See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281856070

Seismic damage evaluation of historical

structures during Van earthquake, October 23,
2011

Article in Engineering Failure Analysis September 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.08.030

CITATIONS READS

3 174

5 authors, including:

Ferit Cakir Eren Ukan

University of California, Berkeley Bogazici University
39 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 112 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Burcin S Seker Bulent Akbas

Amasya University Gebze Technical University
11 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS 92 PUBLICATIONS 205 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Statistical analysis of crash data View project

DETERMINATION OF STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR AND EVALUATION OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF

HISTORICAL TOWERS IN ISTANBUL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Burcin S Seker on 26 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/efa

Seismic damage evaluation of historical structures during Van

earthquake, October 23, 2011
Ferit Cakir a,, Eren Uckan b, Jay Shen c, Burcin S. Seker d, Bulent Akbas e
a
Dept. of Architecture, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI), Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
c
Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
d
Dept. of Construction Technology, Merzifon Voc. School, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey
e
Dept. of Earthquake and Structural Engineering, Gebze Technical University, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Seismic risk assessment of historical structures (mosques, churches, monuments, towers, palaces,
Received 31 May 2015 aqua structures, etc.) has attracted many researchers' attention for the last few decades. This
Received in revised form 24 August 2015 paper aims at investigating the damage at two historical structures, which partially collapsed dur-
Accepted 24 August 2015
ing the main shock of the October 23, 2015, Van earthquake in eastern Turkey. The massive rigid
Available online 7 September 2015
body of both structures survived the earthquake without any damage, but the Narthexes of both
structures collapsed. A thorough examination of the existing guidelines (ASCE 41, 2006; EC8-3,
Keywords: 2005 and PERPETUATE, 2010) are rst studied. Response spectrum analyses are then performed
Masonry structures
to evaluate the seismic performance of the structures. The results of the numerical analyses re-
Seismic performance
vealed the fact that the collapse of the Narthexes could not be identied by the response spectrum
Performance based evaluation
Van earthquake of 2011 analysis in which a sticked mode is assumed between both components. The failures of both struc-
tures were possibly due to local effects such as; independent responses of the Narthexes with re-
spect to the main structure and/or weakened column-arch joints due to combined effects of
environmental conditions and human interventions.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

On October 23, 2011, 1:41:21 p.m. local time, the city of Van in eastern Turkey was hit by a major earthquake causing heavy
loss of human lives and properties. The epicenter of the earthquake, Tabanli Village, was 30 km north of Van in the eastern region
of Turkey by Lake Van (Fig. 1). The earthquake is considered to be a very strong damaging earthquake with a magnitude of
Mw = 7.2 and a depth of 19.2 km. It was associated with a reverse faulting mechanism dipping towards north [14] and caused
signicant damage in the cities of Van, Ercis as well as in many villages and caused deaths of nearly 600 people, injured 2000 and
about 15,000 buildings damaged in the region [57]. 58 buildings are reported to have totally collapsed, 52 of them are located
in Ercis, while 6 of them are located in Van. Earthquake-affected areas are mainly located within a circle of 30 km radius and
around the epicenter. Peak ground accelerations (PGA) of the main shock were 0.179 g and 0.17 g in NS and EW directions, re-
spectively, and 0.08 g in vertical direction (Table 1) [8]. The number of aftershocks with M = 4.04.9 reached up to 114, the big-
gest number of aftershocks ever recorded after any major earthquake in Turkey [5]. A signicant aftershock has been associated
with this earthquake.

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cakirf@yildiz.edu.tr (F. Cakir).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.08.030
1350-6307/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
250 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266

Fig. 1. Main shock (big star), the second (Edremit) earthquake (small star) and the location of the Seven Churches and Husrev Pasha Mosquas as well as estimated PGA
and PGV values in the (Mw = 7.2 and M = 5.6) earthquakes (in red and yellow) overlaid on the active tectonic map of Van: (http://www.mta.gov.tr/v2.0/eng/index.
php).

Two weeks after the main shock, another earthquake with a moderate magnitude (M = 5.6) hit the town of Edremit, located
10 km south of Van. It was possibly triggered by the rst event and associated by a strike slip mechanism. About 30 buildings already
damaged in the main shock, collapsed. The water and electric networks were damaged again. No damage was observed in Ercis.
Many reconnaissance reports and papers have been published after the earthquake, but none of them specically investigated the
damage to historical structures [5,6,9,10,11,12,13].
Seismic hazard assessment of historical structures (mosques, churches, monuments, monuments, towers, palaces, aqua structures,
etc) has gained great attention for the last few decades [1419]. Masonry walls act as shear walls during the seismic actions and the
seismic performance of masonry structures mostly depends on the strength and behavior of in-plane masonry walls. However, the
questions arise regarding constructing the numerical modeling of the structure and obtaining the structural drawings (as-built draw-
ings almost impossible to obtain without a miracle) when dealing with the seismic performance or damage assessment.

Table 1
Characteristics of the Muradiye and Semsibey earthquake records.

Date Record Name Location Depth (km) Magnitude (Mw) PGA (g)

23 October 2011 Muradiye NS (mainshock) Van Muradiye Meteorology Directorate 19.02 7.2 0.179
9 November 2011 Semsibey (second earthquake) Semsibey Primary School 5.6 0.09
 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266 251

Fig. 2. Active tectonic plates, major faults and their movement directions [33] (from KOERI Report [31]).

