Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
, 10, 2547–2556, 2010
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/
doi:10.5194/nhess-10-2547-2010
© Author(s) 2010. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Performance of masonry buildings during the 20 and
27 December 2007 Bala (Ankara) earthquakes in Turkey
S. Adanur
Karadeniz Technical University, Dept. of Civil Engn., 61080, Trabzon, Turkey
Received: 6 September 2010 – Revised: 10 November 2010 – Accepted: 10 November 2010 – Published: 9 December 2010
Abstract. This paper evaluates the performance of masonry
buildings during the 20 and 27 December 2007 Bala
(Ankara) earthquakes. Bala is a township located 50 km
southeast from Ankara city in Turkey. The majority of the
buildings in the affected region are built in masonry. Most
of masonry buildings were formed with random or coursed
stone and mud brick walls without any reinforcement.
Many of these buildings were damaged or had collapsed.
The cracking and failure patterns of the buildings are
examined and interpreted according to current provisions for
earthquake resistance of masonry structures. The damages
are due to several reasons such as poor construction quality
and poor workmanship of the buildings. In addition to these
reasons, the two earthquakes hit the buildings within seven
days, causing progressive damage.
1 Introduction
Earthquake is one of the natural hazards. Turkey has been
a very active seismic zone. Many destructive earthquakes
occurred in Turkey up to now. Several studies have been
conducted on the performances or damages of buildings
during the earthquakes in Turkey (Saatcioglu and Bruneau,
1993; Bruneau, 2002; Dogangun, 2004; Arslan and
Korkmaz, 2007; Bayraktar et al., 2007a, b; Inel et al., 2008).
Saatcioglu and Bruneau (1993) observed the performance of
structures during the 13 March 1992 Erzincan earthquake in
Turkey. Bruneau (2002) described the damage of reinforced
concrete, masonry, and steel structures during the 17 August
1999 Marmara earthquake in Turkey. Dogangun (2004)
examined the performance of reinforced concrete buildings
during the 1 May 2003 Bingöl earthquake in Turkey.
Arslan and Korkmaz (2007) discussed the performance of
Correspondence to: S. Adanur
(sadanur@ktu.edu.tr)
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.
Natural Hazards
and Earth
System Sciences
reinforced concrete buildings during recent earthquakes in
Turkey. Also observations from the earthquake damages
are discussed and compared with Turkish Earthquake Code
and Turkish Building Code requirements. Bayraktar et
al. (2007a) investigated the performance of masonry stone
buildings during the 25 and 28 March 2004 Akale (Erzurum)
earthquakes in Turkey. Bayraktar et al. (2007b) investigated
the behaviour of masonry buildings during the 2 July 2004
Doğubayazit (Ağri) earthquake in Turkey. Inel et al. (2008)
evaluated seismic performance of regular and irregular
reinforced concrete building in Turkey.
The 20 and 27 December 2007 Bala (Ankara) earthquakes
damaged many masonry buildings in Bala Township and
its villages. In order to understand the behaviour of these
masonry buildings and to observe their performance during
the earthquakes, the affected region was visited. The
majority of the building stock in these villages is of masonry.
The observations and assessments are presented below.
Different from previous studies, the behaviour of mixed
masonry buildings with walls made of masonry materials
like stones and mud bricks or stones and bricks or stones
and briquette, and slender structures like minaret during the
earthquakes are evaluated as well in this study.
2 Seismological aspects
A moderate earthquake, measuring 5.6 on the Richter scale,
hit the township Bala of the southeastern province of Ankara,
Turkey at 11:48 LT on Thursday, 20 December 2007. Just
seven days later, a second moderate earthquake of 5.5 on
the Richter scale struck the same province on Thursday,
27 December 2007 at 01:48 LT.
Bala earthquakes are closely related to the tectonic
deformation of the region controlled by the collision of
the Arabian and Eurasian Plates. The Anatolian block is
bounded by the North Anatolian and East Anatolian Faults
(Fig. 1).
2548 S. Adanur: Performance of buildings during the 2007 Bala earthquakes

Fig. 1. Simplified tectonic map of Turkey (modified from USGS, 2008).

