Sixth International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, 6-8 October 2004 Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

Structural Assessment of a Historical Masonry Structure: Urla Kamanl Mosque

E. Teomete, E. Akta
Department of Civil Engineering, Izmir Institute of Technology, Urla, Izmir,Turkey

Abstract
Structural assessment of historical structures is a complex, interdisciplinary process. In this paper, a sample study on structural assessment of a historical structure is presented. The study covers the history investigation, measurement survey, nondestructive and destructive tests on materials of the structure. The results obtained for dead load, dynamic load and support settlement analyses using the finite element model created on the basis of the gathered data are presented.

Introduction
Historical masonry structures suffer from damage because of material degradations, differential settlements, seismic actions and other environmental effects. These damages and actions accumulate by time and cause complex behavior in the response of the structure. For that reason, in order to make a structural assessment; measurement survey, material tests, soil survey, long term observations and structural tests and analyses should be applied (Ersoy, 1989). Extensive work has been published in the literature for structural assessment procedures. Destructive and nondestructive tests are conducted in order to characterize the materials of the structure (Binda et al., 2000). By using the data gathered from the tests, finite element model of the structure is developed and structural analyses are conducted (Koak, 1999). In order to calibrate the models, system identification techniques such as ambient vibration tests are performed (akmak et al., 1992). Understanding the behavior of the masonry structures has always been an urge for centuries. Several practical structural analyses techniques such as force polygon, the chain rule have been used to determine the reasons for structural damage in various masonry structures (Heyman, 1982). By the development of high computation capabilities of computers, approaches like generalized matrix formulations (Roca, 2001) and finite element method are adopted to analyze masonry structures.
793

Even for a better understanding of the behavior of masonry structures, constitutive models are proposed for nonlinear analyses (Loureno, 1996). Finite element analyses are performed by using various element types for modeling masonry structures (Giordano et al., 2002). In this paper a comprehensive research on the assessment of a historical masonry structure is presented. Urla Kamanli Mosque in Urla, Izmir is a member of a group of structures named Yahi Bey Klliyesi, which contains a Turkish Bath, a tomb, two fountains and a primary school (sibyan mektebi). Altough there is not any written document kept about the construction date and constructors, by using comparative methods of architectural elements in light of art history it is concluded that the structures date back to an era between the early 14th century to mid 15th century (Erim, 1995). History investigation, measurement survey, nondestructive and destructive tests, longterm observations have been conducted for the Kamanli Mosque. On the basis of the data gathered, a 3D finite element model of the structure was developed by using LUSAS, a commercial finite element analysis software. Linear elastic analyses for dead load, response spectrum and settlement loadings have been conducted in order to determine the structural behaviour and the causes of existing damage of the structure.

Description of the Structure

The structure has a square plan of 10 m10 m with a wall thickness of 110 cm and the height of the structure is 12.66 m. The walls of the structure are stone masonry with limestone and thick mortar joints. The window arches and the dome are brick masonry with thick mortar joints. The transition from walls to dome on the corners is achieved by use of trompes which are also brick masonry (Fig.1). The structure has not been used for a long time and open to all environmental effects since the windows and the door of the structure do not exist. Especially in the first 1 m above the ground level, there is an extensive material degradation because of moisture. The wooden lintels which should surround the walls (along the inner and outer perimeters) at two levels, do not exist, as can be seen in Fig.1. Because of that the cross sections of the walls at the wooden lintel levels decrease considerably which weaken the structure. On the east and west walls, extensive cracks follow the path way of the windows and joins at the key stone of the dome, Fig.1. In this research, the causes of these cracks have been investigated by finite element analyses. The part of the minaret above the balcony collapsed during a storm, as locals commented, Fig.2. Plant formations on the structure challenges the structure as well; a tree just in front of the minaret has a height of 3 m, which is a clear sign that the structure has not been used for a long time. The drum and the west wall of the structure have a more qualified weave than the other walls (see Fig.2). According to Erim (1995), because of the primary school on the west side of the mosque, that part is a social zone and so has a more qualified weave than the other walls.

