Consideration of seismic vulnerability and risk analysis of the masonry aqueduct based on hybrid and analytical methods

Abstract

This study conducted a seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of the Eregli, Türkiye masonry aqueduct, constructed during the Roman period to channel water from springs to settlements. Initially, finite element models representing the Roman masonry aqueduct’s initial and current states were created, using the survey project, reports, and detailed field measurements as references. The accuracy of the current model was evaluated based on experimental test results and field-measured data. Subsequently, the capacity curves of each model were derived through static non-linear analysis. To evaluate the seismic vulnerability of the structure, fragility curves were developed using both analytical-based and hybrid-based methods. For the analytical-based curves, the cloud analysis method was employed, presenting these curves as functions of peak ground acceleration, Arias intensity, and spectral acceleration intensity parameters, all of which showed a strong correlation with the maximum drift ratio. Additionally, hybrid-based fragility curves were derived as functions of spectral displacement, incorporating the numerical model and suitable empirical functions. Vulnerability curves were then computed from the fragility curves obtained through each method and the consequence model proposed by FEMA (2010). Finally, using the capacity spectrum method and the FEMA-Hazus risk methodology, the earthquake risk assessment of the aqueduct was thoroughly examined, with a focus on the expected loss ratio value. The proposed methodology enables a rational, quantitative, and comparative evaluation of similar structural typologies in different locations.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

masonry Roman aqueduct / push-over / fragility curve / seismic vulnerability / loss ratio

References

[1] Doğangün A , Sezen H . Seismic vulnerability and preservation of historical masonry monumental structures. Earthquakes and Structures, 2012, 3(1): 83–95

[2] Cakir F , Uckan E , Shen J , Seker B S , Akbas B . Seismic damage evaluation of historical structures during Van earthquake, October 23, 2011. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2015, 58: 249–266

[3] ROMAQ Team. The Atlas Project of Roman Aqueducts (ROMAQ). 2013

[4] de Feo G , Angelakis A N , Antoniou G P , El-Gohary F , Haut B , Passchier C W , Zheng X Y . Historical and technical notes on aqueducts from prehistoric to medieval times. Water, 2013, 5(4): 1996–2025

[5] Rafiee A , Vinches M , Bohatier C . Modelling and analysis of the Nîmes arena and the Arles aqueduct subjected to a seismic loading, using the Non-Smooth Contact Dynamics method. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30(12): 3457–3467

[6] Sun L G , Xu Y Z . Modal parameter identification and finite element model updating of a long-span aqueduct structure based on ambient excitation. Journal of Vibroengineering, 2020, 22(4): 896–908

[7] Suarez F J , Bravo R . Historical and probabilistic structural analysis of the Royal ditch aqueduct in the Alhambra (Granada). Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2014, 15(5): 499–510

[8] Cakir F . Performance-based assessment of long masonry structures. Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics, 2022, 8(2): 47–56

[9] Gedik Y H , Celik O C . 3D modeling and structural evaluation of ancient Bozdogan (Valens) aqueduct in Istanbul. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Polish Congress of Mechanics & 21st Computer Methods in Mechanics, 2015, 8–11

[10] Gonen S , Pulatsu B , Erdogmus E , Karaesmen E , Karaesmen E . Quasi-static nonlinear seismic assessment of a fourth century A. D. Roman Aqueduct in Istanbul, Turkey. Heritage, 2021, 4(1): 401–421

[11] Mamaklı F S , Turan M H , Aktaş E , Vardaroğlu M . Conservation-aimed evaluation of a historical aqueduct in İzmir. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 2019, 25(2): 04019014

[12] Mordanova A , de Felice G , Genoese A . Assessment of the stability condition of the Claudio Aqueduct. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Protection of Historical Constructions, 2017,

[13] Zhang C Y , Xu J G , Qian Y L , Zhang J P , Wang R , Wang B . Seismic reliability analysis of random parameter aqueduct structure under random earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 153: 107083

[14] Zhang C Y , Xu J G , Wang B , Wu C . Nonlinear random seismic response analysis of the double-trough aqueduct based on fiber beam element model. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 150: 106856

[15] Wu C , Xu J G , Zhang C Y , Wang J F . Overall seismic reliability analysis of aqueduct structure based on different levels under random earthquake. Structures, 2023, 58: 105469

[16] Yesilyurt A . Selection of optimum intensity measure parameters for seismic fragility analysis of typical Roman aqueduct. Structures, 2025, 71: 108085

