Journal of http://jvc.sagepub.

com/
Vibration and Control

Seismic performance evaluation of unreinforced masonry school buildings in Turkey

Salih Yilmaz, Yavuz Selim Tama and Hüseyin Bilgin
Journal of Vibration and Control 2013 19: 2421 originally published online 12 September 2012
DOI: 10.1177/1077546312453190

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jvc.sagepub.com/content/19/16/2421

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Vibration and Control can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jvc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jvc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jvc.sagepub.com/content/19/16/2421.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 1, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 12, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

Article
Journal of Vibration and Control
19(16) 2421–2433

Seismic performance evaluation ! The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
of unreinforced masonry school buildings DOI: 10.1177/1077546312453190
jvc.sagepub.com
in Turkey

Salih Yılmaz1, Yavuz Selim Tama2 and Hüseyin Bilgin3

Abstract
In this study a seismic performance assessment of school buildings, which have been built in accordance with template
unreinforced masonry school projects in Turkey, has been conducted. For this purpose, the most widely used three
template projects have been selected. The seismic performances of these buildings have been evaluated for various
earthquake levels. This evaluation has been carried out in compliance with the Turkish earthquake code entered into
force in 2007. The effects of material strength and plan features on the performance of masonry school structures have
been investigated within the scope of this study. It has been concluded that school buildings with template design are far
from satisfying the required performance criteria. For spectral acceleration of 0.80 g, which is expected in a 475 year
period in the seismic Zone 1, the average exceedance ratio for life safety performance limit is more than 80% considering
different material strengths. Upon evaluation of the results a building capacity index is proposed for rapid seismic
assessment of masonry school buildings.

Keywords
Capacity index, school buildings, seismic performance, template projects, unreinforced masonry

Received: 12 January 2012; accepted: 26 May 2012

1. Introduction
It is of vital importance with respect to maintaining
public services that public structures are able to dem-
onstrate an adequate performance during earthquakes
so that they remain immediately occupational after-
wards (Inel et al., 2008a). The earthquake resistances
of public structures are also critical to ensure the life
safety (LS) of students, patients, common citizens, tea-
chers and other public officials. According to the
OECD report, some earthquakes in recent years have
exposed the seismic vulnerability of school buildings in
particular, as numerous school buildings have suffered
damage from earthquakes because of various structural
deficiencies (Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development, 2004). Several reinforced concrete
as well as masonry school buildings such as those
in the Azores Islands (Proença, 2004), El Salvador
(Yoshimura and Kuroki, 2001), India (Jagadish et al.,
2003), Italy (Augenti et al., 2004), Iran (Sanada et al.,
2004; Eshghi and Naserasadi, 2005), Algeria
(Bendimerad, 2004), China (Liu et al., 2006; Lieping
et al., 2008) and Peru and Turkey (Irfanoglu, 2009)
were seriously damaged in the recent earthquakes.
School buildings damage and casualties in various
countries due to earthquakes are given in Table 1.
A high number of school buildings suffered from
heavy seismic damage in recent years, accelerating the
efforts in many countries towards improving the
strength of these structures. In the studies conducted,
certain guidelines and manuals were published for the
rehabilitation of the existing structures, in addition to
ensuring that the newly constructed schools possess
1
İzmir Katip Çelebi University, Turkey
2
Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
3
Epoka University, Tirana, Albania
Corresponding author:
Salih Yılmaz, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, Department of Civil
Engineering, İzmir, Turkey.
Email: salih.yilmaz@ikc.edu.tr

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

2422 Journal of Vibration and Control 19(16)

Table 1. Losses in school buildings due to earthquakes

Country Year Building collapse Building damage Life loss

China 2008 7.000 cl 10.000 þ

Turkey 2007 2 sc
Pakistan 2005 10.000 sc 17.000
Indonesia 2004 750 2.135 sc
Sri Lanka 2004 51 sc
Maldives 2004 44 sc
Thailand 2004 30 sc
Iran 2003 67 64 sc 11.200
Turkey (Gülkan, 2004) 2003 3 22 84
China 2003 900 cl 20
Algeria 2003 103 753 sc
Iran 2002 8 sc 137 sc
Italy 2002 1 sc 27
Venezuela 2001 2 sc 46
El Salvador 2001 85 sc 22
Peru 2001 98 sc
India 2001 1184 sc 11761 sc 1002
Colombia 1999 74% of sc
Taiwan 1999 51 sc 786 sc
Turkey 1999 43 100 þ sc
Nepal 1998 1200 sc
Iran 1997 1 sc 110
Venezuela 1997 2 sc 46
Turkey 1992 1 62
Algeria 1989 70-85 sc
Nepal 1988 6000 sc
China 1988 1300 sc
Armenia 1988 17000
Mexico 1985 Several
Macedonia 1963 44 sc
Japan 1952 400 sc
cl: classrooms; sc: school buildings.