794

Fig.1. The east section

Fig.2. The south elevation

Material Tests and Longterm Observations

In order to characterize the materials of the structure, nondestructive and destructive tests are applied on stone, brick and mortar samples of the structure. Schmidt hammer test on stone and density-porosity test on stone, brick and mortar samples are performed. Table 1. Material test results.

Elasticity Modulus (MPa) 9221.51 9247.54 30895.2 27245.1 866.5 110.5 264.38

Schmidt Hammer (R)

Number of Cores

Tensile Strength (MPa)

Density (kg/m3)

Compressive Strength (MPa)

Pulse Velocity (m/sec)

Stone S1 (South 1) Stone S2 (South 2) Stone W1 (West 1) Stone W2 (West 2) Brick Mortar S (Stone masonry) Mortar B (Brick masonry)

37 26 14

30.8 3291 2498 64.17 31.7 3456 2531 65.44 39.7 5187 2596 127.8

5.72 7.41 8.49

15.66 11.08 2.202

12 75 1

38 NA NA

5536 2515 105.9 1398 1800 11.68 NA 1690 4.19

9.88 1.867 0.73

0.786 29.45 32.796

NA

NA

1400

8.75

0.95

43.458

795

Porosity (%)

Ultrasonic pulse velocity test, uniaxial compression and indirect tension tests are applied on brick and stone samples collected from the structure. Uniaxial compression and indirect tension tests are conducted on mortar of the Kamanli Turkish Bath by the Department of Architectural Restoration. The properties of mortar are assumed to be identical for both the bath and the mosque since they belong to the same group of structures. The results of the tests are given in Table1. Because of the limited space, details of the tests are not given here. The compressive strengths of the stones taken from the west section are approximately two times the stones from the south section. Also the modulus of elasticity values of the stones taken from the west section are approximately three times the stones from the south section. The porosity of the stones taken from the south section is at least five times the porosity of the stones taken from the west section which causes extensive differences in strength of stone samples. This porosity difference might be because of the fossils in the stone samples of the south section which were detected by scanning electron microscope, (see Fig.3 a-b). These fossils cause impurities which decrease the strength of the material. Fossils could not be observed in the stone samples taken from the west section. By considering the weave of the west wall to be more qualified then the other walls, and the strength and fossil containment, it is highly probable that the stones of the west wall could belong to a different source than the stones of other walls.

Fig.3.a-b Fossils in stone samples S1 and S2 respectively, from south section (SEM). Long term observations have been conducted by measuring the length between two studs stuck on opposite corners of each wall once in every three months. The difference between the last measurements and the previous ones gives us the motion of the walls. As can be seen in Fig.4., in 7 month period the sides of the east, north and south walls move apart 3mm, 2mm and 3.3 mm, respectively. On the other hand the sides of the west wall move inward 1mm. The relative moisture of the stone and mortar have been measured monthly, at all of the inner sections, at first one metre and at above two metres. In Fig.5., the relative moisture values of the east section is given. The moisture at the bottom for stone is higher than the moisture of the stone at the top, and the same thing is valid for mortar. At lower levels, due to moisture a considerable degradation of materials is observed.

796

Displacement of walls (05/2003-01/2004)

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5

Displacement (mm)

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 Months 8 10 12

East

North

West

South

R e la tiv e M o is t.(% )

Wall

East Bottom Stone East Top Stone

East Bottom Mortar East Top Mortar

Fig.4. Wall displacements

Fig.5. Relative moisture (%)

Structural Analyses
In order to determine the behavior of the structure under its selfweight and the reason of the cracks at the east and west walls, linear elastic self weight, response spectrum and settlement analyses have been conducted. The global X axis, shown with double arrow heads lies on the south elevation (point towards east) while the global Y axis with one arrow head lies on the west elevation (point towards north) (see for example Fig.6.a). The average values of the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for the weak stones, S1 and S2 (see Table1), are used to determine the parametres needed for finite element analyses. In order to homogenize the masonry composite media, homogenization equations are used to evaluate the parameters for stone and brick masonry, respectively. For stone masonry; f_c=Kfs0.65fm0.25=0.564.80.654.190.25=10.77MPa (1)

