Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Seismic Performance of Historical and Monumental Structures

By Halil Sezen and Adem Dogangun

Reviewed: July 5th 2012Published: August 8th 2012

DOI: 10.5772/51338

Downloaded: 2680

1. Introduction

Historical, religious and monumental structures and their susceptibility to damage in recent earthqaukes in Turkey are presented and discussed in this chapter. Turkey has a very large number of historical structures and is located in one of the most seismically active regions of the world. Some of these historical and monumental masonry and reinforced concrete structures suffered substantial damage or collapsed during two major earthquakes in 1999. The Kocaeli (Mw7.4) and Düzce (Mw7.2) earthquakes occurred on August 17 and November 12, 1999, and ruptured approximately 110 km and 40 km of the 1550-km-long North Anatolian fault, respectively. This chapter describes briefly the construction materials and techniques for historical religious and monumental structures and state-of-practice in Turkey, and presents dynamic analyses of a masonry minaret example. The seismic performance of the mosques and minarets (tall slender towers) during the 1999 earthquakes is presented.

2. Seismic design and construction practice in Turkey

Prior to the 1999 earthquakes, two codes governed the design and construction of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings in Turkey: Turkish Earthquake Code (1998) and the Turkish Building Code, TS-500 (1985). The earthquake code included procedures for calculating earthquake loads on buildings. The ductility requirements and details described in the earthquake code were rarely observed in religious or monumental structures inspected by the authors after the 1999 earthquakes. Details of the seismic design and building construction practice prior to the 1999 earthquakes are provided in Sezen et al. (2003).

The descriptions of ground motion characteristics, structural damage, and performance of structures during these earthquakes are provided in Sezen et al. (2003). Response spectra for selected acceleration histories for 5% damping are presented in Figure 1. The ground motions included in Figure 1 were recorded at: SKR station in Adapazari (Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.41g, stiff soil); YPT station in Yarimca (PGA 0.23g, soft soil); and DZC station in Düzce (PGAs: EW-Aug.17 0.36g, NS-Aug.17 0.31g, EW-Nov.12 0.54g, and NS-Nov.12 0.35g, soft soil). Figure 1 also provides a comparison between the linear elastic acceleration response spectra calculated for rock and that calculated for soft soil sites using the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997) and those of the Turkish seismic code (1998) with 5 percent damping for the highest seismicity in the United States and in Turkey, respectively. From Figure 1, it can be concluded that, for a structure with given periods of vibration, the difference between the base shear calculated using the 1998 Turkish seismic code and the base shear demand obtained from the recorded acceleration response spectra do not differ significantly. If the static lateral load distribution over the height is suggested by the code is assumed to be credible, structures designed and detailed according to the Turkish code should not have collapsed or suffered severe damage during the 1999 earthquakes.

Specifically, according to Figure 1, a structure with a fundamental period of 0.5 seconds would be subjected to seismic forces larger than those specified in the code. The period of older masonry structures with thick and shorter walls tends to be relatively small, probably 0.5 seconds or less. On the other hand, the minarets or very slender towers tend to be very flexible with relatively large fundamental periods. Figure 1 shows that the recorded spectral accelerations are significantly large at large periods. The authors‘ field observations after the 1999 earthquakes, especially the November 12 Duzce earthquake (DZC), showed more damage in slender structures like minarets. In addition, among other factors leading to inadequate performance, the extent of damage observed in most reinforced concrete structures including minarets after the 1999 earthquakes is probably related to poor engineering and lack of conformance to the relatively new Turkish seismic code.

Figure 1.

Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra

2.1. Construction materials and deterioration of historical structures

In the region affected by the earthquakes, in general, construction materials include stone or brick masonry and wood for older mosques and minarets, steel and reinforced concrete in more recently constructed structures. Typically locally available stone blocks were used. A special mortar called Horasan mortar was used in historical masonry structures. The Horasan mortar is made by mixing lime with baked clay powder that could be obtained by grinding clay tiles or bricks. The Horasan mortar was commonly used in the Middle East, where use of earthenware, pottery and brick construction were widespread (Çamlıbel 1988).