Fig. 1 Simplified tectonic map of Turkey (modified from USGS 2008)

Fig. 2. Seismic zoning map of Turkey (http://www.deprem.gov.tr, 2008).

The Ministry of Public Works and Settlement of Turkey
published a Seismic Zoning Map of Turkey in 1996 based on
maximum acceleration. The whole country is divided into
the 5 zones, as shown in Fig. 2. Ankara city is at the fourth
degree earthquake zone in accordance with this map. 8%
of the surface area of Ankara province is in the first degree
hazard zone, 21% in the second degree hazard zone, 32% in
the third degree hazard zone and 38% in the fourth degree
hazard zone.
There have been no historical or instrumental records of
powerful earthquakes in the vicinity of Ankara as shown
in Fig. 3. There are several faults namely Tuzgölü Fault,
Ezinepazari Fault, Eskiehir Fault, Keskin Fault and Gerede
Fault; which can produce earthquakes in Ankara (Özmen and
Kocaefe, 1999).
The parameters and the three components of the ground
acceleration records and response spectrums of the Bala
(Ankara) earthquakes taken at ANA01 station are given
in Table 1 and Figs. 4–7, respectively. Peak ground
accelerations of the three components vary between 0.4592
and 1.3574 cm s−2 (http://angora.deprem.gov.tr/rapor/bala.
htm, 2008).

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 2547–2556, 2010 11/33 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/
 
S. Adanur: Performance of buildings during the 2007 Bala earthquakes 2549

Fig. 3. Seismic hazard settings of Turkey (modified from USGS, 2008).

Table 1. Parameters of Bala (Ankara) Earthquakes (http://angora.deprem.gov.tr/rapor/bala.htm, 2008).

Fig. 3 Seismic hazard settings of Turkey (modified from USGS 2008)
Station Name Date Time Depth N-S E-W U-D Latitude Longitude Region
(km) (cm s−2 ) (cm s−2 ) (cm s−2 ) (N) (E)
ANA01 20 December 2007 11:48:27 02.8 0.9652 1.0659 0.4592 39.417 33.040 Bala
ANA01 27 December 2007 01:47:10 23.5 1.2801 1.3574 0.8590 39.406 33.045 Bala

3 Structural behaviours in the form of diagonal cracks is observed due to in-plane

Non-reinforced masonry structures are among the most
vulnerable type of buildings during an earthquake. They
are normally designed for vertical loads and, as masonry has
adequate compressive strength, the structures behave well as
long as the loads are vertical. When such a masonry structure
is subjected to lateral inertial loads during an earthquake, the
walls develop shear and flexural stresses. The strength of
masonry under these conditions often depends on the bond
between stone and mortar (or brick and mortar). This bond is
often very poor when lime mortars or mud mortars are used.
A masonry wall can also undergo in-plane shear stresses if
the inertial forces are in the plane of the wall. Shear failure
shear stresses. However, catastrophic collapses occur when
the wall experiences out-of-plane flexure.
4 Characteristics of masonry buildings in affected area
According to the post earthquake building damage survey
of the Turkish Ministry of Public Works and Settlement,
a total of 945 buildings were heavily damaged/collapsed,
7 buildings had medium damage, 1262 buildings had low
damage and 804 buildings were undamaged in Bala County
and its villages during the 20 and 27 December 2007 Bala
earthquakes.