Figure 1. Seismic zones of Turkey.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

Yılmaz et al.
Figure 2. A typical unreinforced masonry school building with limited wall area.
Table 2. Statistics for 36 schools with template
projects in Western Anatolia
Percentage of
Template project ID template project (%)
TP-10370 27.8
TP-10415 13.8
TP-U 8.3
sufficient strength against catastrophic events (Bothara
et al., 2002; Ghaidan, 2002; Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 2003, 2004). According to the
report prepared for the Governorship of California,
the huge size of the school buildings stock have neces-
sitated the establishment of a priority ranking for both
evaluation and rehabilitation processes (Department of
General Services, 2002). Template projects have been
adopted by several countries due to allowing a fast pro-
ject design and production, besides reducing project
costs (Inel et al, 2008b). A quicker demonstration of
the risks associated with a particular school building
stock is possible by analyzing these types of structures
first (Lopez et al., 2007).
Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings did not
perform as well as reinforced or confined masonry
buildings in previous earthquakes (Klingner, 2006;
Korkmaz et al., 2010, 2012) as they are one of the
weakest links of the entire building stock (Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 2009).
Unfortunately, many school buildings have been built
by this technique. As a consequence of the need for
relatively large areas of classroom spaces inside the
school structures, the amount of walls per unit area is
lower than it is in residential buildings. Therefore, it has
been recorded during the post-earthquake field studies
that masonry school structures have suffered greater
damage compared to masonry residential structures
(Minzheng and Yingjie, 2008). In developed countries,
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014
2423
construction of URM buildings is not permitted in high
seismicity regions (Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 2009). Nonetheless, in many countries the con-
struction of such buildings is allowed. Besides residen-
tial and commercial buildings, many URM school
buildings are in service in earthquake-prone regions.
In addition to the heavily damaged or collapsed
school buildings during the aforementioned moderately
strong or major earthquakes, it has been reported that
some URM school structures in Turkey, which is
located on a seismically active area (Figure 1), have
suffered from damage even during the small earth-
quakes that took place in 2007, Denizli-Çameli
(M4.9), 2008-2010, Kütahya-Simav (M5.1 and M5.9)
2010, Elazig-Karakocan (M4.9) (Kaplan et al., 2009;
Yilmaz et al., 2009; Askan et al., 2010). During the
2011 Van Earthquake (M7.2) a school building totally
collapsed, while many others were suffered from vari-
ous levels of damage.
In Turkey, the construction of school buildings as
per template projects is a highly common practice. In
this manner, thanks to the nationwide utilization of
standard template buildings for purposes of public edu-
cation, health etc., the project development costs have
been reduced and a standard level of quality has been
attained in the projects as well. In template structures,
it is common to come across situations where the same
structural plan has been applied by merely changing the
story height, number of stories and the type of mater-
ials (Kaplan et al., 2005). In addition, situations where
the same type of architectural project being constructed
both in the form of reinforced concrete as well as
masonry are frequently often encountered. The same
opening sizes could be observed in masonry and rein-
forced concrete (RC) versions of the same projects.
Applying the same type of architectural project for
both masonry and RC buildings causes many structural
problems. As shown in Figure 2, a great section of the
facade of a typical masonry school building in Turkey
2424
115 220 100 220 220
580
125 95
1480
95
690
585
Window heights: 1.65m
Door heights: 2.55m
115 220 100 220 130 160
Figure 3. Structural wall plan for TP10370 buildings (dimensions in cm).
has been allocated to windows. Therefore, the total wall
area that has already been reduced in the first place to
create larger rooms inside the structure, has been
diminished even further due to too much window
space. The situation is not significantly different for
many other URM school buildings.
In this study, the performance of URM school build-
ings in Turkey has been evaluated. Analyzing the tem-
plate projects selected in a way that would represent a
significant group of the URM school buildings around
the country, the effects of changes in the number of
stories, quality of materials and also the total wall
area on seismic performance have been investigated.
Seismic performance assessment was carried out in ref-
erence to the Turkish earthquake code (TEC) published
in 2007 (Turkish Earthquake Code, 2007), which
employs a linear elastic performance evaluation proced-
ure for masonry structures.
2. Properties of the analyzed structures
At the initial stage of the study, the most commonly
used masonry school buildings have been identified by
carrying out a field survey in the medium sized cities
located in Western Anatolia. Among 36 masonry build-
ings included in the scope of the field study, the most
common types of projects were found to be those with
code names of TP-10370, TP-10415, and TP-U. During
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014
Journal of Vibration and Control 19(16)
1965
215 220 220 100 220 115
580
685
95 125 95
445 690
690
585
365 220 100 220 115
the field study, it was also observed that the template
projects TP-10370 and TP-U have been applied both as
two story and three story structures. As a result of this
study, the five most commonly used structural models
have been produced from the initially three distinct
template projects by the attachment of S2 and S3 post-
fixes to the end of Project IDs for two story and three
story versions of TP-10370 and TP-U buildings:
TP-10370 (two and three story), TP-10415, TP-U
(two and three-story). These types of buildings read-
ily constitute half of the URM school building
stock investigated during the course of the study
(Table 2). The structural wall plans are shown in
Figures 3 to 5.
Some details with respect to the structural and archi-
tectural properties of these buildings as per the study
conducted are presented in Table 3. All the buildings
selected for this study are URM type structures. Clay
tile walls and reinforced concrete flooring systems have
been employed in almost the entire inventory. Bonding
beams were used on top of walls and under wide-span
floors.
3. Material properties
Within the scope of this study, the expected material
strengths as defined and required by the Turkish
Yılmaz et al. 2425

