Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural condition assessment of a historical masonry school building using experimental and numerical methods

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Structural assessment of a historical building requires many different applications, such as in-situ observations, in-situ measurements such as minor destructive or non-destructive tests and numerical analyses. Minor destructive and non-destructive tests such as ultrasonic tests and ambient vibration tests are used to collect data from the structures such as material properties and dynamic characteristics. Also, numerical analyses the enable examination of the structural condition of different load simulations such as static and dynamic loads. Structural-condition assessment of a historical building should be practiced in both experimental and numerical methods to obtain reliable results. This paper includes the structural-condition assessment of a nineeenth-century historical masonry school building. The assessment contains geometrical checking and seismic performance evaluation and requires consideration of relevant code and guidelines. At the end of the analyses, maximum displacements, stresses and strains were obtained and presented in detail using contour diagrams. In terms of the relevant guideline, the building showed a limited damage performance level during the applied earthquake record as follows: 0.16% < 0.3%. The maximum displacement was obtained as 27.8 mm at the top point of the building. Also, the building generally met the code requirements in terms of geometrical properties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35
Fig. 36
Fig. 37
Fig. 38

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferretti F, Ferracuti B, Mazzotti C, Savoia M (2019) Destructive and minor destructive tests on masonry buildings: Experimental results and comparison between shear failure criteria. Constr Build Mater 199:12–29

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anzani A, Binda L, Carpinteri A, Invernizzi S, Lacidogna G (2010) A multilevel approach for the damage assessment of Historic masonry towers. J Cult Herit 11(4):459–470

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gunes B, Cosgun T, Sayin B, Ceylan O (2019) Structural rehabilitation of a Middle Byzantine ruin and the masonry building constructed above the ruin. Part I: The ruin. Eng Fail Anal 105:503–517

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ahunbay Z et al. (2017) “The Turkish guideline for earthquake risk management of historical structures,” in International Symposium on Conservation and Consolidation of Historical Structures, pp. 59–68

  5. Altunişik AC, Genç AF, Günaydin M, Okur FY, Karahasan OŞ (2018) Dynamic response of a historical armory building using the finite element model validated by the ambient vibration test. JVC J Vib Control 24(22):5472–5484

    Google Scholar 

  6. EN 1998–3: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. (2005)

  7. Ministero delle Infrastrutture, NTC 2008- norme tecniche per le costruzioni (2008)

  8. T.R. Directorate General of Foundations., Tarihi Yapılar İçin Deprem Risklerinin Yönetimi Kılavuzu (2017)

  9. Vasanelli E, Colangiuli D, Calia A, Sbartaï ZM, Breysse D (2017) Combining non-invasive techniques for reliable prediction of soft stone strength in historic masonries. Constr Build Mater 146:744–754

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vasanelli E, Calia A, Colangiuli D, Micelli F, Aiello MA (2016) Assessing the reliability of non-destructive and moderately invasive techniques for the evaluation of uniaxial compressive strength of stone masonry units. Constr Build Mater 124:575–581

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vasanelli E, Colangiuli D, Calia A, Sileo M, Aiello MA (2015) Ultrasonic pulse velocity for the evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of a highly porous building limestone. Ultrasonics 60:33–40

    Google Scholar 

  12. Vasanelli Micelli EF, Colangiuli D, Calia A, Aiello MA (2020) “A non destructive testing method for masonry by using UPV and cross validation procedure. Mater Struct. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-01568-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vasanelli Calia EA, Luprano V, Micelli F (2016) “Ultrasonic pulse velocity test for non-destructive investigations of historical masonries: an experimental study of the effect of frequency and applied load on the response of a limestone. Mater Struct. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0892-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kondekar VG, Jaiswal OR, Gupta LM (2018) Ultrasonic pulse velocity testing of gadhi soil adobe bricks. Int J Eng Res Mech Civ Eng 3(1):1290–2456

    Google Scholar 

  15. Edith Estefanía O-T, Jesús P-M, Raudel P-C, Rubén Alfonso L-D (2018) In situ and nondestructive characterization of mechanical properties of heritage stone masonry. Environ Earth Sci. 77:286

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schuller MP, Schuller M Nondestructive testing and damage assessment of masonry structures