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 2547–2556, 2010

 -0.50

Ac
A
-1.00 -1.00

-1.50 -1.50
2550 0 50 S. Adanur:
100 Performance
Time (s)
1500 of50buildings
200 100during the
250 150 2007 Bala
200 earthquakes
250
Time (s)

1.50 1.50 1.50

E-W Max.: 0.9652cm/s2 E-W Max.: 1.0659cm/s2 Max.: 1.0659cm/s2
N-S
1.00 1.00 1.00

Acceleration (cm/s²)

Acceleration (cm/s²)
Acceleration (cm/s²)

0.50 0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00 0.00

-0.50 -0.50 -0.50

-1.00 -1.00 -1.00

-1.50 -1.50 -1.50

0 50 100 1500 50
200 100
250 1500 200
50 250
100 150 200 250
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

1.50 1.50 1.50

E-W U-D Max.: 1.0659cm/s2 U-D Max.: 0.4592cm/s2 Max.: 0.4592cm/s2
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.50 1.50

Acceleration (cm/s²)
Acceleration (cm/s²)
Acceleration (cm/s²)

0.50 N-S 0.50 N-S Max.: 1.2801cm/s2 Max.: 1.2801cm/s2

0.50
1.00 1.00

Acceleration (cm/s²)
Acceleration (cm/s²)

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.50 0.50
-0.50 -0.50 -0.50
0.00 0.00
-1.00 -1.00 -1.00
-0.50 -0.50
-1.50 -1.50 -1.50
-1.00 0 -1.00 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 50 100 150 50
200 100
250 150 200 250
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
-1.50 -1.50
Fig. 4. Acceleration records of Bala (Ankara) 0Earthquake
50 on 20 December
100 1500
2007. 50
200 100
250 150 200 250
1.50
U-D Max.: 0.4592cm/s2 Time (s) Time (s)
1.00 Fig. 4 Earthquake
Fig. 4 Acceleration records of Bala (Ankara) Accelerationonrecords of Bala
December 20, (Ankara)
2007. Earthquake on December 20, 2007.
1.50 1.50 1.50
eratio²)n (cm/s²)

N-S E-W Max.: 1.2801cm/s2 E-W Max.: 1.3574cm/s2 Max.: 1.3574cm/s2

0.50
1.00 1.00 1.00
Acceleration (cm/s²)
Acceleration (cm/s²)

0.00
cel(cm/s

0.50 0.50 0.50

-0.50
ion
AcceleratAc

0.00 0.00 0.00

-1.00 14/33 14/33
-0.50   -0.50   -0.50
-1.50
-1.00 -1.00 -1.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s)
-1.50 -1.50 -1.50
0 50 100 1500 200
50 250
100 1500 50
200 100
250 150 200 250
Time (s) Time (s)
Time (s)
Fig. 4 Acceleration
1.50
records of Bala (Ankara) Earthquake on December 20, 2007. 1.50
1.50
E-W U-D Max.: 1.3574cm/s2 U-D Max.: 0.8590cm/s2 Max.: 0.8590cm/s2
1.00 1.00 1.00
Acceleration (cm/s²)

Acceleration (cm/s²)
Acceleration (cm/s²)

0.50 0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00 0.00

14/33
  -0.50 -0.50 -0.50

-1.00 -1.00 -1.00

-1.50 -1.50 -1.50

0 50 100 1500 200
50 250
100 1500 50
200 100
250 150 200 250
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 5. Acceleration
1.50 records of Bala (Ankara) Earthquake on 27 December 2007.
U-D Max.: 0.8590cm/s2
1.00 Fig. 5 Earthquake
Fig. 5 Acceleration records of Bala (Ankara) Accelerationonrecords of Bala
December 27, (Ankara)
2007. Earthquake on December 27, 2007.
Acceleration (cm/s²)

This 0.50
study presents the results of an evaluation of damaged made of masonry materials like stones and mud bricks or
masonry 0.00buildings in Bala County and its villages. Masonry stones and bricks or stones and briquette. These buildings
buildings were built in three types in the affected area: were commonly constructed by their own residents without
-0.50
(1) stone masonry buildings with walls made of natural any engineering knowledge. Most of the masonry buildings
shaped-1.00
stones, (2) stone masonry buildings with walls made 15/33 have clay-mud mortar, 15/33
whereas some have sand-cement
   
of cut -1.50
stones, and (3) mixed masonry buildings with walls mortar.
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s)
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 2547–2556, 2010 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/

Fig. 5 Acceleration records of Bala (Ankara) Earthquake on December 27, 2007.

