International Journal of Architectural Heritage

Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration

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

Seismic Load Capacity of Historical Masonry

Mosques by Rigid Body Kinetics

Irfan Kocaman, Ilker Kazaz & Emriye Kazaz

To cite this article: Irfan Kocaman, Ilker Kazaz & Emriye Kazaz (2020) Seismic Load Capacity of
Historical Masonry Mosques by Rigid Body Kinetics, International Journal of Architectural Heritage,
14:6, 849-869, DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2019.1570389

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1570389

Published online: 03 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 306

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarc20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE
2020, VOL. 14, NO. 6, 849–869
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1570389

Seismic Load Capacity of Historical Masonry Mosques by Rigid Body Kinetics

a
Irfan Kocaman , Ilker Kazaza, and Emriye Kazaz b

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Erzurum Technical University, Erzurum, Turkey; bFaculty of Architecture and Design, Atatürk University,
Erzurum, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Kinetic analysis methods based on linear and nonlinear rigid body dynamics are used to evaluate Received 10 October 2018
earthquake safety of masonry structures. In this study, the formulas used to calculate the in-plane Accepted 11 January 2019
and out-of-plane load capacities of masonry load-bearing walls were evaluated and a procedure KEYWORDS
based on rigid body mechanism was proposed to calculate the out-of-plane load capacities of the Kinetic analysis; Lala Pasha
walls of Ottoman period masonry mosques. New aspects of the method with respect to existing Mosque; load capacity;
formulations is the inclusion of dynamic axial load and definition of the collapse limit spectral masonry mosque;
acceleration on the overturning wall. The calculated capacities of the mosque and individual walls mechanism; nonlinear
were compared with the results of nonlinear pushover analysis and time history analyses per- analysis; pushover analysis;
formed under 1.0 and 0.5 scaled forms of nine different 3-component ground motion records. It time-history analysis
was displayed that the seismic load capacity estimated by the proposed method is very close to
the values calculated by pushover and time history analyses. The method was developed on Lala
Pasha Mosque, and the reliability and applicability of the proposed methodology is verified on
a different historical masonry mosque in comparison to finite element analyses results.

1. Introduction structural systems. This structural form, which was

born in the vicinity of the Mediterranean, has been
Being home to many civilizations over the course of
used in the early Christian structures and the Sassanid,
history, Anatolia is also a geography where the seis-
Armenian, Byzantine, and Roman architectures (Tuluk
mic activity is very high. For this reason, determina-
2006). The Ottomans developed their own architectural
tion of the earthquake load capacity of historical
style characterized by large central rotundas (sometimes
structures correctly, taking strengthening measures
surrounded by multiple smaller domes), pencil-shaped
in case of inadequacies and preserving these struc-
minarets, and open facades.
tures for the future generations safely is a crucial task
In this system, the main dome is seated on the
for Anatolians. It is also important to accurately
structure that is constituted with pillars anchored each
determine the damage that occurred or may occur
other with supporting arches. The spatial composition
on the structures, in order to take preventive mea-
is developed around this domed baldachin structural
sures and to keep the structural health under control.
system in the mosques. This type of domed structures is
Historic mosques constitute a significant portion of
classified as “longitudinally developed,” “transversely
the cultural heritage in Anatolia. The mosque is the
developed,” and “centrally located” according to the
Muslim gathering place for prayer. In the Islamic
direction of the expansion of space. Despite the choice
world, the mosque in its many forms is the quintessen-
of the longitudinal space usage in Christian architec-
tial Islamic building. The architecture of a mosque is
ture, the space development in Ottoman mosques is
shaped most strongly by the regional traditions of the
central. Although such central structures have been
time and place where it was built. As a result, style,
found in Roman architecture in Byzantium, Anatolia,
layout, and decoration can vary greatly.
and Syria long before the Ottomans, there is no other
The dome and domed structure, one of the indispen-
place where the central planned type of space advanced
sable symbolic and functional formations of the history
to a level as in the Ottoman mosques (Kuban 1958).
of world architecture, formed the cover systems of the
The Ottomans introduced central dome mosques in
big space structures during the centuries between the
the 15th century. Since the 14th century, the Ottomans
Middle Age and the emergence of the contemporary
started the development process of the type of domed

CONTACT Ilker Kazaz ilkerkazaz@erzurum.edu.tr Department of Civil Engineering, Erzurum Technical University, Erzurum 25050, Turkey
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uarc.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
850 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.
space in Anatolia by combining the structure culture in
Islam and Seljuks with the local materials of Anatolia and
their own culture. Until the middle of the 15th century,
this form of space is encountered in the Early Period
structures in Iznik and Bursa, where the dome is carried
by the walls. From the middle of 15th century, the need to
enlarge the continuous space centered by dome has arisen
the idea of covering the main space with a dome as large
as possible and stipulated the desire of growing and
spreading in every direction to provide the transverse
development of space. Due to the fact that the boundaries
of the central space to be covered by a single dome over
a certain dimension is technically very difficult for that
period, this problem has been solved by moving the body
walls bounding the space outwards by almost always
determining a rectangular form and supporting the cen-
tral dome on a four-, six-, or eight-footed baldachin
creating a central space. These mosques have a large
dome centered over the prayer hall. In addition to having
a large central dome, a common feature is smaller domes
that exist off-center over the prayer hall or throughout the
rest of the mosque, where prayer is not performed. This
system, which can be composed of four, six, or eight
pillars, led to come into existence of original and rich
mosque tradition of classical period Ottoman architecture
(Tuluk 2006).
Tuluk (2006) grouped the four-pillar baldachin form
Ottoman mosques under six headings as described in
Figure 1. The richest spatial trials of these baldachin
structures were on the type sitting on four pillars. Half-
dome, dome, or vault-covered spaces, façades and gal-
leries, which are sometimes placed on only two sides,
sometimes on four sides, both structurally supported
this carrier system and contributed to the spatial expan-
sion of the plan determined by this central dome.
This study aims to investigate the seismic behavior
of masonry mosques and introduce simplified assess-
ment tools for the load capacity estimation. The diffi-
culties and variability of methods in the determination
of load capacity of historic structures are addressed in
different studies. The modeling approach and analysis
methods are important for determining behavior of
structure. The selection of this approach may vary
Type I Type II Type III
Figure 1. Four-pillar baldachin variations in Ottoman mosques and spatial expansion (Tuluk 2006). The thick black square in the
center displays the central space covered by main dome.
depending on the geometry, construction technique,
and accuracy expected from the model (de Felice
2011). Linear response spectrum analysis, linear and
nonlinear single and multimode static (pushover) ana-
lysis, time-history analysis are frequently used in the
structural evaluation of masonry structures. Being the
main load bearing elements of historical buildings,
there are various studies to determine the lateral load
capacities of masonry walls. Many of these studies
contain experimental work and theoretical approaches
for the estimation of load and displacement capacities
(Candeias et al. 2017; Costa 2012; Karimi et al. 2016;
Silva et al. 2014; Vasconcelos and Lourenço 2006).
Kanıt and Döndüren (2010) experimentally and theo-
retically examined the behavior of the masonry wall
sample under cyclic loading. The experimental results
were compared with the numerical results obtained by
using ANSYS software. It was determined that ANSYS
software is a reliable tool for numerical studies on
masonry walls.
Kinetic analysis methods based on linear and nonlinear
rigid body dynamics are also used to evaluate earthquake
safety of masonry structures (Ferreira, Costa, and Costa
2015; Sorrentino et al. 2017). By assuming a certain col-
lapse mechanism in the calculation, expected vertical and
horizontal loads are placed in the system and the horizon-
tal force compatible with the mechanism is calculated.
Some studies investigated the applicability of displacement
based methods, taking into account the reserve strength
due to rocking and bending to determine the behavior of
masonry walls under dynamic loading (Doherty et al. 2002;
Melis 2002). In some approaches, a part of the structure is
modeled as pin-connected rigid blocks (no-tension mate-
rial with infinite compressive strength) by neglecting frac-
ture energy and friction between the blocks (Ordinance
3274, 2003; Ordinance 3431, 2005). The local collapse
mechanism was also studied through a kinetic limit analy-
sis based on rigid block rotation (Garofano and Lestuzzi
2016). Such kinetic approaches were verified with different
methods such as experimental study, pushover analysis,
time-history analysis, static analysis, etc. in different works
(Cennamo et al. 2011; Galasco, Lamomardino, and Penna
2006; Milani and Valente 2015; Pavlovic, Reccia, and
Type IV Type V Type VI