[17] Caicedo D , Tomić I , Karimzadeh S , Bernardo V , Beyer K , Lourenço P B . Collapse fragility analysis of historical masonry buildings considering in-plane and out-of-plane response of masonry walls. Engineering Structures, 2024, 319: 118804

[18] Karantoni F , Pantazopoulou S , Ganas A . Confined masonry as practical seismic construction alternative—The experience from the 2014 Cephalonia Earthquake. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2018, 12(3): 270–290

[19] Aldemir A , Erberik M A , Demirel I O , Sucuoğlu H . Seismic performance assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings with a hybrid modeling approach. Earthquake Spectra, 2013, 29(1): 33–57

[20] Shabani A , Kioumarsi M , Plevris V . Performance-based seismic assessment of a historical masonry arch bridge: Effect of pulse-like excitations. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2023, 17(6): 855–869

[21] Özbay A E Ö , Karapinar I S , Kutlu Z N , Kiliç İ E . Simplified seismic scenario analysis of existing masonry buildings accounting for local site effects. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2024, 18(2): 309–318

[22] Usta Evci P , Sever A E , Şakalak E , Karimzadeh S , Lourenço P B . Seismic damage assessment of minarets: Insights from the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes, Türkiye. Buildings, 2025, 15(23): 4358

[23] Durgut E , Ispir M , Ilki A . Seismic fragility curves of a historical brick masonry minaret. Earthquake Spectra, 2025, 41(5): 3499–3525

[24] Erberik M A . Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in-plane failure modes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2008, 37(3): 387–405

[25] ASCE 41-13. Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade of Existing Buildings. Resten, VA: ASCE, 2013

[26] BE-CEN . Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings, EN 1998-3. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2005,

[27] Korkmaz M , Ozdemir M A , Kavali E , Cakir F . Performance-based assessment of multi-story unreinforced masonry buildings: The case of historical Khatib School in Erzurum, Turkey. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2018, 94: 195–213

[28] Ferreira T M , Estêvão J , Maio R , Vicente R . The use of Artificial Neural Networks to estimate seismic damage and derive vulnerability functions for traditional masonry. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2020, 14(3): 609–622

[29] Arrighi C , Tanganelli M , Cristofaro M T , Cardinali V , Marra A , Castelli F , de Stefano M . Multi-risk assessment in a historical city. Natural Hazards, 2023, 119(2): 1041–1072

[30] Ahmed H A . Vulnerability assessment of sustainable seismic retrofit solutions for reinforced concrete structures: A multi-faceted approach. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2025, 19(4): 598–622

[31] Lungu D , Aldea A , Arion A , Vacareanu R , Petrescu F , Cornea T . WP1 Report European Distinctive Features, Inventory Database and Typology. RISK-UE Project of the EC: An Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios with Applications to Different European Towns, 2001,

[32] Guettiche A , Soltane M A . Earthquake risk scenarios in urban areas using machine learning: A case study of Skikda city, Algeria. Natural Hazards, 2025, 121(6): 7389–7424

[33] Coskun O , Aldemir A . Machine learning network suitable for accurate rapid seismic risk estimation of masonry building stocks. Natural Hazards, 2023, 115(1): 261–287

[34] Yesilyurt A , Zulfikar A C , Tuzun C . Site classes effect on seismic vulnerability evaluation of RC precast industrial buildings. Earthquakes and Structures, 2021, 21(6): 627–639

[35] Yesilyurt A , Cetindemir O , Akcan S O , Zulfikar A C . Fragility-based rapid earthquake loss assessment of precast RC buildings in the Marmara region. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2023, 88(1): 13–23

[36] Yesilyurt A , Zulfikar A C , Tuzun C . Seismic vulnerability assessment of precast RC industrial buildings in Turkey. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 141: 106539

[37] Akturk F , Yesilyurt A , Cakir F . Optimal intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand modeling of single-domed historical masonry buildings. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2025, 171: 109378

[38] Xu X Y , Liu X H , Jiang L , Ali Khan M Y . Dynamic damage mechanism and seismic fragility analysis of an aqueduct structure. Applied Sciences, 2021, 11(24): 11709

[39] Du M , Zhang S R , Wang C , She L , Li J B , Lu T . Seismic fragility assessment of aqueduct bent structures subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences. Engineering Structures, 2023, 292: 116505

[40] Ma Y , Wu Z B , Liu Z S , Zhang M Q , Aibaidula M . Seismic fragility analysis of aqueduct structural systems based on G-PCM method. Sustainability, 2022, 14(20): 13161