 10.00 10.00 2%

Response Accelerat
Response
Response
20.00 5%
5.00 5.00 10%
15.00

0.00 0.00
10.00
S. Adanur: Performance of buildings during the 2007
0 Bala1 earthquakes
2 3 4 0 1 2 3 25514
Period (s) 5.00 Period (s)
25.00 25.00 25.00
0.00

(g)
Response Acceleration (g)

3 U-D

(g)
N-S E-W 0 1 2 4
0% 0% Period (s) 0%

Response Acceleration
Acceleration
20.00 20.00 20.00
2% 2% 2%
5% 30.00 5% 30.00 5%
15.00 15.00 15.00

(g)
N-S10%

(g)
10% E-W10%
25.00 0% 25.00 0%

Acceleration

Response Acceleration
10.00 10.00 2% 10.00 2%

Response Response
20.00 5% 20.00 5%
5.00 5.00 10% 5.00 10%
15.00 15.00

0.00 0.00
10.00 0.00
10.00
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (s) 5.00 Period (s) 5.00 Period (s)
25.00 0.00
25.00 0.00
Fig. 6. Response spectrums of Bala (Ankara) Earthquake
0 on 20 December
2 2007.

(g)
(g)

E-W 1 3 U-D 4 0 1 2 3 4
0% Period (s) 0%6 Response spectrums of Bala (Ankara)
Fig. PeriodEarthquake
(s) on December 20, 2007.

Response Acceleration
Acceleration

20.00 20.00
2% 2%
30.00 5% 30.00 5% 30.00
15.00 (g) 15.00
(g)

E-W10%

Response Acceleration (g)

N-S 10% U-D
25.00 0% 25.00 0% 25.00 0%
Response Acceleration
Acceleration

10.00 2% 10.00 2% 2%
Response Response

20.00 5% 20.00 5% 20.00 5%

16/33
5.00 10% 5.00 10% 10%
15.00 15.00   15.00

0.00
10.00 0.00
10.00 10.00
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
5.00 Period (s) 5.00 Period (s) 5.00

25.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
(g)

0 1 2 3 U-D 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (s) Fig.
0%6 Response spectrums of Bala (Ankara)
PeriodEarthquake
(s) on December 20, 2007. Period (s)
Acceleration

20.00
2%
30.00 5% 30.00
Fig. 7. Response spectrums of Bala (Ankara)
15.00 E-W10% Earthquake on 27 December 2007.
Response Acceleration (g)
(g)

U-D
25.00 0% 25.00 0%7 Response spectrums of Bala (Ankara) Earthquake on December 27, 2007.
Fig.
Acceleration

10.00 2% 2%
Response Response

20.00 5% 20.00 5%
16/33
5 Damages
5.00
15.00
to masonry buildings
  in the affected
10%
15.00
area 10%

0.00
10.00 10.00
17/33
The 20 and 0 27 December
1 2 Bala (Ankara)
3 4earthquakes caused
 
5.00 Period (s) 5.00
significant damage to Bala and its vicinity. The two
0.00 0.00
earthquakes struck the buildings within seven days. A
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
large spectrums
Fig. 6 Response proportion
of Balaof the non-engineered
(Ankara)
Period Earthquake
(s) masonry
on December 20, 2007. buildings Period (s)
completely
30.00
collapsed or were heavily damaged, as shown in
Figs. 8 and 9.
Response Acceleration (g)

