSD matrix:


Gyy ωj ¼ Uj Sj UjH (1)
2.2. Operational modal analysis where Uj is an orthonormal matrix (Uj UjH ¼ I) that


Aged construction materials, insufficient knowledge contains the singular vectors of Gyy ωj and Sj is a
regarding the existing properties of territorial materials diagonal matrix containing the scalar singular values.
and the structural features, as well as the lack of per- Now the spectral matrix is decomposed into a set of
formance criteria make structural assessment of histor- auto spectral density functions, each corresponding to a
ical masonry buildings a challenging task. In an attempt single degree of freedom system. By plotting the first
242 K. DEMIRLIOGLU ET AL.

Figure 4. PSD of the acceleration data.

singular values for each frequency, a system’s modal linear dynamic analysis. Moreover, Equivalent Frame
frequencies can be obtained via simple peak-picking, method is also applied with the help of Finite Elements
and the mode shapes are obtained using the first sin- method. Although the details of the EFM and nonlinear
gular vectors at the corresponding frequency. Figure 4 modeling will be given in the following chapters, Table 2
below shows the auto-spectrum of the data and the first below summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of
three identified structural frequencies. the different computational models used for the modeling
As a result of the Operational Modal Analysis, Power of structure in this study.
Spectral Density (PSD) graph and modal frequencies were As a matter of fact, nonlinear dynamic analysis methods
obtained, as indicated in Figure 4. First modal frequency for masonry structures require further research efforts
(5.4 Hz) represents the first bending mode that is in before they can be confidently used in standard design,
longitudinal direction of the building, second modal fre- but still they represent one of the most reliable method to
quency (6.0 Hz) represents the second bending mode that
is in transverse direction and third modal frequency
(6.45 Hz) represents the first torsional mode. Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of the computational
For seismic performance assessment, identified models used.
dynamic parameters will be a reference for determining MODELS Advantages Disadvantages
whether the dynamic response of the structure is accu- Linear 3D Minor computational R value (strength
effort; ease of reduction coefficient)
rately simulated by conducting modal analysis, and will implementation; only required and is not well-
provide a basis for modifying uncertain structural para- linear material properties defined for historical
(elasticity modulus and structures; 3D model
meters of the model such as the Modulus of Elasticity Poisson’s ratio) required; generation requires
and soil spring coefficients. practical and widely used significant work hours
by practitioners in design
of contemporary
structures as well as
assessment of existing
3. Finite element modeling ones
EFM Pushover Analysis in 2D with beam Requires nonlinear hinge
Finite element models based on proper constitutive laws elements is simpler; definition;
model generation computationally more
for the masonry components provide an accurate deter- requires less time; faster
demanding compared to
mination of the critical locations where the failure and computationally less linear analysis; choice of
demanding in comparison mass vs. mode
mechanisms occur, and a reliable simulation of force to NLTH analysis proportional analysis is
redistribution, and describe the coupling effect of ductility challenging
EFM NLTH Analysis in 2D with beam Computationally very
and brittleness which is typical of masonry walls under elements is simpler; demanding; results can
the horizontal actions representative of the seismic ones model generation be significantly scattered
requires less time; for different EQs,
(Gambarotta and Lagomarsino 1997). Therefore, in this captures actual dynamic therefore a number of
study, FEM technique was utilized to carry out the seismic nature of input EQ records are required
performance assessment of the building by means of for reliable data analysis