1750

140 200 140 200 365 170 535

65 166 65 65 125
30
540

486

30
65
211
492

492

130
214
134

675
472

472
3156

681
227

227
681
668
468

468
212
212

472
472

673

Window heights: 1.75m

Door heights: 2.45m
139

139

735 280 735

Figure 4. Structural wall plan for TP10415 buildings (dimensions in cm).

Earthquake Code (2007) are taken into account as determined by equation (1) using cracking strength
shown in Table 4. The code assesses element perform- (Table 4) and expected compressive stress () under
ances on the basis of shear strength exceedance. gravity loads (Kaplan et al., 2005).
Therefore, limiting shear strength for occupational
damage level (OD ) for masonry walls have been OD ¼ 2  0 þ  ð1Þ

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

2426 Journal of Vibration and Control 19(16)

155 115 200 115 190 115 150

370
490

158
115 65 115

410

155
157
160

105 60
115 65 115

105 105
810
95

145
115

105
115 65

165
3408

105
160
115 65 115 65 115 65 115

165
105
90
800

120
115
150

325
115

100
115 85

300
840
115

100
95
115

220

640 310 339

105

785 145 150 115 210

1408

Figure 5. Structural wall plan for TP-U buildings (dimensions in cm).

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

Yılmaz et al. 2427

Table 3. Some properties of the selected template designs

Template project ID

Template properties TP-10370-S2 TP-10370-S3 TP-10415 TP-U-S2 TP-U-S3

Primary & Primary & Primary & Primary Primary

Purpose of use high school high school high school school school

Floor area (m2) 322 322 551 465 465

Number of stories 2 3 2 2 3
Number of classrooms 5 10 10 5 10
Wall length per Long. 0.085 0.057 0.070 0.080 0.053
building area (m/m2) Trans. 0.095 0.063 0.065 0.070 0.047
Wall area (% of building area) Long. 3.03 1.77 2.90 3.25 3.52
Trans. 2.36 1.80 2.70 2.90 3.22
Wall thickness (mm) Ground floor 450 350 400 400 650
Top floor 350 300 270 300 300
Maximum story height (mm) 3000 3000 3000 3650 3650
Maximum unsupported 6900 7000 7000 12550 8000
wall length (mm)
Minimum distance between 1000 950 1350 650 650
two openings (mm)
Minimum distance from an opening to 450 150 100 820 480
a building corner (mm)
Maximum ratio of length of wall openings to 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.65 0.49
length of wall segment (m/m)