Cardoso et al. [20] proposed an iterative methodology to estimate the seismic performance of historical structures considering
nonlinear behavior. They applied their methodology to strengthen a masonry building [21]. Betti et al. [22] carried out a numerical
study on spandrel masonry walls. The study included strengthening the walls at oor levels by reinforced concrete beams. Ademovic
et al. [23] studied the seismic performance of an old masonry building through performance-based push-over analysis. They used so-
phisticated and a simple nonlinear model in their analyses and reported that making the model more sophisticated increases the com-
putational time, but accurate results can also be obtained through simple practical models. Minghini et al. [24] investigated the causes
of damage (mainly shear failure) of a 50 m high masonry chimney during the 2012 Emilia earthquake. They used both nonlinear static
and response history analyses in their study. Avossa and Malangone [25] proposed a modied concrete model taking into account the
interaction between the DruckerPrager plasticity and a dened compression failure surface [26]. They used the model to estimate the
seismic performance of masonry buildings.
Despite the fact that research on old and historic structures has become a new streamline, authentic evaluation by nonlinear dy-
namic analysis is rare, and lacks depth so far. A recently completed European Research Project, PERPETUATE [27] has developed a
three step-procedure and guidelines on how to seismically assess historical structures based on performance-based evaluation prin-
ciples. Modeling and verication requires performance-based assessment (PBA) of the structure in PERPETUATE [27]. PBA suggests
that pushover analysis be used until a target displacement is reached according to the selected performance level (PL). Engineering
demand parameter is the lateral displacement for pushover analysis. When nonlinear dynamic analyses are used, incremental dynam-
ic analysis curve corresponding to lateral force is plotted against the lateral displacement. Incremental dynamic analysis is carried out
scaling peak ground acceleration of the selected strong earthquake ground motion records. PLs are classied into three different

Fig. 3. Failure modes in unreinforced masonry walls (a) bed-joint sliding, (b) rocking and toe compression, (c) stair-stepped diagonal and diagonal cracking.
252 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266

Table 2a
Acceptance criteria for unreinforced masonry in-plane walls and piers [29].

Primary members Secondary members

Limiting behavioral mode Immediate occupancy Life safety Collapse prevention Life safety Collapse prevention
(IO) (LS) (CP) (LS) (CP)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Bed-Joint sliding 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8

FEMA 356 (2000) and FEMA 274
Rocking 0.1 0.3heff/L 0.4heff/L 0.6heff/L 0.8heff/L
ASCE 41 (2006) Rocking 0.1 0.3heff/L 0.4heff/L 0.6heff/L 0.8heff/L

groups; namely, use and human life, building conservation and artistic asset conservation. The seismic performance of the historical
structure is then dened from high performance level to low performance level as operational, immediate occupancy and life safety
for use and human life PL; no damage, damage limitation, signicant but restorable damage and near collapse for building conserva-
tion PL; near integrity, damaged but with low esthetic impact, severely damaged but still restorable, loss prevention for artistic asset
PL.
The vulnerability of the masonry structures to earthquakes and seismic effects have been among the most common reasons of the
collapse of masonry structures. Therefore, it is crucial to dene earthquake performance of the masonry structures located in the ac-
tive seismic zones.
This paper aims at investigating the damage at two historical structures which were heavily damaged during the main shock of the
Van earthquake. The seismic performances of the historical structures; namely, Seven Churches and Husrev Pasha Mosque, are stud-
ied. The massive rigid body of both structures survived the earthquake, but the narthexes of both structures collapsed. A thorough ex-
amination of the existing guidelines [2830] is rst studied. Response spectrum analyses are then performed to evaluate the seismic
performance of the structures.

2. Seismicity, site observations and strong motion properties of the Van earthquake

Seismicity of the region mainly consists of continent-to-continent collision of Anatolian and Arabian plates (Fig. 2). The earthquake
is reported to have occurred on a blind oblique trust fault, namely Van fault, oriented towards the NESW direction ([1,5,31] and is not
marked on the Active Fault Map of Turkey [32].

2.1. Seismicity and site observations

Part of the convergence between these two plates takes place along the BitlisZagros fold and thrust belt at a rate of approximately
2.4 cm/year [1]. The focal region of the earthquake and much of Easternmost Turkey lie towards the southern boundary of the com-
plex zone of continental collision between the Arabian Plate and the Eurasian Plate. The geology of the surrounding area is composed
of lake, river and land sediments having layers of loose sand, gravel and clay [9]. Groundwater level is known to be high especially for
the areas close to Lake Van.
Geotechnical observations after the earthquake indicated that there were mainly liquefaction and liquefaction-based lateral
spreading and displacement, landslides, slope failures and rock falls. Water transmission/distribution systems suffered from ground
shaking and soil failure problems. The heavy precast-concrete frames with precast roof beams suffered from connection problems.
Noticeable displacements and deformations were observed at the beam-column connections and footings of the structures with pre-
cast concrete frame systems located around the VanErcis highway. More severe cases were observed at the Industrial zone of Van.
The precast concrete beams slipped-off from their seats and collapsed because of inadequate steelconcrete bondage.

2.2. Strong ground motion

In the main shock, the strong motion stations in Van were not operating. The nearest station was the one in Muradiye. Following
the preliminary eld investigation conducted by KOERI (2011) [31] on October 24, 2011, the deployment of 10 additional seismic

Table 2b
Acceptance criteria for unreinforced masonry in-plane walls and piers [29].

Primary members Secondary members

Controlling failure mode Damage limitation Signicant damage Near collapse Signicant damage Near collapse
(DL) (SD) (NC) (SD) (NC)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

In-plane (controlled by shear) 0.40H0/D 0.53H0/D 0.60H0/D 0.80H0/D

Out-of-plane (controlled by exure) 0.80H0/D 1.06H0/D 1.20H0/D 1.60H0/D

H0: distance between the section where the exural capacity is attained and the contraexural point.
D: in-plane horizontal dimension of the wall (depth).
 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266 253

Fig. 4. An example of TBPLs as a combination of SPLs and N-SPLs [28].

instrumentation began on October 25, 2011. Buildings with minor damage seemed to have experienced only non-structural damage
due to mostly separation of inll walls from the structural frame. This type of damage was also a manifestation of long duration and
rather low amplitude (believed to be less than 0.2 g).