U-D
25.00 0%7 Response spectrums of Bala (Ankara) Earthquake on December 27, 2007.
Fig.
The collapse of the building corners 2% are shown in
20.00 5%
Fig. 10. The corners were badly
16/33
10%
fractured and the
  15.00collapsed.
stones The failure pattern may be essentially
characterised
10.00 as out-of-plane failure. This mechanism is
17/33
due 5.00
to the lack of connection   between orthogonal walls
and between walls and floors or roofs. According to
0.00
the Turkish0
Earthquake
1 2
Resistant
3
Design
4
Code (2007),
reinforced concrete horizontal
Period (s) bond beams shall be provided
at places where slabs are supported by walls, such that they
shall be cast monolithically with the slabs. The width of the
Fig. 7 Response spectrums of Bala (Ankara) Earthquake on December 27, 2007.
horizontal bond beams shall be equal to the width of the wall
and their height shall not be less than 200 mm. However,
horizontal bond beams were not used in the collapsed and
damaged masonry buildings observed in the affected area.
 
On the other hand, 17/33 although there is no information in the
Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design Code (2007) about
using horizontal wooden bond beams in the stone masonry
buildings, it was observed that there were several stone
masonry buildings with horizontal wooden bond beams in Fig. 8. Examples of completely collapsed masonry buildings.
Fig. 8 Examples of completely collapsed masonry buildings
the affected area, as shown in Fig. 11. There was no damage

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.

18/33 Sci., 10, 2547–2556, 2010
 
2552
Fig. 9. Examples of heavily damaged masonry buildings.
Fig. 9 Examples of heavily damaged masonry buildings
19/33
 
Fig. 10. Examples of failure of masonry building corners.
Fig. 10 Examples of failure of masonry building corners
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 2547–2556, 2010
20/33
S. Adanur: Performance of buildings during the 2007 Bala earthquakes
Fig. 11. Examples of masonry buildings formed by horizontal
wooden Fig.
bond beams.
11 Examples of masonry buildings formed by horizontal wooden bond beams
or even
low damage in these 21/33 masonry buildings. Based
on this observation, it can be said that horizontal wooden
bond beams increase the seismic behaviour of stone masonry
buildings.
According to the Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design
Code (TERDC, 2007), masonry materials used in the
construction of load-bearing walls must be natural stones,
solid bricks, bricks with vertical holes, solid concrete
briquette, mud bricks, etc. The minimum compressive
strength of masonry structural materials must not be less than
5 MPa on the basis of gross compression area. Compression
strength of natural stones used in basements must be at least
10 MPa. However, some of the masonry buildings in the
affected area were formed by low strength stones. One of
the most important reasons for the damage is that the stones
used in the walls had a low strength (Fig. 12).
Many stone walls were constructed with stones placed in
a random manner. These do not have the usual layers (or
courses) seen in brick walls. These uncoursed walls have two
exterior vertical wythes of large stones, filled in between with
loose stone rubble and mud mortar. The cavities within the
walls and clayey mud mortar were another source of damage,
as shown in Fig. 13.
Load bearing masonry walls act as shear walls to resist in-
plane lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces. The lateral
load carrying capacity of shear wall structures depends
mainly on the in-plane resistances of the shear walls, because
the in-plane stiffness of a shear wall is far greater than
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/
 S. Adanur: Performance of buildings during the 2007 Bala earthquakes 2553

Fig. 12. Example of failure of low strength stone on a masonry

building. Fig. 12 Example of failure of low strength stone on a masonry building Fig. 14. Examples of diagonal shear cracking on the structural
Fig. 14 Examples of diagonal shear cracking on the structural walls
walls.

24/33
22/33  
 

Fig. 13. A masonry wall with cavity and mud mortar.

