Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

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

The retrofitting of historical masonry buildings with insufficient

T
seismic resistance using conventional and non-conventional
techniques
⁎
Baris Sayina, , Baris Yildizlara, Cemil Akcayb, Baris Gunesa
a
Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Department of Civil Engineering, 34320 Istanbul, Turkey
b
Istanbul University, Department of Architecture, 34116 Istanbul, Turkey

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Masonry structures, which differ from other types of structures in terms of construction techni-
Masonry buildings ques and the properties of load-bearing members, may have sufficient strength against vertical
Ottoman era loads applying compressive stresses, but an insufficient level of strength against seismic loads
Seismic performance involving tensile and shear stresses. Accordingly, it is necessary to seismically strengthen ma-
Retrofitting applications
sonry structures to ensure their structural safety and to prolong their service life. The present
study deals with the process of strengthening a historical masonry structure that was built in the
late 19th century but was abandoned for many years after being used for various functions. The
structure is currently planned to be refunctioned as a service building for a university through
conventional and non-conventional techniques. The study is being planned in three phases, be-
ginning with a research into the examined structure's historical process, followed by a seismic
performance analysis and culminating in strengthening applications. In the building background
survey, the functional changes that the structure has undergone since its construction are ana-
lyzed, and a numerical analysis is made to assess the seismic performance of the structure under
earthquake loads in its current state. In the final stage, the strengthening applications for the
load-bearing members of the structure are presented in detail. It is aimed for this study to serve as
a representative application for the seismic retrofitting of historical masonry buildings.

1. Introduction

In order to bring the seismic resistance of structures up to a sufficient level, approaches are adopted that reduce the seismic
demand on the structure and its members, or that enhance the capacities of structural members. The techniques employed in
strengthening applications carried out to this end can generally be divided into two groups, being conventional and non-conven-
tional. Conventional retrofitting methods are used to enhance the seismic resistance of existing structures by eliminating or reducing
the adverse effects associated with the design or construction, and include the addition of shear walls, infill walls and steel braces.
The other approach involves the use of non-conventional methods in the retrofitting of structures. Among these, seismic base iso-
lation, local retrofitting and jacketing/confinement are the most popular [1].
In masonry structures, which differ from reinforced concrete- and steel-structures in terms of the construction technologies and
the construction materials applied, restoration efforts are made to prevent any impairments to strength and durability that may occur

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: barsayin@istanbul.edu.tr (B. Sayin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.01.031
Received 10 July 2018; Received in revised form 15 November 2018; Accepted 3 January 2019
Available online 07 January 2019
1350-6307/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Sayin et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

Fig. 1. Layout plan of the examined structure: Block building-A.

over time. Strengthening a masonry structure through use of appropriate techniques with a view to increasing its seismic resistance to
a sufficient level can be carried out after assessing the current state of the structure both on the basis of joint details and as a whole
[2]. The body of related literature includes numerical and empirical studies into the identification of the current status and the
strengthening of masonry structures. One such study addresses the strengthening applications for load-bearing walls and slabs with a
view to raising the seismic strength of historical masonry structures to a sufficient level [3]. In a further study, an investigation is
made into the structural failures and weaknesses of masonry structures with jack arch slabs with the aim being to illustrate the
structural vulnerability of masonry jack arch slabs and to determine their positive and negative effects on structural behavior [4]. The
collapse of a large number of structures containing such composite slabs during earthquakes in the past, including some buildings of
historic importance, has highlighted the weakness of this type of flooring system to seismic loading. Considering this situation, out-of-
plane pushover tests are conducted on a number of full-scale ordinary and retrofitted jack arch slabs, and the obtained results used to
compare the strength capacity and other seismic performance parameters of the slabs including, ductility and behavior factors [5]. In
efforts to improve the strength of masonry structures against seismic effects, the in-plane and out-of-plane behaviors of load-bearing
walls under cyclic loads has also been researched [6–10].
The present study scopes an analysis of conventional and non-conventional techniques as part of preparations to retrofit a three-
story masonry building. In the paper, Midas software is used to assess the condition of the building and structural behavior prior to
any retrofitting processes. The paper seeks to explain how strengthening can be applied without destroying the originality of the
building.