Hollow clay tiles or lightweight concrete blocks are used as infill wall material in recently built reinforced concrete (RC) moment frame mosques. Solid clay bricks were used in infill walls of RC mosques built before early 1970s. Almost all historical religious structures in Turkey were constructed using cut stone, masonry blocks or combination of these two materials. Timber construction is rare and reinforced concrete is relatively recent. The structural and geometrical properties of each masonry structure depend on many factors including the structural knowledge and applications at the time of construction, experience of the architect or engineer, seismicity of the region, and availability of construction materials in that area. Recent earthquakes in Turkey have shown that most masonry monumental structures as well as buildings (Ural et al. 2012) in high seismic regions are vulnerable to structural damage and collapse.

Historical structures deteriorate over time mainly due to environmental effects, and therefore may experience failure or collapse under gravity loads or seismic loads lower than those predicted by the design codes. As discussed in Dogangun and Sezen (2012) and Sezen and Dogangun (2009), in many cases, the following factors trigger or exacerbate the damage: (1) Surface or rain water runoff. If the structure and drainage system are not maintained properly, grass or fungus may grow and weaken the structural materials. Water accumulated on or penetrated into structural members may cause cracks due to freezing and thawing. (2) Soil settlement and relative movement of foundation. (3) Insufficient material strength. Layers of clay or other impure materials inside stone blocks may eventually lead to wearing, spalling or cracking. In stone masonry structures, the properties of the mortar significantly influence the strength of the entire structural component such as a load bearing wall. Deterioration of mortar binding the stone blocks, especially poor quality mortar including mud or low quality lime, can reduce the strength and stiffness of the wall considerably. (4) Other problems. Historical structures can be subjected to various environmental and loading conditions depending on their use and geographic location. For example, timber is more susceptible to humidity and temperature variations. Loading from continuous traffic and heavy trucks can lead to vibrations and excessive loads on foundations because the streets and other structures in historical cities are not designed for modern day traffic. Similarly, the use or occupancy of the structure may change and create larger unexpected loads. Parts of older structures are sometimes used as storage, in which the magnitudes of loads are usually much higher. Other local and environmental effects, such as acid rains, may adversely affect construction materials.

Most of the factors presented here result in gradual deterioration of materials or the load carrying structural system, which can be prevented as the damage progresses and becomes visible in many cases. On the other hand, structural damage, failure or total structural collapse occurs suddenly during moderate or strong earthquakes. Thus, it is essential to evaluate the capacity of existing historical structures and to retrofit them before an expected earthquake strikes.

2.2. Construction practice and techniques

Overall plan dimension of a typical mosque generally varies between 12 and 25 meters. Depending on the plan dimensions, height ranges from 7 m to 15 m not including the dome. Height of the dome, a half sphere, is typically half of the plan dimension (Figure 2). Lateral seismic loads are typically resisted by relatively thick unreinforced stone masonry walls in historical mosques. Addition to load bearing masonry walls, most mosques include a few columns typically carrying the gravity loads.

Figure 2.

Typical mosque and its minarets in Turkey

Minarets can be separate or contiguous and integral with the mosque structure, and are typically built using stone, brick, wood or reinfroced concrete. They typically include cylindrical or polygonal body/shafts, one or two balconies, and a conical roof or spire (Figure 2). In masonry minarets or slender tower structures, rather small tensile strength of mortar placed between the masonry blocks presents a major problem in regions of high seismicity. The brick or stone blocks have fairly large compressive strength, however unreinforced masonry lacks tensile strength required to resist bending moments imposed by the lateral earthquake loads. Older masonry minarets were typically constructed using stone blocks or solid clay bricks or a combination of two, whereas unreinforced lightweight stone blocks are preferred in new construction.

