Seismic resistance of traditional timber-frame hımış structures in Turkey: a brief overview
Open accessAbstract
Hımış structures have hardly ever found as extensive a role as other traditional timber housing, such as those originating from Japan or Central Europe, within the wide discourse on the seismic performance of timber-frame architecture that has gained significant momentum in the last few decades owing to advancing testing technologies. While the hımış construction technique was perhaps not born as a result of a conscious search for a seismically resistant building form, it was soon widely appreciated for its structural features advantageous under seismic loading - especially from the sixteenth century when it has become a well-established construction technique in part of the Balkans and in today’s Turkey. Despite widely available anecdotal information based on post-disaster studies regarding its performance under earthquakes, robust quantitative data on the seismic behaviour of these structures were practically non-existent until quite recently, and are still somewhat limited. However, we are now able to confirm that hımış constructions do have intrinsic qualities that are very beneficial under seismic action. This paper aims to make a brief review of the current state of our knowledge on structural performance of hımış buildings under earthquake loading, with specific emphasis on infill/cladding techniques, connection details and energy dissipation characteristics.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Assessment of reclaimed structural wood is particularly important in regions with high seismic risk, such as Turkey.
“This assessment is particularly important in regions with high seismic risk, such as Turkey (Aktaş 2017).”
From Preliminary structural reuse assessment of reclaimed Juniperus excelsa Timber after approximately 42 years of service: Mechanical response, visible defects, and SEM observations (2026) · cites this paper as Aktaş 2017
The Conclusions identify Turkey as earthquake-prone and call for improving the seismic performance of existing hımış timber-frame structures. The discussion of material degradation and earthquake damage explains why those structures need attention, but the paper does not address assessing reclaimed structural wood for reuse. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- Aktas, Y. D., Akyüz, U., Erdil, B., Türer, A. and Sahin Güçhan, N. 2010. Assessment of Seismic Behavior of Traditional Timber Frame Ottoman Houses: Frame tests. 1st International Conference on Structures and Architecture (ICSA).
- Aktas, Y. D., Akyüz, U., Türer, A., Erdil, B. and Sahin Güçhan, N. 2014a. Seismic resistance evaluation of traditional ottoman tim- ber-frame HımışHouses: frame loadings and material tests. Earthquake Spectra 30(4): 1711-1732.
- Aktas, Y. D. and Türer, A. 2016. Seismic performance evaluation of tra- ditional timber HımışFrames: capacity spectrum based assess- ment. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14(11): 3175-3194.
- Aktas, Y. D., Türer, A. and Akyüz, U. 2014b. Seismic Performance Assessment of Traditional Timber Himis Frames by Laboratory Testing and Capacity Spectrum Method. Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Istanbul: 2ECEES.
- Alyamaç, K. E., Sayın, E., Yön, B. Ç., Karatas, M., Erdogȃn, A. S., Ülker, M. and Calayır, Y. 2011. Observations on damages at build- ings in the rural area due to the Basyurt-Karakoçan (Elazıg) earth- quake. Turkish Journal of Science & Technology 6(2): 117-128.
- Ambraseys, N. N. 2001. The earthquake of 1509 in the Sea of Marmara, Turkey, revisited. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 91(6): 1397-1416.
- Ambraseys, N. N. and Jackson, J. A. 1981. Earthquake hazard and vul- nerability in the northeastern Mediterranean: The Corinth earth- quake sequence of February-March 1981. Disasters 5(4): 355-368.
- Ambraseys, N. N. and Tchalenko, J. S. 1972. Seismotectonic aspects of the Gediz, Turkey, earthquake of March 1970. Geophysical Journal International 30: 229-252.
- Bakır, B. S., Yılmaz, M. T., Yakut, A. and Gülkan, P. 2005. Re-examin- ation of damage distribution in Adapazarı: geotechnical consider- ations. Engineering Structures 27(7): 1002-1013.
- Biricik, A. S., Ceylan, M. A. and Ünlü, M. 1996. Ekim 1995-Dinar depremi. Marmara Cogȓafya Dergisi 1(1): 63-102.
- Bruneau, M. 2002. Building damage from the Marmara, Turkey earth- quake of August 17, 1999. Journal of Seismology 6: 357-377.