Table 4. Minimum strength values for masonry units tile type according to Turkish Earthquake Code (2007),
additional analyses have been carried out by taking dif-
Cracking Compressive
ferent cracking strength levels of 0.10 and 0.20 MPa
strength, strength,
Masonry unit  0 (MPa) su (MPa) into consideration representing poor and good condi-
tions respectively. Analysis models are named with the
Clay tile brick 0.15 0.8 postfixes P, A and G representing poor, average and
Infilled hollow concrete bricks 0.20 0.8 good material quality, respectively.
Aerated concrete blocks 0.15 0.6
Hollow clay units (void ratio < %35) 0.25 1.0
Hollow clay units (void ratio > %45) 0.12 0.5 4. Performance evaluation
Stone 0.10 0.3
In the latest amendment of the Turkish Earthquake
Code (2007), linear and nonlinear static and dynamic
procedures similar to Federal Emergency Management
Agency (2000) have been enacted with respect to per-
The material quality of the buildings investigated in formance evaluations of existing structures. The per-
the field study has been identified. The wall materials of formance target required by the code regarding school
the inventory buildings are displayed in Table 5. In a structures is immediate occupancy (IO) for earthquake
large segment of the buildings, clay tiles have been used level with probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years,
as the basic wall material. Hence clay tile was chosen as and maintaining only the LS level for earthquakes with
the default wall material for this study. On the other a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years. At these
hand, the strength of masonry walls greatly depends on performance levels, expected damage to the structural
the quality of workmanship, mortar strength and time elements must be in conformity with the criteria given
affects. Therefore, the code’s strength is labeled as aver- in Table 6. The Code has defined three distinct per-
age expected strength. Besides, the recommended aver- formance levels for URM buildings such as IO, LS
age cracking strength value of 0.15 MPa is used for this and CL. Due to the low ductility level of the URM

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

2428 Journal of Vibration and Control 19(16)

Table 5. Material properties of building inventory Table 6. Performance criteria provided in TEC 2007 for
masonry buildings
Material type
No of Performance level Criteria
Building ID story 1st story 2nd story 3rd story
Immediate occupancy (IO) All of the walls are within the
D19MY 3 Stone Clay tile Clay tile limits of occupational damage
KALT1 3 Stone Hollow brick Hollow brick Life safety (LS) In any story, the shear carried by
KALT2 3 Stone Hollow brick Hollow brick walls that exceed occupa-
KALT3 1 Clay tile N/A N/A tional damage limit shall not
DKELG 3 Clay tile Clay tile Clay tile exceed 20% of story shear
DCVL1 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A Collapse prevention (CP) This performance level is not
applicable for URM
DCVL2 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A
Collapse (CL) In any story, the shear carried by
MDALC 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A
walls that exceed occupa-
MKOYC 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A tional damage limit exceed
DFITN 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A 20% of story shear
DKBLK 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A
TEC: Turkish earthquake code; URM: unreinforced masonry.
KADM 3 Stone Hollow brick Hollow brick
KSCUM 2 Clay tile Hollow brick N/A
KSOSM 2 Stone Adobe N/A
KSYUS 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A Table 7. The expected spectral accelerations (Sa) for different
DKRZY 1 Clay tile N/A N/A seismic zones
DKRBR1 1 Clay tile N/A N/A
Probability of exceedance in 50 years
DKRBR2 1 Clay tile N/A N/A
DKBLMZ 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A Seismic zone %50 %10 %2
DALTTN 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A Zone 1 0.40 0.80 1.20
DATAL 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A Zone 2 0.30 0.60 0.90
MTREIS 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A Zone 3 0.20 0.40 0.60
MMILS1 1 Clay tile N/A N/A Zone 4 0.10 0.20 0.40
MMILS2 1 Clay tile N/A N/A
DHUSK 1 Clay tile N/A N/A
DSUMR 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A Where, Sa denotes the spectral acceleration and W
DANO 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A the building weight. The Earthquake Code asserts the
DCSA1 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A same spectral acceleration within the same Zone, as
DCSA2 1 Clay tile N/A N/A URM buildings generally have a few numbers of stories
DMERK 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A and a low period. The expected Sa values for different
DMKM 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A earthquake zones are displayed in Table 7.
DNKML 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A Based on the code, the total seismic load is distrib-
DSEMK 1 Clay tile N/A N/A uted to the structural walls in accordance with the stiff-
DZNMR 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A
ness coefficients of (K) of each wall as computed by
equation (3).
DDLIS 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A
DGAZI 2 Clay tile Clay tile N/A
K ¼ k  A=h ð3Þ

The parameter k in the equation above stands for the

structures, the performance level of collapse prevention
(CP) has not been defined for them.
The elastic base shear demand (Vel ) for the lin-
ear elastic assessment procedure is calculated by equa-
tion (2):
Vel ¼ Sa  W
stiffness modification factor, A for the cross sectional
wall area and h for the effective wall height. The stiff-
ness modification factor takes values of either 1 or 1.2
depending on the wall geometry. On the other hand, the
effective wall height is the smallest of the heights of the
openings on both sides of the wall.
Next, the elastic demand on each wall is compared
with the limiting shear strength for occupational
ð2Þ
damage. It is assumed that the walls whose demand