  17. Moropoulou A, Labropoulos KC, Delegou ET, Karoglou M, Bakolas A (2013) Non-destructive techniques as a tool for the protection of built cultural heritage. Constr Build Mater 48:1222–1239

    Google Scholar 

  18. Faella G, Frunzio G, Guadagnuolo M, Donadio A, Ferri L (2012) The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem: Non-destructive tests for the structural knowledge. J Cult Herit 13(4 SUPPL.):27–41

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cabboi A, Gentile C, Saisi A (2017) From continuous vibration monitoring to FEM-based damage assessment: Application on a stone-masonry tower. Constr Build Mater 156:252–265

    Google Scholar 

  20. Günaydin M (2019) Seismic performance evaluation of a fire-exposed historical structure using an updated finite element model. Eng Fail Anal 106:104149

    Google Scholar 

  21. Genç AF et al (2019) Dynamic analyses of experimentally-updated FE model of historical masonry clock towers using site-specific seismic characteristics and scaling parameters according to the 2018 Turkey building earthquake code. Eng Fail Anal 105:402–426

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kalkan Okur E et al (2021) Dynamic response of a traditional hımış mansion using updated FE model with operational modal testing. J Build Eng 43:103060

    Google Scholar 

  23. Günaydin M, Demirkir C, Altunişik AC, Gezer ED, Genç AF (2021) Diagnosis and monitoring of historical timber velipaşa han building prior to restoration. Int J Archit Herit. https://doi.org/10.1080/155830581919239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Venanzi I, Kita A, Cavalagli N, Ierimonti L, Ubertini F (2020) Earthquake-induced damage localization in an historic masonry tower through long-term dynamic monitoring and FE model calibration. Bull Earthq Eng 18(5):2247–2274

    Google Scholar 

  25. Giordano PF, Ubertini F, Cavalagli N, Kita A, Masciotta MG (2020) Four years of structural health monitoring of the San Pietro bell tower in Perugia, Italy: Two years before the earthquake versus two years after. Int J Mason Res Innov 5(4):445–467

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pecorelli ML, Ceravolo R, Epicoco R (2018) An automatic modal identification procedure for the permanent dynamic monitoring of the Sanctuary of Vicoforte. Int J Architect Herit 14(4): 630–644 https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1554725

  27. Masciotta MG, Ramos LF (2019) Dynamic identification of historic masonry structures,” Long-term Perform. Durab Mason Struct Degrad Mech Heal Monit Serv Life Des 241–264

  28. Azzara RM, Girardi M, Iafolla V, Lucchesi DM, Padovani C, Pellegrini D “Ambient vibrations of age-old masonry towers: results of long-term dynamic monitoring in the historic centre of Lucca,” 15(1): 5–21 https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1695155

  29. Sayin B, Yildizlar B, Akcay C, Gunes B (2019) The retrofitting of historical masonry buildings with insufficient seismic resistance using conventional and non-conventional techniques. Eng Fail Anal 97:454–463

    Google Scholar 

  30. Valente M (2022) “Seismic behavior and damage assessment of two historical fortified masonry palaces with corner towers.” Eng Fail Anal 134

  31. Hadzima-Nyarko M, Mišetić V, Morić D (2017) Seismic vulnerability assessment of an old historical masonry building in Osijek, Croatia, using Damage Index. J Cult Herit 28:140–150

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mosoarca M, Onescu I, Onescu E, Anastasiadis A (2020) Seismic vulnerability assessment methodology for historic masonry buildings in the near-field areas. Eng Fail Anal 115

  33. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of Turkey, Turkish Building Earthquake Code (2018)

  34. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of Turkey, Turkish Earthquake Code, Specification for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas. Turkey (2007)

  35. Gentile C, Saisi A (2007) Ambient vibration testing of historic masonry towers for structural identification and damage assessment. Constr Build Mater 21(6):1311–1321

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bayraktar A, Türker T, Sevim B, Altunişik AC, Yildirim F (2009) Modal parameter identification of Hagia Sophia bell-tower via ambient vibration test. J Nondestruct Eval 28(1):37–47

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bayraktar A, Altunişik AC, Sevim B, Türker T (2011) Seismic response of a historical masonry minaret using a finite element model updated with operational modal testing. JVC J Vib Control 17(1):129–149