determine the seismic vulnerability assessment (Acito et al.
2014). High computational time and the necessity of using
more than one record for reliable analysis remain as the
issues related to NLTH analysis. A simple static linear
analysis may be considered as a starting point for monu-
mental and historical structures which consist of anisotro-
pic and multiphase materials. At the same time, many
authors (Penna (2015), Lourenco et al. (2011), Milani
et al. (2012) and Betti, Galano, and Vignoli (2015)) dis-
cussed the need for performing NLTH analyses for histor-
ical structures to reproduce the energy dissipation
processes that develop in masonry buildings during the
seismic event.
A 3D finite element model of the entire building was
generated using SAP2000 v19 software (CSI 2017).
Shell elements with four nodes were used for modeling
the bearing walls and slabs whereas the beams in the
slabs were modeled with beam elements. In modeling,
load patterns and material weights assigned are as fol-
lows. The specific weights of materials γwall, γslab, and
γroof were adopted as 20 kN/m3, 15 kN/m3, and 8 kN/
m3 in the calculation of dead loads (G), respectively.
Live loads (Q) acting on ground floor, 1st floor and roof
floor were adopted as 3.5 kN/m2, 3.5 kN/m2, and 2.25
kN/m2 according to Eurocode 1 (EN 1991–1-1 2002)
for category C3 and category A. Mass source was
defined as a combination of self-weight due to dead
loads and specified load pattern (Live load) multiplied
by a coefficient of 0.3 according to Eurocode 8 Part 1
(EN 1998–1 2005).
During in-situ examination, it was observed that the
basement walls do not act as retaining walls since their
lateral surface is not directly in contact with soil.
Therefore, it was aimed to involve soil flexibility in
analyses by assigning soil springs to the model in the
vertical direction only. Since the soil consists of dense
sand and gravel based on the soil investigation report,
the coefficient of soil reaction (ks) may be defined as a
value between 64,000– 128,000 kN/m3, referring to
Figure 5. First three vibration modes of the model: translation along translation X, Y and torsion.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 243
Bowles (1996). Moreover, it is acknowledged that mate-
rial properties and soil flexibility may demonstrate sig-
nificant variations for the URM structures. That affects
the dynamic behavior of the structures and eventually
their seismic performance. Therefore, uncertain para-
meters affecting the model behavior such as Elasticity
Modulus and the coefficient of soil reaction were mod-
ified by using engineering judgment in order to mini-
mize the difference between theoretical and
experimental modal behavior. Both parameters of the
model were manually and iteratively modified until an
agreement between the results of Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) and Operational Modal Analysis
(OMA) was provided. More detail can be found in
Demirlioglu (2017).
In consequence of the final modal matching, the values
of Elasticity Modulus and soil spring coefficient were
adopted as 2350 MPa and 84,000 kN/m3, respectively.
The mode shapes were obtained from the modal analysis,
as presented in Figure 5 once the initial 3D FEM was
modified with the identified frequencies. The mesh size of
the FEM model was optimized at 30 x 30 cm rectangular
shell elements for computational efficiency.
4. Linear dynamic analysis
Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) was performed for
the linear dynamic assessment of the URM building.
This assessment comprised the evaluation of relative
story displacements, drift ratios and corresponding
limit states described in the literature and also the
comparison of shear and principal stresses with their
threshold values. The response spectrum was generated
according to DLH standard (2008) which is a national
seismic regulation. D2 earthquake level was taken into
consideration, which represents earthquakes with
strong ground motions having 10% exceedance prob-
ability in 50 years with a return period of 475 years.
Square Root of Sums of Squares (SRSS) was adopted as
244 K. DEMIRLIOGLU ET AL.
a modal combination method, earthquake forces were
induced in two orthogonal directions of the structure.
4.1. Drift ratios of the façades
For the evaluation of the damage states of the structure
under a given earthquake demand, it was aimed at
obtaining drift ratios of the façades, since the literature
proposes that structural damages can be directly asso-
ciated with inter-story drifts. After post-earthquake
surveys, it has been observed that the façade walls are
more brittle and more prone to be damaged compared
to interior walls since more stress concentration is
expected to occur on façade regions due to discontinu-
ities based on existing openings.
Results of the RSA analysis are displayed as displace-
ment contours in Figure 6. When examining the displace-
ment contours of front façade, the displacement values on
the same vertical plane are very close to each other in the
direction of earthquake force induced, and a proper dis-
placement distribution occurs throughout the wall.
However, when Uy displacements occurring due to domi-
nant earthquake force induced in x direction are under
consideration, the overall distribution of displacements is
particularly violated along the wall between Axis E and
Axis G where staircase void takes place behind the left
façade wall, as presented in Figure 6b. This occasion
accordingly yields loose in the stiffness, and so that both
displacement values in x and y directions on the same level
coincide with just over 9 mm despite the dominant
Figure 6. Displacement contours of (a) the front façade subjected to Ey, (b) the left façade subjected to Ex, and (c) the right façade
subjected to Ex.
earthquake force Ex. Figure 6c demonstrates the displace-
ment contours of the entire structure from the perspective
of right façade. Due to the geometry of u-shaped building,
the slab discontinuity with an area of 79 m2 between Axis F
and Axis B causes a remarkable degradation in stiffness.
Therefore, the façade wall on longitudinal Axis 1 particu-
larly tends to show more displacement in x direction, and
the largest displacement values up to 15.4 mm occur at the
top floor of right façade. The drift ratios of the façade walls
obtained from the RSA were presented in Table 3. For
comparison of drift ratios with the performance levels,
several studies were performed in literature to define
limit states on the capacity curve obtained from lateral
force vs drift ratio. Crack widths, the degradation of max-
imum resistance, and resulting drift values under loading
were considered in the definition of limit states, and pro-
posed limit states (Immediate Occupancy “IO”, Life Safety
“LS”, and Collapse Prevention “CP”) in terms of drift ratios
are summarized in Table 4.
Generally, the measured drift ratios of the façade
walls are in the rage of 0.09 and 0.17. Since these ratios
do not exceed a limit value of 0.3 representing LS
performance level, the building has attained IO perfor-
mance level.
4.2. Principal and shear stresses of the façades
It is known that the types of stress are directly asso-
ciated with possible local failure modes which control
in-plane strength capacity of the URM walls (FEMA,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 245

