SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 2

Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis and Retrofitting Design of an Earthquake Damaged Masonry Building

Alper Özmen(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1335-3780
Talha Sarıcı(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8488-5851
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By combining field damage observations with nonlinear time-history analyses and implementing a validated steel-stirrup strengthening scheme, this study provides a practical and transferable methodology for improving the seismic performance of earthquake-damaged masonry buildings in high-risk regions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Masonry buildings constitute a significant portion of the building stock in settlements situated along the East Anatolian Fault.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study investigates the earthquake response and retrofitting design of a residential masonry that damaged in the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By combining field damage observations with nonlinear time-history analyses and implementing a validated steel-stirrup strengthening scheme, this study provides a practical and transferable methodology for improving the seismic performance of earthquake-damaged masonry buildings in high-risk regions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Residential masonry · Failure mechanism · Masonry retrofitting

Abstract

Masonry buildings constitute a significant portion of the building stock in settlements situated along the East Anatolian Fault. Seismic risk is quite high in this region. This study investigates the earthquake response and retrofitting design of a residential masonry that damaged in the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Within the scope of the study, the existing damage condition and material properties of the structure were first determined. Using the collected data, the current state of the structure was analyzed with nonlinear dynamic analyses. Subsequently, potential damage zones were retrofitted using an innovative reinforcement method taken from the literature, and the results were compared. The retrofitting intervention reduced maximum displacement demand by approximately 33.3%, crack width by 26.5%, and inter-story drift ratio by nearly 54.8%. By combining field damage observations with nonlinear time-history analyses and implementing a validated steel-stirrup strengthening scheme, this study provides a practical and transferable methodology for improving the seismic performance of earthquake-damaged masonry buildings in high-risk regions.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özmen, A., Sarıcı, T. (2026). Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis and Retrofitting Design of an Earthquake Damaged Masonry Building. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 15 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.1835627

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (79)

  1. J. Ortega, G. Vasconcelos, H. Rodrigues, M. Correia, and P. B. Lourenço, “Traditional earthquake resistant techniques for vernacular architecture and local seismic cultures: A literature review,” J. Cult. Herit., vol. 27, pp. 181–196, 2017.
  2. M. ElGawady, P. Lestuzzi, and M. Badoux, “A review of conventional seismic retrofitting techniques for URM,” in Proc. 13th Int. Brick Block Masonry Conf., vol. 4, 2004.
  3. S. Bhattacharya, S. Nayak, and S. C. Dutta, “A critical review of retrofitting methods for unreinforced masonry structures,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 7, pp. 51–67, 2014.
  4. F. Yavartanoo and T. H. K. Kang, “Retrofitting of unreinforced masonry structures and considerations for heritage-sensitive constructions,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 49, Art. no. 103993, 2022.
  5. A. Flora et al., “Liquefaction effects in the city of Gölbaşı: From the analysis of predisposing factors to damage survey,” Eng. Geol., vol. 338, Art. no. 107633, 2024.
  6. AFAD, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı. Ankara, Türkiye, 2020.
  7. O. Uzdil, T. Coşgun, B. Sayin, and C. Akcay, “Seismic performance evaluation and strengthening proposal for a reconstruction project of a historic masonry building demolished in the 1940s,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 66, Art. no. 105914, 2023.
  8. N. Damiani, M. Miglietta, G. Guerrini, and F. Graziotti, “Numerical assessment of the seismic performance of a timber retrofit solution for unreinforced masonry buildings,” Int. J. Archit. Herit., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 114–133, 2023.
  9. F. Ranjbaran and M. Kianibakhsh, “Seismic performance assessment of confined masonry buildings based on displacement,” AUT J. Civ. Eng., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 225–244, 2021.
  10. T. Coşgun, O. Uzdil, B. Sayin, and K. K. Zengin, “Seismic vulnerability assessment of a masonry structure and an FRP-strengthening proposal,” Case Stud. Constr. Mater., vol. 17, Art. no. e01680, 2022.
  11. H. Bilgin, N. Shkodrani, M. Hysenlliu, H. B. Özmen, E. Isik, and E. Harirchian, “Damage and performance evaluation of masonry buildings constructed in 1970s during the 2019 Albania earthquakes,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 131, Art. no. 105824, 2022.