After a major earthquake in 1509, Ottoman architects tackled the problem of constructing tall earthquake resistant minarets (Oğuzmert, 2002). They started to use a special technique for linking adjacent stone blocks with iron bars and clamps in the vertical and horizontal directions as shown in Figure 3 (Doğangün et al. 2007). Use of iron clamps in the two perpendicular directions (transverse and vertical) has improved the lateral load carrying capacity of slender masonry minarets significantly under earthquake loads. The clamps and vertical bars were placed inside anchorage holes in the stone blocks, and melted lead was poured inside the hole to provide bond between the stone and iron clamp or vertical bars. Depending on the properties and dimensions of the stone units, different clamps were developed. For example, as shown in Figure 4a, curved clamps were used within the circular stone wall on the minaret perimeter. Sharper and thinner clamps in thin stone blocks (Figure 4b) and shorter clamps were used if low tensile stresses are expected (Figure 4c). Approximately 2000 kilograms of this heavy metal, lead was used for the construction of a typical masonry minaret. Lead performs as intended for a very long time because it does not corrode or is hardly ever influenced by the adverse environmental conditions.

3. Post-earthquake surveys

The data presented here are based on observations from two surveys conducted after the August 17 and November 12, 1999 earthquakes. Damage to historical and recently constructed mosques and minarets was documented to investigate the seismic performance of these structures. The main objectives of these surveys were to provide detailed information about the characteristics of the observed damage, and to study the relative vulnerability of these historical and modern structures to strong ground motions. The parameters considered in the survey included: type of construction material, minaret height, location and description of damage, and location (coordinates, if available). Vast majority of the surveyed minarets and mosques were located in the cities of Düzce and Bolu. The peak ground accelerations recorded in Düzce during both earthquakes were larger than 0.30g (Figure 1), whereas that recorded in Bolu was reported as 0.82g after the November 12, 1999 earthquake.

Structural performance levels and corresponding representative sample damage descriptions for mosques and minarets are shown in Table 1. It should be noted that non-structural damage is irrelevant for minarets. In general, damage to the non-structural components of the mosques was insignificant as compared to the total structural damage.

A total of 59 sites were visited after the October 12, 1999 Duzce earthquake (second earthquake). The name, location, construction date, and observed damage levels are provided in Tables 2 and 3. The first 22 mosques listed in Table 2 were located in the city of Duzce and neighboring town of Kaynasli. Mosques numbered 23 through 44 were located in the city of Bolu.

Figure 3.

Construction of traditional Turkish minarets using stone blocks reinforced and anchored with iron bars and clamps (Dogangun et al. 2007)

Figure 4.

Variations in iron clamps used in historical stone masonry walls

Sample damage description (mosque)Sample damage description (minaret)
IILightMinor cracks in primary structural componentsMinor cracks in masonry or RC minarets
IIIModerateSignificant cracks in RC members or masonry wallsSignificant cracks especially around the minaret base
IVMajorHinge formation and wide cracks in primary RC members Infill wall collapsePermanent visible drift
Wide cracks and concrete spalling
VCollapsePartial or total collapseCollapse

Table 1.