Table 3. Drift ratios of the façades. and basement floors. The analysis of the shear stress
Right Façade distribution demonstrates that concentration spreads
Front Façade Rear Façade Left Façade Drift Ratio
Story Level Drift Ratio % Drift Ratio % Drift Ratio % % between adjacent openings in both vertical and hori-
Roof 0.072 0.065 0.066 0.065 zontal plane. Exceedance of the threshold value can be
First Floor 0.111 0.091 0.094 0.171 detected in the areas more than half of the façade. The
Ground Floor 0.101 0.070 0.058 0.122
results obtained shows that the damage in the façade
elements should first occur by shear effect at lower
Table 4. Performance levels in terms of drift ratios (Demirel 2010).
levels of seismic intensity.
Performance Level %
Author IO LS CP
5. Equivalent frame modeling
FEMA 356 [2000] 0.3 0.6 1.0
Tomazevic [2007] 0.2–0.4 0.3–0.6 1.0–2.0
Calvi [1999] 0.1 0.3 0.5 EFM is a simplified method, which enables simulating
Erbay [2007] 0.1 0.6 1.0 in-plane behavior of structural masonry walls and car-
rying out nonlinear analysis for performance assess-
ment of URM structures by means of their
2000). Therefore, the stress distribution can be evalu- simplification with a frame. In addition, the considera-
ated to detect possible regions on the façade that are tion of homogeneous and isotropic material idealiza-
prone to be damaged. As a result of linear dynamic tion, and less amount of data required to perform EFM
RSA, the earthquake demand was obtained in terms of make it more practical. On the other hand, FEM has
principal, compressive and shear stresses, and the stress been utilized as a very powerful analysis tool for the
distributions were presented in Figure 7. assessment of URM, but also suffered from high com-
Principal stress concentration is mostly observed in putational effort (Rizzano and Sabatino 2010).
the areas close to the openings. Due to discontinuities, Basically, in EFM, each bearing wall is subdivided into
these areas are more prone to cracking. It is seen that a group of masonry panels where the deformation and
the average values of principal stresses around openings nonlinear response are concentrated, and to rigid por-
are 0.3 MPa that exceeds a threshold value of 0.15 MPa tions which connect these deformable panels
obtained from material tests. If principal stresses emer- (Lagomarsino et al. 2013). Herein, a general concern
ging due to dynamic excitation exceed the tensile is focused on the global response of masonry structures
strength of walls or piers, diagonal cracks develop, in presence of proper connection between masonry
and diagonal tension failure mode occurs (FEMA, panels that prevent the occurrence of local collapse
1997). Therefore, diagonal cracks around openings are mechanisms based on out-of-plane response of walls.
anticipated and seen as one of the failure modes. When After performing the linear dynamic analysis using
compressive stress distribution is examined, higher FEM, it was detected that both right and front façades
values of compressive stresses are observed at level of governed the collapse state of the URM structure in
the vertical elements on the basement façade. However, terms of the limit states. However, the front façade was
the maximum stress corresponds to 30% of the com- the most vulnerable one in terms of principal and shear
pressive strength value and the demand based on com- stresses exceeding their threshold values due to having
pressive stress are met safely. Moreover, shear strength more openings, compared to the right façade.
with a value of 0.2 MPa were almost attained at the Therefore, 2D EF model of the front façade was gener-
level of first floors but exceeded at the levels of ground ated by adopting the criterion proposed by Dolce

Figure 7. Stress distributions of the front façade: (a) principal stress, (b) compressive stress, and (c) shear stress.
246 K. DEMIRLIOGLU ET AL.
(1991), which considers the equivalent stiffness of each
pier, the mutual interaction with the surrounding span-
drels and the coupling effect between spandrel and
piers by assigning rigid end offsets. Figure 8 illustrates
the EFM model of the front façade, where the façade
was discretized into piers in grey, spandrels in red, and
rigid end offsets in black.
Based on in-situ observations and the reported con-
nections of the bearing walls, which lead to the assump-
tion of the bearing walls properly connected to the
floor, only in-plane behavior was considered in analyses
to accurately simulate the global response of the struc-
ture. When modeling the in-plane behavior of the
analyzed façade with EFM, rigid diaphragms at each
story level were assumed for the sake of computational
efficacy because 3D linear analyses with and without
the rigid diaphragm assumptions lead to very similar
results in terms of displacements and stress distribu-
tions for the investigated façade. Also, the locations of
the shear hinges were verified by using the RSA results.
According to Eurocode 8 Part 1 (EN 1998-1 2005),
story masses were obtained from the combination of
total dead loads and 30% of live loads acting on the
slabs. The story masses were lumped at their corre-
sponding mass centers in lateral direction.
6. Performance assessment by nonlinear
analyses
Nonlinear behavior of masonry was defined by means of
lumped plastic hinges governed by in-plane failure
mechanisms. Two types of nonlinear analysis methods
were utilized for seismic evaluation: pushover (PO) analysis
was adopted as an incremental static nonlinear method
Figure 8. (a) Labels of the piers and rigid offset lengths on the EFM and (b) illustration of the EFM with rigid offsets on the front
façade.
where both mass-proportional and mode-proportional
load cases were applied in analyses. As a nonlinear dynamic
method, a set of NonLinear Time History analyses
(NLTHA) was used to perform series of simulations and
incremental dynamic pushover curves were generated.
6.1. Determination of in-plane capacities of the
URM walls
The in-plane capacity of structural masonry determines
the occurrence of nonlinear behavior and the attain-
ment of limit states. The major failure modes that
govern the global seismic response of in-plane walls to
the seismic excitation can be classified into four major
groups—rocking, diagonal shear cracking, sliding shear,
and toe crushing—in the literature.
In order to calculate diagonal tensile and sliding
shear capacities of the URM walls, Equations (3) and
(7) presented in Magenes and Calvi (1997) were used.
The toe crushing and the rocking capacities according
to Equations (10.31) and (10.32) in NZSEE (2015),
respectively, and the shear capacity according to
Equation (C.2) in Eurocode 8 Part 3 (EN 1998-3
2005) were determined.
The in-plane capacities of the URM walls were cal-
culated, as given in Table 5. The lowest capacity values,
highlighted in the table, for all piers were obtained
from Equation (7) which corresponds to Sliding shear
according to Magenes and Calvi (1997). Therefore, the
nonlinear behavior of piers will be controlled by sliding
shear failure mode.
It is important to recall that “flexural response tends
to be dominated by rocking of piers rather than ‘beam’
type behavior, and failure is generally characterized by
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 247

Table 5. Calculated in-plane capacities of URM walls.

