Advertisement

Effectiveness of seismic retrofitting of a historical masonry structure: Kütahya Kurşunlu Mosque, Turkey

  • Abide AşıkoğluEmail author
  • Özgür Avşar
  • Paulo B. Lourenço
  • Luís C. Silva
Original Research
  • 98 Downloads

Abstract

A seismic performance assessment of historical Kütahya Kurşunlu Mosque in Turkey is presented before and after it has been retrofitted. Site investigations were carried out to identify structural conditions, in which severe cracks, especially on the dome, were mapped. Regarding damage conditions, the Mosque has undergone several interventions, including retrofitting actions, in order to improve its seismic performance and global structural behavior. Effectiveness of seismic retrofitting of the Mosque was investigated by using the finite element method. Two representative structural models of the Mosque, namely non-retrofitted and retrofitted, were generated as a three-dimensional finite element model using an advanced structural analysis software. Ambient vibration measurements were performed to identify modal properties of the Mosque. Thus, the finite element model was calibrated and improved according to the experimental modal data. Nonlinear pushover and dynamic analyses were conducted to evaluate the seismic performance of the historical Mosque. This paper aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of the adopted retrofitting by comparing the models (before and after retrofitting) and, also, to validate the nonlinear behavior of the model by comparing it with the existing damage on the Mosque.

Keywords

Historical masonry mosque Finite element analysis Nonlinear analysis Seismic performance Retrofitting 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Onur Kaplan, research assistant at Eskişehir Technical University, for his experimental campaign for the ambient vibration measurements of the Kütahya Kurşunlu Mosque and Georgios Karanikoloudis, PhD student at University of Minho, for the knowledge shared to perform operational modal analysis.