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

Yılmaz et al. 2429

Table 8. The maximum Sa values that the investigated school buildings were able to meet IO and LS
performance targets

Maximum Sa value satisfying IO & LS performance criterias

Longitudinal direction Transverse direction

Sa for Sa for Sa for Sa for

Model Building ID IO limit LS limit IO limit LS limit

T370-S2-P 0.26 0.36 0.34 0.50

T370-S2-A 0.34 0.44 0.44 0.58
T370-S2-G 0.42 0.52 0.52 0.68
T370-S3-P 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.42
T370-S3-A 0.36 0.42 0.44 0.52
T370-S3-G 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.62
T415-P 0.24 0.60 0.30 0.46
T415-A 0.32 0.74 0.40 0.54
T415-G 0.38 0.88 0.42 0.54
TU-S2-P 0.62 0.74 0.46 0.50
TU-S2-A 0.80 0.92 0.60 0.62
TU-S2-G 0.98 1.12 0.72 0.76
TU-S3-P 0.36 0.40 0.28 0.34
TU-S3-A 0.48 0.54 0.38 0.44
TU-S3-G 0.60 0.68 0.48 0.54
Average 0.46 0.61 0.44 0.54
Standard deviation 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.11
IO: immediate occupancy; LS: life safety.

falls below their respective limit strength experience
only minimum (occupational) damage, while in cases
where it exceeds this limit, they move beyond the occu-
pational damage threshold.
5. Performance evaluation results
The seismic performances of the buildings have been
determined in accordance with the TEC from the elem-
ent damage levels obtained during the conducted ana-
lyses. As a result of the assessment of each type of
building’s material strengths, the maximum Sa values
that they are able to achieve in the IO and LS perform-
ance targets are presented in Table 8. The IO limits are
exceeded at Sa ¼ 0.46 and Sa ¼ 0.44 on average for the
longitudinal and transverse axis respectively. Again, the
limit for LS on both primary axis are exceeded at
Sa ¼ 0.61 and Sa ¼ 0.54, respectively. Similar to the
mean values stated for IO and LS limits; these two
limit values have always turned out very close with
the exception of TP-10415 model’s analysis along the
x-axis. In the TP-10415 model, analyses along the lon-
gitudinal direction have demonstrated that the IO per-
formance level was exceeded at the interval of
Sa ¼ 0.24-0.38, whereas Sa demand to exceeding the
LS limit rise up to the interval between 0.60 and 0.88.
This situation arises from the fact that a wall along-
side the longitudinal direction exceeds the minimum
damage level at a quite low spectral acceleration due
to its effective length being much shorter than the other
walls. Since there are a number of longer walls that
contribute to the story shear force alongside the longi-
tudinal axis, the total share of this wall in the overall
shear force remains below 20%. Consequently, follow-
ing this extraordinarily occurring phenomenon of early
exceedance of the minimum damage level, a significant
spike in the loading level must take place for the
remaining walls to exceed this threshold.
The proportion of wall length has been calculated
for each analysis direction by dividing the total length
(as per the plan drawings) of the walls at the ground
floor by the total close area of the building. The rela-
tionship between the variation of wall length ratio
(WLR) and the corresponding spectral acceleration
levels where the IO and LS performance levels are brea-
ched have been displayed in Figure 6. It is observed
that at values below 0.08 (m/m2), an increase in WLR
results in an improved building performance. However,
it is seen that this trend bears no validity in cases where
WLR is above 0.08 (m/m2). All the values in question
belong to the TP-U-S3 structural model and while the
ground floor has determined the performance in every

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

2430 Journal of Vibration and Control 19(16)

(a) 1.2 (b) 1.2

τ= 0.20 τ=0.20
1.0 τ= 0.15 1.0 τ=0.15
τ= 0.10 τ=0.10
0.8 0.8

Sa,max (g)
Sa,max (g)

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Wall Length Ratio (m/m2) Wall Length Ratio (m/m2)

Figure 6. The highest spectral acceleration (Sa) values where a) immediate occupancy and b) life safety performance levels have been
achieved against the wall length ratio.