Magenes and Calvi (1997) NZSEE 2015 NZSEE 2015 Magenes and Calvi (1997) Eurocode 8. Part 3
Sliding shear Rocking Toe crushing Diagonal Cracking Shear Capacity
PIER Vus (kN) Vr (kN) Vtc (kN) Vuf (kN) Vf (kN)
Pier B6 77.95 147.08 166.54 369.24 381.48
Pier B5 249.81 623.34 689.92 688.81 718.05
Pier B3 478.46 1527.81 1690.47 1291.43 959.35
Pier B2 226.67 579.12 628.06 652.26 613.93
Pier B1 38.92 89.52 99.27 211.46 237.70
Pier G6 29.55 86.93 101.30 262.93 286.73
Pier G5 118.43 336.22 384.10 470.60 521.71
Pier G3 286.65 783.89 918.09 1175.89 830.55
Pier G2 136.51 338.43 402.08 490.22 520.70
Pier G1 18.36 44.45 51.07 193.30 207.82
Pier 1–6 8.33 39.58 47.65 171.26 181.27
Pier 1–5 52.57 176.37 231.02 326.70 319.30
Pier 1–4 128.19 478.67 636.51 702.75 492.30
Pier 1–2 47.25 159.02 208.36 295.18 276.52
Pier 1–1 3.82 18.85 23.26 100.89 108.35

shear, either in diagonal tension mode or by sliding on
the predefined planes of mortar” (Magenes and Calvi
1997). Besides, it was acknowledged that spandrels,
vertical components without axial loads, are prone to
early shear cracking but still the ultimate resistance is
controlled by pier failure (Magenes and Calvi 1997). In
addition to this, Pasticier, Amadio, and Fragiacomo
(2008) also employed both rocking and shear hinges
to piers and only shear hinges at mid-heights of span-
drels, and then performed pushover analysis for seismic
assessment.
After obtaining a result that the global response of
the URM structure was characterized by the shear fail-
ure mode of the piers and in the light of the references
given above, only shear hinges were assigned to the
mid-heights of the piers to reduce computational effort
in NLTH analyses. Also, the in-plane capacities of the
façade under investigation were characterized by sliding
shear, as seen in Table 5. Furthermore, the distribution
of stresses found from the RSA enabled verifying the
possible shear hinge locations (Figure 9). The reason
lying behind the assignment of shear hinges at mid-
heights of the piers is that shear and principal stress
concentrations occur through the deformable height of
URM walls under dynamic excitations. When the stres-
ses induced by earthquake exceeds the threshold values,
crack patterns emerge depending on the relative
strengths of masonry components.
6.2. Determination of limit states for global
assessment
According to Eurocode 8 Part 3 (EN 1998-3 2005), the
limit states of URM walls were determined, which
correspond to the attainment of the global displace-
ment capacity on the pushover curve. The ultimate
displacement capacity is described as the top

Figure 9. Verification of possible hinge locations described in the literature, based on a comparison of EFM and FEM. (Red circles
show the shear concentrated regions.)
248 K. DEMIRLIOGLU ET AL.
displacement, and three limit states exist on the push-
over curve in terms of top displacement, as follows.
● Limit state of Limited Damage (LD) is where the
structure yields on the curve of idealized elastic-
perfectly plastic force/displacement relationship.
● Limit state of Significant Damage (SD) is equal to
¾ of the top displacement capacity corresponding
the total base shear.
● Limit state of Near Collapse (NC) is equal to
below 80 percent of the peak resistance of the
structure.
Structural collapse was assumed once the in-plane
deformation capacity of piers is reached due to the
ultimate shear displacement controlled by shear hinges
or the ultimate rotation controlled by rocking hinges
(Pasticier, Amadio, and Fragiacomo 2008). According
Figure 10. (a) The behavior of the pier and (b) the behavior of the correspondent shear hinge.
Figure 11. Comparison of hinges at δu = 15.4 mm.
to NTC (2008), the shear collapse corresponds to the
achievement of the ultimate drift δu which is assumed
to be 0.4% of the effective height of the pier. Please note
that after this study was completed and before it was
published, the effective height of the pier was changed
to 0.5% in 2018 with the new version of the standard
(NTC, 2018).
6.3. Modeling of nonlinear behavior for pushover
analysis
The masonry piers were modelled as beam elements
with elastoplastic behavior whereas a rigid-perfectly
plastic behavior was assumed for the plastic hinges, as
presented in Figure 10 below.
In the pushover analysis, two different lateral load
distributions were adopted: mode proportional and
mass proportional. After performing pushover analyses,