3. Seismic performance of historical structures in past earthquakes

Many reconnaissance reports and papers have been published after strong earthquake ground motions. Dogangun and Sezen [34]
investigated the damage at historical mosques after August 17, 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake in Turkey. The stiff unreinforced perimeter
masonry walls in the mosques resisted lateral forces during the earthquake. However, the tall and slender minarets of the three
mosques were either totally or partially collapsed. Brandonisio et al. [35] investigated the seismic behavior of four important masonry
churches damaged during the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. Their study concluded that the base shear coefcient (the ratio of base shear
to the weight of the structure) varied between 20 and 30% and the mass participating factors were less than 10% for a signicant num-
ber of modes. According to the authors, this indicated that seismic force reduction for monumental buildings was not as signicant as
for residential or ofce buildings in which the dynamic behavior was mainly due to the higher mass participating ratios of the rst few
modes. They also pointed out that any retrot interventions should tie up the building in order to avoid local failures. Preciado et al.
[36] investigated an old masonry Cathedral in Colima, Mexico that had been strongly damaged during the M7.6 earthquake in 1941.
The earthquake caused strong damage at the main faade and caused a collapse of the tower. They used a macro-element to represent
the damaged part of the Cathedral and tried to simulate the observed failure mechanisms at the frontal faade through the use of limit
analysis and nonlinear nite element approaches.

4. Seismic design and evaluation of historical structures

Evaluation of seismic performance for existing masonry buildings has been mentioned in many standards [28,29,37,38]. These
standards dene four failure modes for unreinforced masonry (URM) walls in seismic evaluation, namely, bed-joint sliding, rocking,

Fig. 5. ASCE 41 [28] model for: a) generalized force (F) deformation (D) relations; b) acceptance criteria.
254 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266

Fig. 6. Limit states for masonry buildings dened on capacity curve [29].

diagonal tension and toe crushing. The rst two are classied as deformation-controlled actions because lateral deections of walls
and piers can become quite large as strengths remain close to constant. On the other hand, the latter two are classied as force-
controlled actions, because they occur when a certain stress is reached and can cause sudden and substantial strength deterioration
(Fig. 3). Stair-stepped diagonal cracking can also be considered as a deformation-controlled action because frictional forces along bed
joints are preserved with vertical compressive forces. The governing behavior of the masonry wall or pier will be the one with the low-
est capacity. Deformation-controlled failure mode requires a certain ductile behavior, whereas the failure is due to brittle behavior in
force-controlled failure mode. FEMA 356 [38], ASCE 41 [28] and EC8-3 [29] provide expected lateral strength of walls and piers for
deformation-controlled behavior and lower bound lateral strength for walls and piers for force-controlled behavior (bed-joint
sliding).
For the case of a rocking pier, nearly all of the bed joint may be open at the base and top to accept the component's rotation, yet
shear is still transferred at the toe because of friction.
Rocking usually occurs when the wall shear strength is high, the wall is slender, and the compressive forces are low. It is usually
accompanied by a large deformation capacity limited by toe compression failure or wall instability. When rocking behavior continues
in several cycles, it may be followed by the toe crushing (Fig. 3b). In diagonal tension behavior, a diagonal crack distributes over the
wall. This behavior usually occurs in walls with strong mortar, weak units, and high compressive stresses. In this failure mode, small
nonlinear deformations are expected. In most cases, cracking occurs suddenly and the wall strength drops.
Seismic evaluation of masonry buildings are usually carried out by linear or nonlinear procedures. For the analyses, the members
should be classied as either having force-controlled or deformation controlled failure modes. If an element has a force-controlled fail-
ure, it should have enough capacity against the applied loads without yielding and plastic deformation, e.g. force demand should be
less than or equal to the member capacity. If the element is designated as having a deformation-controlled failure mode, then the
member is expected to experience some amount of ductility without signicant loss of strength. Based on the performance level,
the observed plastic deformation should be limited. The limitations for nonlinear static procedures are given in FEMA 356 [38] and
ASCE 41 [28] (Tables 2a and 2b).

Fig. 7. Acceptance criteria as suggested by PERPETUATE on pushover curve.

 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266 255

Table 3
Target performance types and earthquake hazard levels [30].

Target performance type (TPT)

Probability of exceedance in 50 years Use and human life Building conservation Artistic assets

H1 65% RU
H2 50% LS CP LP
Earthquake hazard level
H3 10% IO DL LD
H4 2% OP I

When using nonlinear procedures for the evaluation of an existing masonry wall or pier, the effects of earthquake-induced uplift
on the tension side of an element, or rocking, should be included as a nonlinear degree of freedom. The adequacy of element above and
below the level at which uplift or rocking occurs, including the foundations should be evaluated for any redistribution of forces or de-
formations that occurs as a result of this rocking. Buildings may also rock on their foundations in an acceptable manner provided the
structural components can accommodate the resulting displacements and deformations. Consideration of rocking can be used to limit
the force input to a building; however, rocking should not be considered simultaneously with the effects of soil exibility.
ASCE 41 [28] supersedes FEMA 356 [38] which came after FEMA 274 [37]. Similar to its predecessors, ASCE 41 [28] is applicable to
all types of buildings and structural materials (concrete, steel or masonry) for seismic rehabilitation, i.e. it is not solely intended to be
used for historical structures. The term rehabilitation objective in ASCE 41 [28] is used for improving the seismic performance level
of structural and non-structural components of a structure to achieve the selected target building performance level (TBPL). ASCE 41
[28] denes TBPL as a combination of a structural performance level (SPL) and a non-structural performance level (N-SPL). There are
three discrete post-earthquake SPLs dened in ASCE 41 [28] for buildings as immediate occupancy SPL, life safety SPL, and collapse
prevention (CP) SPL. Similar to SPLs, four discrete N-SPLs are dened in ASCE 41 [28] for non-structural components in buildings as
operational N-SPL, immediate occupancy (IO) N-SPL, life safety (LS) N-SPL, and hazard reduced N-SPL. Finally, TBPL is set as a combi-
nation of both SPL and N-SPL. An example of a possible combination for buildings is given in Fig. 4. Achieving TBPL corresponding to a
predened earthquake hazard level should be veried by a seismic rehabilitation objective, which is selected one or more of the basic
safety, enhanced rehabilitation, or limited rehabilitation objectives.
ASCE 41 [28] requires each structural component be classied as primary or secondary prior to selecting component acceptance
criteria, whereas for the analyses, the members are classied as either having force-controlled or deformation-controlled failure
modes. If an element has a force-controlled failure, it should have enough capacity against the applied loads without yielding and plas-
tic deformation, e.g. force demand should be less than or equal to the member capacity. If the element is designated as having a
deformation-controlled failure mode, then the member is expected to experience some amount of ductility without signicant loss
of strength. All primary and secondary components should be capable of resisting force- or deformation-controlled actions based
on the selected TBPL (Fig. 5).