    Google Scholar 

  38. Atamturktur S, Laman JA (2012) Finite element model correlation and calibration of historic masonry monuments: Review. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 21(2):96–113

    Google Scholar 

  39. Osmancikli G, Uaçk Ş, Turan FN, Türker T, Bayraktar A (2012) Investigation of restoration effects on the dynamic characteristics of the Hagia Sophia bell-tower by ambient vibration test. Constr Build Mater 29:564–572

    Google Scholar 

  40. Foti D, Diaferio M, Giannoccaro NI, Mongelli M (2012) Ambient vibration testing, dynamic identification and model updating of a historic tower. NDT E Int 47:88–95

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cakir F, Seker BS, Durmus A, Dogangun A, Uysal H (2015) Seismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by experimental tests and finite element analyses. KSCE J Civ Eng 19(1):158–164

    Google Scholar 

  42. Elyamani A, Roca P, Caselles O, Clapes J (2017) Seismic safety assessment of historical structures using updated numerical models: The case of Mallorca cathedral in Spain. Eng Fail Anal 74:54–79

    Google Scholar 

  43. Altunisik AC, Adanur S, Genc AF, Gunaydin M, Okur FY (2017) An Investigation of the seismic behaviour of an ancient masonry bastion using non-destructive and numerical methods. Exp Mech 57(2):245–259

    Google Scholar 

  44. Altunisik AC, Kalkan E, Okur FY, Ozgan K, Karahasan O, Bostanci A (2019) Non-destructive modal parameter identification of historical timber bridges using ambient vibration tests after restoration. Meas J Int Meas Confed 146:411–424

    Google Scholar 

  45. “File:Turkey location map,” Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. [Online]. Available: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Turkey_location_map.svg&oldid=370267878. [Accessed: 30-Jan-2020].

  46. Yuka A, Uslu MA, Demir MN (2019) “Yavuz Selim İlköğretim Okulu Sanat Tarihi Araştırma Raporu,” Trabzon

  47. “Turkey’s new earthquake hazard map,” Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Agency, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.afad.gov.tr.

  48. “ANSYS Mechanical APDL.” Swanson analysis system Inc, Pennysylvania, USA

  49. Lourenço PB (1996) “Computational strategies for masonry structures,” Delft

  50. Lourenço PB (2002) Computations on historic masonry structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 4(3):301–319

    Google Scholar 

  51. “Pulse.” Bruel and Kjaer, Sound and Vibration Measurement A/S, Denmark (2006)

  52. “OMA.” Structural Vibration Solution A/S, Denmark (2006)

  53. Bendat JS, Piersol AG (2010) Random data Analysis and Measurement Procedures

  54. Felber AJ (1994) Development of Hybrid Bridge Evaluation System,” University of British Columbia

  55. Peeters B (2000) System Identification and Damage Detection in Civil Engineering. K.U, Leuven

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rainieri C, Fabbrocino G, Cosenza E, Manfredi G (2007) Implementation of OMA procedures using labview: Theory and application,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Operational Modal Analysis Conference, IOMAC

  57. Peeters B, De Roeck G (2000) Reference based stochastic subspace identification in Civil Engineering. Inverse Probl Eng 8(1):47–74

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ewins DJ (1984) Modal Testing: Theory and Practice. New York: Letchworth, Hertfordshire, England: Research Studies Press

  59. Juang JN (1994) Applied System Identification. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs (NJ)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Jacobsen NJ, Andersen P, Brincker R (2006) “Using enhanced frequency domain decomposition as a robust technique to harmonic excitation in operational modal analysis,” in Proceedings of ISMA2006: International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering.