the hinges occurred as shown in Figure 11 when the
ultimate displacement capacity 15.4 mm was attained.
The collapse of the façade was characterized by a
story mechanism emerging at the ground floor. More
hinges reached limit state of limited damage repre-
sented by blue hinges under the mode proportional
load case compared the other case, due to the reverse
triangular distribution of load since more static force
was applied to the top floor.
The striking point on the pushover curve shown in
Figure 12 is that there is a considerable difference about
24% between the base shear capacities of both models.
However, both models reach the limit state of Near
Collapse, demonstrating the same displacement with a
maximum of 15.4 mm. This implies, in determination of
the target displacement, these two pushover curves will
intersect the demand curves at different locations and
yield different results; hence, the choice of the type of PO
analysis affects the performance assessment of the
structure.
6.4. Modeling of nonlinear behavior for time
history analysis
In order to simulate the cyclic behavior of piers by con-
sidering stiffness and strength degradation, hysteresis type
pivot hinge was employed in NLTH analyses. For this aim,
the reference backbone curve was utilized to perform the
nonlinear hinge behavior with the corresponding hysteresis
parameters controling the degradation of stiffness and
Figure 12. Pushover curves for both load cases.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 249
strength. The reference experimental curve was generated
by Anthoine, Magonette, and Magenes (1994) performing
the quasi-static cyclic test on a pier. Later on, Pasticier,
Amadio, and Fragiacomo (2008) proposed the parameters
required to define the backbone curve numerically in
SAP2000 software that enable the pier to achieve the
same behavior as the experimental curve. The hinge para-
meters α1, α2, β1, and β2 which govern the stiffness during
the loading and unloading procedure, were adopted to
simulate the experimental results. All parameters were
taken as 0.45. Ultimate shear capacity of the pier was
reduced to 70% of the peak resistance.
6.5. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)
An incremental dynamic analysis is performed by series of
nonlinear time history analyses. The entire range of struc-
tural response is covered by IDA by scaling each seismic
record, whereas the results obtained from NLTHA only
determines the response of the structure for the specific
earthquake input selected. By scaling the PGA values, it is
aimed at leading the structure to reach all limit states from
yield point to collapse. As a result, the PGA values causing
the structure to attain the limit states of limited damage,
significant damage and near collapse were identified. The
selection of earthquake inputs is a significant phase to
obtain reliable outcomes about vulnerability assessment,
since a seismic event can vary in terms of the frequency
content, the energy content and duration, which give rise to
different effects on the same structure. For IDA, 15 earth-
quake records were selected from PEER NGA West2 Data
250 K. DEMIRLIOGLU ET AL.

Figure 13. Spectra of selected ground motions. Design spectrum and the mean of the spectra are represented by red and bold
black, respectively.

Base in accordance with the design response spectrum
generated (Figure 13).
The results obtained and shown in Figures 14 and 15
displays a good agreement in terms of top displacement
capacity of all models. Especially, the force/displacement
response of the structure presented a similar behavior
when subjected to either K. County earthquake excitation
or static force by pushover (mass proportional), except the
yield point. By performing IDA with Duzce earthquake
record, the PGA values leading the structure to reach
limited damage, significant damage and near collapse
limit states are 0.21 g, 0.40 g, and 0.43 g, respectively,
whereas those PGA values by using K. County earthquake
record are 0.18 g, 0.38 g, and 0.40 g for the same limit states,
respectively. Moreover, it can be observed that the same
PGA of 0.40 g may result in different top displacement

Figure 14. Comparison of IDA curve using Duzce EQ. record and pushover curves.

Figure 15. Comparison of IDA curve using K. County EQ. record and pushover curves.
demand and different damage level for two earthquake
ground motions. When the collapse mechanism occurred,
only one pier reached its ultimate shear displacement
capacity under K. County EQ. excitation, whereas two
piers attained their displacement capacity simultaneously
under Duzce EQ. excitation (Figure 16). Another point is
that a total of four piers in Figure 16a showed limit state of
limited damage until the system fails but only one pier has
yielded in Figure 16b. Primarily, these variations confirm
how in-plane behavior of URM walls may differ depending
on the content of frequency and energy, and duration of
earthquakes.
After performing series of simulations by using a set of
NLTH analyses, finally the incremental dynamic analysis
Figure 16. Illustration of hinges in Near Collapse State.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 251
curves were generated, as presented in Figure 17.
According to the curves, it can be interpreted that the
ultimate shear displacement capacity of the structure is
reached when the top displacement is about 15 mm.
Despite the differences in base shear values, a consider-
able agreement is provided at the yield point represented
by limited damage state where the average base shear
force is 850 kN. The upper and lower bounds in
Figure 17 are represented by the curves obtained from
Friuli (Tolmezzo) and Pushover (mode-proportional),
respectively. It can be concluded that mass-proportional
pushover analysis meets the mean of results obtained
from IDA, as in Figure 17, and thus it may be a more
applicable method for seismic performance assessment of
252 K. DEMIRLIOGLU ET AL.
Figure 17. Incremental dynamic analysis and pushover curves.
URM walls, compared to pushover method adopting
mode proportional load case.
6.6. Determination of strength reduction factor
Contemporary structures are designed to perform beyond
their linear range and determining the Strength
Reduction Coefficient and Ductility Demand Coefficient
is deemed useful to estimate the nonlinear behavior of
structures by using linear analysis. In this context, the
question arises whether it would be possible for historical
masonry structures to extend the linear analysis results to
Figure 18. Base shear vs. top displacement showing the mean and the envelopes of max & min values of IDAs.
the nonlinear case. Therefore, these two coefficients were
calculated for the structure under investigation.
Figures 18 and 19 represent the displacements and base
shear values obtained from IDAs using 15 earthquake
records. By using these values, the mean of IDA results
was obtained, and the average of deviation for the mini-
mum and maximum envelopes was found 13%. Afterward,
linear RSA was performed on the 2D EFM of the front
façade in an attempt to calculate Strength Reduction
Coefficient and Ductility Demand Coefficient. The analysis
results obtained from both the mean of IDAs and Linear
RSA were plotted in Figure 19. The mean value of