[41] Xiong Z H , Zhu H D , Li W W , Zhang A J , Xin H H . Seismic risk assessment of a novel bridge-aqueduct cobuilt structure. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 2022, 8(3): 04022022

[42] Zhang S R , Du M , Wang C , Sun B B , She L , Liu W J . Fragility analysis of high-span aqueduct structure under near-fault and far-field ground motions. Structures, 2022, 46: 681–697

[43] Cheng G G , Zhang Y N , Huang J L , Liu J B , Zhang J W , Zhang S . Vulnerability analysis of aqueduct structure based on boundary method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2020, 567: 012036

[44] Zheng X D , Shen Y M , Zong X G , Su H , Zhao X . Vulnerability analysis of main aftershock sequence of aqueduct based on incremental dynamic analysis method. Buildings, 2023, 13(6): 1490

[45] ANSYS Engineering Simulation Software. Canonsburg, PA: ANSYS, Inc. 2022

[46] Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen R J. Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970, 438–483

[47] NIBS, FEMA. Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003

[48] General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA). Active Fault Map. (available at the website of MTA)

[49] Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD). Turkey Earthquake Hazard Map. (available at the website of AFAD)

[50] US-ASTM. Standard Test Methods for Absorption and Bulk Specific Gravity of Dimension Stone, ASTM C97/C97M-15. West Conshohocken: ASTM, 2015

[51] UK-BSI. Methods of Test for Masonry Units Determination of Real and Bulk Density and of Total and Open Porosity for Natural Stone Masonry Units, BS EN 772-4:1998. London: British Standards Institution (BSI), 1998

[52] Pourfalah S , Cotsovos D M , Suryanto B . Modelling the out-of-plane behaviour of masonry walls retrofitted with engineered cementitious composites. Computers & Structures, 2018, 201: 58–79

[53] Alecci V , Barducci S , D’Ambrisi A , de Stefano M , Focacci F , Luciano R , Penna R . Shear capacity of masonry panels repaired with composite materials: Experimental and analytical investigations. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2019, 171: 61–69

[54] US-ASTM. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Dimension Stone, ASTM C170/C170M-16. West Conshohocken: ASTM, 2016

[55] TR-Turkish Standards Institution . Methods of Testing for Natural Building Stones, TS 699. Ankara: Turkish Standards Institution, 2009,

[56] Schubert P . Modulus of elasticity of masonry. Proceedings of the 5th International Brick Masonry Conference, 1982, 139–144

[57] Hendry A W , Sinha B P , Davies S R . Design of Masonry Structures. London: CRC Press, 1997,

[58] Knutsson H H , Nielsen J . On the modulus of elasticity for masonry. Masonry International, 1995, 9(2): 57–61

[59] Cakir F . Structural performance evaluation of reconstructed masonry structure: A case of Ephesus Celsus library in Turkey. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 2022, 15(4): 68

[60] Valente M . Earthquake response and damage patterns assessment of two historical masonry churches with bell tower. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2023, 151: 107418

[61] Cakir F , Kucuk S . A case study on the restoration of a three-story historical structure based on field tests, laboratory tests and finite element analyses. Structures, 2022, 44: 1356–1391

[62] Pirsaheb H , Wang P X , Moradi M J , Milani G . A Multi-Pier-Macro MPM method for the progressive failure analysis of perforated masonry walls in-plane loaded. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2021, 127: 105528

[63] Canditone C , Diana L , Formisano A , Rodrigues H , Vicente R . Failure mechanisms and behaviour of adobe masonry buildings: A case study. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2023, 150: 107343

[64] Dong Y P , Burd H , Houlsby G , Hou Y M . Advanced finite element analysis of a complex deep excavation case history in Shanghai. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2014, 8(1): 93–100

[65] Lourenço P B , Oliveira D V , Leite J C , Ingham J M , Modena C , da Porto F . Simplified indexes for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings: International database and validation. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2013, 34: 585–605

[66] Pantò B , Caliò I , Lourenço P B . Seismic safety evaluation of reinforced concrete masonry infilled frames using macro modelling approach. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 15(9): 3871–3895

[67] Pantò B , Silva L , Vasconcelos G , Lourenço P B . Macro-modelling approach for assessment of out-of-plane behavior of brick masonry infill walls. Engineering Structures, 2019, 181: 529–549

[68] Marques R , Lourenço P B . Unreinforced and confined masonry buildings in seismic regions: Validation of macro-element models and cost analysis. Engineering Structures, 2014, 64: 52–67