(a) 1.2 (b) 1.2

τ= 0.20 τ= 0.20
1.0 τ= 0.15 1.0 τ= 0.15
τ= 0.10 τ= 0.10
0.8 0.8
Sa,max (g)

Sa,max (g)

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Wall Area Ratio (m2/m2) Wall Area Ratio (m2/m2)

Figure 7. The highest spectral acceleration (Sa) values where a) immediate occupancy and b) life safety performance levels are
achieved against the wall area ratio.

other model, only in this particular structure has the
performance been governed by the second story. Since
WLR value had been calculated for the ground floor,
the mentioned values displayed a deviation from the
general trend.
Another parameter that is equally critical as the total
length of bearing walls in the plan is the total area of
walls in different principal directions of the masonry
building. It is calculated for the ground level excluding
wall openings like doors or windows. The wall area
ratio (WAR) has been calculated for longitudinal and
transverse directions separately, where total wall area
for the principal direction concerned at the ground
floor is divided by the total building area. Among the
investigated buildings, WAR ratios vary between 1.8%
and 3.5%.
Again, it has been observed that an increase in WAR
value is accompanied by a general rising trend with the
sole exception of TP-U-S3 model (Figure 7).
A more suitable scale that helps to observe the
changes in building performance could be defined as
building capacity index (BCI). The formula that yields
BCI value is stated below as equation (4). It is propor-
tional with the limit shear strength and WAR, a meas-
ure of effective wall area per building area. As building
area is a measure of base shear demand of the building,
BCI is designated to serve as a rapid assessment tool.
BCI ¼ OD  WAR ð4Þ
In Figure 8, Sa values for which the targeted building
performances have been exceeded against varying
degrees of BCI are plotted. The correlation coefficient
between BCI and Sa was computed as 0.56 for IO and
0.58 for LS, respectively. It is seen that an increase in
BCI led to a statistically significant improvement in
performance as well.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

Yılmaz et al. 2431

(a) 1.2 (b) 1.2

τ= 0.20 τ = 0.20
1.0 τ= 0.15 1.0 τ = 0.15
τ= 0.10 τ = 0.10
0.8 0.8

Sa,max (g)
Sa,max (g)

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Building Capacity Index (MPa) Building Capacity Index (MPa)

Figure 8. The highest Sa values satisfying a) immediate occupancy and b) life safety performance levels against the building capacity
index.

(a) (b)
100% 100%
Average Exceedance Ratio (%)

Average Exceedance Ratio (%)

80% 80%
BCI-1 BCI-1
60% BCI-2 60% BCI-2
BCI-3 BCI-3
40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0%
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Sa (g) Sa (g)

Figure 9. Average exceedance ratio of a) immediate occupancy and b) life safety performance levels.

The buildings analyzed within the scope of this study When Sa attains the value of 0.60, the exceedance
have been separated into three groups according to ratio of IO level for buildings in BCI-1, BCI-2 and BCI-
their BCI values. Those with BCI values of less than 3 groups were 100%, 80% and 67%, respectively,
0.30 were named as BCI-1, those with values between whereas corresponding exceedance ratios of LS level
0.30-0.45 as BCI-2 and those with values above 0.45 as were 87.5%, 60% and 50%, respectively. In the case
BCI-3 representing bad, fair and good quality of con- where the Sa value reaches 0.80, all the buildings in
struction. The mean exceedance ratios of IO and LS BCI-1 and BCI-2 groups exceed the LS performance
limits at different spectral acceleration values have level.
been given for all associated groups in Figure 9. For
BIC-1, the average exceedance ratio of IO performance
level reaches 50% when Sa rises to 0.36. At this level of
6. Conclusions
acceleration, the exceedance ratio with respect to IO In this study, the seismic performances of template
limit for the buildings in BCI-2 and BCI-3 groups URM school buildings in Turkey have been evaluated.
were determined as 30% and 8.3%, respectively. The Five distinct types of school buildings based on tem-
proportion of buildings in BCI-1 group that exceed plate projects that represent the bulk of the URM
the LS limit when Sa reaches 0.50 was 50%, whereas school building stock have been selected for the
the same proportion with respect to BCI-2 and BCI-3 study. The choices regarding material type and quality
groups turned out to be 30% and 16.7%, respectively. have been based on the conducted field studies.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014