Figure 19. Base shear vs. top displacement obtained from the Mean of IDAs and the RSA.
displacements in Limited Damage is calculated as 3.52 mm
that represents Elastic displacement (δe) corresponding to
yield point on the elasto-plastic curve. Ultimate displace-
ment (δu) is obtained as 14.31 mm from the mean of
displacements in Near Collapse. Eventually, the ultimate
base shear is calculated as 1077.9 kN from the mean of
forces in Near Collapse.
Finally, Strength Reduction Coefficient is calculated
using mass-proportional and mode-proportional push-
over analyses results as 2.46 and 3.5, respectively
(Table 6). Also, Ductility Demand Coefficient value
was found as 4.1. Ultimate displacement is larger than
Elastic displacement, as expected for rigid structures
(low period of vibration). The strength reduction coef-
ficient with a value of 2.46—corresponding to the mean
of IDA—falls into the range of the behavior factor
between 1.5 and 2.5 for unreinforced masonry accord-
ing to Eurocode 8 Part 1 (EN 1998–1 2005) whereas the
mode-proportional pushover analysis results in a
higher value, outside of the range given.
7. Conclusion
The study presented in this article is primarily focused
on determining a strength reduction coefficient for the
historic masonry structure under investigation by
Table 6. Strength reduction coefficient and ductility demand
coefficient.
Strength Reduction Strength Reduction
Coefficient Coefficient Ductility Demand
(mode proportional) (mass proportional) Coefficient
Ry ¼ fe =fy Ry ¼ fe =fy μ ¼ Umax =Uy
3.5 2.46 4.1
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 253
means of both linear modeling by FEM and nonlinear
modeling by EFM. In the process, different nonlinear
analyses methods, such as nonlinear time history and
pushover analyses, were investigated and compared to
each other. Moreover, to reduce the complexity and
uncertainty of masonry modeling, operational modal
analysis was performed. By use of engineering judg-
ment and tentative model matching, the difference
between analytical and experimental model properties
was minimized. This has created a basis for carrying
out the seismic performance assessment of the building
accurately. The main findings obtained are as follows.
● Vibration-based system identification plays an
important role in determining the uncertain para-
meters for the assessment of URM structures since
these parameters are difficult to estimate accu-
rately (as the material tests reveal) and OMA is
one of the most efficient and novel approaches
among various non-destructive testing
methodologies.
● Using the assumption that the bearing walls are
properly connected to the floor (based on in-situ
observations), only in-plane behavior was consid-
ered in analyses to accurately simulate the global
response of the structure. This approach disre-
gards the local out-of-plane failures and requires
the selection of the most critical façades of the
structure using preliminary analyses.
● It can be concluded that pushover analysis, adopt-
ing the mass proportional load case, meets the
mean of results obtained from IDAs and thus it
may be a more applicable method for seismic
254 K. DEMIRLIOGLU ET AL.
performance assessment for URM walls, com-
pared to pushover method adopting mode propor-
tional load case. Moreover, mass proportional
pushover analysis requires significantly less time
than the nonlinear time history analysis; thus, it is
reasonable to employ mass-proportional PO ana-
lysis for this type of structures.
● A strength reduction coefficient was determined
using the linear and nonlinear analyses. For the
mean of IDA and mass-proportional PO analyses,
its value falls into the range given in Eurocode 8 Part
1 (EN 1998–1 2005) for unreinforced masonry
structures and confirms its validity. It also implies
that the range given in Eurocode 8 Part 1 can be
adopted if the linear analyses are to be performed.
On the other hand, mode-proportional pushover
analyses result in a higher strength reduction coeffi-
cient that is outside of the proposed range; therefore,
using this value might overestimate the capacity for
this type of structures.
● Linear analysis results were used to feed the non-
linear EF model. The stress concentrations
observed in the linear analysis confirmed the
assigned shear hinge locations in EF model.
● Nonlinear time history analyses show that the