2. The examined structure

The structure comprises two blocks, referred to as A and B, with similar construction techniques, materials and geometric
properties. Given their similarity, only block A was examined in the present study (Fig. 1). The historical building is located on a plot
of land owned by Istanbul University in the Süleymaniye neighborhood of the Fatih district, building block no. 579, plot no. 1, on the
historical peninsula of Istanbul which is listed on the UNESCO World heritage list [11]. This historical building is registered and
preserved as a first-degree cultural asset by the Superior Council and Regional Protection Board as an asset of cultural heritage
[12,13].
Block building-A, which has a rectangular plan size of 20.3 m. × 20.8 m., is known as the Mehmet Arif Paşa Mansion (Fig. 2). The
“1314” (Islamic calendar) carved below the tughra on the triangular pediment on the southern façade of the structure indicates a
construction date of 1896 during the reign of Abdulhamid II. Over time, the building has served as a school of medicine, after which it
was allocated to the Ministry of Finance and National Defense in 1960, and was later registered as a historical building [14–16]. The
building has a partial basement, a ground story, two regular stories and a loft, with the heights of the ground, first and second stories
being 4.1 m, 4.6 m and 4.9 m, respectively.

455
B. Sayin et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

Fig. 2. The examined building, Block-A: (a) Southern façade, (b) Plan view.

To identify any structural defects in the building, the plaster coatings to all interior and exterior wall surfaces were removed
(scraping), exposing the solid brick superstructure. During the examination, cracks were found concentrated above and below the
windows, on the panels between the windows and at the corners where the façade walls meet (Fig. 3).

3. The numerical study

3.1. Criteria for the structural evaluation

The finite element analysis method is used to determine the structural performance of masonry structures under vertical and
seismic loads. While the use of this method allows a comprehensive structural analysis, an accurate determination of structural
behavior is possible only through the accurate modelling of the structure. To determine the behavior of a historical masonry structure
under vertical and lateral loads through stress distribution in the present study, the finite elements software Midas [17] was used. A
3D view of the structure, modeled using shell elements, is presented in Fig. 4, with TEC 2007 [18] used as the basis of the finite
element model analysis. As the masonry load-bearing members exhibit brittle material behaviors, the stresses were predicted to
remain within an elastic range, and so a linear analysis method was selected. Seismic loadings were determined by way of a response
spectrum analysis, taking into account the contribution of modes. Earthquake loads (base shear forces) which were calculated in the
x- and y-directions by this analysis were acted onto the structure by increasing as to be equal to 90% of the earthquake load which
was calculated by the equivalent earthquake load method. In Exp, Exn, Eyp and Eyn seismic loadings, 30% of the seismic effects are

Fig. 3. Cracks in the façades: (a) Western, (b) Northern.

456
B. Sayin et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

Fig. 4. Finite element model of the building: (a) Wireframe, (b) Solid.

Table 1
Building performance targets anticipated for different earthquake levels.
Usage purpose and the type of building Probability of an earthquake to be exceeded in 50 years

50% 10% 2%

Buildings that should be used after an earthquake – RU LS

Buildings that people stay in for long periods – RU LS
Buildings that people visit densely and stay for short periods RU LS –
Buildings containing hazardous materials – RU PC
Other buildings – LS –

RU: Ready for usage; LS: Life safety; PC: Pre-collapse.

Fig. 5. Displacement distributions in the building under lateral loads (a) Exp, (b) Eyp.

taken into account as well as the vertical loads. Under the effect of the earthquake in the opposite direction and the structure's
torsional behaviors, significant shear forces may act on the walls perpendicular to the direction in which the major seismic force is
applied.
The earthquake levels that the seismic performances of existing buildings are considered and the minimum performance targets
for buildings at the mentioned earthquake levels are shown in Table 1 [18]. In the performance level of the masonry buildings, if the
shear strength of all the walls in a masonry building in either direction is enough to bear the shear forces that form under the effects
of an earthquake, the building can be said to satisfy ready for usage (RU) performance level. If the contribution of the walls that do
not satisfy this condition due to the earthquakes applied in any story to the story shear force is below 20%, the building can be said to
satisfy the life safety (LS) performance level. For anything other than these situations, the building can be assumed to be at a collapse
level (CL).

457
B. Sayin et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

Fig. 6. (a) Critical horizontal sections of masonry walls at each story, (b) Axial forces provided under live + dead loads.

Fig. 7. Shear forces provided under the lateral loadings in masonry walls: (a) Exp, (b) Exn, (c) Eyp, (d) Eyn.