2432
The seismic performance evaluation was carried out in
conformity with Turkish Earthquake Code (2007)
which proposes similar approaches with Federal
Emergency Management Agency (2000). The findings
obtained from the study can be summarized as follows:
1. As a result of building performance evaluations, it
has been observed that neither the total wall area nor
the total wall length is the single determinant of
building seismic resistance and strength of the mater-
ials exert a great deal of influence on performance.
2. When the investigated buildings are in Zone 1, they
have to simultaneously attain IO and LS perform-
ance limits for Sa ¼ 0.8 and Sa ¼ 1.2 thresholds,
respectively, in order to comply with TEC-2007. It
was detected that the targeted performance was not
achieved at any of the analyses even when both of
the primary axis were separately evaluated. As for
the earthquake levels set for Zone 2 and Zone 3, it
was found that among 30 analyses, in only two and
eight of them, respectively, the performance target
was met. Finally, the performance target was
achieved at all of the analyses with respect to
Zone 4. Based on these results, it is seen that a ser-
ious level of risk is borne not only by the URM
buildings in Zone 1 but at the same time at those
in Zone 2 and Zone 3 as well.
3. BCI, which is a measure of both wall area ratio and
material quality, proved to be a useful technique
with respect to rapid estimation of the structural
performance. The performance limit exceedance
ratios declined as BCI values improved. In cases
where BCI is below the level of 0.30 MPa, it was
shown that the IO limit may be exceeded even at
low Sa values. This situation explains why URM
schools have suffered damages at even slight earth-
quakes that happened especially within the recent
years.
4. The differential between the highest spectral acceler-
ation values where IO and LS performances have
been satisfied was at most 0.16, with the exception
of TP-10415 model, where the difference was as high
as 0.50. This situation is an outcome of the struc-
ture’s exceedance of IO limit at a low load level due
to a single wall, whose contribution to total story
shear force is less than 20%, exceeding the minimum
damage threshold. This particular situation that was
observed in the x-axis analysis of TP-10415 model
demonstrates that in cases where, in a story, at least
a few walls exist that are relatively short compared
to the remaining walls, IO level is to a great extent
determined by these shorter walls. In such structures,
the lateral strength that enables IO level could be
enhanced by exclusively augmenting the strength of
short walls. In case such relatively short walls exist in
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014
Journal of Vibration and Control 19(16)
large numbers, both IO as well as LS performance
limits could be exceeded at low seismic loads.
5. The importance of material strength on structural
performance was also demonstrated in this study.
As a result of doubling the cracking strength of
walls, the probability of exceedance regarding per-
formance limits has been significantly reduced. For
instance, in Zone 1, buildings with cracking
strengths of 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20 MPa, the probability
of exceedance with respect to IO limits under an
earthquake level of 50% probability of exceedance
in 50 years was determined as 75%, 40% and 25%,
respectively. This situation underscores that a large
portion of buildings with poor material strength will
suffer especially significant damage from small and
medium sized earthquakes.
6. As a result of the conducted analyses it was con-
cluded that the investigated school buildings are
far away from satisfying the performance targets as
defined by TEC. Obviously, these types of buildings
will demonstrate a poor performance in case of a
catastrophe similar to previously endured
earthquakes.
7. As a future study, it is possible to develop a demand
index for a comparison with the BCI value of the
structure, for assessment in different site conditions.
Acknowledgements
The authors give special thanks to Ahmet Sarişin and Ömer
Önen for their contributions towards the preparation of as-
built projects of the inventory. They also acknowledge
reviewers, who contributed positively for the improvement
of the paper.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Askan A, Gupta SP and Ugurhan B (2010) Bas¸yurt-
Karakoçan (Elazığ) Earthquake. Supplementary Report to
Middle East Technical University. Ankara, Turkey:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Augenti N, Cosenza E, Dolce M, Manfredi G, Masi A and
Samela L (2004) Performance of school buildings during
the 2002 Molise, Italy, Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra
20: 257–270.
Bendimerad F (2004) Earthquake vulnerability of school
buildings in Algeria. In Proceedings of the Ad Hoc
Experts’ Group Meeting on Earthquake Safety in Schools,
Paris, France, Feb. 9–11. pp. 36–44.
Bothara JK, Guragain R and Dixit A (2002) Protection of
Educational Buildings Against Earthquakes. National
Society for Earthquake Technology. Nepal, Office of U.S
Yılmaz et al.
Foreign Disaster Assistance, Scientific and Cultural