Cecchi 2016). The dependence of the out-of-plane seismic
capacity of masonry walls on the morphology of the wall
section is investigated using the distinct element method
and it was reported that the effective reduction in strength
and displacement capacity of masonry sections depend on
the transverse bond provided by stones (de Felice 2011).
Derakhshan et al. (2017) proposed a displacement-based
assessment procedure, which uses effective SDOF system
representation of the actual structure based on the
observed damage mechanism, to predict the results of
shake table testing of two unreinforced masonry buildings.
These studies show that different kinematics approaches
can be used safely to evaluate the seismic capacity of
masonry walls.
Besides kinetic approaches, there are various studies for
the determination of the seismic capacity of masonry struc-
tures with pushover analysis. Özkaya, Kazaz, and Okuyucu
(2015) studied the seismic behavior of single span masonry
bridges in their work. They have compared the displace-
ments and local strains obtained from nonlinear dynamic
and static analyses on the finite element model. Bocciarelli
and Barbieri (2017) performed nonlinear pushover analysis
in the seismic investigation of the historical Gabbia Tower.
The structure was modeled according to the Euler-
Bernoulli beam theory and a numerical approach for the
pushover analysis of masonry towers, having hollow arbi-
trary sections, was proposed. D’Ambrisi, Mariani, and
Mezzi (2012) compared the results of nonlinear static and
dynamic analysis of a historical tower and underlined the
importance of the nonlinear dynamic analysis with refined
models in the evaluation of the actual seismic capacity of
a masonry structure. They reported that the base shear-top
displacement curves from dynamic analyses compose an
envelope for the static pushover curve. Bartoli, Betti, and
Vignoli (2016) was evaluated the seismic vulnerability of
a tower structure on three levels of evaluation, depending
on different degrees of knowledge of the structure, as pro-
posed by the Italian “Guidelines for the assessment and
mitigation of the seismic risk of the Cultural Heritage.”
The seismic demand and damage was evaluated using the
capacity spectrum method.
In this study, available equations calculating the in-
and out-of-plane load capacities of masonry walls were
examined to determine the total lateral load capacity of
mosque type structures composed of these elements.
A new method that is based on the kinetics of out-of-
plane overturning collapse mechanism and incorpo-
rates dynamic axial load on the rocking wall as novelty
was proposed to determine the out-of-plane load capa-
city of masonry walls. The method’s estimations were
compared with time-history analyses results employing
nonlinear finite element analysis method, so the accu-
racy of utilized finite element procedure and material
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 851
model was verified against available experimental data
at the first stage. The necessary components of the new
method were developed and accuracy was evaluated in
consideration with historical Lala Pasha Mosque, which
is a typical classical period Ottoman mosque con-
structed under the supervision of the great architect-
engineer Sinan. Seismic capacity and performance of
the Lala Pasha Mosque were calculated using nonlinear
pushover and time-history analyses under nine differ-
ent 3-component ground motion records scaled to 1.0
and 0.5 times of the original amplitude. The horizontal
in- and out-of-plane load capacities of each wall and
entire structure were obtained from the dynamic ana-
lyses and the pushover analyses were compared with
the proposed method estimations and among each
other. The usability of each and in particular proposed
method was evaluated.
The reliability of the method was further verified on
another historical structure, Erzurum Narmanlı Mosque.
The seismic capacity of Narmanlı Mosque was determined
with time-history analyses under three different severe
ground motions and pushover analysis. Comparison of
the capacities estimated with proposed method and finite
element analyses for both structures displayed that the
proposed method safely estimates the seismic load capa-
cities of classical period Ottoman masonry mosques.
2. Erzurum Lala Pasha Mosque
2.1. History and architectural features
Lala Pasha Mosque is located in the city center of
Erzurum between the Yakutiye Madrasah on the west
and two important traffic routes of the city on the east
and south, as shown in Figure 2. The mosque is the first
Ottoman period structure in Erzurum and it is now
under the responsibility of the General Directorate of
Foundations. Architect Sinan is the architect and engi-
neer of the mosque. Lala Pasha Mosque enters the group
of square planned and central domed mosques as
İstanbul Şehzade Mosque, Gebze Çoban Mustafa Pasha
Mosque, Payas Sokullu Sarı Selim Mosque, which are
works of Architect Sinan. The main dome, which is
placed on four octagonal stone columns in center of
the mosque, is supported with half dome and buttresses
on four sides. The mosque was built symmetrically with
small domes on the sides of the main dome. The main
dome is 13 m in diameter, 17.45 m in height, and
approximately 50 cm thick. Main dimension of the
mosque is 26 × 26 m2. The narthex on the south side
is 26 × 5 m2. The narthex consists of 6 columns support-
ing 5 small domes in-between. The thickness td of the
four main walls (load bearing walls) of the structure is
852 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Dimensions in centimeters.

Figure 2. (a) Erzurum Lala Pasha Mosque, (b) current plan, (c) section AA, and (d) section BB.

approximately 180 cm. The walls increased to the roof Table 1. Material properties of Erzurum Lala Pasha Mosque.
level is at a height of hd = 8.4 m. The ld/hd and hd/td Compressive Tensile Elasticity
Strength, fck Strength, fctk Modulus,
ratios on the walls of the mosque are 3.13 and 4.67, Mosque Part (MPa) (MPa) E (MPa)
respectively. Here, ld is the length of walls. There are Walls 3.92 0.3 784
two rows of windows on the four faces of the mosque. Columns and Arches 5.63 0.3 1126
Domes 3.00 0.3 600
Minaret is located on the north-west corner of the
mosque.
The length/height (ld/hd) ratio of the load bearing walls used by taking into consideration the previous investiga-
varies between 1 and 5 (usually 2 and 3) in historical tions made on similar structures. Since destructive test
mosques in Turkey. The wall thickness (td) varies accord- methods are not allowed on the structure, the necessary
ing to the span and the vertical loads transferred from the compressive strength of the stone was extracted by
roof cover. In the buildings covered with small domes Schmidt hammer tests. Details of the method used to
(madrasa, caravanserais cells), the walls are 65–85 cm determine material properties can be found in Kocaman
thick and wall thickness increases as the diameter of the (2017). In the Turkish Seismic Code (DBYBHY 2007),
dome increases. As a different example, Izmit Pertev compressive strength and elasticity modulus relation is
Pasha Mosque with a dome diameter of 16.75 m has suggested as E = 200fck for the masonry elements, where
a wall thickness of 203 cm. Approaches in this study are fck is the homogenized compressive strength of the three-
usable in case of stone masonry mosques with ld/hd ratios leaf walls. On the other hand, the elastic modulus defined
of 3–4 and hd/td < 4–5. for the wall material is given as 550fck in FEMA356
(FEMA356 2000) and 1000fck in EC6 (Eurocode 6 1995).
If E = 200fck was used, it was observed that horizontal load
2.2. Material properties
capacity does not change much, but the nonlinear displa-
For the mechanical properties of the materials used in the cement demand is about four to five times higher than
finite element model, the values given in Table 1 were 1000fck case (Kazaz and Kocaman 2018). In this study, the

elastic modulus under compression is assumed to be
E = 200fck, which may be considered as a representative
lower value of elastic modulus for such type of structures
according to available literature (Magenes and Penna
2009).
2.3. Finite element model of the mosque
Load resistance systems of historic masonry structures are
quite different from the load bearing systems of conven-
tional structures. Since different structural forms such as
vaults, arches, pendants, and domes are used in mosques,
it is difficult to create the numerical models and deter-
mine the behavior of masonry mosques using traditional
elements. The complexity arising from decorative and
ornamental features may lead to problems in the model-
ing and meshing of these structures. In this study, archi-
tectural decorations which are thought to have no effect
on structural behavior and consists of insignificant
amount of mass were ignored in the finite element mod-
els. Nevertheless, as shown in Figure 3a, a detailed solid
model of Lala Pasha Mosque was produced using
SolidWorks (2013) software. The generated model was
transferred to ANSYS APDL (2015) software and the
model was meshed with 17,860 nodes and 66,521 solid
elements, as shown in Figure 3b. The brick only mesh
cannot be achieved due to treatment of mosque model as
single solid part in order to prevent contact elements and
to enable continuous mesh among different parts of the
model such as walls, arches, and domes. So, tetrahedron
elements were used together with bricks elements in the
model. The boundary conditions at the base of the walls
were taken as fixed. Further details about the finite ele-
ment model can be found in Kocaman (2017).
The legacy SOLID65 element was used in ANSYS
models in this study. SOLID65 has 8 nodes and 3
translational degree of freedoms per node. SOLID65 is
used for the three-dimensional model of solids with or
without reinforcing bars (rebars). The solid element is
(a)
Figure 3. Lala Pasha Mosque (a) SolidWorks model and (b) ANSYS model.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 853
capable of cracking in tension and crushing in com-
pression. A five-parameter Willam-Warnke concrete
model (CONC) was used as the material model, for
which the element is also applicable to geological mate-
rials such as rock (Willam and Warnke 1975). In this
model, the failure stress surface of the material is
formed by using the tensile and compressive strength
of the stone. The behavior of the material is linear up to
failure in cracking and crushing. If the material at an
integration point fails in uniaxial, biaxial, or triaxial
compression, the material is assumed to crush at that
point. In SOLID65, crushing is defined as the complete
deterioration of the structural integrity of the material
(e.g., material spalling). Under conditions where crush-
ing has occurred, material strength is assumed to have
degraded to an extent such that the contribution to the
stiffness of an element at the integration point can be
ignored. Numerous numerical applications for the use
of SOLID65 and Willam-Warnke material model in the
finite element analyses of reinforced concrete and
masonry structures in the ANSYS are given in detail
in Kazaz, Yakut, and Gülkan (2006) and Kazaz (2010).
2.4. Verification of finite element tool
Now, it is demonstrated that the SOLID65 element
and the Willam-Warnke material model can be used
safely in dry-joint masonry walls by validating avail-
able test results. In previous studies, William-Warnke
material model and SOLID65 element in ANSYS
software was commonly used for comparative finite
element analysis on the seismic behavior and assess-
ment of historic masonry buildings with experimental
data (Betti, Galano, and Vignoli 2014, 2016; Bartoli
et al. 2017). It was reported that the finite element
model is able to predict the damaged areas and the
incipient collapse mechanism with respect to the
damage experienced by the masonry specimen during
the shaking tests. These studies also mentioned about
(b)
854 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.
the effects of the epistemic uncertainties that are
related to the different models and numerical techni-
ques in structural modeling.
Oliviera (2003) conducted experimental study in
order to determine behavior of dry joint masonry walls
under compression and lateral force. In the experiment,
the effect of increased axial load on the lateral displace-
ment capacity of the walls was investigated. Figure 4a
gives the details of the experimental setup. The wall
dimensions are 1000 × 1000 × 200 mm3. We are con-
cerned with the results of tests under 30 kN, 100 kN,
200 kN, and 250 kN axial load values, for which the
applied axial load produces axial stress levels of 0.15,
0.50, 1.00, and 1.25 MPa, respectively. Except 250 kN
load case, two specimens were tested for each case. These
stress values are typical in masonry structures. It was
noted that all the stones used in specimen had a smooth
surface. It was also reported that elastic behavior of the
walls was observed up to 30% of the maximum load.
Finite element model of the walls were created by
using ANSYS APDL software as displayed in Figure 4b.
In the model, the axial load was applied using mass
elements creating the same level of compression on the
wall under gravitational acceleration as in the experi-
ment. The SOLID65 solid element in the ANSYS
element library was used to model the wall. William-
Warnke concrete model was used to model stone fail-
ure surface under three-axial stress state. The least
(a)
Figure 4. (a) Dry-joint masonry wall dimensions and test setup and (b) ANSYS model.
Figure 5. Comparison of experimental and calculated lateral load-displacement curves (SW30 indicate to specimen under 30 kN
axial load).
number of parameters used to define the failure surface
in the material model are the crushing strength, tensile
strength, shear transfer coefficients for open and closed
cracks, which were assigned the values of 7 MPa,
0.05 MPa, 0.05 and 0.8, respectively. For the elastic
modulus of walls, experimental values derived under
pre-load application on the walls as reported in Oliviera
(2003) was assigned to models.
Figure 5 plots the comparison of lateral load-
displacement curves from the experiment, the numer-
ical study by Oliviera (2003) and the finite element
model in this study. Estimated force capacities are
seen to be quite consistent with experimental values,
which are the primary concern of this study. The dis-
placements up to initiation of strength degradation,
which can be attributed to material crushing, were
also predicted well. Since in the utilized material
model, the total strength diminishes beyond failure
surface, the numerical model suddenly loses strength
due to crushing. Using plasticity formulations can over-
come this problem, yet as the calculations by Oliviera
employing such a technique has demonstrated, the
actual behavior cannot be captured correctly. In fact,
the behavior in this region after peak load is question-
able on the experimental curve as well, since under
continuously imposed monotonic displacement loading
fluctuations on the load curve indicates to complex
disintegration phenomenon of masonry.
(b)
Mass Elements
Concrete
Beam