Structural damage description and classification for mosques and minarets

NameLocation (coordinates)Construction dateDamage level
1.Sirali Koyu40o 49.246’31o 11.544’1987LightCollapse
2.Kocyazi Koyu40o 50.569’31o 10.249’1977-79LightCollapse
3.Karaca40o 50.733’31o 09.950’1970sCollapseCollapse
4.Hamidiye40o 50.838’31o 09.518’1980sLightLight
5.Rumelipalas40o 50.877’31o 08.444’1972NoneNone
6.Uzun Mustafa40o 50.755’31o 08.736’1989NoneCollapse
7.Kultur Mahallesi40o 50.623’31o 09.257’-NoneModerate
8.Otopark40o 50.446’31o 09.119’1971-73NoneModerate
9.Aydinpinar40o 49.796’31o 09.190’1994LightCollapse
10.Yesil40o 49.966’31o 09.480’1990NoneCollapse
11.Asar40o 50.012’31o 09.650’1977NoneModerate
12.AzmimilliYeni40o 49.897’31o 10.087’1988NoneCollapse
13.Mimar Sinan Nur40o 50.006’31o 10.236’1988-91NoneCollapse
14.Maresal F.Cakmak40o 49.928’31o 10.525’1990LightCollapse
15.Huzur40o 49.680’31o 11.324’1986NoneNone
16.Topalakli40o 49.606’31o 11.539’1951LightNone
17.Kirazli Koyu40o 48.918’31o 12.844’1965NoneNone
18.Doganli Koyu40o 48.182’31o 14.190’1981-94NoneNone
19.Uckopru Merkez40o 47.662’31o 15.018’1985NoneLight
20.Yesiltepe40o 46.690’31o 17.467’1986-90CollapseCollapse
21.Karacaali40o 46.496’31o 18.204’1992-94NoneModerate
22.Kaynasli merkez40o 46.406’31o 19.138’-CollapseCollapse
23.Sanayi40o 44.280’31o 37.562’1988NoneNone
24.Kultur40o 44.507’31o 36.340’1990NoneLight
25.Oksuztekke40o 44.488’31o 35.851’1993MajorCollapse
26.Ozayan40o 44.638’31o 35.405’1996NoneModerate
27.Beskonaklar Yeni40o 44.263’31o 35.599’1997Moderate-
28.Pasakoy Berberler40o 43.942’31o 34.096’1987NoneNone
29.Pasakoy Eniste40o 43.803’31o 34.689’1997NoneLight
30.Sumer40o 43.575’31o 35.587’1992-95NoneLight
31.Sumer Mah. Yeni40o 43.468’31o 35.297’1983NoneNone
32.Karacayir Siteler40o 43.577’31o 36.033’1998-99None-
33.Semsi AhmetPasa40o 43.852’31o 36.635’14th centMajorCollapse
34.Sarachane40o 43.935’31o 36.513’17th centLightNone
35.Yildirim Bayezid40o 44.040’31o 36.576’1804MajorNone
36.Kadi40o 43.901’31o 36.459’1499MajorCollapse
37.Aslahaddin40o 43.981’31o 36.732’1978NoneNone
38.Balci40o 43.885’31o 37.111’1990NoneNone
39.Aktas40o 43.783’31o 36.650’1900sMajorNone
40.Karacayir40o 43.825’31o 36.515’1946NoneNone
41.Kabaklar40o 44.859’31o 36.111’1981NoneNone
42.Camli40o 44.243’31o 35.841’1980sMajorNone
43.Sultanzade40o 44.249’31o 35.817’1930sMajorMajor
44.Yesil40o 44.170’31o 36.170’1966MajorNone

Table 2.

Damage to the minarets and mosques surveyed in Duzce and Bolu

45Cumhuriyet Mah.Duzce, downtownNoneCollapse
46MerkezDuzce, downtownMajorCollapse
47Cedidiye MerkezDuzce, downtownLightCollapse
48YuvacikYuvacik village, near GolcukMajor-
49Asagi YuvacikYuvacik village, near GolcukNoneNone
51YalovaYalova, downtownLightNone
52Izmit (1)Izmit, next to highway E5LightCollapse
53Izmit (2)Izmit, next to highway TEMNoneLight
54Izmit (3)Izmit, downtownMajorLight
55GolyakaGolyaka, downtownMajorCollapse
56Suleymanbey5 km east of GolyakaCollapse-
57Golcuk (1)4 km west of downtownMajor-
58Golcuk (2)Near Ford plant, west of cityCollapseModerate
59Dariyeri HasanbeyiEast of Duzce (a village)MajorLight

Table 3.