3.2. Seismic performance analysis

The performance analyses were carried out taking into account the requirement that the examined structure should meet the “life
safety” performance for an earthquake with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years in its intended use. The analyses showed that
the maximum displacement in the x-direction was 28.96 mm in the loading Exp, and the maximum displacement in the direction of y
was 73.46 mm in the loading Eyn (Fig. 5).
The compressive and shear stresses on the masonry walls were measured to determine the structure's level of performance under
seismic effects. For this purpose, critical cross sections at the locations of the door and window openings on each floor were

458
B. Sayin et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

Table 2
Performance evaluation of the masonry building.
a
Story Direction r (%) Limit (%) Performance level

Basement x 0.00 20 Collapse level

y 38.34
Ground x 76.51 20 Collapse level
y 41.11
First x 86.58 20 Collapse level
y 59.07
Second x 38.74 20 Collapse level
y 55.94

a
The ratio of the total shear forces acting on the walls that do not meet the shear force occurring under the seismic effect to total story shear
force.

Fig. 8. (a) Cracks and voids filled with epoxy-based saturating resin, (b) Mortar application prior to CFRP plate/wrap, (c) CFRP plate application,
(d) CFRP wrap and sanding applications.

determined so that wall members were assigned for the structural members in these cross-sections. as shown in Fig. 6a. A critical
cross-section is defined as a cross-section where, for each story, the total cross-sectional area of the masonry walls on the x-y plane is
the smallest due to the presence of door or window openings. The numerical analyses showed that the maximum axial force acting on
the walls in case of vertical loads (live + dead) was 1188 kN (Fig. 6b), while the shear forces acting in the major directions of the
walls under the Exp, Exn, Eyp and Eyn seismic loadings were found to be 1871, 1602, 1717 and 1775 kN, respectively (Fig. 7).
Compressive and shear stress values were calculated based on the axial and shear force values on the walls at the critical cross-
sections. Based on the results of the numerical analysis, the compressive and shear stresses acting on the masonry walls were
compared with the allowable stresses for each type of masonry wall, and the structure's level of performance was determined on the
basis of the percentage of walls that failed to meet the necessary shear force. The results of the analysis thus showed that the ratio of
the sum of the shear forces acting on the walls with insufficient shear force to the shear force on the entire floor was found to be above
the “life safety” performance level (20%), and thus the masonry structure was found to fail to meet the required performance level
defined in the TEC 2007 regulation (Table 2). While the compressive stresses on all stories under dead and live loads were below the
threshold values, compressive stresses exceeded the threshold values occurring on the ground, first and second stories when
earthquake loads came into play. Moreover, the shear stresses in the x- and y-directions on all stories were found to be above the

459
B. Sayin et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

Fig. 9. CFRP application in horizontal and x-forms to the western façade [22].

Fig. 10. Sectional view of the existing jack arch slabs in the building.

threshold values in the Regulation. Based on the results of the analysis, it was found that the structure's seismic performance was
insufficient, and it was concluded that strengthening interventions would be required to achieve a sufficient level of seismic strength.

4. Retrofitting applications

Strengthening interventions were identified for the examined building, and were approved by the relevant protection committee
[19–21], including applications to the load-bearing walls and slabs.

4.1. Strengthening of the façade walls

In addition to the use of concrete and steel components for the strengthening of the masonry structures, carbon fiber-reinforced
polymers (CFRP) that are in common use in industrial applications, and which are often used in repair and strengthening applications
thanks to the mechanical and physical advantages they provide, were also used [22,23]. Since the main objective in the seismic
strengthening of masonry structures is to enhance the strength of structures against the lateral forces that occur during earthquakes,
or in other words, tensile stress, carbon fiber-reinforced polymers are applied to the tensile sections of structural members to enhance
the load-bearing resistance and the level of ductility against seismic effects. In the current project, carbon fiber plates/wraps were
used to the façade walls of the examined building.
Cracks and voids in the load-bearing walls of masonry structures are usually filled through an injection method, with the main
purpose being to restore the original integrity of the retrofitted wall and to fill any voids and cracks in masonry resulting from
physical and chemical deterioration and/or mechanical actions [1]. Accordingly, the cracks and voids in the walls were filled with an

460
B. Sayin et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

Fig. 11. The applications in the jack arch slabs (a–f).

injection of epoxy resin prior to the application of the carbon fiber plate/wrap to the façade walls of the building, after which mortar
was applied to the sections of the façade to which the carbon fiber plate/wrap was to be applied (Fig. 8a,b). After completing the
mortar application, the carbon fiber plate (Sika Carbodur S512) was applied horizontally in alignment with the story slabs and
crosswise between the windows, and then the carbon fiber wrap (Sika Wrap-300C NW) was applied (Fig. 8c,d). In the final stage, sand
blasting was carried out to ensure sufficient adherence by creating a rough surface between the carbon wrap and the plaster to be
applied to the façade (Fig. 8d). The application of carbon fiber to the four façades of the building is illustrated in Fig. 9, although only
the western façade is shown.

