CT 5124 Timber Structures 2

Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Assignment 2011

Investigation of earthquake resistance of traditional timber buildings

in Turkey

S.H.J. van Es1, A. van Ham2, T. Hoekstra3, E. van Vliet4

1
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, The Netherlands, sjorsvanes@hotmail.com
2
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, The Netherlands, vanham.alex@gmail.com
3
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, The Netherlands,
tunishoekstra1988@gmail.com
4
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, The Netherlands, vvevert@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
In Turkey all traditional buildings are partially constructed of timber frames. Different
construction methods can be distinguished where the infill between the timber frames is either by
masonry or timber laths with or without clay. Buildings fully made of timber logs also occur.
These traditional construction methods have been applied widely up to about 1950. Since then
the traditional construction has mostly been replaced with modern reinforced concrete structures
which, according to a wide range of researches, perform worse in earthquake situations than their
traditional equivalent.

In this study the different failure modes of traditional Himiş buildings are analysed. These failure
modes include minor damages (e.g. damaged plasterwork) and damages to a building that may
be dangerous to the structure itself or to their direct surroundings, including any present persons.
For certain failure modes improvements can be made with simple methods which were not
available when this building method was originally developed. In this way the earthquake
resistance of Himiş construction could be further improved.

The aim of this paper is to analyse different failure modes of the traditional Himiş construction
and suggest improvements where possible. In this way, traditional buildings can more easily be
reintroduced in the Turkish building industry. To complete this study a similar research on
reinforced concrete structures, as they are applied in Turkey, would be required.

INTRODUCTION
The traditional building method in Turkey is timber-framed construction. In contrary most new
buildings are built in reinforced concrete framework with infill masonry. However, in recent
earthquakes traditional buildings have proven to be in general more resilient to earthquakes loads
in comparison with modern, reinforced concrete buildings. This paper contains a literature study
to the different traditional construction methods used in Turkey and the causes of their beneficial
behaviour in earthquakes.Finally some possible improvements will be mentioned.

BACKGROUND

Log houses
The oldest type of houses that have been built in Turkey are log houses where the logs have a
bearing and a separating function. Logs are laid down horizontally and can transmit vertical
1
 CT 5124 Timber Structures 2
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Assignment 2011
forces through contact pressure between the logs. Logs are only connected at the ends so
horizontal forces caused by earthquakes cannot be restrained. A recent development in the
construction of log houses is the anchoring of logs to each other which could possibly make the
log houses more resistant to earthquake loading (Dogangün, Tuluk, Livaoglu, Acar, 2005).

Figure 1: Log house in Turkey (Kücükerman, Güner, 1995)

Hatil construction
This type of construction consists of an overall masonry structure laced with horizontal timber
elements. In Hatil construction the main bearing of the structure is done by the masonry walls,
while the timber laces aid the structure to resist horizontal loads such as earthquakes. The
Theodosian city walls of Istanbul have a similar lacing system. The beneficial effect of these
lacing elements is proven by an event occurring in 1999. When an earthquake struck in 1999, the
restored parts of the wall collapsed while the original parts remained intact. The restorers had not
correctly reapplied the laces in the wall (Langenbach 2010).

Figure 2: Hatil construction in Turkey (Dogangün, Tuluk, Livaoglu, Acar, 2005)

Himiş construction
Himiş buildings consist of a load bearing timber frame with masonry infill. The infill can be
straightforward, or made up of difficult patterns (mainly for esthetical reasons, Fig. 4). The
masonry infill is mostly one brick in width, which is approximately equal to the width of the
timber frame. The masonry can be, instead of standard bricks, made up of sundried bricks. In
that case the construction method is known locally as Yeğdene (Dikmen 2010). This
construction method of timber framing with (mostly) masonry infill is also used in many other
parts of the world, for example: colombage in France, fachwerk in Germany and half-timber in
Britain (Langenbach 2010).

2
 CT 5124 Timber Structures 2
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Assignment 2011

Figure 3: Himiş construction in Turkey (Dogangün, Tuluk, Livaoglu, Acar, 2005)

Figure 4: Special patterns for masonry infill (Gulkan, Langenbach, 2004)

Dizeme construction
The Dizeme construction type in general is the same as the Bağdadi typology. Wood is used as
filling material instead of masonry (as in the Himiş type). It is particularly used in regions that
abound in wood. Short rough timber elements called as Dizeme are used as infill. In this
construction type, the infill is mounted as lightly nailed studs or horizontal framing. The purpose
of wood infill use is to avoid the common early shear failure and falling out of the frame which
occur in the case of masonry infill (Oztank, 2008). The dimensions of the wooden parts used for
the infill indicate the difference with the Bağdadi structures. When the width of these wooden
strips changes between 5 and 20 cm, the structures are called Dizeme (Dogan, 2010).

Figure 5: Traditional timber framed house with wood infill “Dizeme” construction(Oztank, N.)