[69] Lourenço P B. Computational Strategies for Masonry Structures. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Delft: Delft University Press, 1996

[70] Drucker D C , Prager W . Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 1952, 10(2): 157–165

[71] Du K , Bai W , Bai J L , Yan D , Gong M S , Sun J J . Comparative seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete frame structures with and without structural enhancements using the FEMA P-58 methodology. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 2021, 7(4): 04021047

[72] FEMA. Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines: Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings. Technical Report FEMA-445. 2006

[73] FEMA. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings: Volume 1—Methodology. Technical Report FEMA P-58-1. 2012

[74] Lagomarsino S , Cattari S . PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 13(1): 13–47

[75] Mele E , de Luca A , Giordano A . Modelling and analysis of a basilica under earthquake loading. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2003, 4(4): 355–367

[76] Brandonisio G , Lucibello G , Mele E , de Luca A . Damage and performance evaluation of masonry churches in the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2013, 34: 693–714

[77] Castori G , Corradi M , de Maria A , Sisti R , Borri A . A numerical study on seismic damage of masonry fortresses. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 16(10): 4561–4580

[78] Cardoso R , Lopes M , Bento R . Seismic evaluation of old masonry buildings. Part I: Method description and application to a case-study. Engineering Structures, 2005, 27(14): 2024–2035

[79] Casolo S , Sanjust C A . Seismic analysis and strengthening design of a masonry monument by a rigid body spring model: The “Maniace Castle” of Syracuse. Engineering Structures, 2009, 31(7): 1447–1459

[80] FEMA. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA 356. 2000

[81] NTC18. Decreto Ministeriale 17/1/2018: Aggiornamento Delle “Norme Tecniche Per Le Costruzioni”. Rome: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, 2018

[82] FEMA. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA 273. 1997

[83] Vanin F , Zaganelli D , Penna A , Beyer K . 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, 2017, 15(12): 5435–5479

[84] Ahunbay Z , Altay G , Arun G , Aydemir O , Atasagun F D , Celep Z , Erberik M A , Ilki A , Kuran F , Ünal Z G . et al. A guideline for earthquake risk management of historical structures in turkey. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology., 2017,

[85] Ozdemir M A , Kaya E S , Aksar B , Seker B , Cakir F , Uckan E , Akbas B . Seismic vulnerability of masonry Jack arch slabs. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2017, 77: 146–159

[86] Cakir F , Uckan E , Shen J , Seker S , Akbas B . Seismic performance evaluation of slender masonry towers: A case study. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2016, 25(4): 193–212

[87] Çakır F . A simplified method for determining the seismic performance of historical structures: A case of Kaya Çelebi Mosque. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 2021, 36(3): 1643–1656

[88] Kappos A J , Kyriakakis P . A re-evaluation of scaling techniques for natural records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2000, 20(1–4): 111–123

[89] Caicedo D , Karimzadeh S , Bernardo V , Lourenço P B . Selection and scaling approaches of earthquake time-series for structural engineering applications: A state-of-the-art review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2024, 31(3): 1475–1505

[90] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Available online

[91] Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD). Turkish Accelerometric Database and Analysis System (TADAS). (Available at the website of AFAD)

[92] Caicedo D , Tomić I , Karimzadeh S , Bernardo V , Beyer K , Lourenço P B . Optimal intensity measure and probabilistic seismic demand model for the assessment of historical masonry buildings: Application to two case studies. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2025, 261: 111149

[93] Zucconi M , Ferlito R , Sorrentino L . Validation and extension of a statistical usability model for unreinforced masonry buildings with different ground motion intensity measures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 18(2): 767–795

[94] Kostinakis K . Impact of the masonry infills on the correlation between seismic intensity measures and damage of R/C buildings. Earthquakes and Structures, 2018, 14(1): 55–71

[95] Lagomarsino S , Giovinazzi S . Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 4(4): 415–443

[96] Vicente R S . Strategies and Methodologies for Urban Rehabilitation Interventions. The Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Evaluation of the Old City Centre of Coimbra, 2008,

[97] Lamego P , Lourenço P B , Sousa M L , Marques R . Seismic vulnerability and risk analysis of the old building stock at urban scale: Application to a neighbourhood in Lisbon. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 15(7): 2901–2937

[98] Mouroux P , Brun B L . Presentation of RISK-UE project. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 4(4): 323–339

[99] Turkish Building Seismic Design Code, TBSDC-2018. Ankara: Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, 2018

Rights & permissions

Higher Education Press