structure under investigation will perform in the
nonlinear range during a design level earthquake,
and it will attain the limit state of Near Collapse,
or the structure will fail completely.
Funding
The authors appreciate the financial support provided by
Boğaziçi University Research Fund [grant number 12782].
ORCID
Kultigin Demirlioglu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0960-3855
Semih Gonen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9588-4552
Maria Pina Limongelli http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9353-
5439
References
Acito, M., M. Bocciarelli, C. Chesi, and G. Milani. 2014.
Collapse of the clock tower in finale emilia after the May
2012 Emilia Romagna earthquake sequence: Numerical
insight. Engineering Structures 72:70–91. doi:10.1016/J.
ENGSTRUCT.2014.04.026.
Anthoine, A., G. Magonette, and G. Magenes 1994. Shear-
compression testing and analysis of brick masonry walls.
Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, 28 August-2 September
1994, pp. 1657–962. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77044-2
Aras, F., L. Krstevska, G. Altay, and L. Tashkov. 2011.
Experimental and numerical modal analyses of a historical
masonry palace. Construction and Building Materials 25
(1):81–91. doi:10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2010.06.054.
Betti, M., L. Galano, and A. Vignoli. 2015. Time-history
seismic analysis of masonry buildings: A comparison
between two non-linear modelling approaches. Buildings
5 (2):597–621. doi:10.3390/buildings5020597.
Binda, L., C. Modena, F. Casarin, F. Lorenzoni, L. Cantini,
and S. Munda. 2011. Emergency actions and investigations
on cultural heritage after the L’Aquila earthquake: The case
of the Spanish Fortress. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
9 (1):105–38. doi:10.1007/s10518-010-9217-3.
Bowles, J. E. 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design. New
York: McGraw-Hill Company.
Brincker, R., L. Zhang, and P. Andersen. 2001. Modal identi-
fication of output-only systems using frequency domain
decomposition. Smart Materials and Structures 10:441–45.
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/10/3/303.
Calvi, G. M. 1999. A displacement-based approach for vul-
nerability evaluation of classes of buildings. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 3 (3):411–38. doi:10.1142/
S136324699900017X.
Casarin, F., and C. Modena. 2008. Seismic assessment of
complex historical buildings: Application to Reggio Emilia
Cathedral, Italy. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 2 (3):304–27. doi:10.1080/15583050802063659.
Cavalagli, N., G. Comanducci, and F. Ubertini. 2017.
Earthquake-induced damage detection in a monumental
masonry bell-tower using long-term dynamic monitoring
data. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1–24. doi:10.1080/
13632469.2017.1323048.
Cavalagli, N., and V. Gusella. 2015. Dome of the basilica of
santa maria degli angeli in assisi: Static and dynamic
assessment. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 9 (2):157–75. doi:10.1080/15583058.2014.951799.
Cimellaro, G. P., S. Pianta, and A. De Stefano. 2012. Output
modal identification of ancient L’Aquila City Hall and
Civic Tower. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 138
(4):481–91. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000494.
Clementi, F., A. Pierdicca, A. Formisano, F. Catinari, and S.
Lenci. 2017b. Numerical model upgrading of a historical
masonry building damaged during the 2016 Italian
Earthquakes: The Case Study of the Podestà Palace in
Montelupone (Italy). Journal of Civil Structural Health
Monitoring 7 (5):703–17. doi:10.1007/s13349-017-0253-4.
Clementi, F., E. Quagliarini, F. Monni, E. Giordano, and S.
Lenci. 2017c. Cultural Heritage and Earthquake: The case
study of Santa Maria della Carità in Ascoli Piceno. The
Open Civil Engineering Journal 11:1079–105. doi:10.2174/
1874149501711011079.
Clementi, F., V. Gazzani, M. Poiani, P. A. Mezzapelle, and S.
Lenci. 2017a. “Seismic assessment of a monumental build-
ing through nonlinear analyses of a 3D Solid Model.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1–27. doi:10.1080/
13632469.2017.1297268.
CSI. 2017. Structural Analysis Program - SAP2000® v19.
Berkeley, CA: Computer & Structures, Inc.
D’Ayala, D., and E. Speranza. 2003. Definition of collapse
mechanisms and seismic vulnerability of historic masonry