4.2. Strengthening of the jack arch masonry slabs

Jack arch slabs, as load-bearing members in masonry structures that play a significant role in counteracting seismic effects, are
usually constructed using steel profiles installed parallel to each other at certain intervals along masonry walls, with solid bricks
applied between the profiles in such a manner as to form a drop vault. Jack-arch flooring systems are stable under normal static
conditions. The brick arches transfer gravitational loads, mainly in compression, to the supporting steel beams, and the load is then
transferred via the steel beams in flexure and shear to the load-bearing walls [24]. Such slabs, which, by their very nature, have a

461
B. Sayin et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

Fig. 12. An overall of the building after retrofitting (a,b).

relatively weaker in-plane stiffness than other types of plate slabs, are members that need to be assessed carefully when determining
the seismic behavior of masonry structures. The fact that the beams of jack arch slabs have a single opening and are installed on the
wall, and that their interconnected details prevent the story slabs from exhibiting a stiff diaphragm behavior as a whole, may cause
the horizontal strength of the structure to decrease significantly. In this way, the wall support details of the steel beams that make up
jack arch slabs affect the behavior of the structure in the face of seismic effects, and may result in considerable changes to the
structure's stiffness.
The current status of the jack arch slab in the examined building is illustrated in Fig. 10. For the strengthening of the story slabs,
first, the upper layer (paving material, concrete, clinker filler) was removed and the steel I-beams were exposed. To ensure that the
weight of the poured concrete (Fig. 11f) was transmitted to the wall members, decaying (deep carving of the wall surface) was carried
out at the wall-slab junctions (Fig. 11a). Then, flat steel with shear rebar were welded to the upper surface of the I-beams (Fig. 11b).
Subsequently, mesh rebar were installed on all the slabs, and dowel bars measuring 1 m in length were installed at the junctions of the
walls and slabs. In an attempt to ensure that the story slabs exhibited a diaphragm behavior under seismic effects, ribbed 14 mm-
diameter rebar were installed perpendicularly to the axis of the I-beams, while tie-rods were used to ensure the interoperation of the
slabs and walls (Fig. 11c). After completing the installation of the rebar, first, a lime-based grouting mortar and then perlite filler
were applied to the slab (Fig. 11d). Finally, topping concrete was poured to level the upper surface of the story slabs (Fig. 11e, f).

5. Conclusions

This study has determined the insufficiency of the seismic performance of a historical masonry building constructed in 1896
through numerical analyses, while also addressing the conventional and non-conventional strengthening applications carried out to
the structure's load-bearing walls and slabs based on the results of the analyses. The building was modeled in Midas Gen finite
element software and the seismic performance evaluation of the structure was performed according to the principles specified in TEC
2007. As a result of the numerical analyzes, it was determined that the structure did not provide the required performance level. It
was determined that the structure should be strengthened due to the presence of masonry walls with insufficient compressive- and
shear-stresses under earthquake loads. The applied conventional applications were intended to reduce the weight of the jack arch
slabs, thereby decreasing the shear forces to which the building may be exposed during an earthquake. To this end, various appli-
cations were carried out to ensure the story diaphragm behavior, the integrated behavior of the existing slabs, and the newly added
concrete and steel components. In this technique, the cracks and voids to the walls were filled with an injection of epoxy. In the non-
conventional applications technique, a carbon fiber plate/wrap was applied to the building's façades, and steel plates were installed
to the inner edges of the windows in order to increase the out-of-plane capacity of the structure against seismic effects and to ensure
ductile behavior. General views of the building after the completion of all applications described in the study are presented in Fig. 12.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Department of Construction and Technical Affairs, Istanbul University Rectorate for the
performed study under project no. 199H040330. The authors also thank Professor K.K. Eyüpgiller, Professor A. Ersen and Professor K.
Özgen from Istanbul Technical University.

References

[1] P.S. Dhomane, S.B. Katpelwar, A.M. Chavhan, Overview of seismic retrofitting building, IARJSET 4 (3) (2017) 11–13.
[2] Z. Celep, K. Güler, F. Pakdamar, Application of the finite element method in structural evaluation of historical buildings, in: M. Kurtoğlu (Ed.), Restoration
Implementations from Turkey and Italy, Directorate General of Foundations Publications-122, Symposium report book, 2016 (Ankara, Turkey).
[3] C. Akcay, T.S. Bozkurt, B. Sayin, B. Yildizlar, Seismic retrofitting of the historical masonry structures using numerical approach, Constr. Build. Mater. 113 (2016)