where f_c, fs, fm and K are compressive strength for stone masonry, stone and mortar, and a constant respectively (European Committee for Standardization, 1996). The tensile strength of stone masonry is assumed as 10% of the compressive strength; f_t=0.110.77=1.077MPa (Koak, 1999). Modulus of elasticity of stone masonry is calculated by Esm=
t _m +t _u 0.01 + 0.25 = 0.5 =1.1GPa t _m t _u 0.01 0.25 + + Em Eu 0.11 9.23
(2)

where t_m, t_u stand for thickness of mortar and the stone, Em and Eu stand for the modulus of elasticity for mortar and stone, respectively (Loureno et al., 2001). The same calculations were performed for brick masonry by using the data of Table 1 and; f_c=4.25MPa; f_t=0.425MPa and Ebm=0.27GPa are obtained. gsm=2200kg/m3 and gbm=1700kg/m3 are assumed as density of stone and brick masonry, respectively. In the finite element model, the values evaluated for stone masonry are used in modelling the walls and the values evaluated for brick masonry are used in modelling the dome, trompes, and the windows arches.

797

Self Weight Analyses

In the self weight analyses, the displacements DZ in the vertical direction increases to the higher points as expected, (Fig.6a). The portions of the dome resting on the corners sag more than the portions resting on the drum. The drum transmits the weight directly to the walls while the trompes transmit the weight indirectly, (see Fig.6a). The maximum absolute vertical displacement is -6mm, at the top of the key stone of the dome. The upper 10% of the first principal stresses (S1) are at the drum-dome interfaces, (see Fig6b). The maximum S1=6.9e5Pa is smaller than the tensile strength ft=10.77e5Pa. On the bottom corners of the second level windows are relatively high tensional stresses occurs, (Fig6b). These localizations are on the cracks route in east and west walls and it can be concluded that the self weight does not cause the cracks individually but might supports their formation with other loadings. Minimum of third principal stress (S3) is not higher than the compressive strength.

a)Vertical dispacement (DZ) b)First principal stresses (S1) Fig.6. Analysis results under self weight

Eigen Values and Eigen Modes

The eigenvalues and frequencies for corresponding modes of the structure are given below. Table 2 Eigen values and frequencies
MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EIGENVALUE 895 899 1270 1886 2244 2433 2752 2856 3243 3427 FREQUENCY (Hz) ERROR NORM 4.76 8.16E-09 4.77 2.13E-09 5.67 1.69E-10 6.91 6.62E-10 7.54 2.69E-09 7.85 5.28E-09 8.35 3.60E-09 8.50 7.26E-09 9.06 1.89E-08 9.32 6.86E-07

The frequency of the first two modes are very close to each other because the structure shows almost a perfect symmetry.

798

The mode shapes of the first and second modes are given in Fig.7a-b. The mode shapes of the first and second modes also show a great resemblence as a result of the symmetry. Other mode shapes are not given here because of space restrictions.

Y Z X

Y Z X

Fig.7. a.First mode shape

b. Second mode shape

Response Spectrum Analyses

The spectrum curve is defined by taking the local site class Z3, TA=0.15sec, TB=0.6sec and the effective ground acceleration coefficient A0=0.4, (Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, 1998). For the excitation in the X direction, the maximum tensile stress of S1 exceeds the tensile strength at the lower level lintel at the north section, (Fig.8 a). The upper 10% range of S1 occurs at the north and south lower lintel level where the section of the walls decrease considerably. The tensile stresses are critical at the drum-dome connections and at the foundation, especially at the north where the tensile stresses exceed the tensile strength, (Fig8a). In the east section, the tensile stresses follow the crack pattern while being lower than the tensile strength (Fig.8b). The absolute value of minimum of compressive stresses (min of S3) is lower than the compressive strength.

Fig.8a-b.Spectral excitation in X direction S1 a.East and north elevations section

b. East

799

For the excitation in the Y direction, the maximum S1 exceeds the tensile strength at the lower level lintel at the east section (Fig.9.a). Upper 10% of the S1 occurs at the north and south lintel locations (Fig.9.a). The foundation has tensile stresses larger than the strength especially at the north while the drum also has large tensile stresses (Fig.9.a). In the east and west sections, the tensile stresses follows the crack pattern (Fig.9.b). In general, the empty places of the lintels challenges the structure in a seismic excitation. The drum-dome connections are also critical for seismic excitations. The tensile stresses exceed the strength at the crack pattern partially.