Office. Kathmandu, Nepal: UNESCO.
Department of General Services (2002) Seismic Safety
Inventory of California Public Schools. A Report to the
Governor of California and the California State
Legislature. California: Department of General Services.
Eshghi S and Naserasadi K (2005) Performance of essential
buildings in the 2003 Bam, Iran earthquake. Earthquake
Spectra 21: 375–393.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) Pre-standard
and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.
FEMA-356. Washington DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2003) Incremental
Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings (K-12), FEMA-
395. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2004) Risk
Management Series Design Guide for Improving School
Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds. FEMA-
424. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009) Unreinforced
Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes Developing Successful
Risk Reduction Programs, FEMA 774. Washington DC:
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Ghaidan U (2002) Earthquake-resistant Masonry Buildings:
Basic guidelines for designing schools in Iran. Division of
Educational Policies and Strategies Support to Countries in
Crisis and Reconstruction. Paris: UNESCO.
Gulkan P (2004) Obstacles to improving seismic safety of
school buildings in Turkey. In: Proceedings of the ad hoc
experts group meeting on earthquake safety in schools,
Paris: OECD, pp. 64–75.
Inel M, Bilgin H and Ozmen HB (2008a) Seismic performance
evaluation of school buildings in Turkey. Structural
Engineering and Mechanics 30: 353–358.
Inel M, Bilgin H and Ozmen HB (2008b) Seismic capacity
evaluation of school buildings in Turkey. In Proceedings
of ICE, Structures and Buildings of Thomas Telford
Journals. Vol. 161, pp. 147–159.
Irfanoglu A (2009) Performance of template school buildings
during earthquakes in Turkey and Peru. Journal of
Performance of Construction Facilities 23: 5–14.
Jagadish KS, Raghunath S and Nanjunda Rao KS (2003)
Behavior of masonry structures during the Bhuj earth-
quake of January 2001. Journal of Earth System Science
112: 431–440.
Kaplan H, Akyol E, Kayihan K, Yilmaz S, Yolmaz S and
Caglayan D (2005) Pre-assessment Investigation of School
Buildings in Denizli for Seismic Risks. Report for the
Denizli Governorship. Pamukkale University. Denizli,
Turkey: Denizli Governorship. [in Turkish].
Kaplan H, Tama YS, Yilmaz S and Akyol E (2009) Simav
Osmanbey Primary School Seismic Assessment Report.
Denizli, Turkey: Pamukkale University. [in Turkish].
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014
2433
Klingner RE (2006) Behavior of masonry in the Northridge
(US) and Tecomán–Colima (Mexico) earthquakes:
Lessons learned, and changes in US design provisions.
Construction and Building Materials 20: 209–219.
Korkmaz AK, Nuhoğlu A, Arisoy B and Carhoglu AI (2012)
Investigation of structural safety of existing masonry
healthcare facilities in Turkey. Journal of Vibration and
Control 18: 867–877.
Korkmaz HH, Korkmaz SZ and Donduren MS (2010)
Earthquake hazard and damage on traditional rural struc-
tures in Turkey. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences 10: 605–622.
Lieping Y, Xinzheng L, Zhe Q and Peng F (2008) Analysis on
building seismic damage in the Wenchuan earthquake. In
Proceedings of 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, Oct.
12–17, Paper S31-047.
Liu B, Miao S, Ye L and Xiao M (2006) Damage of vil-
lage buildings in recent Yunnan Earthquakes. In
Proceedings of 4th International Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, Oct. 12–13,
Paper no: 266.
Lopez OA, Hernandez JJ, Del Re G and Puig J (2007)
Espinosa L. Reducing seismic risk of school buildings in
Venezuela. Earthquake Spectra 23: 771–790.
Minzheng Z and Yingjie J (2008) Building damage in
Dujiangyan during Wenchuan Earthquake. Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration 7: 263–269.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(2004) Keeping Schools Safe in Earthquakes. Paris, France:
OECD.
Petal M (2008) Disaster Prevention for Schools. Report,
Guidance for Education Sector Decision-makers. Geneva,
Switzerland: UNISDR.
Proença JM (2004) Damage in school in the 1998 Faial
earthquake in the Azores Islands, Portugal.
In Proceedings of the Ad Hoc Experts’ Group Meeting on
Earthquake Safety in Schools, Paris, France, Feb. 9–11.
pp. 132–139.
Sanada Y, Niousha A, Maeda M, Kabeyasawa T and
Ghayamghamian MR (2004) Building damage around
Bam Seismological Observatory following the Bam, Iran
earthquake of Dec. 26, 2003. Bulletin of the Earthquake
Research Institute University of Tokyo 79: 95–105.
Turkish Earthquake Code (2007) Specifications for Buildings
to be Built in Seismic Areas. TEC-2007. Ankara, Turkey:
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement.
Yilmaz S, Akyol E, Ozmen HB and Sen G (2009) Inventory of
Masonry Buildings in 2007 Çameli Earthquake. Ankara,
Turkey: The Scientific and Technological Council of
Turkey.
Yoshimura K and Kuroki M (2001) Damage to masonry
buildings caused by the El Salvador earthquake of
January 13, 2001. Journal of Natural Disaster Science 23:
53–63.