Fig. 13 A masonry wall with cavity and mud mortar

its out-of plane stiffness. Three modes of shear failure in

non-reinforced masonry are: diagonal tension cracks form
through the mortar and masonry units; sliding occurs along
a straight crack at horizontal bed joints; and stepped cracks
form alternatively from head joint to bed joint. Shear
cracking on the structural walls was observed in most of the
masonry buildings, as shown in Figs. 14–15.
Modes of failure in masonry walls also include out-of-
plane failure (swellings) where loads act perpendicular to the
wall’s face. The out-of-plane failures (swellings) occurred
on the structural walls during the earthquakes, as shown in Fig. 15. Examples of shear cracking under vertical shear force on
Fig. 15 Examples of shear cracking under vertical shear force on the structural walls
Fig. 16. the structural walls.

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/  
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
25/33
Sci., 10, 2547–2556, 2010
23/33
 
2554 S. Adanur: Performance of buildings during the 2007 Bala earthquakes

Fig. 18. Examples of masonry buildings formed by concrete

Fig. 18 Examples of masonry buildings formed by concrete briquette with vertical holes or
briquettelightweight
with vertical holes or lightweight concrete briquette.
concrete briquette

Fig. 16. Fig. 16

Examples
Examples of out-of-plane failure (swelling) on the structural walls
structural walls.
 
Fig. 17. Examples of openings between the structural walls.
Fig. 17 Examples of openings between the structural walls
of out-of-plane failure (swelling) on the
During an earthquake, the lateral loads increase the shear
forces in the walls and in the wall-to-wall connection. A
28/33
lack
  of connection details was observed in the damaged
buildings. It can be seen from Fig. 17 that openings between
26/33
5–50 mm occurred at corners of the structural walls during
the earthquakes.
According to Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design
Code (2007), concrete briquette with vertical holes or
lightweight concrete briquette must not be used in the
construction of load-bearing walls of masonry buildings.
However, there were several masonry buildings formed by
these type concrete briquettes in the affected area. Most of
them were damaged during the earthquakes (Fig. 18).
According to Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design
Code (2007), height of the fence made of masonry materials
shall not be more than 1.0 m. But, there were many damaged
fences constructed more than 1.0 m in height in the affected
area, as shown in Fig. 19.
Minarets are tall and slender structures and they are
vulnerable to seismic loading. In the Turkish style, the parts
of a minaret are the footing as a base; pulpit, transition
segment, cylindrical or polygonal body as a shaft; balcony;
upper part of minaret body; spire and flag. There was at least
one minaret in each village in the affected area. Many of
the minarets were constructed using masonry materials like
stone and baked clay brick. Several minarets were damaged
during the earthquakes, especially its flag and spire as shown
in Fig. 20.

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 2547–2556, 2010

27/33 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/
 
S. Adanur: Performance of buildings during the 2007 Bala earthquakes 2555

Mud brick
wall

Stone wall

Mud brick
wall

Stone wall

Fig. 19. Examples of damages on the stone masonry fences.

Fig. 19 Examples of damages on the stone masonry fences
Fig. 21. Examples of mixed type masonry buildings formed by
stones and mud bricks.
Fig. 21 Examples of mixed type masonry buildings formed by stones and mud bricks

29/33
 

31/33
 

Fig. 20. Examples of damages on the slender masonry buildings. Fig. 22. Examples of undamaged masonry structures.
Fig. 22 Examples of undamaged masonry structures
Fig. 20 Examples of damages on the slender masonry buildings