Damage to the other mosques and minarets visited (coordinates not available)

Before mid-1960s, major construction materials were wood and stone or brick masonry. Most of the recently constructed mosques and minarets were reinforced concrete. All of the reinforced concrete mosques were built after 1965. In older mosques, solid bricks were used in infill walls. Hollow clay tiles were used as infill material in the mosques built after late 1970s. As shown in Figure 5, 84 percent of the minarets surveyed in Duzce and Kaynasli were reinforced concrete, whereas only 46 percent of the minarets were reinforced concrete in Bolu. Unreinforced stone masonry was commonly used in old minarets as well as in the minarets constructed in recent years.

4. Observed earthquake damage

The Figure 6 shows the damage distribution for the mosques and minarets surveyed. Damage distribution for RC mosques and minarets are presented in Figures 6c and 6d separately.

Figure 5.

Type of construction for (a) mosques, (b) minarets in Bolu; and (c) mosques, and (d) minarets in Duzce and Kaynasli (number of mosques/minarets is given in parenthesis)

Figure 6.

Damage distribution for (a) all mosques and (b) all minarets, and damage distribution for (c) RC mosques and (d) RC minarets

Comparison of Figures 6a and 6c indicates that the damage in RC mosques was less as compared to other structural systems. More than ten percent of the mosques surveyed collapsed. Three of the 26 mosques surveyed in Duzce and Kaynasli region collapsed. There was no collapsed mosque in Bolu, but five of the 21 mosques surveyed had to be closed after the October 12, 1999 earthquake. Closed Mosques in Bolu were Semsi Ahmet Pasa (Imaret), Yildirim Bayezid, Kadi, Camli and Yesil. Note that the first three of these mosques are at least 200 years old.

As illustrated in Figures 6b and 6d, percentage of all damaged minarets and only RC minarets are similar. Almost forty percent of the minarets collapsed, and approximately one third of the minarets were undamaged. Failure plane for almost all collapsed RC minarets was within 1.5 meter long region above the minaret base or pyramid-shaped transition segment (Figure 7a), where the longitudinal reinforcing bars were usually spliced. Horizontal circumferential cracks and spalling of concrete were commonly observed at the bottom of the cylindrical body of RC minarets (Figure 7a). Frequently, flexural cracks, concrete crushing or spalling was observed in this region of the damaged RC minarets. As shown in Figure 7, less frequently collapse or damage occurred within the transition segment and middle of the cylindrical body or near the top of the minaret.

Figure 7.

Collapse of a minaret near the bottom of cylinder (left), minaret damage within transition segment (middle), and collapsed minaret at mid-height of cylinder (right)

The ratio of collapsed or damaged unreinforced solid brick or stone masonry minarets was much larger than that of RC minarets. As listed in Table 4, majority of the visited masonry minarets collapsed (Sezen et al. 2003, and Firat 1999). Note that most of these minarets were either very new or few hundred years old (Tables 2 and 3). A minaret may either have an independent foundation (referred to as Type I minaret hereafter) or the base of the minaret may be attached to the roof of the mosque (referred to as Type II minaret). The minarets in Figures 2 and 7 are Type I and II minarets, respectively. In Type II minarets, the minaret and mosque structure respond independently. Large deformatiosn or failure in one structure does not affect the other one.

Lateral laod resisting mechanism of minarets are quite different from that of other structures. The height of center of minaret’s mass can be very high above ground, resulting in large bending moments and shear forces. Masonry minarets without reinforcement or clamps (Figures 3 and 4) and with weak mortat are the most vulnerable against earthquakes. Masonry minarets typically either collapsed or suffered minor or no damage. This suggests that these minarets had no ductility or very limited deformation capacity. If the demand due to lateral earthquake forces is less than minaret’s ultimate strength, minaret behaves elastically and suffers no damage. However, as soon as lateral demand exceeds the elastic capacity, the minaret collapses. Unlike RC minarets, masonry minarets failed at different locations along the height of the minaret inconsistently (Figure 8). The Imaret and Kadi mosques and possibly their minarets were 600 and 500 year old, respectively. As shown in Figures 8a and 8b, their minarets collapsed at the bottom of the cylindrical body. On the other hand, the Oksuztekke minaret collapsed at its mid-height (Figure 8c). Oksuztekke mosque was constructed only six years before the 1999 earthquakes (Table 2).