4.1. Seismic performance evaluation based on EC8-3 (2005)

EC8-3 [29] is mainly intended to provide seismic evaluation procedures for existing buildings and for the design of retrotting pro-
jects from conceptual design to structural analysis. Even though, EC8-3 [29] is applicable to any type of buildings and structural ma-
terials (concrete, steel, or masonry), similar to ASCE 41 [28], monumental buildings are not explicitly covered. EC8-3 [29] denes three
limit states (LS), namely Near Collapse (NC), Signicant Damage (SD), and Damage Limitation (DL). The number of LSs to be checked
for the building, return periods the selected earthquake hazard level should come from the National Annex of a country. Ductile and
brittle structural elements are dened in EC8-3 [29] and they are veried by checking that demands on the element do not exceed the
capacity of the element in terms of deformations, while ductile members are required to satisfy the demands in terms of strengths.
EC8-3 [29] allows some existing structural elements designated as secondary seismic elements of which their capacity are estimated
less conservatively than the primary seismic elements. Performance limit states are dened on the capacity curve (lateral force vs. lat-
eral displacement curve) and acceptance criteria is not needed to be veried in each structural element. Fig. 6 shows the performance
limit states for existing masonry buildings on the capacity curve.
EC8-3 [29] requires the following to be taken into consideration in the analyses:

a. Structural model will be constructed using the cracked stiffness for both exure and shear. Cracked stiffness may be taken as one-
half of the uncracked stiffness.
b. The ultimate displacement capacity of a structure will be calculated as the roof displacement at which total lateral strength (or
base shear) drops below 80% of the peak resistance of the structure.
c. The demand will be obtained from the nonlinear static and dynamic analysis. The demand for the seismic action corresponds to the
roof displacement at the target displacement.
d. In cases where the controlling failure mode is due to in-plane (shear) or out-of-plane (exure) deformation, the limit drift ratios
for SD and NC for an unreinforced masonry wall designated as primary seismic wall will be taken from Tables 2a and 2b. The cor-
responding drift ratios for secondary walls can be obtained by multiplying the drift ratios for primary seismic walls by 1.33.
 256
F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266
Fig. 8. The location of the Seven Churches and Husrev Pasha Mosque (source: google earth).
 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266 257

4.2. Seismic performance evaluation based on PERPETUATE (2010)

PERPETUATE [30] has been specically developed for seismic evaluation and retrotting of cultural heritage buildings using the
performance-based assessment methodology as proposed in both ASCE 41 [28] and EC8-3 [29]. PERPETUATE [30] requires a nonlinear
static analysis resulting in a pushover curve (base shear vs. lateral displacement curve) on which four damage levels are dened,
namely, slight damage (SD), moderate damage (MD), heavy damage (HD), and complete damage (CD). The effect of non-structural
elements is not required to be included in the pushover analysis (Fig. 7). SL occurs at a point where global stiffness of the structure
starts reducing due to local damage, MD corresponds to the maximum lateral strength at which point a number of structural elements
might have reached their maximum strength, HD follows MD and ductile structural elements determine the gap between the MD and
HD levels, and CD is where a brittle behavior followed until collapse.
Three target performance types (TPT) are dened in PERPETUATE [30] which are use and human life, building conservation, and
artistic assets conservation. The design philosophy in PERPETUATE [30] is that one TPT is designated as the main TPT corresponding to
predened damage levels, while another TPT is designated as secondary. Other TPTs are assumed to be satised if the main and sec-
ondary TPT corresponding to certain damage levels are veried. The TPTs are also subdivided into target performance levels (TPLs) as
operational (OP), immediate occupancy (IO) (secondary) and life safety (LS) (main) for use and human life TPT; damage limitation
(DL) and collapse prevention (CP) (main) and ruins (RU) (secondary) for building conservation TPT; integrity (INT), low damage
(LD) (main) and loss prevention (LP) (secondary) for artistic assets conservation TPT. Four earthquake hazard levels are also dened
as H1, H2, H3, and H4 corresponding to 65%, 50%, 10%, and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, respectively. Table 3 summarizes
TPTs and corresponding earthquake hazard levels.
For damage classication, PERPETUATE treats masonry towers as macroelements coinciding with the structure itself as a whole
architectonic assets of which damage to a tower might lead to a signicant load bearing loss of the whole architectonic asset and com-
promises its functionality. Damage class designated as macroelement classes such as towers is identied as damage to
monodimensional masonry elements of which the prevailing behavior is characterized by beam theory different from masonry
walls, vaults or domes. Damage might stem from two effects in monodimensional masonry elements:
a. Combined axial and bending effect,
b. Shear response.

The failure mode in case of combined axial and bending effect depends on the applied vertical load and the compressive strength of
masonry. In cases where there is a relatively low vertical load, lateral forces cause rocking of the tower and the tower might rotate as a
rigid body about the toe. If the vertical load is relatively high, a widespread damage is observed on the surface of the tower. Collapse of
the tower might be due to the failure at the compressed corners [30].
PERPETUATE [30] suggests continuous constitutive law models or structural element models, where possible, be used in nonlinear
modeling of the monodimensional masonry elements. Macroblock models are rarely used for this purpose. Constitutive law models
use nite element modeling technique with phenomenological or micromechanical homogenized constitutive laws, whereas

Fig. 9. General layout of the Seven Churches: a) plan, b) elevation.

Adapted from Virtualani.
258 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266

Fig. 10. The Seven Churches in pictures taken : a) in 1923, b) in 2011.

equivalent frame modeling by discretization and using linear and nonlinear elements is used in structural element models. Macro-
block model is a limit state analyses using upper bound theory [19].