3
 CT 5124 Timber Structures 2
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Assignment 2011
Bağdadi construction
When the infill consists of wooden strips have a width of 2 to 4 cm, the construction type is
called Bağdadi. The voids between these strips are filled with lighter materials or with trunk
shells. The interior walls are covered by lath and plaster work of wood. The resistance against
lateral forces is improved because the use of a lighter filling material. The ductility and damping
capacity is increased by use of nails and laths prevent infill downfall (Akan, 2004). This type of
construction is more prone to rot and insect attack.

Figure 6: Bağdadi construction in Turkey (Oztank, N.)

Comparison with concrete construction
The more recent buildings in Turkey are made in concrete. This modern type of building could
be more resistant to earthquakes than the traditional timber ones. However because they are not
designed and constructed properly it is proven that they fail more often than their wooden
counterparts. It appears that the entire building delivery process; design, construction and
inspection fails. The traditional timber buildings are built using a crafted technique, shaped by
centuries of trial and error. When reinforced concrete is used in the same non-engineered way of
workmanship, the essential aspects of earthquake design are not taken into account. This is the
main reason for the bad performance of modern reinforced concrete dwellings compared with the
traditional timber building (Gulkan, Langenbach, 2004)

RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKE OF HIMIŞ CONSTRUCTION

As already mentioned in the introduction of this paper, the traditional timber construction types
in Turkey are very efficient to withstand an earthquake load case, this in contrary to the more
modern techniques. However, the most vulnerable building type in case of an earthquake is the
Himiş construction. The lateral accelerations acting in an earthquake cause large stresses due to
the high mass of the masonry infill.

Figure 7: Collapse of masonry infill of Himiş building (Akan, 2004)

4
 CT 5124 Timber Structures 2
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Assignment 2011

Masonry structures in general show brittle shear failure during the event of an earthquake. In
Himiş construction the masonry panels are separated by the timber framing, preventing the
collapse of the structure caused by local failure of the masonry. Another important failure
mechanism is the collapse of the heavy walls due to weak connections between the perimeter and
orthogonal partition walls. Separation occurs and the thick perimeter walls collapse in the out of
plane direction, this is called dislodgement of the masonry infill (Dikmen, 2010). The mass of
the building is often even more increased by the application of heavy roofs. This is done for
reasons of thermal insulation in Turkish warm climate (Akan, 2004).

This general failure of the masonry infill consists of the following symptoms (Dikmen, 2010)
(with increasing severity):
1. Cracking and falling of plaster
2. Crack of mortar
3. Dislodgement of the masonry infill

The following failures will most likely occur after the first failures (cracking of plaster and
mortar) have already occurred:
4. Loosening or failure of connections
5. Large lateral displacements
6. Failure of connection to foundation

Finally, some failures are not directly related to the construction method but can cause partial or
total collapse:
7. Failure of chimneys
8. Collapse of other buildings upon it

Important in the behaviour of Himiş construction exposed to an earthquake is that the infill
masonry walls respond to the stress of the earthquake by “working” along the joints between the
infill and the timber frame. The straining and sliding of the masonry and timbers dissipate a
significant amount of the energy of the earthquake (Akan, 2004).

Another beneficial factor is the type of connections that are used. In principle all timber
connections are nailed connections. According to local inhabitants this is not coincidence.
Nailed connections are chosen on purpose for their ability to absorb and lower the movements
created by earthquakes (Dikmen, 2010).

SOLUTIONS
Failures (1) and (2) are, while not desirable, unavoidable. First of all it would be very
complicated to decouple the movement of the structure and the building finishes (in this case: the
plasterwork). Secondly, removal of the plaster may be necessary after the earthquake anyway, to
inspect and assess damage to the structure.

Dislodgement of the infill (3) can be a problem if the entire panel would fall out, thereby leaving
the timber frame „on its own‟. If this would occur during the early stages of the earthquake this
could cause problems with both structural integrity of the construction and possibly the safety of
people inside or close to the building. The integrity could be affected because the infill can now
no longer perform its energy dissipated task, while falling pieces of masonry could fall on
fleeing people close to the building. A regular placing of wooden laths could act as a safety net

5
 CT 5124 Timber Structures 2
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Assignment 2011
to prevent falling out of the masonry. This of course does have its influence on the aesthetic
appeal of the building. This adaption combines Himiş construction with other construction
methods as Bağdadi or Dizeme. Perhaps this method could even lead to larger allowable spacing
of the timber frame. If the aesthetical appeal of the building is very important it could also be
considered to integrate this kind of safety nets in the masonry. This would seriously complicate
the building method, while in our opinion esthetics might not be that important.

Figure 8: Possible solution to the dislodgement problem

Failure and loosening of the connections (4) can only occur after heavily damaging the masonry
infill, as large deformations are needed. While Dikmen points this out as a failure mechanism, in
the same paper he argues that nailed connections are deliberately constructed weak to dissipate
sufficient energy. In our opinion it would therefore not be wise to prevent this failure mode as it
prevents total collapse. Failure of the connection to the foundation (6) may only occur in the
same way that other connections fail (i.e. large displacements accompanied with energy
dissipation), but total separating of elements should be avoided. Therefore, while not evident at
first sight, foundation connections should also be capable of taking up a certain tensile load to
prevent the building from lifting up. This is especially important when the building is
significantly lightened due to falling out of the masonry (3).