462
B. Sayin et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 97 (2019) 454–463

752–763.
[4] M.A. Ozdemir, E.S. Kaya, B. Aksar, B.S. Seker, F. Cakir, E. Uckan, B. Akbas, Seismic vulnerability of masonry jack arch slabs, Eng. Fail. Anal. 77 (2017) 146–159.
[5] M.R. Maheri, S. Pourfallah, R. Azarm, Seismic retrofitting methods for the jack arch masonry slabs, Eng. Struct. 36 (2012) 49–60.
[6] B. Luccioni, V.C. Rougier, Numerical analysis of fibre reinforced polymer retrofitted masonry panels, Eng. Struct. 49 (2013) 360–372.
[7] C.R. Willis, Q. Yang, R. Seracino, M.C. Griffith, Damaged masonry walls in two-way bending retrofitted with vertical FRP strips, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (4)
(2009) 1591–1604.
[8] M.A. ElGawady, P. Lestuzzi, M. Badoux, A seismic retrofitting of unreinforced masonry walls using FRP, Compos. Part B 37 (2–3) (2005) 148–162.
[9] J. Witzany, R. Zigler, K. Kroftová, Strengthening of compressed brick masonry walls with carbon composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 112 (2016) 1066–1079.
[10] M.H. Saghafi, S. Safakhah, A. Kheyroddin, M. Mohammadi, In-plane shear behavior of FRP strengthened masonry walls, APCBEE Procedia 9 (2014) 264–268.
[11] Z. Ahunbay, Conservation and Restoration of Historical Environment (Tarihi çevre koruma ve restorasyon), 134 YEM publishing, 2004 (ISBN: 975-7438-38-3 in
Turkish).
[12] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Istanbul protection board for cultural assets conservation, Number I. Registration decision for blocks A and
B of the formerly functioned as a state archive buildings located in Istanbul University, (2018) (Decision no.9776 dated 09.04.1977).
[13] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Istanbul protection board for cultural assets conservation, Number I. The board letter for blocks A and B of
the formerly functioned as a state archive buildings located in Istanbul University, (1977) (dated 11.04.1977).
[14] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Istanbul protection board for cultural assets conservation, Number I. The board letter for blocks A and B of
the formerly functioned as a state archive buildings located in Istanbul University, (1990) (dated 04.01.1990).
[15] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Istanbul protection board for cultural assets conservation, Number I. The board letter for block A of the
formerly functioned as a state archive buildings located in Istanbul University, (1989) (dated 26.12.1989).
[16] K.K. Eyüpgiller, K. Özgen, A. Ersen, Research Report: Damage Assessment and Photos on Restoration Project for Blocks a and B of the Formerly Functioned as a
State Archive Buildings Located in Istanbul University, Istanbul Technical University, 2003.
[17] Midas Gen, "Integrated Solution System for Building and General Structures" in MIDAS Information technology Co, (2018).
[18] TEC-2007, Turkish Earthquake Code: Specification for Buildings to Be Built in Earthquake Regions, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Government of the
Republic of Turkey, 2007.
[19] K.K. Eyüpgiller, A. Ersen, K. Özgen, Building Survey, Restitution and Restoration Projects for Blocks a and B of the Formerly Functioned as a State Archive
Buildings Located in Istanbul University, Istanbul Technical University, 2003.
[20] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Istanbul regional board for cultural assets conservation, Number I. restitution and restoration projects
compliance for block-A of the formerly functioned as a state archive buildings located in Istanbul University, (2003) (Decision no.15620 dated 22.12.2003).
[21] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Istanbul regional board for cultural assets conservation, Number I. restitution and restoration projects
compliance for block-A of the formerly functioned as a state archive buildings located in Istanbul University, (2004) (Decision no.16166 dated 31.05.2004).
[22] B. Sayın, A. Şolt, B. Yıldızlar, A.S. Karakaş, N.M. Korkmaz, C. Akçay, Tarihi yapıların güçlendirilmesinde karbon fiber ve çelik elemanların kullanılması: Bir
durum çalışması, in: T. Kocatürk, et al. (Ed.), TAYKON 2011: Tarihi Yapıları Koruma ve Onarım Sempozyumu, 2011, pp. 370–378 (İstanbul, Türkiye, in Turkish).
[23] T. Çoşgun, An experimental study of RC beams with varying concrete strength classes externally strengthened with CFRP composites, J. Eng. Fibers Fabr. 10 (4)
(2015) 148–159.
[24] S. Pourfallah, M.R. Maheri, M.A. Najafgholipour, Experimental Investigation of the Jack Arch Slab Retrofitted by Concrete Layer, ICCD03: 3rd International
Conference on Concrete & Development, 2009, pp. 523–533 (Tahran, I.R. Iran).

463