2.5. Modal analysis
Mode shapes and fundamental vibration frequencies of
Lala Pasha Mosque were obtained as a result of modal
analysis. For the material properties, values given in
Table 1 were defined. Total mass of the mosque was
calculated as 5679 tons. The modal analysis was done in
20 modes and the first 2 modes came out to be the
minaret’s modes. Since these two modes are local
modes that do not represent the entire structure, only
the modal quantities of the main mosque body were
reported. Table 2 gives the modal frequencies and mass
participation ratios for the first four main body modes.
While modes 3 and 4 are mixed translational-torsional
modes, modes 5 and 6 are torsional modes.
Kocaman (2017), using the operational modal ana-
lysis method, determined the experimental dynamic
characteristics of Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque.
Experimental measurements were carried out using
pedestrian and traffic induced environmental vibrations
on the mosque. Close values of mode shapes and fre-
quencies were obtained between experimental and
numerical models taking the elastic modulus of
masonry material as 1000fck in the finite element
model as reported in Table 2. In this study, E = 200fck
was adopted in nonlinear static and dynamic analyses
considering that this value better characterizes the large
amplitude vibration behavior of the homogenized wall
material in account of the reduction in stiffness under
earthquake effect.
2.6. Pushover analysis
Static pushover analysis is a simple yet effective method
for the determination of seismic performance of struc-
tures. The nonlinear force-displacement relationship of
structures in earthquake effect can be determined using
a lateral load pattern mimicking the modal force dis-
tribution of the mode with the largest mass participa-
tion ratio under the assumption that the dynamic
behavior is dominated by this mode. From structural
dynamics, the equivalent static load that creates the
same maximum effect of the nth mode of a linear sys-
tem is given by
 in that study more convenient loading patterns sig-
fFn g ¼ Γn :½M: ϕn :Sa ðTn ; n Þ; (1)
Table 2. Mass participation ratios (MPR) and modal frequency values for the main body modes of Lala Pasha Mosque.
Freq. (Hz) Freq. (Hz) Freq. (Hz)
Mode (Exp.) E = 1000fck E = 200fck
3 9.42 8.44 3.77
4 10.55 8.5 3.80
5 10.85 9.3 4.16
6 11.82 11.74 5.25
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 855
where Γn is the modal participation factor, Øn is the
modal displacement vector of the nth mode, [M] is the
mass matrix, and Sa is the maximum acceleration of
a SDOF oscillator with period Tn and damping ratio ξn.
Application of this force will create the same maximum
response of the nth mode. Since the spectral accelera-
tion and the modal participation factor only has the
effect of scaling the load vector in Equation (1), in
pushover analysis the load-displacement curve of the
system can be obtained by a constant and monotoni-
cally increasing lateral load pattern defined as

fPn g ¼ ½M: ϕn (2)
on the premise that the dynamic characteristics of the
nonlinear (damaged) structure remains unchanged as
the linear (undamaged) system. In case of uniform
mass distribution along the height, such as the conven-
tional buildings, the lateral load pattern for pushover
analysis can be represented only with modal displace-
ment vector, Øn. In irregular structures, this force dis-
tribution can be defined as the combination of more
than one modal inertia force vector as in case of multi-
mode pushover analysis.
Application of pushover analysis on historical
masonry structures possesses difficulties, since the
tensile strength of material is very low, which changes
the load transfer path and force redistribution imme-
diately after cracking, the distribution of mass in ele-
vation and the configuration of structural system in
plan and elevation is irregular. In general, three lateral
loads distributions are used for pushover analysis: (a)
modal pattern, proportional to forces consistent with
the nth mode shape in the loading direction; (b) mass
proportional pattern, based on lateral forces propor-
tional to mass regardless of its position in elevation;
and (c) mass and mode proportional pattern, where
a force distribution proportional to the nth mode dis-
placement shape multiplied by the mass distribution,
as defined in Equation (2). Contrary to expectations,
in a previous study Endo, Pela and Roca (2017)
reported that the mass proportional loading pattern
yielded the closest load capacity to nonlinear dynamic
analyses than the other loading patterns. Interestingly,
nificantly underestimated the load capacity of the
MPR MPR MPR MPR
(x dir. Horz.) (y dir. Vert.) (z dir. Horz.) (y Rotation)
0.06 0.48E-5 0.56 0.56
0.55 0.79E-4 0.06 0.64
0.57E-3 0.25E-4 0.36E-4 0.64
0.25E-4 0.30E-3 0.84E-3 0.66
856 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.
structure. For conventional buildings, mass propor-
tional loading pattern corresponds to uniform rectan-
gular lateral loading, which envelops the upper bound
estimation of load capacity.
Equation (2) is especially vital for historical masonry
structures, such as mosques, where the mass is not uni-
form in horizontal and vertical directions. It is difficult
to create a lateral load profile as described by Equation
(2) in analysis packages, since mass in masonry struc-
tures is not lumped at certain levels as in floors of
ordinary buildings. Therefore, instead of calculating
and applying force profile acting on nodes of the struc-
ture in ANSYS, pushover analysis is performed by using
an acceleration field defined as ϕ € ¼ ϕ Sa . Effective
n n
earthquake forces are determined as the mass of each
element multiplied by this acceleration field.
For Lala Pasha Mosque variation of acceleration
along the height of the structure was determined by
Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA). Turkish Seismic
Code (DBYBHY 2007) design spectrum for firm soil
and effective peak ground acceleration of 0.4 g was
used as seismic input. Figure 6 displays the amplified
acceleration profile along the height of the structure
on the central axes obtained from spectrum analysis.
However, due to its structural form and properties, the
amplification is not the same at all parts of the entire
structure and in particular on rocking walls as shown
in Figure 6b. As we move to the edges of the walls
restrained by perpendicular walls, the acceleration
profile changes significantly. In historical masonry
buildings such as mosques, baths, and caravansaries
the modal participation factor Γn, which is a measure
of this amplification in displacements and accelera-
tions, is recommend to be taken as 1.1 (TYDK 2017).
In the mosque model, taking the north wall top mid-
point as control node, the modal participation factor
(a) 18
Simplified acceleration
16 profile
14
12 Acceleration profile obtained
Height (m)
10 by spectral analysis
8
6
4 Wall top
2 level
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Acceleration (g)
Figure 6. (a) Distribution of the accelerations along the height on the middle axisand (b) modal combination of acceleration
response of the Lala Pasha Mosque from RSA.
was calculated as 1.12. We simply take it unity in our
analysis. As input to the program, the simplified accel-
eration profile, which was defined as the average
acceleration on the wall and dome parts, was applied
on the walls and the dome as separate values, as shown
in Figure 6a. In this way, the acceleration applied to
the dome part of the structure is about 2.2 times
greater than the acceleration applied to the lower
load bearing members (walls and columns).
It is known that the load profile used in pushover
analysis changes the calculated capacity curves. The lat-
eral force-displacement curves calculated by uniformly
distributed acceleration profile (mass proportional load-
ing) and by idealized acceleration profile (simplified
mass and modal shape proportional loading) are given
in Figure 7a. The idealized load pattern resulted in less
stiffer and lower capacity response curve than the uni-
form case as expected. Capacity values calculated in the
North-South (N-S) direction and capacity values in the
East-West (E-W) direction are almost same because
the structure is symmetrical except for the narthex
and the minaret. According to the pushover analysis,
the lateral load capacity of the structure is around
25,000 kN. The structure behaves linear up to 10 mm
of dome top displacement and after 25 mm the structure
reaches maximum load capacity. Because of force-
controlled continuous incremental loading used in push-
over analysis, load reduction couldn’t be achieved after
maximum load capacity was reached. Therefore, the
analysis was interrupted at the point where it reaches
maximum load capacity. So, the displacement capacity of
the structure may probably attain slightly larger values. It
should be noted that this is an inadequacy of the existing
force-controlled analysis method.
Selection of the control node for the displacements
representing the horizontal axis of the capacity curve
(b)