Figure 9: Examples of used foundation connections (Oztank, 2008)

6
 CT 5124 Timber Structures 2
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Assignment 2011

In Fig. 9 different foundation connections are shown. Most of those connections can be designed
to take up tensile forces but are not able in their current layout. A possible adaption of a
connection (in this case connection „A‟ from Fig. 9) is shown in Fig. 10.

Figure 10: Possible adaptation of foundation connection

Large lateral displacements (5) can also only occur after the aforementioned failure mechanisms
are already acting. While it may not be desirable, the fact that the large lateral displacements
occur also ensures that the building is not acting “too stiff”.

Unreinforced masonry chimneys are particularly susceptible to eartquake damage. Failure of the
chimneys (7) can cause damage to the roof and wall of the structure below. Also, damaged
chimneys may be dangerous in aftershocks following the intitial earthquake. According to the
CWC, the Canadian Wood Council, damage can be prevented in future earthquakes by bracing
chimneys or using chimneys from lighter materials. (CWC, 2004) However, ABAG, the regional
planning and services agency for San Francisco Bay Area, advises the following: „Retrofitting
masonry chimneys with bracing or strapping is not an effective safety measure because many
braced or strapped masonry chimneys typically will still fall when exposed to violent shaking.‟
(ABAG, 2004). While these advices are not intended for traditional Turkish masonry chimneys,
they will behave the same.

Figure 11: A collapsed chimney of traditional building during the 2003 Buldan earthquake (Kaplan, 2003)

7
 CT 5124 Timber Structures 2
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Assignment 2011
Therefore the best results can be achieved by using lighter materials. Constructing chimneys
from lighter material can be done with metal-stud systems for example. Also insulated thin
plated steel chimneys can be used. These can be covered with wood for instance. (Fig. 12)

Figure 12: Example of lightweight structure for chimney (GG, 2011)

Collapse of other buildings on the structure (8) can of course not be prevented with structural
adaptions to the considered structure. This problem can be prevented by making sure all
buildings are sufficiently safe, but the total assessment of all buildings lies out of the scope of
this paper. In general it can be stated that this kind of damage cannot be prevented, provided that
the collapsing building is heavy enough to damage the considered (traditional) structure.

DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION
While the traditional construction methods used in Turkey generally behave good in earthquake
situations there are some points which could be improved. Some improvements can easily be
executed within the knowledge of traditional building. The „safety net‟ for the masonry (Fig. 8)
closely resembles the Dizeme and Bağdadi construction methods. Improvement of the chimneys
and foundation structures could require some more advanced technology in comparison with the
original building method. However, the required materials and construction are relatively
common in today‟s construction.

Therefore, by implementing simple adjustments the traditional construction can be further

improved making them more durable in earthquake regions than they already were. Therefore
they can be very competitive with modern reinforced concrete structures, especially in low rise
buildings. To make a good comparison between traditional timber and modern concrete
structures a similar research to the weaknesses of reinforced concrete structures is necessary.

REFERENCES
ABAG, (2004) Website of the Association of Bay Area Governments, the regional planning and
services agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Consulted: 15-3-2010:
http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/fixit/chimneys.html

Akan, Asli er., (2004) Some observations on the seismic behaviour of traditional timber
structures in Turkey. http://cires.colorado.edu/~bilham/Duzce.html

CWC: Canadian Wood Council. (2004) “Wood-frame construction: meeting the challenges of
earthquakes”, Building Performance Series No. 5

8
 CT 5124 Timber Structures 2
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Assignment 2011
Dikmen, N., (2010) An investigation on traditional timber-framed buildings in Çankiri province
of Turkey. http://fbe.trakya.edu.tr/tujs

Dogan, M. (2010) Seismic analysis of traditional buildings: Bağdadi and Himiş. In: Anadolu
University journal of science and technology, ed. Arastirma Makalesi

Dogangün, A., Tuluk, O., Livaoglu, R., Acar, R., (2005) Traditional wooden buildings and their
damages during earthquakes in Turkey. http://www.sciencedirect.com

GG, (2011) Figure found on website which is a report of people building their own house.
Consulted: 15-03-2011: http://goinggreenoffthegrid.wordpress.com/page/5/

Gülkan, P., Langenbach, R., (2004) The earthquake resistance of traditional timber and masonry
dwellings in Turkey. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Kaplan H, Inel M, Senel M, Toprak S, Kayhan, A, Özsoy I., Yazar E, Yılmaz, S. (2003) “A
preliminary engineering report on the Buldan/Denizli Earthquake of 23–26 July 2003:”,
Pamukkale University, Denizli Turkey

Kücükerman, Ö., Güner, S., (1995) Turkish houses in Anatolian heritage. Book for ministry of
Turkish culture.

Langenbach, R., (2010) Earthquake Resistant Traditional Construction is Not an Oxymoron.

http://www.conservationtech.com

Oztank, Nimet, (2008) Traditional Timber Turkish Houses and Structural Details. World
Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE) 2008, Miyazaki, Japan.