5. Historical information on the Seven Churches and Husrev Pasha Mosque

5.1. The Seven Churches

The Seven Churches also known as monastery of Varagavank is located at Mount Erek in Yukari Bakracli village which is about
9 km east of Van (Figs. 1 and 8) and is considered to be one of the historic landmarks in the city. The name Seven Churches
comes from the fact that this religious complex consists of a total of seven churches and a porch with bell tower (Fig. 9).
This religious complex can be divided into two main groups. The Church of St. Soa and the Church of St. John are in the rst group,
whereas the Holy Mother of God, the Zhamatun of St. George, the Chapel of the Holy Seal, the Church of the Holy Seal, the Church of
the Holy Cross, the Church of St. Sion and the Porch with Bell Tower are in the second group (Fig. 9). The Church of St. Soa was built in
981 (A.C.) by the order of Khoushush who is the daughter of King of Vaspurakan named Gagik Bagratid. Vaspurakan was an indepen-
dent kingdom during the middle ages, centered on Lake Van. The Church of St. John, which is adjacent to the Church of St. Soa was
built between 1003 and 1021 (A.C.) by the order of Senekerim, King of Vaspurakan [39]. This church is currently demolished. The
Church of Holy Mother is known as the main church and was also believed to be built by Senekerim. It was rebuilt after an earthquake

Fig. 11. Enlarged version of Fig. 10b.

 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266 259

Fig. 12. General layout of the Husrev Pasha Mosque: a) plan, b) elevation.
Adapted from archnet.org.

in 1648. The Chapel of the Holy Seal adjoins the north wall of the main church, the Church of Holy Mother. This chapel could not sur-
vive over the centuries. Zhamatun of St. George is on the west of the main church. It was added to the existing structural complex in
1648. The Church of the Holy Cross was built in the north facade of Zhamatun of St. George. It was built in 1817 and has been used as
the monastery library. The Church of St. Sion is against the south wall of Zhamatun of St. George and was built in 1849 [39]. It does look
like a typical church-structure. The porch with belltower (narthex) stands in front of the Zhamatun of St. George's west wall. The sec-
ond, third, and fth churches damaged during the Van earthquake [39].
During the course of time, the church has suffered some damage and been subject to the risk of collapse due to its structural de-
fects. The church has been damaged several times due to the environmental conditions, the natural disasters or human interventions.
These have caused irreversible negative effects on the structure. It has been repaired several times by using different materials such as
stones and mortar over the past decades and centuries. However, these repairs have not been technical and implemented without
much engineering that has caused more damage to the structure. According to historical records, the complex was seriously damaged
because of a major earthquake in 1648 [39]. Then, the structure was renovated by archpriest Kirakos. Although the complex was being
used as a whole in 1923, the church has substantially lost its structural integrity and stability at the present time (Fig. 10) [39].
The domes of the Church of the Holy Mother of God and Zhamatun of St. George as well as the bell tower above the narthex had
already been collapsed before the Van earthquake, October 23, 2011 (Fig. 11). The Van earthquake caused serious structural damage
and irreversible negative effects to the structure. Especially, the Porch with Bell Tower (narthex) collapsed during the earthquake
(Fig. 11) [40]. Cracks and separation of walls has been observed on the vault of the Church of the Holy Cross during the earthquake.
Moreover, various separations have been appeared between arch stones in the arch intrados. Spalling and aking have also been

Fig. 13. The narthex section of Husrev Pasha Mosque (a) before the Van earthquake, (b) after the Van earthquake.
260 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266

Fig. 14. Three-dimensional models of: a) undamaged model of the Seven Churches (original), b) existing damage state of the Seven Churches before the Van earthquake,
c) Husrev Pasha Mosque.

visible in the springing and the voussoirs. Additional structural cracks and fractures have been observed at the church facades and on
top of the structure.

5.2. Husrev Pasha Mosque

One of the most important Ottoman structures in the city of Van is Husrev Pasha Complex (Kulliye). Hsrev Pasha Complex is sit-
uated in the Orta Kap district in Van. This complex was built in honor of Kose Husrev Mehmed Pasha, who was a governor of Van
during the Ottoman period. According to historical inscription, it was constructed by Mimar Sinan, who has served as the chief Otto-
man architect for about ve decades in the late 16th century. This complex consists of a madrasah, a primary school, a town caravan-
serai, a fountain, a Turkish bath (hammam), a kitchen, a mosque and a tomb. The mosque, as one of the most important structure of
the complex, is located at the center of the complex (Fig. 12). The mosque consists of two distinct units, the main structure and the
narthex. The main structure has a square layout and symmetrical in plan with a hemisphere dome. The narthex is the entrance
part of the main structure and has a rectangular plan and ve domes [41].
The complex was seriously damaged in a major earthquake in 1839 after which it has been renovated and rebuilt. The whole com-
plex was partly demolished because of a re in 1915. The narthex was totally collapsed in the 1960s due to another major earthquake.
The mosque was completely restored in the 2000s. However, the structure has suffered from serious structural damage during the Van
earthquake, October 23, 2011 and the narthex was collapsed again (Fig. 13) [40,41].

Table 4
The structural modes and corresponding effective mass to total mass ratios for the Seven Churches.

Ratio eff. mass to total mass

MODE Frequency (Hz) Period (s)
X Y Z

1 16.2964 0.0614 0.5839 5.659E03 2.999E05

2 17.9374 0.0557 7.797E03 0.1590 1.422E04
3 18.3581 0.0545 5.424E03 0.4043 2.008E04
 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266 261

Fig. 15. The structural modes of the Seven Churches: a) rst mode (translational in X direction), b) second mode (translational in Y direction coupled with the torsional),
c) third mode (translational in Y direction).

6. Structural analyses

6.1. Numerical modeling

In order to analyze a historical structure, a numerical model is needed. The Finite element method (FEM) is widely used in the anal-
ysis of masonry structures because of their complexity of the structural model. In this study, the numerical models of the Seven
Churches and Husrev Pash Mosque was constructed using a FEA software, ANSYS Workbench [42]. In the modeling process, SOLID
186 elements, which are dened by 20 nodes having three degrees of freedom per node, and tetrahedral meshes were preferred
for the description of the structure. A total of 113,758 nodes 61,259 elements and 75,281 nodes 38,717 elements were used in
modeling the Seven Churches and Husrev Pasha Mosque, respectively (Fig. 14).
The material properties of a historical structure play important roles in the response of the structural model. However, it is quite
difcult to determine such parameters. Therefore, in this study, material data is taken from the previous studies and some general as-
sumptions are made for the unknown parameters. This approach has been widely used for historical structures. Some scientists have
studied structural behavior of historical structures in the last decade [16,43]. In this study, the modulus of elasticity of the stones,
Poisson ratio and unit volume weight were assumed to be as 8500 MPa, 0.20 and 2300 kg/m3, respectively, whereas for brick, the
same values were taken as 3500 MPa, 0.22 and 1850 kg/m3, respectively. After performing modal analyses, linear response spectrum
analyses have been carried out for both structures under the uniform response spectra constructed with respect to one of the three
different earthquake levels.