significantly effects the equivalent single degree of repre-
sentation of the structure. This conversion, which is the
essence of simplified nonlinear analysis methods, is based
on the comparison of both the structural capacity
(pushover) curve and the demand spectra in spectral-
acceleration vs. spectral-displacement coordinates. How-
ever, this study is aimed to investigate the load and
deformation capacity of the mosque using direct meth-
ods, which requires no such capacity conversion of the
system. So, roof top point and wall-top midpoints is
selected to represent the displacement response of the
entire structure and the walls, respectively.
In Figure 7b, the base shear force is plotted against
the displacements obtained at the top mid-points of
the four walls and the main dome top. Comparing
these pushover curves, it is seen that the displacement
of north wall top point in the push direction is sig-
nificantly larger than other points as a result of out-
ward overturning action. It is also notable in Figure 7b
that drift ratios at the maximum load for walls acting
out-of-plane is significantly larger than the walls act-
ing in-plane. The drift ratios for north and south walls
are 0.55% and 0.17%, respectively. For east and west
walls acting in-plane parallel to earthquake direction
the drift ratio is 0.05% approximately. Static drift ratio
damage limits were proposed in the guideline on
the Management of Earthquake Risks for Historic
Buildings (TYDK 2017) by the General Directorate
of Foundations. Similar values were also proposed in
other studies (Vanin et al. 2017). According to this
guideline, the drift ratio limits for limited damage and
collapse prevention is recommended as 0.3% and 1%,
respectively. However, the calculated drift ratio limits
are significantly lower than the guideline recommen-
dations. The global drift ratio capacity at the top of the
dome is 0.15% in the analysis.
Drift Ratio (‰)
0 0.6 1.2 1.8
30000
25000
Displacement
20000
Force (kN)
control point
15000
10000
5000 Uniform Acel.
Idealized Acel.
0 0
0 10 20 30
(a) Displacement (mm)
Figure 7. (a) Effect of different load patterns on force-displacement relation and (b) the force-displacement curves for different
control points on mosque under idealized acceleration.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 857
Although the elastic modulus of the material is
reduced from 1000fck to 200fck, it is seen that the
calculated drift ratio limit values came out to be con-
siderably lower than the performance limits recom-
mended in the TYDK guideline according to the
results of the pushover analyses. In case of linear ana-
lysis, calculated displacements should be even lesser.
For this reason, a performance assessment with pro-
posed guideline limits will yield unsafe estimations.
2.7. Nonlinear time-history analyses
Due to close proximity to active faults, Eastern Anatolia
Region was exposed to many large and small earth-
quakes throughout history. According to historical
sources, there were earthquakes caused loss of life and
property in the years of 1790, 1843, 1850, 1852, 1859,
1868 (Erzurum Environmental Status Report 2011).
According to the information received from the
Regional Directorate of Foundations in Erzurum, the
mosque did not suffer any serious damage during these
earthquakes. In this study, the time history analyses of
the Lala Pasha Mosque were carried out using nine
different ground motions and their half-scaled forms,
which were previously compiled by Kazaz (2016). The
ground motions were not selected to conform the
regional seismic hazard, but rather to excite the struc-
ture on every level of performance scale. In the analyses
seismic excitation was applied in all three directions
(two horizontal and vertical) except the Erzincan
record. Only horizontal components of Erzincan
ground motion was used in the analysis. The character-
istics of the earthquake records are summarized in
Table 3. In the table, horizontal and vertical compo-
nents of the ground motion were named with the
corresponding model axes in the analysis platform.
Drift Ratio (‰)
2.4 0 1 2 3 4 5
30000
E&W S N
25000
20000
Force (kN)
Displacement
control points
15000
W
10000
S N
5000
E
40 0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Displacement (mm)
858 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.

The damping was assigned in the form of Rayleigh
damping yielding a damping ratio of 3% in the signifi-
cant modes.
The maximum values of dome top displacement
and base shear force pairs obtained from time history
analyses are plotted in Figure 8. The figure contains
data points, plotted all as positive, of maximal values
on both positive and negative sides of the time-
response curves. The static pushover curve and the
dynamic base shear-top displacement curve from
Erzincan earthquake analysis were also drawn on the
graph, because the response curve derived under this
record reveals the structure’s force and displacement
capacity explicitly. Erzincan earthquake simulation
disclosed that the mosque experiences partial collapse
of dome as a result of out-of-plane overturning and
toppling of the north wall as shown in Figure 9b. This
earthquake record, which effectively reflects the char-
acteristics of near-field ground motion, is an appro-
priate seismic input for time-history analysis of
masonry structures for obtaining the collapse mechan-
ism and load-displacement relationship. Among the
selected ground motion inputs, collapse was also
observed in Cape Mendocino and Kocaeli earthquake
analyses.
Figure 9 shows the principal total strain on the
structure as a result of pushover and time-history ana-
lyses and a current photograph from the east wall. As
seen in Figure 9a,b, as a result of outwards overturning
tendency of north wall, there is significant possibility of
crack development extending between the nearest win-
dow opening and the wall top on the perpendicular
walls (east wall window). This damage was predicted
by both pushover analysis and time-history analysis. As
displayed in Figure 9c, the existence of different pattern
and color of stones in this area indicates to a possible
earthquake damage and a repair action afterward,
throughout the lifetime of the mosque.
In Figure 8, it is seen that the pushover analysis that
uses the force profile compatible with the modal dis-
placement vector multiplied with the mass as given by
Equation (2) and the time-history analysis yields close
estimations of load capacity and stiffness. Figure 8 also
displays that displacement limit for elastic behavior is
around 10 mm, whereas strength starts decreasing after
20 mm verifying the limits determined on the pushover
curve. According to the hysteresis curve obtained from
the Erzincan earthquake, it can be interpreted that the
strength degradation roughly beyond 40 mm of dome
top displacement is unrecoverable. This value can be

Table 3. Peak ground values of ground motions used in time-history analyses (Y direction corresponds to vertical in the analyses platform).
PGA (cm/sec2) PGV (cm/sec)
Earthquake Year Mw Station X dir. Z dir. Y dir. X dir. Z dir. Y dir.
Imp. Valley 1979 6.5 Keystone Rd., El Cento Array #2 365 309 104 32.8 33.7 12.0
Kocaeli 1999 7.4 Düzce 374 315 480 52.6 59.5 20.9
Erzincan 1992 6.8 Center 382 460 - 100.2 189.4 -
Northridge 1994 6.7 Pacoima-Kagel Canyon 295 424 177 31.1 50.8 14.1
W. Narrows 1987 6.1 7420 Jaboneria, Bell Gardens 216 90 220 27.9 3.9 17.3
Cape Men. 1992 7.1 89324 Rio Dell Overpass-FF 378 539 191 45.6 43.7 9.6
Northridge 1994 6.7 LA — Fletcher Dr. 241 167 109 25.2 14.5 10.3
Northridge 1994 6.7 24283 Moorpark — Fire Station 286 189 143 20.4 20.1 6.6
Northridge 1994 6.7 24389 LA — Century City CC N. 217 217 113 25.2 25.2 8.7

30000 30000
25000 25000
20000 20000
Base Shear Force (kN)
Base Shear Force (kN)

15000 15000
10000 10000

5000 5000

0 0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
-5000 -5000

-10000 -10000
Dynamic Analyses
-15000 Erzincan Hysteresis -15000
Pushover Analysis -20000
-20000
(a) Top Displacement (mm) (b) Top Displacement (mm)

Figure 8. Dynamic capacity curve of the structure developed from peak values of top displacement and base shear pairs of dynamic
analyses results in (a) x direction and (b) z direction.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 859

(a) Pushover Analysis (b) Dynamic Analysis (ERZ) (c) East Wall
Figure 9. Damage distribution determined by the analyses and the current photo showing that the stones in the same area have
changed.

taken as the displacement capacity of the structure at in- and out-of-plane shear forces were calculated by
the top of the dome. Considering the height of this including and excluding the intersection regions at the
point from ground is 17.45 m, it was concluded that edges of the walls. It is seen in all the graphs that the
the load capacity is reached at a drift ratio of 0.11% and load capacities increase when the intersection areas of
the displacement capacity is limited at a drift ratio of the walls included. While displacement limit was
0.23%. At this point a serious decrease in the load found to be around 6 mm on the walls (at ~8.4 m
capacity develops due to overturning of the north wall elevation) for the elastic in-plane behavior (0.07% drift
and declares the initiation of collapse, as shown in ratio), nonlinear behavior was observed to initiate
Figure 9b. after 15 mm in the out-of-plane behavior (0.18%
Figure 10 displays the in- and out-of-plane dynamic drift). Considering these values, it can be concluded
load capacity curves of four walls developed from the that masonry structures behaves as rigid until the
peak values of top displacement and base shear force strength is exceeded under earthquake loading and
pairs of dynamic analyses results. The displacements once the strength is exceeded, cracks and damage
were derived in the middle-top of the wall. The progress very quickly.

with intersection areas without intersection areas idealized capacity

East Wall West Wall North Wall South Wall

10000 10000 6000 6000
a) in-plane b) in-plane c) out-of-plane d) out-of-plane inwards
7500 7500
4000 4000
5000 5000
x direction (N-S)
Force (kN)

2000 2000
2500 2500
outwards
0 0 0 0
-2500 -2500
-2000 -2000
-5000 -5000
-4000 -4000
-7500 -7500 inwards outwards
-10000 -10000 -6000 -6000
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
6000 6000 10000 10000
e) out-of-plane f) out-of-plane g) in-plane h) in-plane
inwards 7500 7500
z direction (E-W)

4000 4000
5000 5000
Force (kN)

2000 2000
2500 2500
outwards
0 0 0 0
outwards -2500
-2000 -2500
-2000
-5000 -5000
-4000 -4000
inwards -7500 -7500
-6000 -6000 -10000 -10000
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
Drift Ratio (‰) Drift Ratio (‰) Drift Ratio (‰) Drift Ratio (‰)

Figure 10. Dynamic capacity curves of four walls developed from peak values of top displacement and base shear pairs of dynamic
analyses results.
860 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.
As shown in Figure 10a–h, displacements calculated
on the walls resisting earthquake loads by in-plane
action can only reach low values of lateral displace-
ment. Although the lowest values proposed in literature
for the elastic modulus of the masonry material were
used in this study, these drift values stipulate the careful
use of proposed damage limits for such structures and
walls. We believe that this discrepancy raises from two
limitations: using scaled single isolated wall tests that
cannot represent the complex global interaction of dif-
ferent elements in the entire structure and deriving
drift limits particularly from test under monotonic
and quasi-static cyclic loading that drifts the specimen
to imposed displacement, which cannot reflect the iner-
tial hysteric effect on masonry disintegration.
The in-plane load capacities of the four walls have
similar values, which is 7000 kN approximately includ-
ing intersection regions (Figure 10a–h). Figure 11 illus-
trates the areas used in shear force calculation on walls.
For out-of-plane behavior, two different behaviors and
load capacities emerge depending whether the wall’s
rocking (overturning) motion is inside or outside the
structure. As shown in Figure 10c,d, the load and dis-
placement capacity of the walls on the compression side
of the structure increase due to increasing pressure on
the wall as the wall deflects outward. The wall including
the intersection regions separates from the supporting
vertical walls on both sides and topples outwards. The
ductile behavior shown in Figure 10c,d occurs because
Figure 11. Illustration of shear area with and without intersection regions.
of this rocking motion. Simultaneously, the parallel
opposite wall bends inward the structure, and the ver-
tical walls at the edges act as support against this
bending motion and restrict the movement. The out-
of-plane load capacities of the walls on the compression
and tension sides are 4000 kN and 2400 kN in average,
respectively, without intersection regions. Adding up
these values, the total horizontal load capacity for the
four walls is calculated as 20,400 kN approximately,
which is very close to actual capacity of 21,767 kN as
given in Figure 8a. Therefore, it can be stated that in
the seismic load capacity evaluation of thick-walled
masonry structures, not only the walls parallel to earth-
quake excitation direction but also the out-of-plane
behaving vertical walls should be taken into considera-
tion. The out-of-plane response depends not only on
the seismic loading intensity and wall geometry but also
on the static and kinematic boundary conditions of the
walls. The location of openings on the perpendicular
restraining in-plane working walls, vertical restraint
that is provided by the roof structure, the stiffness of
the horizontal connections determines the rocking
mechanism on the out-of-plane rocking walls.
3. A new approach for calculation of
earthquake load capacity
Determination of load capacity of walls of a structure is an
important step in determining the earthquake

performance of the structure. Horizontal load capacity of
masonry walls can be determined according to Equations
(3) and (4) analytically. Total length of the walls is
26.30 m. It is assumed that window openings, which
have a width of 1.25 m in average, do not carry shear
force. Considering that there are 5 window openings on
the east and south facades, the net wall length is ld
= 20.05 m, if the intersection areas are included and
16.45 m if the intersection areas are excluded. The wall
thickness is td = 1.8 m. In the Turkish Seismic Code, the
wall shear strength, fvk, is determined by Equation (3):
fvk ¼ fvko þ 0:4σ d  0:10fb
Vwall ¼ ld  td  fvk :
Here, the value of characteristic shear strength fvko of
stone masonry is proposed as 0.1 MPa according to
the same code. From the static analysis, vertical load
on each wall was calculated as 11,280 kN. Under this
load, the average vertical compressive stress, σd, was
found as 0.313 MPa. When these values are used, the
wall shear strength is obtained as fvk = 0.225 MPa.
Using this value in Equation (4), in-plane load capa-
city of a single wall is determined as 8120 kN including
and 6662 kN excluding intersection areas. However, the
collapse mechanism obtained from dynamic analysis
displayed that one of the intersection areas at the
ends of in-plane working walls remains inside the
volume of out-of-plane overturning wall (north wall)
as shown in Figure 12a. Therefore, the net wall length ld
should be calculated by excluding window openings
and one of the intersection regions at the ends. By
this way, the in-plane load capacity of the east and
west walls is calculated as 7391 kN.
Figure 12. (a) Erzincan earthquake simulation principal strain plot on main walls at t = 2.98 sec: the north wall starts to tip outside of
mosque as a block, and (b) rigid block model of the north wall.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 861
Depending on the earthquake excitation direction,
the calculation model given in Figure 12b is proposed
to determine out-of-plane lateral load capacity of thick
walls with low hd/td ratio (hd/td < 5) based on rigid
body dynamics and kinetic analysis principles (Kazaz
and Kocaman 2018; Melis 2002). In the model, the
external forces consist of the vertical loads Wup trans-
mitted from the upper structural elements and resulting
from inertial effects Ne, and the normal reactions and
base shear forces at the walls depending on the rocking
direction. The vertical forces affect the tipping resis-
tance of the wall. The earthquake force Fco that leads to
(3) toppling of the wall and therefore is the load capacity of
wall is calculated as
 
td W d
(4) Fco ¼ þ Wup þ Ne : (5)
he 2
In the equation, Wd is self-weight of the wall in
static condition, Wup static vertical load transmitted
from roof structure, Ne is the dynamic axial load on
wall due to the earthquake load reversals, he is
height of effective total earthquake load form
the ground level, and td is the wall thickness.
It is assumed that the contact between the wall and
the floor is rigid and pointed. In fact, contact at the base
of the wall during rocking is not at a point, but on
a certain area. However, since the width of the contact
area obtained with similar models based on rigid body
dynamics is very small (<100 mm) as compared to
thickness of the wall and this assumption is supported
by the finite element calculations, it is assumed that the
contact is along the outer base line to simplify the model.
In some models, material flexibility of the pivot point (or
area) is also considered. Such a contact definition may
affect both the displacement and the load capacity. Since,
the material of the dry stone masonry outer leaf of the
862 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.
three-leaf walls has the adequate compressive strength
against crushing, such a phenomenon is also ignored.
We will focus on the determination of he and Ne in
Equation (5) since these values directly affect the result.
The dynamic axial load (Ne) in the model was deter-
mined initially by dynamic analyses results. Figure 13
displays the force and displacement time-histories of
the north and south walls obtained from the Erzincan
earthquake analysis. In the graphs, dynamic axial force
variation (wall static axial load was removed), wall out-
of-plane shear force, and scaled displacement were
plotted to investigate the phase relation between these
quantities. It was observed that when the north wall
overturns outward, displacement and lateral load (base
shear) increases simultaneously as the dynamic axial
compressive load (Ne) on the wall also increases. The
dynamic axial load on the opposite sides of the excita-
tion direction takes opposite signs and considering the
rocking phases indicated in Figure 13, the absolute
value of the dynamic axial load may be taken as same
both in compression and tension. In light of this beha-
vior, the model given in Figure 14 was developed.
Dynamic axial load Ne given in Equation (6) varies
depending on the intensity of the ground motion acting
on the structure. The dominant modal shape and mass
participation ratio in the direction of earthquake excita-
tion are also factors affecting the determination of Ne. In
the free body diagram given in Figure 14, the structure
and walls are in translation under horizontal earthquake
forces, vertical loads due to the weight of the structure are
excluded since they cancel out with static vertical reaction
forces at the wall base, and only the dynamic axial tensile-
compressive force couple Ne caused by inertial effects of
the horizontal earthquake load are illustrated. In Figure
14, the effective earthquake forces reduce to the vector
8000
x800 magnified
(+) Tension
Phase I
6000 horz. displacement
4000
Force (kN)
2000
0
-2000
Compression (-)
-4000
-6000
-8000
1 2
Figure 13. Variation of dynamic axial and lateral load on the North and South walls. In Phase I North wall is moving inside and Ne is
tensile; in Phase II North Wall is rocking outside and Ne is compressive; in Phase III the intensity of the ground motion leads to
toppling of the wall outward.
αMTSa attached at the center of mass and yc is the vertical
coordinate of the center of mass. Taking moment about
the contact point on the south wall, dynamic axial load is
derived as
αMT Sa ðTÞyc
Ne ¼ : (6)
le
It is recommended to use the effective period Te instead
of the initial elastic period Ti for the building period in
the calculation of spectral acceleration in Equation (6) by
several codes and previous studies, in order to account
for the reduction in stiffness under earthquake effect.
The effective period can be taken as 1.5 times of initial
period, Te = 1.5Ti (Kadas, Yakut, and Kazaz 2011).
Now, the application of this method is displayed for
Erzincan earthquake. Maximum axial dynamic force
from the dynamic analysis of Erzincan ground motion
is 5483 kN. As a result of the modal analysis of the
structure, the dominant mode frequency in x direction
was determined to be 3.80 Hz (Ti = 0.26 sec). Sa(Te)
value was obtained as 6.90 m/s2 from Erzincan ground
motion acceleration spectrum. In this mode, the mass
participation ratio in x direction is α = 0.55 and the
total mass is MT = 5679 tons. When the values given
above are input to Equation (6), the dynamic axial load
is Ne = 6062 kN (with yc = 6.3 m, le = 22.4 m). As it is
seen, the estimated dynamic axial load is very close to
the analysis value. Comparison of the Ne values
obtained from dynamic analyses under different earth-
quakes with the Ne values calculated by Equation (6) is
given in Figure 15. The correlation indicates that the
proposed relation can be used to calculate Ne.
North wall is under compression in the earthquake
cycle that causes the mosque to collapse as shown Figure
12a, previously. The wall is exposed to axial force of
Phase II Phase III
Ne (North Wall)
Ne (South Wall)
Vx,base (North Wall)
3 4 5 6
Time (sec)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 863

In fact, it is useful to assign a greater value for td in this

calculation. Because the 0.5 m projections of the arches
joining to wall and 1.2 m thick bedplate of the entrance
door increases the distance of the vertical loads to the
pivot point, as can be seen in Figure 11. The models
shown in Figure 12b can be arranged in detail accord-
MT.Sa
ing to the geometry of the structure to obtain more
precise results.
h=8.4 m

CM
yc=6.3 m Assuming that the distribution of accelerations is
triangular and the mass is uniformly distributed along
the height of the walls, the resultant of earthquake load
le=22.4 m Ne
Ne on the north and south walls can be calculated as

Figure 14. Determination of dynamic axial force on the out-of- Md  Sa

plane acting walls caused by lateral seismic force. Fo ¼ : (7)
2

In the dynamic cycle, where the north wall toppling

8000 outside of the structure and leading to collapse, the
south wall is bending inside the structure. The hor-
Equation (6), Ne (kN)

y = 1.0011x
R² = 0.7448
6000 izontal earthquake load on the south wall can be
simply calculated by Equation (7). Comparison of
4000 seismic loads estimated using Equations (5) and (7)
with the lateral seismic loads (base shear force)
2000 obtained from dynamic analyses for north and south
walls are given in Figure 16. The resulting graphs
0 demonstrated that the proposed model estimates the
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 dynamic horizontal force with acceptable accuracy
Dynamic Analyses, Ne (kN) and can be used to determine the horizontal earth-
quake loads on historical mosques and similar four-
Figure 15. Comparison of the axial dynamic load on the north
walled box type structures.
wall from Equation (6) and dynamic analysis.
At this point it is useful to note that the structure
and walls did not go through severe damage or col-
lapse in all earthquake analyses. In fact, the structure
10804 kN (Wd) due to its own weight and 2847 kN (Wup)
behaved linearly or close to linear in the analyses with
due to dome. Using Equation (6), the dynamic axial force
some full scale (1.0) and all half-scaled (0.5) records.
(Ne) was calculated as 6062 kN. As shown in Figure 12a,
In this case, Equation (5), which is proposed to deter-
the intersection areas and even small parts of the east and
mine the out-of-plane load capacity of the walls, cal-
west walls breaking from the window openings participate
culates the earthquake load applied on the north wall,
in the overturning motion of the north wall. The west and
which has not reached to the capacity, excessively,
east walls which are perpendicular to the north and south
since Equation (5) was derived from a kinetics model
walls, behaves as restraining support when the north and
representing the ultimate load limit state of the rock-
south walls move inwards the structure. But the west and
ing walls. Therefore, in the region left in the box in
east walls loses their restraining effect when the north and
Figure 16a, the model gives greater values than the
south walls move outwards the structure, as displayed in
analyses results and Ne is required to be limited after
Figure 12a. Knowing that mass is uniformly distributed
yielding of the wall. Amplitude of the ground accel-
along the height of the walls, distribution of dynamic
eration or in other words the spectral acceleration,
forces acting on the north wall can be regarded as trian-
which will cause the walls to collapse out of plane,
gular. It is possible to get he = 0.67hwall in this way. Using
can be calculated with the help of the existing equa-
these values, the out-of-plane load capacity to the north
tions. By equating Equations (5) and (7) and distribut-
wall can be calculated by Equation (5) as
  ing Ne expressed by Equation (6) inside the relation
1:8 10804 and arranging for Sa, the lower limit of spectral accel-
ðFco ÞNW ¼ þ 2847 þ 6062
0:67  8:4 2 eration that will lead to toppling of the wall is calcu-
¼ 4577kN : lated as:
864 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.

6000 6000
R² = 0.7894 R² = 0.6409

Analyses, Fo (kN)

Analyses, Fo (kN)
4000 4000

2000 2000

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000
(a) (b)
Equation (5), Fo (kN) Equation (7), Fo (kN)

Figure 16. Horizontal force correlation: (a) North wall and (b) South wall.

ðWd þ 2Wup Þ three different analysis methods: dynamic analyses, sta-

Sa;c ¼  :
Md he
td  2 αMleT yc
Here, Md is the mass (self and roof) of the north wall
(1392 ton). In the Erzincan case, Sa,c that will start the
collapse mechanism in the structure is 6.36 m/sec2.
This explains the destructive effect of Erzincan earth-
quake [SaERZ(Te) = 6.9 m/sec2] on the structure. In the
calculation of dynamic axial load Ne using Equation (6),
the largest value of spectral acceleration Sa should be
capped with Sa,c, since the structure will be in a yield
state reaching maximum load. For values of Sa smaller
than Sa,c, the actual spectral acceleration is used in the
calculation of Ne. In such a case, the horizontal seismic
load on all walls is calculated using Equation (7).
We now have all the equations needed to calculate the
structural load capacity. In the case of Sa = 6.36 m/sec2,
the capacity of the north wall is calculated by using
Equations (5) and (6) as:
 plan drawings of the mosque are given in Figure 17.
1:8 10804
Fco ¼ þ 2847
0:67  8:4 2
 
0:55  5679  6:36  6:3
þ
22:4
¼ 4425 kN:
Effective earthquake load on the south wall (no col-
lapse) using Equation (7) is
957  6:36
Fo ¼ ¼ 3042 kN:
2 of five domes and six columns. Thickness of four main
Previously, the in-plane load capacity of two walls
parallel to the excitation direction was obtained as
7391 kN for each. By kinetic method, the total load
capacity of the structure is calculated as 22,250 kN by
summing the in- and out-of-plane load capacities of
four walls. In summary, the earthquake load capacity of
the historic Lala Pasha Mosque was determined using
(8) tic analyses, and the proposed kinematic analyses. The
horizontal seismic load capacity of the mosque was
obtained as 21,767 kN, 25,248 kN, and 22,250 kN for
dynamic, pushover, and kinetic analyses approaches,
respectively. It was seen that the kinetic method yields
reliable and safe results for the seismic load capacity
evaluation of masonry mosques.
4. Case study of Erzurum Narmanlı Mosque
4.1. Historical and architectural features
Narmanlı Mosque, which is located in the east of
Double Minaret Madrasah in the Tabriz Gate district
in Erzurum city center, was built by Hadji Yusuf Efendi
in 1738 according to the four-line inscription on the
door. The mosque is one of the important Ottoman
monuments in Erzurum and under the responsibility of
the General Directorate of Foundations. The view and
Made of smooth cut stone, the mosque attracts atten-
tion with its workmanship.
Narmanlı Mosque is a main single-domed mosque
with a square plan. There are four quarter domes around
a single main dome. The dome sitting on the four tromps
at the corners inside is reflected to outside by a 16-sided
drum at the perimeter, preventing the lateral expansion of
dome. The main dome has 15.2 m diameter, 17 m height,
and approximately 65 cm thickness. The main dimen-
sions of the mosque are 19 × 19 m2. The narthex is
19 × 4.5 m2 in the southern part. The narthex is consist
walls of the mosque is approximately td = 170 cm. The
walls has a height of hd = 8.66 m to the roof level. The ld/hd
and hd/td ratios of the mosque walls are 2.19 and 5.1,
respectively. There are four windows on the east and
west facades of the masque and two windows on the
north and south facades. The minaret is located on the
north-west corner of the mosque.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 865

Figure 17. Erzurum Narmanlı Mosque and its plan.