buildings. Earthquake Spectra 19 (3):479–509. doi:10.1193/
1.1599896.
Demirel, İ. O. 2010. A nonlinear equivalent frame model for
displacement-based analysis of unreinforced brick masonry
buildings. Master’s Thesis. Middle East Technical University.
Demirlioglu, K. 2017. Seismic performance assessment of
historical buildings. Master’s Thesis. Boğaziçi University.
Demiryolları, T. U. B., H. M. İ. Ve Limanlar, and G. M. (Dlh).
2008. Kıyı ve Liman Yapıları. Demiryolları, Hava Meydanları
İnşaatlarına İlişkin Deprem Teknik Yönetmeliği. İstanbul:
İMO.
Dolce, M. 1991. Schematizzazione e modellazione degli edi-
fici in muratura soggettiad azioni sismiche. L’Industria
delle Costruzioni 25 (242):44–57.
EN 1991-1-1. 2002. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-1:
General actions — Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for
buildings. European Committee for Standardization.
EN 1998-1. 2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earth-
quake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings. European Committee for
Standardization.
EN 1998-3. 2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings.
European Committee for Standardization.
Endo, Y., L. Pela, and P. Roca. 2017. Review of different
pushover analysis methods applied to masonry buildings
and comparison with nonlinear dynamic analysis. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering 21 (8):1234–55. doi:10.1080/
13632469.2016.1210055.
Erbay, O.O. 2007. A methodology to assess seismic risk for
populations of unreinforced masonry buildings. MAE
Center Report 07-10.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997.
FEMA 274, Nehrp commentary on the guidelines for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC:
FEMA.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2000.
FEMA 356, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Formisano, A. 2017a. Theoretical and numerical seismic analysis
of masonry building aggregates: case studies in San Pio Delle
Camere (L’Aquila, Italy). Journal of Earthquake Engineering 21
(2):227–45. doi:10.1080/13632469.2016.1172376.
Formisano, A. 2017b. Local- and global-scale seismic analyses
of historical masonry compounds in San Pio Delle Camere
(L’Aquila, Italy). Natural Hazards 86:465–87. doi:10.1007/
s11069-016-2694-1.
Formisano, A., F. Gilda, L. Raffaele, and F. M. Mazzolani.
2015. Numerical calibration of an easy method for seismic
behaviour assessment on large scale of masonry building
aggregates. Advances in Engineering Software 80:116–38.
doi:10.1016/J.ADVENGSOFT.2014.09.013.
Gambarotta, L., and S. Lagomarsino. 1997. Damage models
for the seismic response of brick masonry shear walls. Part
II: The continuum model and its applications. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 26 (4):441–62.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199704)26:4<441::AID-
EQE651>3.0.CO;2-0.
Gentile, C., and A. Saisi. 2007. Ambient vibration testing of
historic masonry towers for structural identification and
damage assessment. Construction and Building Materials
21 (6):1311–21. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.01.007.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 255
Javed, M., A. Khan, A. Penna, and G. Magenes 2006.
Behaviour of masonry structures during the kashmir
2005 Earthquake. First European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva,
Switzerland, September 3- 8
Lagomarsino, S., A. Penna, A. Galasco, and S. Cattari. 2013.
Tremuri program: An equivalent frame model for the non-
linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Engineering
Structures 56:1787–99. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.002.
Lourenco, P. B. 1996. Computational strategies for masonry
structures. Ph.D. Thesis. Delft University of Technology
Lourenço, P. B., N. Mendes, L. F. Ramos, and D. V. Oliveira.
2011. Analysis of masonry structures without box behavior.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage 5 (4–5):369–
382. doi:10.1080/15583058.2010.528824.
Magenes, G., and G. M. Calvi. 1997. In-plane seismic response
of brick masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics 26 (11):1091–112. doi:10.1002/(SICI)
1096-9845(199711)26:11<1091::AID-EQE693>3.0.CO;2-6.
Milani, G., S. Casolo, A. Naliato, and A. Tralli. 2012. Seismic
assessment of a medieval masonry tower in Northern Italy
by limit, nonlinear static, and full dynamic analyses.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage 6 (5):489–
524. doi:10.1080/15583058.2011.588987.
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE).
2015. Assessment and improvement of the structural perfor-
mance of buildings in earthquakes section 10 revision. New
Zealand: Seismic assessment of Unreinforced Masonry
Buildings Corrigendum n° 4.
Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (NTC). 2008. Technical
standards for Buildings D.M. Suppl. ord. n° 30 alla G.U. n.
29. Roma, Italy: Gazzetta Ufficiale.
Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (NTC). 2018. Technical
standards for Buildings D.M. Suppl. ord. n° 42 alla G.U. n.
8. Roma, Italy: Gazzetta Ufficiale.
Pasticier, L., C. Amadio, and M. Fragiacomo. 2008. Non-
linear seismic analysis and vulnerability evaluation of a
masonry building by means of the SAP2000 V.10 code.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 37
(3):467–85. doi:10.1002/eqe.770.
Penna, A. 2015. Seismic assessment of existing and strength-
ened stone-masonry buildings: Critical issues and possible
strategies. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13:1051–71.
doi:10.1007/s10518-014-9659-0.
Quagliarini, E., G. Maracchini, and F. Clementi. 2017. Uses
and limits of the equivalent frame model on existing
unreinforced masonry buildings for assessing their seismic
risk: A review. Journal of Building Engineering 10:166–82.
doi:10.1016/J.JOBE.2017.03.004.
Ramos, L. F., L. Marques, P. B. Lourenco, G. De Roeck, A.
Campos-Costa, and J. Roque. 2010. Monitoring historical
masonry structures with operational modal analysis: Two
case studies. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 24
(5):1291–305. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.01.011.
Rizzano, G., and R. Sabatino 2010. Non-linear static analysis
of masonry structures by means of Equivalent Frames
simplified approach. Paper presented at the 8th
International Masonry Conference, Dresden.
Salonikios, T., C. Karakostas, V. Lekidis, and A. Anthoine.
2003. Comparative inelastic pushover analysis of
masonry frames. Engineering Structures 25 (12):1515–
23. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00118-4.
256 K. DEMIRLIOGLU ET AL.
Sesigür, H., G. Erol, S. Soyöz, K. Kaynardağ, and S. Gönen
2016. Repair and Retrofit of Ketchaoua Mosque. Paper
presented at the the 10th International Conference on
Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, Leuven,
Belgium, 13-15 September 2016
Siano, R., V. Sepe, G. Camata, E. Spacone, P. Roca, and L.
Pela. 2017. Analysis of the performance in the linear field
of Equivalent-Frame Models for regular and irregular
masonry walls. Engineering Structures 145:190–210.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.017.
Technical Report on the building, 2013. Technical report on
kadikoy toplum sagligi Merkezi Tarihi Binasi. Yapı Teknik
Taahhüt Mühendislik İnşaat Ltd. Şti., 2013
View publication stats
Tomazevic, M. 2007. Damage as a measure for earthquake
resistant design of masonry structures: slovenian experi-
ence.canadian. Journal of Civil Engineering 34 (11):1403–
12. doi:10.1139/L07-128.
Ubertini, F., N. Cavalagli, A. Kita, and G. Comanducci. 2018.
Assessment of a monumental masonry bell-tower after
2016 Central Italy Seismic Sequence by Long-Term SHM.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16 (2):775–801.
doi:10.1007/s10518-017-0222-7.
Valente, M., and G. Milani. 2016. Seismic assessment of his-
torical masonry towers by means of simplified approaches
and standard FEM. Construction and Building Materials
108:74–104. doi:10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2016.01.025.