Table 5
The structural modes and corresponding effective mass to total mass ratios for Husrev Pasha Mosque.

Ratio eff. mass to total mass

MODE Frequency (Hz) Period (s)
X Y Z

1 12.2818 8.14E02 1.070E05 0.6099 3.838E04

2 12.5193 7.99E02 0.6288 1.612E05 1.342E07
262 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266

Fig. 16. The structural modes of Husrev Pasha Mosque: a) rst mode, b) second mode.

6.2. Modal analysis

6.2.1. The Seven Churches

The modal analysis of the seven churches resulted in translational as well as torsional modes of the structure. The global structural
modes in X and Y directions are observed in the rst and third modes (translational) with T = 0.0614 s and 0.0545 s, respectively,

Fig. 17. Acceleration time history of the ground motions: a) Muradiye Station NS component; b) Semsibey Primary School EW Component.
 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266 263

Fig. 18. Design spectra for EQ1, EQ2, and EQ3 seismic hazard levels.

whereas the torsional mode occurs in the second mode with T = 0.0557 s. The local modes are ignored in the modal evaluation. For
the rst three modes, frequencies, periods and ratios of effective mass to total mass and effective rotational mass to total rotational
mass are presented in Table 4. Since ANSYS [42] does not report the total rotational mass, but only effective rotational mass, sufcient
numbers of models were taken into account to determine the total rotational mass of the tower. For the rst three modes, the mode
shapes are presented in Fig. 15.

6.2.2. Husrev Pasha Mosque

The modal analysis of the Husrev Pasha Mosque indicates that the governing modes occur in orthogonal translational directions of
the structure. The global structural modes in X and Y directions are observed in the rst and second modes with T = 0.0814 s and
0.0799 s, respectively. The local modes are ignored in the modal evaluation as in the case of the Seven Churches. For the rst two
modes, frequencies, periods and ratios of effective mass to total mass and effective rotational mass to total rotational mass are present-
ed in Table 5. Since the software, ANSYS [42], addresses only the effective rotational mass but not total, higher modes were also con-
sidered in the analysis to identify the total rotational mass of the tower of both structures. The rst two modes of the model are shown
in Fig. 16.

6.3. Response spectrum analysis

There was only one station (Muradiye) which was active during the Oct. 23 2015, M = 7.2 Van earthquake (Fig. 17a). Two weeks
after the earthquake, the region was hit by another one with a magnitude of Mw = 5.6, in November 9, 2011. Fortunately, it was re-
corded by many stations in the region, one of which was the Semsibey St., northeastern Van (Fig. 17b). Properties of the earthquake
and the acceleration time histories of the Muradiye and Semsibey ground motions are given in Table 1 and Fig. 17, respectively.
Uniform hazard spectra for 5% critical damping are constructed for three earthquake levels, namely EQ-1, EQ-2, and EQ-3, based on
Turkish Code for Coastal and Harbor Structures (RHA, 2007) for the reference soil type B (Fig. 18). EQ1, EQ2, and EQ3 correspond to the
earthquake ground motions with 50%, 10%, and 2% probability of exceedances. Short-period spectral acceleration, Ss, and 1-s period
spectral acceleration, S1, values corresponding to these earthquake levels are given in Table 6. The 5% damped spectral response ac-
celerations for short periods (SMS) and at one-second (SM1) for B Class Soil are determined using the site coefcients, Fa and Fv. SS and
S1 are assumed to be 0.55, 1.00, 1.49 and 0.14, 0.29, 0.48 for EQ1, EQ2, and EQ3 seismic hazard levels, respectively. Fa and Fv are taken
to be 1.0 for EQ1, EQ2, and EQ3 seismic hazard levels, respectively. Effective peak ground accelerations (PGAs) corresponding to these
earthquake levels are determined as 0.22 g, 0.40 g, and 0.40 g for EQ-1,.EQ-2, and EQ-3, respectively (Table 7). Fig. 18 shows the re-
sponse spectra corresponding to Muradiye and Semsibey ground motions. For comparison, design spectra corresponding to 10% prob-
ability of exceedance in 50 years as described in Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC) [44] is also given in Fig. 19 for different site
conditions. Response spectrum denition in TEC [44] is based on effective peak ground acceleration which is given as 0.4 g for the
earthquake site.

Table 6
Ss and S1 values [45].

Earthquake level Ss (g) S1 (g) PGA (g)

EQ-1(50% PE in 50 years) 0.55 0.14 0.22

EQ-2(10% PE in 50 years) 1.00 0.29 0.40
EQ-3(2% PE in 50 years) 1.49 0.48 0.60
264 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266

Table 7
Drift ratios of the Seven Churches and Husrev Pasha Mosque under EQ-3.

Drift ratio (%)

Top-point of the Narthex Top-point of the main structure

Seven Churches
X direction 0.006 0.008
Y direction 0.010 0.007

Husrev Pasha Mosque

X direction 0.016 0.017
Y direction 0.034 0.016

6.3.1. The Seven Churches

With an aim to evaluate the dynamic behavior of the Seven Churches, response spectrum analysis was conducted on the nite el-
ement model for the seismic analysis. As seen from the response spectrum analyses under EQ-3, the maximum lateral displacement
was observed at the top of the tower about 4.72 mm in the X direction (Fig. 20a) and 2.69 mm in the Y direction (Fig. 20b). The cor-
responding drift ratios remained below 0.1% (Table 7). Table 1 indicates that at this drift ratio level, the structural response of the
tower is expected not to exceed the immediate occupancy level (0.1%). The seismic hazard used in the response spectrum analysis
was far above the seismic action imposed during the Van earthquake to the structure. The response spectrum analyses indicate
that the Seven Churches should have remained elastic during the Van earthquake. This is considered not surprising because of the
quite low fundamental period of the structure, i.e. the structure is expected to behave like a rigid body and not experience relative
movement between the base and the top of the structure. The possible reason of the collapse of the Narthex during the Van earth-
quake might be due to the out-of-phase movement of the Narthex and the structure itself, which is not considered in the numerical
model.