4.2. Finite element model Table 4. Mass participation ratio (MPR) and frequency values
for the first four modes of Narmanlı Mosque.
As shown in Figure 18, detailed solid model of Narmanlı MPR MPR MPR
Mosque was produced using SolidWorks software. The Frequency (x direction (y direction (z direction
Mode (Hz) Horizontal) Vertical) Horizontal)
generated model was transferred to ANSYS APDL soft-
3 3.86 0.48 0.60E-4 0.19
ware and model was meshed with 15,657 nodes and 62633 4 3.89 0.19 0.82E-4 0.48
elements using SOLID65 element. The same material 5 4.82 0.42E-2 0.21E-4 0.11E-2
6 4.92 0.35E-3 0.60E-5 0.39E-2
properties of Lala Pasha Mosque given in Table 2 was
also used for Narmanlı Mosque.
first four main body modes are emphasized. Table 4
4.3. Modal analysis shows the mass participation ratios and frequency values
for the dominant four modes.
Mode shapes and vibration periods of Narmanlı Mosque
was obtained by modal analysis. The total mass of the
mosque was calculated as 3747 tons. The analysis was
4.4. Calculation of the seismic capacity of
made in 20 modes and the first 2 modes came out of the
Narmanlı Mosque with proposed approach
minaret’s modes as in the case of Lala Pasha Mosque. In
fact, minarets are the most vulnerable parts of mosque The proposed kinetic analysis method was used to deter-
structures against seismic action and susceptible to exten- mine the seismic capacity of Narmanlı Mosque. Equation
sive damage under severe earthquake loading. These (4) was used to calculate the in-plane load capacity of
modes were excluded from the model and analysis, and masonry walls. Length of the walls is 19.00 m. Window

(a) (b)

Figure 18. Narmanlı Mosque: (a) SolidWorks model and (b) ANSYS model.
866 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.
openings, which are 1.50 m in average, were subtracted
from the length of the walls. Considering that there are 3
window openings on the east and south facades, the net
wall length ld is calculated as 15.55 m if the intersection
areas are included and 12.15 m if the intersection areas are
excluded. However due to assumed overturning mechan-
ism of the walls as discussed previously, one of the inter-
section region was included in the calculation of the wall
length and it was found as ld = 13.85 m. The wall thickness
is td = 1.7 m. From the static analysis, vertical compressive
stress σd was found as 0.263 MPa. Using these values, the
wall characteristic shear strength was obtained as fvk
= 0.2052 MPa. When this value is inserted in Equation
(4), the in-plane load capacity of the each wall parallel to
the earthquake direction was obtained as 4831 kN.
The free-body diagram given in Figure 19 was used
for determining Ne value. As a result of the modal
analysis of the structure, the dominant mode frequency
in x direction was determined to be 3.86 Hz (Ti = 0.259
sec). In this mode, the mass participation ratio in
x direction is α = 0.48 and the total mass is MT
= 3747 tons. When the values given above were written
in Equation (6), the dynamic axial load was found as
Ne = 4105 kN with yc = 5.16 m and le = 15.6 m.
Spectral acceleration that causes the toppling of walls can
be calculated by Equation (8). Md is the mass carried by the
north wall (1113.5 tons). In this case, Sa,c that initiates the
collapse mechanism in the structure is 5.93 m/s2.
Using Sa = 5.93 m/s2, the out-of-plane load capacity of
the north wall was calculated employing Equation (5) as
 1999 Kocaeli earthquake records, for which the peak
1:7 10923
Fco ¼ þ 2274
0:67  8:66 2 shear force-displacement dynamic hysteresis curves are
 
0:48  3747  5:93  5:16
þ ment was found to be around 4 mm on the main dome
15:6
¼ 3300 kN:
Me.Sa
h=8.66 m
CM
yc=5.16 m
le=15.6 m
Ne Ne
Figure 19. Determination of dynamic axial force on the out-of-
plane acting walls caused by lateral seismic force.
Effective earthquake load on the south wall (no col-
lapse) was given by Equation (7) as
762:8  5:93
Fo ¼ ¼ 2262 kN:
2
The in-plane load capacity of the walls parallel to the
earthquake direction was obtained as 4831 kN. The total
load capacity of the structure was found as 15,224 kN
summing the individual in- and out-of-plane load capa-
cities as 2x4831 kN + 3300 kN + 2262 kN.
4.5. Pushover analysis
To verify the estimated load capacity, nonlinear pushover
and time-history analyses were performed on the
Narmanlı mosque. The acceleration profile acting on the
middle axis of the structure was calculated as shown in
Figure 20 using the modal combination under acceleration
response spectrum suitable for ground and location of the
structure. In order to easily input the acceleration field that
is applied on the structure, the profile was idealized as
average acceleration acting on the body and roof part of
the structure as shown in Figure 20a. Using the force-
controlled pushover analysis, the lateral load capacity of
the structure was calculated as 18,500 kN approximately.
4.6. Time-history analysis
The time-history analyses of Narmanlı mosque was per-
formed under 1992 Erzincan, 1992 Cape Mendocino and
values are given in Table 3. In Figure 21, the base
plotted for these earthquake scenarios. While displace-
(at 16.95 m elevation) for the limit of elastic in-plane
behavior of walls (0.025% drift), nonlinear behavior
initiation was observed after 16 mm of dome displace-
ment in the out-of-plane behavior of walls (~0.1% drift).
Total load capacity of the mosque was calculated
approximately as 18,385 kN. Comparing this value with
the estimated seismic load capacity of 15,224 kN, it can
be concluded that the proposed method safely and clo-
sely estimates the seismic load capacity. The error in the
prediction is around 17%, when compared to Lala Pasha
Case.
5. Discussion and conclusion
This study aims to derive simple relations for the seismic
load capacity evaluation of Ottoman period masonry
mosques. These domed structures seated on four thick
walls and pillars anchored each other with supporting
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 867

17.5 20000
Simplified
15 Acceleration Profile

12.5 15000
Acceleration Profile

Height (m)

Force (kN)
obtained by Spectral
10 Analysis
10000
7.5 displacement
control point
5 Wall top
level 5000
2.5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60
(a) (b)
Acceleration (g) Displacement (mm)

Figure 20. (a) Calculated structure height-acceleration distribution relation used MCM and (b) force-displacement graph.

Erzincan Kocaeli Cape Men. Calculated Capacity

20000

15000
Base Shear Force (kN)

10000

5000

0
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90
-5000

-10000

-15000

-20000
Displacement (mm)

Figure 21. Top displacement-base shear force graphs of the mosque in comparison to estimated capacity.