NameCityLocation or coordinatesTypeObserved damage
Aziziye MerkezDüzce40.50N-31.08EIIFailed at the bottom of cylinders and collapsed
Cedidiye MerkezDüzce40.50N-31.09EIFailed at the bottom of cylinders and collapsed
OksuztekkeBolu40.44.488N-31.35.851EIMinaret segment above the 2nd balcony level collapsed
Semsi Ahmet Pasa (Imaret)Bolu40.43.852N-31.36.635EIFailed near the bottom of the cylinder and collapsed
SarachaneBolu40.43.935N-31.36.513EICracks in stone blocks in the mosque – no observed minaret damage
Yildirim BayezidBolu40.44.040N-31.36.576EIIDislocation of stone blocks in the mosque – no obserevd damage in minarets
KadiBolu40.43.901N-31.36.495EISevere damage to mosque, minaret collapsed

Table 4.

Masonry minarets surveyed after the 1999 earthquakes

4.1. Earthquake damage in historical mosques

Among the historical mosques surveyed, Düzce Merkez, 600-year-old Imaret, 500-year-old Kadi, 300-year-old Sarachane, and 200-year-old Yildirim Bayezid mosques observed to suffer significant structural damage after the 1999 earthquakes (Dognagun and Sezen, 2012). The Yıldırım Bayezid mosque was originally built in 1382 and was burned down in the 19th century. A new structure was constructed after the fire, and it was severely damaged during a 7.3 magnitude earthquake in 1944. The mosque was damaged during the 1999 earthquakes and was closed for a period of time. On the south side of the mosque, portion of the walls above and below the windows were subjected to larger shear stresses (compared to solid wall sections) during the strong ground shaking. Higher shear demand in those parts of the relatively thick walls created serious cracks and openings between the stone blocks (Figure 9). As shown in Figure 9 (middle photo), portion of the walls above and below the windows act, in a sense, like short columns during the earthquake. Larger shear demand in those parts of the relatively thick walls created wide cracks between the stones.

Figure 8.

Failures near the bottom and mid-height of the masonry cylindrical minaret body: (a) Imaret, (b) Kadi, and c) Oksuztekke mosques in Bolu

Figure 9.

Wall damage and plan view of historical Yildirim Bayezid mosque in Bolu

Another historical mosque, Kadi (Figures 8b and 10a) sustained substantial damage including large cracks around historical entrance door, severe cracks and stone dislocations in the 1.5 m wide unreinforced stone masonry perimeter walls. Damage was mostly concentrated below or above the windows. The missing two key keystones and dislocated stones on top of the upper window are visible in Figure 10a. The reduced wall area along the vertical section through the windows was stressed more, causing considerable damage in those wall areas. The stone masonry minaret collapsed right above its base because the minaret base was integral with minaret walls (Figure 8b) and was quite stiff compared to the cylindrical minaret body.

The Imaret mosque, one of the oldest structures in the region, and its minaret were built using stones and small solid bricks bounded by a thick layer of mortar. The mortar between the bricks is typically as thick as the bricks. Old brick masonry minaret collapsed and Imaret mosque was closed after the 1999 earthquakes due to cracks in the walls (Sezen et al. 2003). The 1999 earthquakes caused very limited damage to the 300-year-old Sarachane mosque and there was no visible damage to its minaret. Some large cracks were observed in the walls at locations similar to those observed in other mosques discussed in this paper. Figure 10b and 10c show examples of couple such cracks; one immediately above a window and another in a corner near the roof.