- Calayır, Y., Sayın, E. and Yön, B. 2012. Performance of structures in the rural area during the March 8, 2010 Elazıg-Kovancılar earthquake. Natural Hazards 61(2): 703-717.
- Celep, Z., Erken, A., Tasķın, B. and I ̇lki, A. 2011. Failures of masonry and concrete buildings during the March 8, 2010 Kovancılar and Palu (Elazıg) Earthquakes in Turkey. Engineering Failure Analysis 18(3): 868-889.
- Diri, F. 2010. Construction Techniques of Traditional Birgi Houses. Ankara: Middle East Technical University, Msc Thesis. Retrieved from http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12612632/index.pdf
- Erdik, M. 1994. Developing a comprehensive earthquake disaster mas- terplan for Istanbul. In: Tucker B. E., Erdik M. Ö., Hwang C. N. (eds). Issues in Urban Earthquake Risk. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media, 125-166.
- Erdik, M., Yüzügüllü, O., Karakoç, C., Yılmaz, C. and Akkas, N. 1994. March 13, 1992 Erzincan (Turkey) earthquake. Tenth Earthquake Engineering Conference. Balkema, Rotterdam.
- Gülkan, P. and Langenbach, R. 2004. The Earthquake of Traditional Timber and Masonry Dwellings in Turkey. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada: 13WCEE.
- Langenbach, R. 2007. From "Opus Craticium" to the "Chicago Frame": earthquake-resistant traditional construction. International Journal of Architectural Heritage 1: 29-59.
- Mitchell, W. A. 1976. Reconstruction after disaster: the gediz earthquake of 1970. Geographical Review 66(3): 296-313.
- Mitchell, W. A. and Glowatski, E. A. 1971. Some aspects of the Gediz (Turkey) earthquake, March 28, 1970. Journal of Geography 70 (4): 224-229.
- Rozen, M. and Arbel, B. 2006. Great fire in the metropolis. In: Wasserstein D., Ayalon A. (eds). Mamluks and Ottomans: Studies in Honour of Michael Winter. New York: Routledge, 134-163.
- Sahin-Güçhan, N. 2001. Ahsap Karkas Yapılar ve Bunların Restorasyonunda I ̇nsaat Mühendislerinin Rolü. Türkiye Mühendislik Haberleri 414(4): 21-26.
- Sezer, H. 1997. 1894 I ̇stanbul depremi hakkında bir rapor üzerine ince- leme. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cogȓafya Fakültesi Tarih Bölümü Tarih Arasţırmaları Dergisi 29(19): 169-197.
- Spence, R. 2014. The full-scale laboratory: the practice of post-earth- quake reconnaissance missions and their contributions to earth- quake engineering. In: Ansal A. (ed). Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Netherlands: Springer International Publishing, 1-53.
- Spence, R., Bommer, J., Del Re, D., Bird, J., Aydınoglu, N. and Tabuchi, S. 2003. Comparing loss estimation with observed damage: a study of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 1(1): 83-113.
- Tsakanika-Theohari, E. and Mouzakis, H. 2010. A post-Byzantine man- sion in Athens. the restoration Project of the timber structural elements. In: Ceccotti A. (ed). World Conference on Timber Engineering. Riva del Garda, Trentino, Italy: WCTE, 1-10.
- Yoshida, N., Tokimatsu, K., Kokusho, T., Yasuda, S. and Okimura, T. 2001. Geotechnical Aspect of Damage in Adapazari City During the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake. Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. USA: ICCHGE.
Cited by
- Authors
- Aktaş, Y. D.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Aktaş, Yasemin Didem
- ORCID
- Aktaş, Yasemin Didem
- Venue
- International Wood Products Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-01-20
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- sup1
- Pages
- 21-28
- ISSN
- 2042-6445 (ISSN-L)
- 2042-6453
- OpenAlex
- W2578386192
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Wood Products Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (acceptedVersion)
- OpenMETU (Middle East Technical University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Seismic Performance and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Masonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Earthquake and Disaster Impact Studies
- Keywords
- seismic resistance, earthquake performance, connection details, energy dissipation, timber housing, Balkans, Turkey
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review