  12. A. I. Çarhoğlu and K. A. Korkmaz, “Evaluation of earthquake behavior of an existing masonry building,” J. Adv. Technol. Sci., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2013.
  13. A. Özmen, Ö. F. Taş, O. İnce, M. Atar, and E. Sayın, “2023 Kahramanmaraş depremleri sonrası Malatya ilinde yer alan yığma binaların hasar mekanizmasının incelenmesi,” (in Turkish), Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniv. Mühendislik Bilimleri Derg., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 697–703, 2024.
  14. İ. Ö. Dedeoğlu, M. Yetkin, H. Erkek, and Y. Calayır, “Nonlinear earthquake response of the historic Ahi Musa Masjid,” in Proc. 3rd Int. Civ. Eng. Archit. Congr. (ICEARC’23), 2023.
  15. İ. Kocaman and İ. Gürbüz, “Enhancing seismic performance of historic mosques through retrofitting measures,” Eng. Struct., vol. 301, Art. no. 117245, 2024.
  16. A. E. Akan et al., “Seismic evaluation of a renovated wooden hypostyle structure: A case study on a mosque designed with the combination of Asian and Byzantine styles in the Seljuk Era (14th Century AD),” J. Build. Eng., vol. 43, Art. no. 103112, 2021.
  17. M. Betti and L. Galano, “Seismic analysis of historic masonry buildings: The Vicarious Palace in Pescia (Italy),” Buildings, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 63–82, 2012.
  18. B. Yildizlar, “Seismic performance analysis and rehabilitation applications for a historical masonry building through field works and experimental investigations,” Struct., vol. 34, pp. 1811–1833, 2021.
  19. B. Güneş, A. Mangır, and V. Okumuş, “Assessment of an existing masonry structure using linear and nonlinear material models,” in Proc. 4th Conf. Smart Monitoring Assess. Rehabil. Civ. Struct., 2017.
  20. İ. Kocaman and İ. Kazaz, “Collapse mechanism of historical masonry mosques under strong ground motions,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 144, Art. no. 106983, 2023.
  21. A. Aşıkoğlu, Ö. Avşar, P. B. Lourenço, and L. C. Silva, “Effectiveness of seismic retrofitting of a historical masonry structure: Kütahya Kurşunlu Mosque, Turkey,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 3365–3395, 2019.
  22. M. M. Maraş, A. Özmen, E. Sayın, and Y. Ayaz, “Seismic assessment of the historical Sütlü Minaret Mosque,” Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 445–449, 2022, doi: 10.3311/PPci.18195.
  23. M. Zizi, F. Campitiello, and G. De Matteis, “A retrofitting technique using steel grids for existing masonry panels: A numerical and analytical study,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1051–1077, 2021.
  24. Y. H. Jin, Z. Y. Zhou, B. L. Bao, H. Y. Wang, and T. Wang, “Experimental study on the seismic performance of clay brick masonry wall strengthened with stainless steel strips,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 69, Art. no. 106076, 2023.
  25. G. Rinaldin, C. Miniussi, and C. Amadio, “Cyclic behavior of masonry walls strengthened by tie rods,” Eng. Struct., vol. 184, pp. 287–300, 2019.
  26. P. Aghabeigi and S. Farahmand-Tabar, “Seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting of historic masonry building of Malek Timche in Tabriz Grand Bazaar,” Eng. Struct., vol. 240, Art. no. 112418, 2021.
  27. S. Tanriverdi, “An experimental and numerical study of the strengthening of masonry brick vaults,” Struct., vol. 47, pp. 800–813, 2023.
  28. A. Gattulli, G. Lampis, G. Marcari, and A. Paolone, “Simulations of FRP reinforcement in masonry panels and application to a historic facade,” Eng. Struct., vol. 75, pp. 604–618, 2014.
  29. M. U. Saleem, M. Numada, M. N. Amin, and K. Meguro, “Shake table tests on FRP retrofitted masonry building models,” J. Compos. Constr., vol. 20, no. 5, Art. no. 04016031, 2016.
  30. L. A. S. Kouris and T. C. Triantafillou, “State-of-the-art on strengthening of masonry structures with textile reinforced mortar (TRM),” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 188, pp. 1221–1233, 2018.
  31. C. Caggegi, E. Lanoye, K. Djama, A. Bassil, and A. Gabor, “Tensile behaviour of a basalt TRM strengthening system: Influence of mortar and reinforcing textile ratios,” Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 130, pp. 90–102, 2017.