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 2547–2556, 2010

32/33
 

30/33
 
2556 S. Adanur: Performance of buildings during the 2007 Bala earthquakes
Two different mixed type masonry buildings formed by
stones and mud bricks are shown in Fig. 21. It can be seen
from Fig. 21 that dynamic behaviour of mixed type masonry
buildings changed depending on the ratio between the stones
to mud bricks. Earthquake resistance of mixed type masonry
buildings increased with increasing stone ratio.
Generally, it is seen that the structural performance of
the masonry buildings in the affected area was not adequate
during the earthquakes. However, there were also some
observations of good performance. Some examples are given
in Fig. 22. This was mainly due to proper care and good
workmanship during the construction.
6 Conclusions
The performance of the masonry buildings affected by the
20 and 27 December 2007 medium magnitude (M = 5.6 and
5.5) earthquakes in Bala (Ankara) is presented in this paper.
Based on the observations of the damages caused to masonry
buildings during the earthquakes, the following conclusions
could be drawn:
– Most of the masonry buildings in the affected area
were not designed and constructed in accordance with
Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design Code (2007).
– Low strength stone masonry buildings were weak
against earthquakes and should be avoided in high
seismic zone.
– Slender masonry buildings like minarets are vulnerable
to strong seismic loading and the construction of these
type buildings in earthquake areas should be avoided.
– Cavities within the walls decreased the shear strength
during the earthquakes.
– Horizontal wooden bond beams used in the construction
of stone masonry buildings increased the seismic
behaviour of these buildings.
– Mixed type masonry buildings were more affected than
stone type masonry buildings during the earthquakes.
Also damages on the mixed type masonry buildings
increased with the decreasing of the ratio between the
stone to the mud brick in the walls.
In addition to these factors, the two earthquakes struck
the buildings only seven days apart. Many of the buildings
that collapsed in the second earthquake had already been
damaged in the first one.
To prevent the catastrophic damages on the masonry
buildings to the earthquakes, the buildings satisfy the
earthquake code requirements. It is also recommended to
avoid building the masonry buildings with walls made of
masonry materials like stones and mud bricks or stones and
bricks or stones and briquette.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 2547–2556, 2010
Numerical modelling and experimental studies of the
seismic behaviour of masonry structures presents a complex
challenge. This study will help establish the need for further
research.
Acknowledgements. The author gratefully thanks A. Bayraktar and
M. Akköse of the Department of Civil Engineering of Karadeniz
Technical University, and Y. Koç; without their invaluable human
and scientific supports this research work would have never been
possible.
Edited by: M. E. Contadakis
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees
References
Arslan, M. H. and Korkmaz, H. H.: What is to be learned from
damage and failure of reinforced concrete structures during
recent earthquakes in Turkey?, Eng. Fail. Anal., 14(1), 1–22,
2007.
Bayraktar, A., Coskun, N., and Yalcin, A.: Performance of masonry
stone buildings during the March 25 and 28, 2004 Askale
(Erzurum) earthquakes in Turkey, J. Perform. Constr. Fac., 21,
432–440, 2007a.
Bayraktar, A., Coskun, N., and Yalcin, A.: Damages of masonry
buildings during the July 2, 2004 Dogubayazit (Agri) earthquake
in Turkey, Eng. Fail. Anal., 14(1), 147–157, 2007b.
Bruneau, M.: Building damage from the Marmara, Turkey
earthquake of August 17, 1999, J. Seismol., 6(3), 357–377, 2002.
Dogangun, A.: Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during
the May 1, 2003 Bingol Earthquake in Turkey, Eng. Struct.,
26(6), 841–856, 2004.
Inel, M., Ozmen, H. B., and Bilgin, H.: Re-evaluation of building
damage during recent earthquakes in Turkey, Eng. Struct., 30(2),
412–427, 2008.
Özmen, B. and Kocaefe, S.: The Seismicity and Earthquake Hazard
of Ankara, International Workshop on Recent Earthquakes
and Disaster Prevention Management, 10–12 March, ODTU,
Ankara, 1999.
Saatcioglu, M. and Bruneau, M.: Performance of structures during
the 1992 Erzincan earthquake, Can. J. Civil Eng., 20(2), 305–
325, 1993.
Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design Code (TERDC): Specifica-
tions for structures to be built in disaster areas, Ministry of Public
Works and Settlement, General Directorate of Disaster Affairs,
Earthquake Research Department, Ankara, Turkey, available at:
http://www.deprem.gov.tr (last access: 5 September 2010), 2007
(in Turkish).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): Preliminary earthquake report,
available at: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq depot/2003/eq 030501/
neic tgac maps.html (last access: 7 September 2008), 2008.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/2547/2010/