Figure 10.

a) cracks developed in the walls and above windows of Kadi; and b, c) damage in in the walls of Sarachane mosque

5. Dynamic analysis of representative masonry minarets

Although numerous collapses and structural damage to minarets and mosques were documented after strong earthquakes, only few researchers investigated the seismic behavior and performance of minarets (Sezen et al. 2008, Portioli et al. 2011, Turk and Cosgun 2012, Altunisik 2012, Oliveira et al. 2012). It is essential to understand the dynamic behavior of these structures to improve the life safety and to preserve and strengthen the historical monumental structures. In this research, as an example, dynamic modeling and seismic analysis of unreinforced masonry minarets is presented.

Recently, a study was conducted by the authors to investigate the seismic response of reinforced concrete (RC) and masonry minarets (Dogangun et al. 2008, and Sezen et al. 2008). Modal analysis and dynamic time history analyses were conducted. Strength and deformation capacities of the RC and unreinforced masonry models are influenced by unique differences in material properties, including weight, modulus elasticity, and Poisson’s ratio. For example, the flexural strength of an unreinforced masonry model is significantly lower as the reinforcing steel in a similar RC model provides tensile resistance. While Sezen et al. 2008 investigates distinct parameters affecting the behavior of RC minarets using a single model, the example presented below examines the effect of masonry material properties and minaret height on the minaret response using three different models. Detailed modeling properties and analysis results are presented in Dogangun et al. (2008).

Although the height of a minaret varies greatly depending on many factors such as the location or construction materials used, the height of a typical minaret with a single balcony over its height is about 20 to 25 m. In this research, two generic minarets with a height of 25 and 30 m and double balconies (Minaret I and Minaret II) and another 20 m tall minaret with a single balcony (Minaret III) were modeled and analyzed. As shown in Figures 11 and 12, only the height of the cylindrical minaret body was varied while the geometrical properties of the base or boot, transition segment, balconies and conical cap were kept the same in all three models. It should be noted that not all conical caps at the top of the masonry minarets are constructed using masonry materials. For uniformity, all minarets including the conical caps are modeled with the same masonry material in this study.

The finite element models of the three minarets are shown in Figure 12, and significant mode shapes of a typical minaret are shown in Figure 13 (Sezen et al. 2008). The computer program, ANSYS was used to model and analyze the minarets (see Dogangun et al. 2008 for details). In the models, the modulus of elasticity of uncracked section, Poisson’s ratio and unit weight of masonry material (ordinary limestone) are taken as 3000 MPa, 0.2, and 20 kN/m3, respectively. In the models, linear elastic material models and five percent damping ratio is used in all dynamic time history analyses. It is assumed that the minaret is located in a high seismic region Zone 1 in Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC, 2007). Considering the TEC, a structural behavior factor, R of 3 and an importance factor, I of 1.2 can be used for such structures.

Dynamic time history analyses are carried out for each minaret model using two ground motions recorded during the 12 November, 1999 Duzce and 17 August, 1999 Kocaeli earthquakes (see Dogangun et al. 2008 for details). The input ground motion was applied only in one horizontal direction. The modal periods of the minaret models (calculated from the modal analysis) and their contribution to the total dynamic response are calculated. The modal periods are greatly affected by the height of the minaret which affects the total mass and flexural stiffness. The calculated first or fundamental periods were 1.41, 0.90, and 0.51 seconds for the minaret models I, II, and III, respectively. The calculated modal response quantities indicate that the contribution of higher mode effects to total dynamic response is significant. The first mode contribution to the total response is about 47 or 49 percent. The torsional or the fifth mode has virtually no effect on the total response of the almost symmetrical minaret structures.

Figure 11.

Three minaret models and their geometrical and cross-sectional properties

Figure 12.

Finite element models of the three minarets

Figure 13.

First two translational and the seventh mode shapes for a typical model

Figure 14.