  32. B. Torres, S. Ivorra, F. J. Baeza, L. Estevan, and B. Varona, “Textile reinforced mortars (TRM) for repairing and retrofitting masonry walls subjected to in-plane cyclic loads: An experimental approach,” Eng. Struct., vol. 231, Art. no. 111742, 2021.
  33. C. G. Papanicolaou, T. C. Triantafillou, K. Karlos, and M. Papathanasiou, “Textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls: In-plane cyclic loading,” Mater. Struct., vol. 40, pp. 1081–1097, 2007.
  34. G. Camata, A. Di Primio, V. Sepe, and C. Cantagallo, “The effect of the vertical component of the earthquake on a regular masonry wall,” Appl. Sci., vol. 13, no. 4, Art. no. 2459, 2023.
  35. E. Işık et al., “Structural damages in masonry buildings in Adıyaman during the Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on 06 February 2023,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 151, Art. no. 107405, 2023.
  36. E. Işık et al., “Seismic performances of masonry educational buildings during the 2023 Türkiye (Kahramanmaraş) earthquakes,” GeoHazards, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 700–731, 2024.
  37. R. İzol, E. Işık, F. Avcil, M. H. Arslan, E. Arkan, and A. Büyüksaraç, “Seismic performance of masonry structures after 06 February 2023 earthquakes: Site survey and FE modelling approach,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 186, Art. no. 108904, 2024.
  38. R. T. Özcan, “Malatya ili için sıvılaşma, taşıma gücü ve diğer geoteknik özelliklerin coğrafi bilgi sistemi kullanılarak değerlendirilmesi,” M.S. thesis, Department of Civil Engineeering, İnönü Univ., Malatya, Türkiye, 2023.
  39. T. Sarici and R. T. Ozcan, “Evaluation of geotechnical properties of Doğanşehir district with geographical information systems after the February 6, 2023 earthquakes,” J. Seismol., vol. 28, pp. 1421–1444, 2024.
  40. H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 1249–1273, 1971.
  41. TBEC, Turkish Building Earthquake Code 2018. Ankara, Türkiye: Disaster and Emergency Management Agency (AFAD), 2018.
  42. A. S. Vesic, “Bearing capacity of shallow foundations,” in Foundation Engineering Handbook. New York, NY, USA: Reinhold, 1975.
  43. K. Terzaghi, Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1943.
  44. Turgutlu Yüksel Tuğla Kiremit, Brick Feature Catalogue. Manisa, Türkiye, 2023.
  45. P. Lourenco, “Computational strategy for masonry structures,” Ph.D. dissertation, Delft Univ. Technol., Delft, The Netherlands, 1996.
  46. A. Carpinteri, S. Invernizzi, and G. Lacidogna, “In situ damage assessment and nonlinear modelling of a historical masonry tower,” Eng. Struct., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 387–395, 2005.
  47. A. Özmen and E. Sayın, “3D soil structure interaction effects on the seismic behavior of single span historical masonry bridge,” Geotech. Geol. Eng., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 1637–1653, 2023.
  48. E. Hökelekli and A. Al-Helwani, “Effect of soil properties on the seismic damage assessment of historical masonry minaret–soil interaction systems,” Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build., vol. 29, no. 2, Art. no. e1694, 2020.
  49. O. Onat, F. Deniz, A. Özmen, E. Özdemir, and E. Sayın, “Performance evaluation and damage assessment of historical Yusuf Ziya Pasha Mosque after February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes,” Struct., vol. 58, Art. no. 105415, 2023.
  50. İ. Kocaman and İ. Kazaz, “Global drift ratio limits for historical masonry mosques,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 3011–3040, 2023.
  51. H. Bilgin and O. Korini, “Seismic capacity evaluation of unreinforced masonry residential buildings in Albania,” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 3753–3764, 2012.
  52. S. Gönen and S. Soyöz, “Seismic analysis of a masonry arch bridge using multiple methodologies,” Eng. Struct., vol. 226, Art. no. 111354, 2021.
  53. D. Proske and P. Van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2009.
  54. Guideline for Load and Resistance Assessment of Existing European Railway Bridges: Advices on the Use of Advanced Methods, RIL 805, COWI A/S, 2007.