a.East and north elevations b.West section Fig.9.a-b. Spectral excitation in Y direction S1

Settlement Analyses
The analyses were performed for maximum 1cm and 2cm settlements, respectively. In general the tensile stresses obtained were lower than the strength so a maximum 3cm settlement analysis was conducted. In linear elastic settlement analyses, the settlement was given by linear increase that starts with zero on the east and west walls foundations and reaches to 3cm at the north foundation (Fig10a). The results are given here for deadload plus settlement combination. Upper 1% principal stresses (S1) occur at the lintel places at the north-west section junction (Fig.10b). The upper 10% S1 occurs at the foundation of west-north junction which exceeds the tensile strength (Fig.10.b). The crack pattern at the west wall is obtained by the white zone on the west elevation. Altough the tensile stresses are low, the tensile stress band of S1 at the east section follows the crack pattern. The drum-dome connections on the east and west have tensile stresses higher than the tensile strength (Fig.10.b).

800

Fig.10 a. The settlement loading

b. S1 for settlement + dead load

Conclusions
An interdisciplinary study has been conducted for assessment of a historical masonry structure. The measurement survey and the history investigation, conducted with the collaboration of Architectural Restoration Department, have shed light upon the structural system and damages. The material tests had been performed with the Center for Materials Research of Izmir Institute of Technology. The long term observations have been conducted for determining the current behavior of the structure and the observations still continue. The data gathered have been used in finite element modeling and structural analyses. The structure is reliable under dead load. The natural 1st and 2nd modes of the structure are close by means of frequency and mode shape because of approximate symmetry of the structure. The response spectrum analyses and settlement analyses gives the approximate crack band observed on the structure. A combination of the three load cases could possibly cause the existing damages as the site is on an active seismic zone. Further research is still under way by using nonlinear material models and different loading scenarios for obtaining the damage pattern in a more detailed way and to understand the structural behavior better.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), for the funding of the project ICTAG I-591 Determination of the Essentials for the Analyses of Historical Masonry Structures; A Case Study: Urla Kamanl Mosque. Also we would like to thank the Department of Architectural Restoration and Center for Materials Research at Izmir Institute of Technology for their collaboration.

801

References
Binda, L. Saisi, A. Tiraboschi C. (2000). Investigation Procedures for the Diagnosis of Historic Masonries. Construction and Building Materials, Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages 199-233. akmak, A.. Davidson, R. Mullen, C.L. Erdik, M. (1992). Dynamic Analysis and Earthquake Response of Hagia Sophia. Seminar on Protection of Architectural Heritage Against Earthquake, Istanbul-Ankara, pp.19-35. Erim, F. (1995). Urlada Trk Devri Yaplar-1. Ege niversitesi Edebiyat Fak. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Tarihi Blm, Trk-slam Sanatlar A.B.D. Lisans Bitirme Tezi, Izmir. Ersoy, U. (1989). Diagnosis, Assessment and Emergency Interventions for the Historic Masonry Structures. Structural Conservation of Stone Masonry, International Technical Conference, Athens. European Committee for Standardization. (1996). Design of Masonry Structures. Eurocode6, Brussel. Giordano, A. Mele, E. Luca, A. (2002). Modelling of Historical Masonry Structures: Comparison of Different Approaches Through a Case Study . Engineering Structures, Vol.24, pp.1057-1069. Heyman, J. (1982). The Masonry Arch. Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester. Koak, A. (1999). The linear and non-linear analysis of the historical buildings under static and dynamic loading: The study of Kk Ayasofya Mosque. Yldz Technical University, Institute of Science, PhD Thesis , stanbul. (In Turkish)

Loureno, P.B. (1996). Computational Strategies for Masonry Structures. Delft University Press, Delft. Loureno, P.B. Vasconcelos, G. Ramos, L. (2001). Assessment of the Stability Conditions of a Cistercian Cloister. 2nd International Congress on Studies in Ancient Structures, Yldz Technical University, stanbul. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Government of Republic of Turkey. (1998). Specification for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas, Turkey. Roca, P. (2001). Analysis of Gothic Structure. 2nd International Congress on Studies in Ancient Structures. Yldz Technical University Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul.

802