Lateral displacement distribution over the height of minarets for Duzce and Kocaeli ground motions

Figure 14 shows the calculated maximum elastic lateral displacement distribution along the length of three minaret models subjected to 1999 Duzce and Kocaeli earthquake ground motions. As shown in Figure 14 the deflected shapes of the minarets appear to show flexure dominated response with the largest displacements calculated at the top. Although the minarets act as cantilevers, the deformations are much smaller over the height of relatively stiff 6 m high base or boot. The displacements start to increase above the transition segment at about 8 m from ground level. The maximum dynamic displacement of Minaret I is 88% larger for the Kocaeli input motion (0.291 m) than that for the Duzce ground motion (0.154 m), although the maximum acceleration of the Duzce motion was larger. For the other two shorter minarets Minaret I and II, the maximum calculated displacements are larger for the Duzce ground motion. The maximum dynamic lateral displacement of 0.29 m calculated for the 30 m tall minaret under Kocaeli earthquake exceeds the TEC (2007) code limit of 0.20 m for the Minaret I model (Dogangun et al. 2008).

The most critical axial stress contours calculated during the dynamic analysis of minaret models are shown in Figure 15. The maximum tensile and compressive stresses occur at a height of 8 m, immediately above the transition zone (Figure 12). This is consistent with the most common minaret failure mode observed in the field after the earthquakes (Figures 7a, 8a and 8b). The minaret models used here were stand-alone fixed-ended cantilevers, which did have any lateral support over their height. Nevertheless, in some cases one side of the minaret boot or base (bottom 6 m of the minaret models) are supported by or attached to the mosque structure (Type II in Table 4, e.g., Figures 8a and 8b). Such a partial lateral support, even on one side, provides added stiffness near the bottom of the minaret. This will further increase failure potential at the top of the transition zone as shown in Figures 7a, 8a, 8b and 14.

Figure 15.

Maximum stress contours for Minaret-I under: a) Duzce, and b) Kocaeli records

6. Summary and conclusions

Structural damage and failures observed in 59 historical and monumental structures (mosques and/or minarets) were documented after the August 17 and November 12, 1999 earthquakes. The reported damage distribution in minarets in the cities of Düzce and Bolu gives an indication of the extent of damage. Ten percent of all visited mosques collapsed while 20% suffered severe damage. Of all visited minarets, 38 percent collapsed (Figure 6). Five out of seven masonry minarets (approximately 70%) in the cities of Düzce and Bolu reporeted in this chapter collapsed (Table 4).

Historical structures with heavy and stiff walls are subjected to larger lateral earthquake forces due to their small periods of vibration. The missing keystones in the upper-floor windows and wide cracks between the stones in the walls above and below window openings were the most common damage types.

The location of the failure in the minarets that collapsed during the 1999 earthquakes was generally at the region near the bottom of the cylinder where a transition was made from a square to a circular section. At the bottom of the cylinder body the lateral stiffness and strength are smaller compared with those of the transition region or the minaret base. Consistent with the observed damage, dynamic analysis results from three generic finite element minaret models showed the largest bending stresses in the same region of the minaret models. For minarets with the base or boot attached to the mosque structure (Type II), additional rigidity and stiffness provided by the mosque prevents deformation and damage within the base. In such cases the failure mostly occurs just above the transition region or base of the cylindrical body.

How to cite and reference

Link to this chapter Copy to clipboard

Cite this chapter Copy to clipboard

Halil Sezen and Adem Dogangun (August 8th 2012). Seismic Performance of Historical and Monumental Structures, Earthquake Engineering, Halil Sezen, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/51338. Available from:

chapter statistics

2680total chapter downloads

1Crossref citations

More statistics for editors and authors

Login to your personal dashboard for more detailed statistics on your publications.

Access personal reporting

Related Content

This Book

Next chapter

Bridge Embankments - Seismic Risk Assessment and Ranking

By Wael A. Zatar and Issam E. Harik

Related Book

First chapter

Seismic Design Forces and Risks

By Junichi Abe, Hiroyuki Sugimoto and Tadatomo Watanabe

We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Built by scientists, for scientists. Our readership spans scientists, professors, researchers, librarians, and students, as well as business professionals. We share our knowledge and peer-reveiwed research papers with libraries, scientific and engineering societies, and also work with corporate R&D departments and government entities.

More about us