  61. Van Overschee P, De Moor B (1996) “Subspace Identification for Linear Systems.” Subsp Identif Linear Syst

  62. Jacobsen NJ, Andersen P, Brincker R (2007) “Using EFDD as a robust technique for deterministic excitation in operational modal analysis,” in Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Operational Modal Analysis Conference, pp. 193–200

  63. Allemang RJ (2003) The modal assurance criterion - Twenty years of use and abuse. Sound Vib 37(8):14–23

    Google Scholar 

  64. Mesquita E, Martini R, Alves A, Antunes P, Varum H (2018) Non-destructive characterization of ancient clay brick walls by indirect ultrasonic measurements. J Build Eng 19:172–180

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kakavas-Papaniaros PA, Baros DK, Kalapodis NA, Anifantis NK (2018) Prediction of mechanical properties of thick concrete members or masonries utilizing ultrasonics. Procedia Struct Integr 10:311–318

    Google Scholar 

  66. McCann DM, Forde MC (2001) Review of NDT methods in the assessment of concrete and masonry structures. NDT E Int 34(2):71–84

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ramamoorthy SK, Kane Y, Turner JA (2004) Ultrasound diffusion for crack depth determination in concrete. J Acoust Soc Am 115(2):523–529

    Google Scholar 

  68. Aggelis DG, Shiotani T (2007) Repair evaluation of concrete cracks using surface and through-transmission wave measurements. Cem Concr Compos 29(9):700–711

    Google Scholar 

  69. Aggelis DG, Shiotani T, Momoki S, Hirama A (2009) Acoustic emission and ultrasound for damage characterization of concrete elements. ACI Mater J 106(6):509–514

    Google Scholar 

  70. Uyanık O, Gülay FG, Tezcan S (2012) “Beton Dayanımının Tahribatsız Ultrasonik Yöntemle Tayini.” Hazır Bet 82–85

  71. Uyanık O, Şenli G, Çatlıoğlu B (2013) Determination from non-destructive geophysics methods of concrete quality of buildings. SDU Int J Technol Sci 5(2):156–165

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ercan A (2003) Yapı İnceleme Yöntemleri / Mühendislik Jeofiziği Dizisi - II. Birsen Yayınevi

  73. Freund L. B., Dynamic Fracture Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

  74. Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR (1974) Formation velocity and density - the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39(6):770–780

    Google Scholar 

  75. Fema 274 (1997) “NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” Fed. Emerg. Manag. Agency, Washington, DC, Dev by Appl. Technol. Counc

  76. ASCE Standard, Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. (2007)

  77. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seimic Rehabilitation of Buildings. (2000)

  78. Abbas N et al. (2010) Classification of the cultural heritage assets , description of the target performances and identification of damage measures Deliverable D4, Performance-Based Approach to Earthquake Protection of Cultural Heritage in European and Mediterranean Countries

  79. Holzer HL et al. (2000) “Implications for earthquake risk reduction in the United States from the Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake of August 17, 1999,” US Geol. Surv. Circ

  80. “PEER Ground Motion Database,” Shallow Crustal Earthquakes in Active Tectonic Regimes, NGA-West2, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu.

  81. Sousa Oliveira C (2003) Seismic vulnerability of historical constructions: a contribution. Bull Earthq Eng 1:37–82

    Google Scholar 

  82. Lourenço PB, Karanikoloudis G (2018) Seismic behavior and assessment of masonry heritage structures.Needs in engineering judgement and education. RILEM Tech Lett 3:114–120

    Google Scholar 

  83. Saretta Y, Sbrogiò L, Valluzzi MR (2021) Seismic response of masonry buildings in historical centres struck by the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. Calibration of a vulnerability model for strengthened conditions. Constr Build Mater https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123911

  84. Shabani A, Kioumarsi M, Zucconi M (2021) State of the art of simplified analytical methods for seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. Eng Struct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112280

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out using a measurement system provided by projects from TUBITAK and Karadeniz Technical University under Research Grant Nos. 106M038, 2005.112.001.1 and 2006.112.001.1, respectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey

    Murat Günaydin, Ali Fuat Genç, Ahmet Can Altunışık, Kemal Haciefendioğlu, Fatih Yesevi Okur, Ebru Okur & Süleyman Adanur

Authors
  1. Murat Günaydin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Fuat Genç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmet Can Altunışık
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kemal Haciefendioğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fatih Yesevi Okur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ebru Okur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Süleyman Adanur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murat Günaydin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Günaydin, M., Genç, A.F., Altunışık, A.C. et al. Structural condition assessment of a historical masonry school building using experimental and numerical methods. J Civil Struct Health Monit 12, 1083–1113 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-022-00597-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-022-00597-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation