Seismic Performance Assessment of a Historical Masonry Structure Using Spectrally Matched Records of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake and Conservation-Compatible Retrofitting Proposals: A Case Study from Diyarbakır–Hazro, Türkiye

Öz

The seismic safety assessment of registered heritage buildings requires analysis strategies that reconcile the mechanical complexity of historical masonry with the principles of minimum intervention and material compatibility. This study evaluates the seismic performance of a registered historical masonry structure located on block 157, plot 63 in the Hazro district of Diyarbakır, in the seismically active southeast of Türkiye, and develops conservation-compatible retrofitting proposals. The building, comprising a ground floor and roof level within a 17.24 m × 6.72 m rectangular plan, was discretized with three-dimensional solid finite elements in Abaqus/CAE on the basis of laser-scanning survey geometry. The seismic demand was defined by the DD-2 design spectrum of the Turkish Earthquake Hazard Map (SS = 0.477; S1 = 0.161; PGA = 0.207g; site class ZD), and the three-component records of AFAD-TADAS station 2106 from the February 6, 2023 Pazarcık (Mw 7.7) earthquake were baseline-corrected, band-pass filtered (0.10–20 Hz, Butterworth), and spectrally matched to the target spectrum using wavelet-based adjustment prior to nonlinear time history analysis. Masonry mechanical parameters were assigned per wall typology in accordance with Table 6.1 of the Turkish Guideline for the Management of Earthquake Risks in Historical Structures (TYDRYK). Modal analysis yielded closely spaced translational modes at 13.75 Hz and 14.32 Hz (T ≈ 0.07 s), consistent with the high lateral stiffness of thick-walled masonry. Under the most unfavorable load combination, maximum compressive and tensile stresses remained at 0.06 MPa and 0.07 MPa, respectively, the peak displacement was 1.05 mm, and the maximum drift ratio (0.1–0.2%) remained well below the 0.7% Controlled Damage limit. A localized capacity deficiency identified in lime-mortar brick masonry zones is resolved by the proposed interventions, after which the structure satisfies the Controlled Damage performance level under the DD-2 hazard.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Historical masonry
• Seismic performance
• Finite element method
• Nonlinear time history analysis
• Spectral matching
• Retrofitting

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval was not required for this study because of there was no study on animals or humans.

Kaynakça

1. AFAD. (2018). Türkiye Deprem Tehlike Haritası [Turkish earthquake hazard map]. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority. https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/
2. AFAD. (2023). TADAS – Turkish Accelerometric Database and Analysis System. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority. https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/
3. Al Atik, L., & Abrahamson, N. (2010). An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching. Earthquake Spectra, 26(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3459159
4. Altunışık, A. C., Adanur, S., Genç, A. F., Günaydın, M., & Okur, F. Y. (2017). An investigation of the seismic behaviour of an ancient masonry bastion using non-destructive and numerical methods. Experimental Mechanics, 57(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-016-0239-x
5. Bayraktar, A., Altunışık, A. C., Sevim, B., & Türker, T. (2011). Seismic response of a historical masonry minaret using a finite element model updated with operational modal testing. Journal of Vibration and Control, 17(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546309353288
6. Betti, M., & Vignoli, A. (2008). Assessment of seismic resistance of a basilica-type church under earthquake loading: Modelling and analysis. Advances in Engineering Software, 39(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2007.01.020
7. Binda, L., Saisi, A., & Tiraboschi, C. (2000). Investigation procedures for the diagnosis of historic masonries. Construction and Building Materials, 14(4), 199–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00018-0
8. CEN. (2005a). Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures – Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures (EN 1996-1-1). European Committee for Standardization.