6.3.2. Husrev Pasha Mosque

Response spectrum analysis was also conducted on the nite element model for the seismic performance evaluation of the Husrev
Pasha Mosque. As seen from the response spectrum analyses under EQ-3, the maximum lateral displacement was observed at the top
of the tower about 3.135 mm in X direction (Fig. 21a) and 3.231 mm in Y direction (Fig. 21b). The corresponding drift ratios remained
below 0.1% (Table 7) as well. Table 1 indicates that at this drift ratio level, the structural response of the tower, similar to the Seven
Churches, is expected not to exceed the immediate occupancy level (0.1%). The same seismic hazard as used for the Seven Churches
was used in the response spectrum analysis which was far above the seismic action imposed during the Van earthquake to the struc-
ture. The response spectrum analyses indicate that the Husrev Pasha Mosque should have remained elastic as well similar to the Seven
Churches during the Van earthquake. As discussed in the previous section, this is considered not surprising because of the quite low
fundamental period of the structure, i.e. the structure is expected to behave like a rigid body and not experience relative movement
between the base and the top of the structure. Similar to the Seven Churches, the possible reason of the collapse of the Narthex during
the Van earthquake might be due to the out-of-phase movement of the Narthex and the structure itself that is not considered in the
numerical model.

Fig. 19. Response spectra corresponding to Muradiye and Semsibey stations and TEC [44] (5% critical damping).
 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266 265

Fig. 20. Lateral displacement of the structure under EQ3 seismic hazard level a) X direction, (b) Y direction.

7. Conclusions

Historical masonry structures can be vulnerable not only to high, but to also low intensity ground motions. Therefore, their seismic
response should be based on performance-based design principles. In this study, basic principles to be considered in performance-
based seismic evaluation historical structures were rst briey investigated. Then, seismic performances of the historical structures
during the Van earthquake of October 23, 2011, Turkey are investigated in detail. Seismic response analyses on two historical struc-
tures, namely, the Seven Churches and Husrev Pasha Mosque, are carried out using response spectrum analysis. The response spec-
trum of the recorded ground motions is far below the TEC [44] and RHA [45] design spectrum. Both structures experienced similar
types of failure (partial collapse of Narthexes) without having any inelastic behavior in the main structure. The possible reason for
the collapse of the Narthex for both structures during the Van earthquake might be due to the out-of-phase movement of the Narthex
and the structure. This points out a possible discontinuity or weak connection between these two components, which this has not
been considered in the present model.
The subject of earthquake hazard assessment of historical structures has gained great attention for the last few decades. Hence, a
sustained effort is strongly needed on the subject. The recommendations for the future studies are given as follows:

a. Numerical simulation of a historical structure should consider the effects of environmental conditions, the natural disasters or
human interventions.
b. The main structure of the historical churches and mosques are generally rigid structures and do not experience signicant relative
deformations. Therefore, when the Narthexes are assumed to be stick to the main structures they do not deform as well. That is
way the damage of Narthexes in these types of structures might be attributed to the weak connection between the main structure
and the Narthex.
c. However, the Narthex sections of these structures behave as if the main structure provides a support to them and the collapse be-
comes inevitable if the support conditions change during the earthquake ground motion, i.e. Narthex is separated from the main
structure easily if the connection between the Narthex and the main structure is not well designed and/or weakened due to other
effects.
d. Seismic vulnerability evaluation of a historical structure is best performed by incremental dynamic analysis approach (with ever-
increasing earthquake ground motion intensities).

Fig. 21. Lateral displacement of the structure under EQ3 seismic hazard level (a) X direction, (b) Y direction.
266 F. Cakir et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 58 (2015) 249266