arches are suitable to analyze in analogy to rocking The predictions of the proposed method for the seis-
response of rigid blocks. Besides using conventional mic load capacity evaluation of mosques were verified
code shear strength formulations for the in-plane-load against the results of nonlinear pushover and time-
capacity of masonry walls, a methodology was developed history analyses on two different structures in Erzurum,
for the out-of-plane load capacity calculation based on Turkey. Selected mosques reflects different architectural
rigid body dynamics. The effect of axial load variation on forms. While in the Lala Pasha Mosque case the dome is
the load capacity of out-of-plane rocking walls were supported on four pillars and perimeter walls, in
incorporated into the proposed method. The behavior Narmanlı Mosque case the dome is carried by walls. For
of inwards and outwards bending walls were differen- both cases estimated seismic load capacity was in good
tiated. Since not every seismic action leads to collapse, agreement with the analyses results and remained on the
different relations were proposed for the determination safe side. For Lala Pasha Mosque case the errors in load
of seismic load acting on the wall and capacity evalua- capacity prediction are −12% and +2.2% with respect to
tion of the wall. pushover analyses and time-history analyses, respectively.
Assuming the spectral acceleration value is a good For the Narmanlı Mosque case the prediction errors are
indicator of the seismic intensity and considering its −19% and −17% for pushover analyses and time-history
direct relation with the seismic load acting on the total analyses, respectively.
mass, an equation giving the lower limit of spectral Comprising a significant portion of this study,
acceleration that will lead to toppling of the wall is other significant outcomes are in regards to the static
derived. It was shown by the proposed models and and dynamic finite element analyses of the masonry
the equations that the out-of-plane resistance of the structures. For pushover analyses comparing different
thick walls (hd/td < 5) contributes significantly to the lateral load profiles, it was determined and theoreti-
total structural load capacity. cally displayed that the most appropriate load profile
868 I. KOCAMAN ET AL.
for seismic load capacity curve calculation is the mass
and mode proportional pattern, where a force distri-
bution proportional to the nth mode displacement
shape is multiplied by the mass distribution as defined
in Equation (2). The stiffness and maximum load
capacity that were evaluated using pushover and
dynamic analyses yielded very close results when
used as defined here. It was also demonstrated that
the damage pattern and collapse mechanism could be
obtained by both analyses methods effectively.
As a final and very important conclusion, it was observed
that the calculated displacement capacity of masonry mos-
ques (or structures) was very low, although very low values
of elastic modulus as low as 600–700 MPa for walls and
domes were used in the models. The drift ratio on the model
depends on the choice of control point in masonry struc-
tures due to lack of diaphragm effect. For the Lala Pasha
Mosque the dome top and wall out-of-plane ultimate drift
ratios can only reached to 0.25% and 0.5%, respectively. For
Narmanlı Mosque the dome top drift ratio reached to 0.5%
at ultimate. These values are very low according to existing
drift limits for masonry walls. The larger drift capacity of the
Narmanlı Mosque can be attributed to its smaller size and
architectural form, where the dome is only carried by walls
and the drum at the perimeter of the dome provides more
resistance against lateral deflections. We believe, the research
on masonry structures needs to be move forward to dis-
placement capacity evaluation by conducting dynamic tests
on structural system level rather than on component speci-
mens and employing reliable nonlinear finite element ana-
lysis procedures for validation.
ORCID
Irfan Kocaman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1774-7114
Emriye Kazaz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3885-1885
References
ANSYS 16.1. 2015. Finite element analysis program.
Canonsburg, PA, USA: ANSYS Inc.
Bartoli, G., M. Betti, P. Biagini, A. Borghini, A. Ciavattone,
M. Girardi, G. Lancioni, A. M. Marra, B. Ortolani,
B. Pintucchi, et al. 2017. Epistemic uncertainties in struc-
tural modeling: A blind benchmark for seismic assess-
ment of slender masonry towers. Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities 31 (5):04017067. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001049.
Bartoli, G., M. Betti, and A. Vignoli. 2016. A numerical study
on seismic risk assessment of historic masonry towers:
A case study in San Gimignano. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 14:14575–1518. doi:10.1007/s10518-016-9892-9.
Betti, M., L. Galano, and A. Vignoli. 2014. Comparative
analysis on the seismic behavior of unreinforced masonry
buildings with flexible diaphragms. Engineering Structures
61:195–208. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.12.038.
Betti, M., L. Galano, and A. Vignoli. 2016. Finite element
modelling for seismic assessment of historic masonry
buildings. Earthquakes and Their Impact on Society
377–415. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21753-6_14.
Bocciarelli, M., and G. A. Barbieri. 2017. A numerical procedure
for the pushover analysis of masonry towers. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 93:162–71. doi:10.1016/j.
soildyn.2016.07.022.
Candeias, P. X., A. Campos Costa, N. Mendes, A. A. Costa,
and P. B. Lourenço. 2017. Experimental assessment of the
out-of-plane performance of masonry buildings through
shaking table tests. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 11 (1):31–58. doi:10.1080/15583058.2016.1238975.
Cennamo, C., B. M. Chiaia, S. D’Angelo, and D. Ferretti.
2011. Seismic assessment and rehabilitation of a historical
theater based on a macro-element strategy. International
Journal of Architectural Heritage 5 (3):264–95. doi:10.1080/
15583050903560256.
Costa, A. A. 2012. Seismic assessment of the out-of-plane
performance of traditional stone masonry walls. PhD
diss., Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto.
D’Ambrisi, A., V. Mariani, and M. Mezzi. 2012. Seismic
assessment of a historical masonry tower with nonlinear
static and dynamic analyses tuned on ambient vibration
tests. Engineering Structures 36:210–19. doi:10.1016/j.
engstruct.2011.12.009.
DBYBHY. 2007. Code on structures to build in earthquake regions.
General Directorate of Disaster Affairs. (in Turkish).
de Felice, G. 2011. Out-of-plane seismic capacity of masonry
depending on wall section morphology. International Journal
of Architectural Heritage 5 (4–5):466–82. doi:10.1080/1558
3058.2010.530339.
Derakhshan, H., Y. Nakamura, J. M. Ingham, and M. C. Griffith.
2017. Simulation of shake table tests on out-of-plane masonry
buildings. Part (I): Displacement-based approach using sim-
ple failure mechanisms. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 11 (1):72–78. doi:10.1080/15583058.2016.1237590.
Doherty, K., M. C. Griffith, N. Lam, and J. Wilson. 2002.
Displacement-based seismic analysis for out-of-plane bending
of unreinforced masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics 31 (4):833–50. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1096-
9845.
Endo, Y., L. Pelà, and P. Roca. 2017. Review of different
pushover analysis methods applied to masonry buildings
and comparison with nonlinear dynamic Analysis. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering 21 (8):1234–55. doi:10.1080/
13632469.2016.1210055.
Erzurum Environmental Status Report. 2011. Erzurum
Governorship. Erzurum: Environmental and Urban Planning
Provincial Directorate.
Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures. 1995. Part 1.1: General
rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures,
European Committee for Standardization, ENV 1996-1-1:1995.
Ferreira, T. M., A. A. Costa, and A. Costa. 2015. Analysis of
the out-of-plane seismic behavior of unreinforced masonry:
A literature review. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 9 (8):949–72. doi:10.1080/15583058.2014.885996.
Galasco, A., S. Lamomardino, and A. Penna. 2006. On the
use of pushover analysis for existing masonry buildings.
Paper presented at the 1st European Conference on

Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva,
Switzerland, September 3.
Garofano, A., and P. Lestuzzi. 2016. Seismic assessment of
a historical masonry building in Switzerland: The “Ancien
Hôpital De Sion”. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 10 (8):975–92. doi:10.1080/15583058.2016.1160303.
Kadas, K., A. Yakut, and I. Kazaz. 2011. Spectral ground motion
intensity based on capacity and period elongation. Journal of
Structural Engineering 137 (3):401–09. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0000084.
Kanıt, R., and M. S. Döndüren. 2010. Investıgatıon of using
ANSYS software in the determınatıon of stress behaviors
of masonry walls under out of plane cyclıng load.
International Journal of the Physical Sciences 5 (2):97–108.
Karimi, A. H., M. S. Karimi, A. Kheyroddin, and
A. A. Shahkarami. 2016. Experimental and numerical
study on seismic behavior of an infilled masonry wall
compared to an arched masonry wall. Structures 8
(1):144–53. doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2016.09.012.
Kazaz, İ. 2016. Seismic deformation demands on rectangular
structural walls in frame-wall systems. Earthquakes and
Structures 10 (2):329–50. doi:10.12989/eas.2016.10.2.329.
Kazaz, İ. 2010. Dynamic characteristics and performance
assessment of reinforced concrete structural walls. PhD
diss., Middle East Technical University.
Kazaz, İ., and İ. Kocaman. 2018. Seismic load capacity eva-
luation of stone masonry mosques. Journal of the Faculty
of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University 33
(2):543–58. (in Turkish).
Kazaz, İ., A. Yakut, and P. Gülkan. 2006. Numerical simula-
tion of dynamic shear wall tests: A benchmark study.
Computers & Structures 84 (8–9):549–62. doi:10.1016/j.
compstruc.2005.11.002.
Kocaman, İ. 2017. Determination of the necessary material proper-
ties for the calculation of dynamic behavior of historic masonry
structures. MS diss., Erzurum Technical University. (In
Turkish).
Kuban, D. 1958. Osmanlı dini mimarisinde iç mekan
teşekkülü-rönesansla bir mukayese. İstanbul: Güven Basım
ve Yayınevi. (in Turkish).
Magenes, G., and A. Penna 2009. Existing masonry buildings:
General code issues and methods of analysis and
assessment. Eurocode 8 Perspectives from the Italian
Standpoint Workshop, 185–98, Napoli, Italy.
Melis, G. 2002. Displacement-based seismic analysis for out of
plane bending of unreinforced masonry walls. MS diss.,
University of Pavia.
Milani, G., and M. Valente. 2015. Comparative pushover and
limit analyses on seven masonry churches damaged by the
2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) seismic events: Possibilities
of non-linear finite elements compared with pre-assigned
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 869
failure mechanisms. Engineering Failure Analysis 47
(A):129–61. doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.09.016.
NEHRP. 2000. Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. FEMA 356. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC.
Oliveira, C. D. V. 2003. Experimental and numerical analysis
of blocky masonry structures under cyclic loading. PhD
diss., Minho University.
Ordinance 3274. 2003. Technical rules for the design, evalua-
tion and seismic retrofitting of buildings. Italy: Italian Prime
Minister Ordinance.
Ordinance 3431. 2005. Last modifications and integrations to
the Ordinance 3274. 2003. Italy: Italian Prime Minister
Ordinance.
Özkaya, S. G., I. Kazaz, and D. Okuyucu. 2015. Investigation
of seismic behavior of arched masonry bridges by finite
elements method. Paper presented at the 5th International
Symposium on Conservation and Consolidation of
Historical Structures, Erzurum, Turkey November 1. (In
Turkish).
Pavlovic, M., E. Reccia, and A. Cecchi. 2016. A Procedure to
investigate the collapse behavior of masonry domes: Some
meaningful cases. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 10 (1):67–83. doi:10.1080/15583058.2014.951797.
Silva, B., M. D. Benetta, F. D. Porto, and C. Modena. 2014.
Experimental assessment of in-plane behavior of three-leaf
stone masonry walls. Construction and Building Materials
53:149–61. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.084.
SolidWorks. 2013. Modeling Software.
Sorrentino, L., D. D’Ayala, G. de Felice, M. C. Griffith,
S. Lagomarsino, and G. Magenes. 2017. Review of out-of-
plane seismic assessment techniques applied to existing
masonry buildings. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 11 (1):2–21. doi:10.1080/15583058.2016.1237586.
Tuluk, Ö. İ. 2006. Variations on the square based baldachin
in ottoman mosques for the concept of space (15th-17th
Centuries). Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and
Architecture of Gazi University 21 (2):275–84. (in Turkish).
TYDK. 2017. Management of Earthquake Risks for Historic
Buildings. General Directorate of Foundations. (in Turkish).
Vanin, F., D. Zaganelli, A. Penna, and K. Beyer. 2017.
Estimates for the stiffness, strength and drift capacity of
stone masonry walls based on 123 quasi-static cyclic tests
reported in the literature. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
15 (12):5435–79. doi:10.1007/s10518-017-0188-5.
Vasconcelos, G., and P. B. Lourenço. 2006. Assessment of the
in-plane shear strength of stone masonry walls by simplified
models. Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions 1:843–59.
Willam, K. J., and E. D. Warnke. 1975. Constitutive model for
the triaxial behavior of concrete. International Association
for Bridge and Structural Engineering 19 (3):1–30.