9. CEN. (2005b). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings (EN 1998-3). European Committee for Standardization.
10. Corradi, M., Borri, A., & Vignoli, A. (2002). Strengthening techniques tested on masonry structures struck by the Umbria-Marche earthquake of 1997-1998. Construction and Building Materials, 16(4), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(02)00014-4
11. Dassault Systèmes. (2024). Abaqus/CAE: Finite element analysis software [Computer software]. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.
12. D'Ayala, D., & Speranza, E. (2003). Definition of collapse mechanisms and seismic vulnerability of historic masonry buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 19(3), 479–509. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1599896
13. Fajfar, P. (2000). A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra, 16(3), 573–592. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128
14. FEMA. (1997). NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 273). Federal Emergency Management Agency.
15. Giordano, A., Mele, E., & De Luca, A. (2002). Modelling of historical masonry structures: Comparison of different approaches through a case study. Engineering Structures, 24(8), 1057–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00033-0
16. Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, N. A., Bommer, J. J., Markatis, A., McCoy, E., & Mendis, R. (2006). An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 10(sup001), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460609350629
17. ICOMOS/ISCARSAH. (2003). Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage. International Council on Monuments and Sites.
18. Işık, E. (2023). Structural failures of adobe buildings during the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquakes. Applied Sciences, 13(15), Article 8937. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158937
19. Işık, E., Avcil, F., Büyüksaraç, A., İzol, R., Arslan, M. H., Aksoylu, C., Harirchian, E., Eyisüren, O., Arkan, E., Güngür, M. Ş., Günay, M., & Ulutaş, H. (2023). Structural damages in masonry buildings in Adıyaman during the Kahramanmaraş (Turkiye) earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on 06 February 2023. Engineering Failure Analysis, 151, Article 107405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107405
20. Kahya, V., Genç, A. F., Sunca, F., Roudane, B., Altunışık, A. C., Yılmaz, S., Günaydın, M., Dok, G., Kırtel, O., Demir, A., & Akgül, T. (2024). Evaluation of earthquake-related damages on masonry structures due to the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye earthquakes: A case study for Hatay Governorship Building. Engineering Failure Analysis, 156, Article 107855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107855
21. Katsanos, E. I., Sextos, A. G., & Manolis, G. D. (2010). Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30(4), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.005
22. Köseoğlu, G. C., & Canbay, E. (2015). Assessment and rehabilitation of the damaged historic Cenabı Ahmet Pasha Mosque. Engineering Failure Analysis, 57, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.08.015
23. Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Galasco, A., & Cattari, S. (2013). TREMURI program: An equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Engineering Structures, 56, 1787–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.002
24. Lourenço, P. B. (2002). Computations on historic masonry structures. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 4(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.120
25. Lourenço, P. B., & Roque, J. A. (2006). Simplified indexes for the seismic vulnerability of ancient masonry buildings. Construction and Building Materials, 20(4), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.027
26. Lourenço, P. B., & Rots, J. G. (1997). Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 123(7), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1997)123:7(660
27. Lourenço, P. B., Oliveira, D. V., Leite, J. C., Ingham, J. M., Modena, C., & da Porto, F. (2013). Simplified indexes for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings: International database and validation. Engineering Failure Analysis, 34, 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.02.014
28. Magenes, G., & Calvi, G. M. (1997). In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 26(11), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199711)26:11<1091::AID-EQE693>3.0.CO;2-6
29. Mele, E., De Luca, A., & Giordano, A. (2003). Modelling and analysis of a basilica under earthquake loading. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4(4), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1296-2074(03)00079-7
30. Mercimek, Ö. (2023). Seismic failure modes of masonry structures exposed to Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and 7.6) on February 6, 2023. Engineering Failure Analysis, 151, Article 107422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107422
31. Milani, G., & Valente, M. (2015). Failure analysis of seven masonry churches severely damaged during the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake: Non-linear dynamic analyses vs conventional static approaches. Engineering Failure Analysis, 54, 13–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.03.016
32. Penna, A., Morandi, P., Rota, M., Manzini, C. F., da Porto, F., & Magenes, G. (2014). Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 12(5), 2255–2273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9496-6
33. Roca, P., Cervera, M., Gariup, G., & Pelà, L. (2010). Structural analysis of masonry historical constructions. Classical and advanced approaches. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 17(3), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-010-9046-1
34. Seismosoft. (2023a). SeismoSignal – Signal processing of strong-motion data [Computer software]. https://seismosoft.com
35. Seismosoft. (2023b). SeismoMatch – Response spectrum matching [Computer software]. https://seismosoft.com
36. Sevim, B., Bayraktar, A., Altunışık, A. C., Atamtürktür, S., & Birinci, F. (2011). Assessment of nonlinear seismic performance of a restored historical arch bridge using ambient vibrations. Nonlinear Dynamics, 63(4), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-010-9835-y
37. Tomaževič, M. (1999). Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. Imperial College Press. https://doi.org/10.1142/p055
38. TSE. (1997). TS 498: Design loads for buildings. Turkish Standards Institution.
39. Turkish Ministry of Interior. (2018). Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği (TBDY-2018) [Turkish building earthquake code]. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority.
40. Uçak, Ş., Bayraktar, A., Türker, T., & Osmancıklı, G. (2016). Finite-element model calibration of historical masonry domes using operational modal testing. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30(2), Article 04015017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000710
41. Usta, P. (2021). Assessment of seismic behavior of historic masonry minarets in Antalya, Turkey. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 15, Article e00665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00665
42. Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü. (2017). Tarihi Yapılar İçin Deprem Risklerinin Yönetimi Kılavuzu (TYDRYK) [Guideline for the management of earthquake risks in historical structures]. General Directorate of Foundations.
43. Valluzzi, M. R., da Porto, F., & Modena, C. (2004). Behavior and modeling of strengthened three-leaf stone masonry walls. Materials and Structures, 37(3), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02481618
44. Vintzileou, E., & Tassios, T. P. (1995). Three-leaf stone masonry strengthened by injecting cement grouts. Journal of Structural Engineering, 121(5), 848–856. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445