  55. A. Baykasoğlu, H. Güllü, H. Çanakçı, and L. Özbakır, “Prediction of compressive and tensile strength of limestone via genetic programming,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 35, no. 1–2, pp. 111–123, 2008.
  56. A. Bayraktar and E. Hökelekli, “Nonlinear soil deformability effects on the seismic damage mechanisms of brick and stone masonry arch bridges,” Int. J. Damage Mech., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 431–452, 2021.
  57. M. Karaton, H. S. Aksoy, E. Sayın, and Y. Calayır, “Nonlinear seismic performance of a 12th century historical masonry bridge under different earthquake levels,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 79, pp. 408–421, 2017.
  58. H. Y. Ersoy, Composite Material. Istanbul, Türkiye: Literature, 2001.
  59. Design of Masonry Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Structures, Eurocode 6. Brussels, Belgium: Comité Européen de Normalisation, 2005.
  60. A. Özmen, “Seismic performances of different strengthening techniques in masonry residential buildings,” Teh. Vjesn., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 470–486, 2026.
  61. DIANA FEA, User’s Manual Release 10.5. The Netherlands, 2022.
  62. P. B. Lourenço and J. M. Pereira, Seismic Retrofitting Project: Recommendations for Advanced Modelling of Historic Earthen Sites. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Getty Conservation Institute, 2018.
  63. T. Krejčí, T. Koudelka, V. Bernardo, and M. Šejnoha, “Effective elastic and fracture properties of regular and irregular masonry from nonlinear homogenization,” Comput. Struct., vol. 254, Art. no. 106580, 2021.
  64. M. Valente and G. Milani, “Seismic response and damage patterns of masonry churches: Seven case studies in Ferrara, Italy,” Eng. Struct., vol. 177, pp. 809–835, 2018.
  65. A. K. Chopra and R. K. Goel, “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 561–582, 2002.
  66. F. Minghini, E. Bertolesi, A. del Grosso, G. Milani, and A. Tralli, “Modal pushover and response history analyses of a masonry chimney before and after shortening,” Eng. Struct., vol. 110, pp. 307–316, 2016.
  67. S. Tiberti, M. Acito, and G. Milani, “Comprehensive FE numerical insight into Finale Emilia Castle behavior under 2012 Emilia Romagna seismic sequence: Damage causes and seismic vulnerability mitigation hypothesis,” Eng. Struct., vol. 117, pp. 397–421, 2016.
  68. M. Valente, G. Barbieri, and L. Biolzi, “Seismic assessment of two masonry Baroque churches damaged by the 2012 Emilia earthquake,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 79, pp. 773–802, 2017.
  69. I. Tomić, A. Penna, I. Senaldi, G. Magenes, and V. Kilar, “Numerical simulation of unreinforced masonry buildings with timber diaphragms,” Buildings, vol. 11, no. 5, Art. no. 205, 2021.
  70. PEER, “NGA West 2,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Accessed: Jan. 12, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://peer.berkeley.edu/research/nga-west-2
  71. E. M. Rathje, F. Faraj, S. Russell, and J. D. Bray, “Empirical relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 119–144, 2004.
  72. R. K. McGuire, “Seismic ground motion parameter relations,” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 481–489, 1978.
  73. W. K. Tso, T. J. Zhu, and A. C. Heidebrecht, “Engineering implication of ground motion A/V ratio,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 133–144, 1992.
  74. W. I. Liao, C. H. Loh, and B. H. Lee, “Comparison of dynamic response of isolated and non-isolated continuous girder bridges subjected to near-fault ground motions,” Eng. Struct., vol. 26, no. 14, pp. 2173–2183, 2004.
  75. S. Zhang and G. Wang, “Effects of near-fault and far-fault ground motions on nonlinear dynamic response and seismic damage of concrete gravity dams,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 53, pp. 217–229, 2013.
  76. A. K. Chopra and C. Chintanapakdee, “Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1769–1789, 2001.
  77. K. Galal and A. Ghobarah, “Effect of near-fault earthquakes on North American nuclear design spectra,” Nucl. Eng. Des., vol. 236, no. 18, pp. 1928–1936, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.02.019.
  78. Seismosoft Ltd., Seismomatch: Earthquake Software for Response Spectrum Matching, 2021.
  79. General Directorate of Foundations, Seismic Risks Management Guide for Historical Structures (SRMGHS). Ankara, Türkiye, 2017.