References

[1] M. Erdik, Y. Kamer, M. Demircioglu, K. Sesetyan, 23 October 2011 Van (Turkey) earthquake, Nat. Hazards (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0263-9.
[2] S. Atzori, C. Tolomei, S. Salvi, S. Zoffoli, Co-seismic ground displacement and preliminary source models for the 10/23/2011, Mw 7.2, Van earthquake, Eastern
Turkey, SiGRiS activation report, 2011.
[3] METU/EERC, Site observation of seismic and structural damage on Van earthquake of Mw = 7.2, October 23. Middle East Technical University, Earthquake En-
gineering Research Center, Report No. METU/EERC 2011-04, 2011.
[4] EERI, Learning from earthquakes Mw 7.1 Erci-Van, Turkey earthquake of October 23, 2011, Special Earthquake Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Insti-
tute, 2012.
[5] Y. Bayrak, R.B.S. Yadav, D. Kalafat, T.M. Tsapanos, H. Cinar, A.P. Singh, E. Bayrak, S. Yilmaz, F. Ocal, G. Koravos, Seismogenesis and earthquake triggering during the
Van (Turkey) 2011 seismic sequence, Tectonophysics 601 (2013) 163176.
[6] B. Taskin, A. Sezen, U.M. Tugsal, A. Erken, The aftermath of 2011 Van earthquakes: evaluation of strong motion, geotecnical and structural issues, Bull. Earthq. Eng.
11 (2013) 285312.
[7] D. Kalafat, M. Suvarikli, Z. Ogutcu, K. Kekovali, M. Yilmazer, M.F. Ocal, Y. Gunes, A recent example of continent-continent collision: October 23, 2011 Van Earth-
quake (Mw = 7.2): Southeastern Turkey, American Geophysics Union AGU 2012 Fall Meeting, S51B-2420, 37 December 2012, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012.
[8] AFAD, Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Agency, 2011 http://www.afad.gov.tr.
[9] S. Ozden, E. Akpinar, H. Atalay, Reconnaissance Report on Van Earthquake of October 2011, Kocaeli University, 2011.
[10] B. Akbas, E. Uckan, Seismic and structural observations from Van earthquakes of October 23 and November 9, 2011, Gebze Institute of Technology, Department of
Earthquake and Structural Engineering, Report No. 2012/011, 2012.
[11] Y.H. Onen, A.A. Dindar, C. Cosgun, E. Seckin, Reconnaissance and on-site Evaluation Report of Van Earthquakes: October 23 and November 9, 2013, Istanbul Kultur
University, 2012.
[12] D. Guney, Van earthquakes (23 October 2011 and 9 November 2011) and performance of masonry and adobe structures, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12 (2012)
33373342.
[13] E. Uckan, B. Akbas, J. Shen, R. Wen, K. Turandar, M. Erdik, Seismic performance of elevated steel silos during Van earthquake, October 23, 2011, Nat. Hazards 75
(2015) 265287 (2015).
[14] K. Bernardeschi, C. Padovani, G. Pasquinelli, Numerical modeling of the structural behaviour of Buti's bell tower, J. Cult. Herit. 5 (2004) 371378.
[15] P.B. Loureno, J. Roque, Simplified indexes for the seismic vulnerability of ancient masonry buildings, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (4) (2006) 200208.
[16] S. Ivorra, F.J. Pallares, Dynamic investigations on a masonry bell tower, Eng. Struct. 28 (2006) 660667.
[17] A. Dogangun, R. Acar, H. Sezen, R. Livaolu, Investigation of dynamic response of masonry minaret structure, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 6 (2008) 505517.
[18] C.S. Oliveira, E. akt, D. Stengel, M. Branco, Minaret behavior under earthquake loading: the case of historical Istanbul, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 41 (2012) 1939.
[19] S. Lagomarsino, H. Modaressi, K. Pitilakis, V. Bosjlikov, C. Calderini, D. D'Ayala, D. Benouar, S. Cattari, PERPETUATE project: the proposal of a performance-based
approach to earthquake protection of cultural heritage, Adv. Mater. Res. 133134 (2010) 11191124.
[20] R. Cardoso, M. Lopes, R. Bento, Seismic evaluation of old masonry buildings. Part I: method description and application to a case-study, Eng. Struct. 27 (2005)
20242035.
[21] R. Bento, M. Lopes, R. Cardoso, Seismic evaluation of old masonry buildings. Part II: analyses of strengthening solutions for a case-study, Eng. Struct. 27 (2005)
20142023.
[22] M. Betti, L. Galano, A. Vignoli, Seismic Response of Masonry Plane Walls: A Numerical Study on Spandrel Strength. Seismic Engineering Conference Commemo-
rating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake, 2008.
[23] N. Ademovic, M. Hrasnica, D.V. Oliveira, Pushover analysis and failure pattern of a typical masonry residential building in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eng. Struct. 50
(2013) 1329.
[24] F. Minghini, G. Milani, A. Tralli, Seismic risk asessment of a 50 m high masonry chimney using advanced analysis techniques, Eng. Struct. 69 (2013) 255270.
[25] A.M. Avossa, P. Malangone, Seismic performance assessment of masonry structures with a modified concrete model, Bull. Earthq. Eng. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10518-015-9726-1.
[26] D.C. Drucker, W. Prager, Soil mechanics and plastic analysis for limit design, Q. Appl. Math. 10 (2) (1952) 157165.
[27] S. Lagomarsino, S. Cattari, PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 13 (2015)
1347 (2015).
[28] ASCE 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2006.
[29] EC8-3. 2005. Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings, CEN, 2005 (EN 1998-3).
[30] PERPETUATE, Classification of the cultural heritage assets, Description of the Target Performances and Identification of Damage Measures, Deliverable D4,
Performance-Based Approach to Earthquake Protection of Cultural Heritage in European and Mediterranean Countries, FP7 Theme ENV.2009.3.2.1.1-Environ-
ment, Grant agreement no:244229, DELIVERABLE D4, June 30, 2010, 2010.
[31] KOERI, KOERI Report, http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/deprem-raporlari/Van_Eq_SM_31102011.pdf2011.
[32] O. Emre, T.Y. Duman, S. Ozalp, H. Elmaci, Site observations and preliminary evaluation of source fault of 23 October 2011 Van eartqhuake, Active Techtonics Re-
search Group, MTS Publications, Ankara, 2012 (in Turkish).
[33] L. Gulen, et al., Surface fault break, aftershock distribution, and rupture process of the 17 August 1999 Izmit, Turkey, earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92 (2002)
230244.
[34] A. Dogangun, H. Sezen, Seismic vulnerability and preservation of historical masonry monumental structures, Earthq. Struct. 3 (1) (2012) 8395.
[35] G. Brandonisio, G. Lucibello, E. Mele, A. De Luca, Damage and performance evaluation of masonry churches in the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, Eng. Fail. Anal. 34
(2013) 693714.
[36] A. Preciado, A. Orduna, G. Bartoli, H. Budelmann, Faade seismic failure simulation of an old cathedral in Colima Mexico by 3D limit analysis and nonlinear finite
element method, Eng. Fail. Anal. 49 (2015) 2030.
[37] FEMA 274, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA, 1997.
[38] FEMA 356, Prestandart and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA, 2000.
[39] Culture, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Culturel Details of Van, http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN,33471/other-christian-buildings-at-van.html,
2015.
[40] O. Aytekin, 2011 Van depreminin yresindeki kltr varlklarna Olan etkisi zerine Bir deerlendirme, J. Life Sci. Batman Univ. 1 (1) (2012) 10811090.
[41] V.E. Belli, Van Hsrev Pasha Mosques Stone, Tile and Fresco Decoration Degradation Causes(Master's Thesis) Institute of Science, Kadir Has University, Istanbul,
Turkey, 2009.
[42] ANSYS, Finite Element Analysis Program, 14.0 Releases, USA, 2014.
[43] F. Cakir, H. Uysal, Seismic performance of historical masonry clock tower with adjacent walls, Earthq. Struct. 7 (2) (2014) 217231.
[44] TEC, Turkish earthquake code, specification for structures to be built in disaster areas, Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of Turkey, 2007.
[45] RHA, Seismic code for the construction of harbor and coastal structures, railways, airports, General Directorate for Construction of Railways, Harbors and Airports,
Ankara, Turkey, 2007.

View publication stats