References

  1. AFAD (2018) Earthquake Hazard Map of Turkey. https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/. Retrieved 2 May 2018
  2. Aguilar R, Torrealva D, Ramos LF, Lourenço PB (2012) Operational modal analysis tests on peruvian historical buildings: the case study of the 19 th century Hotel Comercio. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon PortugalGoogle Scholar
  3. Almac U, Alaboz M, Bal IE et al (2016) Structural observations on Macedonian tower, Edirne. In: Structural analysis of historical constructions anamnesis, diagnosis, therapy, controls: proceedings of the 10th international conference on structural analysis historical constructions SAHC 2016, pp 1764–1768Google Scholar
  4. Angelillo M, Lourenço P, Milani G (2014) Masonry behavior and modelling. In: Angelillo M (ed) Mechanics of masonry structures. CISM international centre for mechanical sciences. Springer, Udine, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  5. ARTeMIS Modal SVS-Structural Vibration Solutions A/SGoogle Scholar
  6. Braga AAB (2014) Study of the Armenian Church in Famagusta. MSc Thesis. University of Minho, Advanced Masters in Structural Analysis of Monuments and Historical Constructions ,GuimarãesGoogle Scholar
  7. CEB-FIP (1993) Model code 90. Thomas Telford Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciocci MP, Sharma S, Lourenço PB (2018) Engineering simulations of a super-complex cultural heritage building: Ica Cathedral in Peru. Meccanica 53:1931–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EC8 CEN (2005) EN 1998-3—eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildingsGoogle Scholar
  10. FX+ for DIANA (2013) Midas FX+ for DIANA. Customized pre/post-processor for DIANAGoogle Scholar
  11. Gentile C, Saisi A (2007) Ambient vibration testing of historic masonry towers for structural identification and damage assessment. Constr Build Mater 21:1311–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ICOMOS (2013) ICOMOS Turkey Architectural Heritage Conservation CharterGoogle Scholar
  13. Italian Code C (2009) Technical standards for constructions—DM 14/01/2008. In: Gazzetta Ufficiale Serie Generale n.47 del 26/02/2009. ItalyGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalkan E, Gülkan P (2004) Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in Turkey. Earthq Spectra 20:1111–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1812555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karanikoloudis G, Lourenço PB (2018) Structural assessment and seismic vulnerability of earthen historic structures. Application of sophisticated numerical and simple analytical models. Eng Struct 160:488–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kazaz İ, Kocaman İ (2018) Seismic load capacity evaluation of stone masonry mosques. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ.  https://doi.org/10.17341/gummfd.30784 Google Scholar
  17. Kocaman İ, Kazaz İ, Okuyucu D (2018) Tarihi Erzurum Yakutiye Medresesi’nin Yapısal Davranışının İncelenmesi. Dokuz Eylul Univ J Sci Eng.  https://doi.org/10.21205/deufmd Google Scholar
  18. KOERI Boğaziçi University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute Regional Earthquake-Tsunami Monitoring Center. http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/deprem-bilgileri/buyuk-depremler/. Accessed 30 Apr 2018
  19. Lara R (2016) Structural analysis of the church of the Monastery of São Miguel de Refojos. MSc Thesis. University of Minho, Advanced Masters in Structural Analysis of Monuments and Historical Constructions, GuimarãesGoogle Scholar
  20. Lourenço PB (2002) Computations on historic masonry structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 4:301–319.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lourenço PB, Krakowiak KJ, Fernandes FM, Ramos LF (2007) Failure analysis of Monastery of Jerónimos, Lisbon: how to learn from sophisticated numerical models. Eng Fail Anal 14:280–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lourenço PB, Mendes N, Ramos LF, Oliveira DV (2011) Analysis of masonry structures without box behavior. Int J Archit Herit 5:369–382.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2010.528824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lourenço PB, Trujillo A, Mendes N, Ramos LF (2012) Seismic performance of the St. George of the Latins church: lessons learned from studying masonry ruins. Eng Struct 40:501–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Magenes G, Calvi GM (1997) In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:1091–1112.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199711)26:11%3c1091:AID-EQE693%3e3.0.CO;2-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mangia L, Ghiassi B, Sayın E et al (2016) Pushover analysis of historical Eltihatun Mosque. In: 12th international congress on advances in civil engineering. İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  26. Mendes N (2012) Seismic assessment of ancient masonry buildings: shaking table tests and numerical analysis. PhD Thesis. University of Minho, GuimarãesGoogle Scholar
  27. Nohutcu H, Demir A, Ercan E et al (2015) Investigation of a historic masonry structure by numerical and operational modal analyses. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 24:821–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. NTC (2008) Italian code for structural design (Norme tecniche per le costruzioni—NTC). D.M. 14/01/2008, Official Bulletin no. 29 of February 4th, 2008, In ItalianGoogle Scholar
  29. Orbaşlı A (2007) Architectural conservation: principles and practice. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  30. Ozturk B (2017) Seismic behavior of two monumental buildings in historical Cappadocia region of Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng 15:3103–3123.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0082-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS (1996) Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25:1109–1137.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199610)25:10%3c1109:AID-EQE604%3e3.0.CO;2-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ramos LF, Aguilar R, Lourenço PB (2010a) Operational modal analysis of historical constructions using commercial wireless platforms. Struct Heal Monit 10:511–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramos LF, Marques L, Lourenço PB et al (2010b) Monitoring historical masonry structures with operational modal analysis: two case studies. Mech Syst Signal Process 24:1291–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roca P (2006) The study and restoration of historical structures: from principles to practice. In: Lourenço PB, Roca P, Modena C, Agrawal S (eds) Structural analysis of historical constructions. New Delhi, pp 9–24Google Scholar
  35. Sevim B, Bayraktar A, Altunişik AC et al (2011) Assessment of nonlinear seismic performance of a restored historical arch bridge using ambient vibrations. Nonlinear Dyn 63:755–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silva LC, Mendes N, Lourenço PB, Ingham J (2018) Seismic structural assessment of the Christchurch Catholic Basilica, New Zealand. Structures 15:115–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. TEC (2007) Turkish earthquake code: specifications for the buildings to be constructed in disaster areas. In: Official Gazette no 26454. AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  38. TNO DIANA (2017) User’s manual release 10.2Google Scholar
  39. Tomaževič M (1999) Earthquake-resistant design of masonry building. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. TR-NSMN strong motion database. In: AFAD. kyhdata.deprem.gov.tr
  41. Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:581–626Google Scholar
  42. Valente M, Milani G (2018) Seismic response evaluation and strengthening intervention of two historical masonry churches. In: Milani G, Taliercio A, Garrity S (eds) 10th international masonry conference. MilanGoogle Scholar
  43. Yılmaz N, Avşar Ö (2013) Structural damages of the May 19, 2011, Kütahya–Simav earthquake in Turkey. Nat Hazards 69:981–1001.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0747-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISISE, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of MinhoAzurém, GuimarãesPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringEskişehir Technical UniversityEskişehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations