Research ArticleSeismic Failure Pattern Prediction in a Historical MasonryMinaret under Different Earthquakes

Halil Nohutcu

Manisa Celal Bayar University Engineering Faculty Civil Engineering Department 45140 Manisa Turkey

Correspondence should be addressed to Halil Nohutcu halilnohutcucbuedutr

Received 1 October 2018 Accepted 25 November 2018 Published 22 January 2019

Academic Editor Humberto Varum

Copyright copy 2019 Halil Nohutcu is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

Historical structures are the values that are of great importance to that country showing the roots of a country andmust be passedon from generation to generationis study attempts to make a contribution to this goal Seismic damage pattern estimation in ahistorical brick masonry minaret under different ground motion levels is investigated by using updated finite element modelsbased on ambient vibration data in this study Imaret Mosque which was built in 1481 AD is selected for an application Surveyingmeasurement and material tests were conducted to obtain a 3D solid model and mechanical properties of the components of theminaret Firstly the initial 3D finite element model of the minaret was analyzed and numerical dynamic characteristics of theminaret were obtained en ambient vibration tests as well as operational modal analysis were implemented in order to obtainthe experimental dynamic characteristics of the minaret e initial finite element model of the minaret was updated by using theexperimental dynamic results Lastly linear and nonlinear time-history analyses of the updated finite element model of theminaret were carried out using the acceleration records of two different level earthquakes that occurred in Turkey in Afyon-Dinar(1995) and Ccedilay-Sultandagı (2002) A concrete damage plasticity model is considered in the nonlinear analyses e conductedanalyses indicate that the compressive and tension stress results of the linear analyses are not as realistic as the nonlinear analysisresults According to the nonlinear analysis the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake would inflict limited damage on the minaret whereasthe Dinar earthquake would damage some parts of the elements in the transition segment of the minaret

1 Introduction

Architectural and structural characteristics of minarets areinfluenced by national and local building materials His-torical minarets are generally masonry structures in whichstone or clay brick and mortar are used together e be-havior of the majority of historical structures differs fromone another during an earthquake as local materials are usedin their construction ere is usually a spiral staircasesystemmade of wood or stone inside the minarets e mostimportant feature of historical masonry structures is thatthey reflect the architectural characteristics of the time at andthe region in which they were built [1] For example in thethirteenth-century Syrian architecture minarets were builtas low square towers sitting at the four corners of themosque In the fifteenth-century Egyptian architectureminarets were octagonal and had two balconies the upper

generally smaller than the lower Turkish-style minaretswere slim and consisted of 2 4 or 6 circular minarets ofequal cross section [2] Minarets generally consist of 8 partsa base (footing) cube (pulpit) transition segment shaft(cylindrical or polygonal) balcony comb cone (spire) andfinial e height and shaft diameter of minarets vary from10 to 40m and 3 to 6m respectively

Many tower-type masonry structures were completely orpartially destroyed due to major earthquakes strong windsor suddenly without any indication For example theYuregil Minaret in Afyonkarahisar and the Ccedilavdır Minaretin Antalya Turkey are some of the structures that weredamaged in earthquakes whereas the Civic Tower in Pavia inItaly collapsed without any indication [3] ese dramaticevents have obligated determining the behavior of tower-type structures under wind and earthquake conditions sothat theymay be safely passed on to the next generations For

HindawiAdvances in Civil EngineeringVolume 2019 Article ID 8752465 16 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520198752465

this reason the protection and the evaluation of thestructural safety of historic masonry structures have becomecompulsory Ambient vibration testing and finite elementmethods are promising techniques for safety and damageevaluation of the masonry structures [4 5] e studies onthe analytical and experimental behaviors of masonry towersand minarets can be found in the literature Gentile et aldetermined the structural safety of tower of the MonzaChurch using ambient vibration data and updated the finiteelement model of the tower [6] Pallares et al carried out anonlinear analysis of a chimney made of bricks using theDruckerndashPrager material model [7] Bayraktar et al in-vestigated the earthquake behavior of Iskenderpasa MosqueMinaret in Trabzon Turkey and reported that cracks due toearthquake can occur at the region between the transitionsegment and the cylindrical body [5] Tomaszewska andSzymczak identified the Vistula Mounting Tower modelusing measured modal data [8] Foti et al determined thestructural condition of a tower in Bari Italy and obtained anexcellent match between the experimental and the updatedmodel results [9] Mortezaei et al investigated linear andnonlinear earthquake behaviors of the masonry Masjed-e-Jame Mosque and minaret in Iran Researchers have alsorevealed the effect of strengthening on the structures [10]DrsquoAmbrisi et al updated the finite element model of theCivic Tower in Italy by operational modal analysis (OMA)and revealed the nonlinear seismic performance of the tower[11] Bartoli et al implemented static and dynamic in-vestigations on the stone tower Torre Grossa [12] Minghiniet al conducted a study on a brick masonry chimneydamaged during the Emilia earthquake in 2012 [13] Diaferioet al determined the nondestructive characterization andidentification of the modal parameters of an old masonrytower [14] Diaferio et al extracted the natural frequenciesand mode shapes of the bell tower of Tranirsquos Cathedral inItaly via conventional accelerometers and innovative mi-crowave remote sensing to operational modal testing [15]e frequency-domain decomposition (FDD)enhancedfrequency-domain decomposition (EFDD) and the data-driven stochastic subspace identification (SSI) techniqueshave been used for the extraction of modal parameters eauthors revealed that the results obtained by the twomeasurement systems are in good agreement and encouragethe effectiveness of the tests and the accuracy of the esti-mated modal parameters Diaferio et al investigated aslender historical bell tower in Bari to obtain the accuratefinite element model [15] Despite the impossibility ofconducting destructive tests to evaluate the material prop-erties by conducting environmental vibration tests andcomparing first five modes they achieved to obtain theaccurate finite element model (FEM) Preciado suggested aprocedure for the seismic vulnerability evaluation of all typesof towers and slender masonry structures such as lighthouses and minarets [16] Preciado et al proposed an ap-proach for the seismic vulnerability reduction of masonrytowers via external prestressing devices [17] Hejazi et alinvestigated the response of nine minarets under differenttemperatures wind and earthquakes using a nonlinear finiteelement model In the study they have revealed that

earthquakes are the main cause of collapse of the minarets[18] Demir et al investigated the effect of model calibrationon seismic behavior of the structure [19] Maximum stressesand displacements in the structure were presented com-paratively Also locations of existing cracks in the structurecoincided with the analysis results Livaoglu et al in-vestigated Ottoman-type minarets and obtained a numericalcorrelation between the first mode period and geometricproperties such as height cross section and boundaryconditions via operational modal analysis [20] Kocaturkand Erdogan modelled minarets via a commercial finiteelement method (FEM) program ANSYSLS-DYNA andrevealed the contribution of lead clamps to the energy ab-sorption capacity of the minaret under extensive earthquakes[21] Ivorra et al conducted a theoretical dynamic study on amasonry bell tower and investigated the correlation betweennatural frequencies and variation of soil [22] Shakya et alcollected the data from various literature on the slendermasonry structures and developed an empirical formulationfor predicting the fundamental frequency of such structures[23] Diaferio et al performed operational modal analysis ofthe bell tower of Announziata in order to obtain the updatedFE model of the tower [15] Castellazzi et al monitored theSan Pietro bell tower in Perugia Italy for 9 months and theeffects of changes in temperature and humidity on the naturalfrequencies of slender masonry buildings are investigated byusing environmental vibrations [24] Diaferio and others haveexperimentally investigated a historic stone masonry buildingwith OMA under environmental vibration and emphasizedthe need for improvement of the finite element model forrealistic analysis [25]

In general model updating techniques are based on theuse of appropriate coefficients (sensitivity coefficients) thatiteratively update selected physical properties (properties ofmaterials stiffness of a link etc) in such a way that thecorrelation between the simulated response and the targetvalue could improve if compared to an initial value [26]isstudy is aimed at estimating seismic damage propagation ina historical clay brick masonry minaret under differentground motion levels by using the updated finite elementmodel based on ambient vibration data Imaret MosqueMinaret in the county of Bolvadin in Afyon Turkey wasselected for the application Material properties of theminaret were determined by the material tests Experimentaldynamic characteristics of the minaret were obtained byambient vibration testing e experimental dynamiccharacteristics were compared with the numerical dynamiccharacteristics obtained from initial three-dimensional FEMof the minaret and the initial model was updated bychanging the material properties and boundary conditionsLinear and nonlinear time-history analyses of the updatedFEM of the minaret were carried out using the accelerationrecords of two different level earthquakes that occurred inTurkey in Afyon-Dinar (1995) and Ccedilay-Sultandagı (2002)Nonlinear analysis was performed using the concretedamage plasticity (CDP) model [27] e damage of thehistorical minaret against the two selected earthquakes wasobtained and it was determined that the minaret was at riskof collapse during a severe earthquake

2 Advances in Civil Engineering

2 Materials and Methods

21 Geometric and Mechanical Properties of Imaret MinaretBolvadin is one of the oldest settlements in Anatolia It datesback to 10000 years ago according to available documen-tation (Bayar 1996) Especially during the reign of theSeljuks it was decorated with mosques fountains innsbaths aqueducts and bridges e Imaret Mosque built in1481 AD is one of these works that has survived to thepresent day e bearing system of the minaret consists ofclay brick except pulpit which is stone masonry e heightof the minaret is 245m the pulpit has 266 times 266m oc-tagonal section and the cylindrical body has a diameter of20m Parts of the minaret and vertical and horizontal crosssections of the minaret are presented in Figure 1

22 Material Properties e material properties of theminaret are taken from the similar study of Nohutcu et aland are listed in Table 1 [28]

e minaret consists of stonebrick and mortar mate-rials Elastic material parameters of the masonry wall usingmaterials test results were calculated by equations recog-nized in the literature e compressive strength of masonryis determined by equation (1) from the European Committeefor Standardization (1995 p 51) [29] Here K values varyfrom 04 to 06 with a difference of 05 according to themorphological structure of the masonry system e valuesof α and β are 07 and 03 respectively in smooth-shapedmasonry and 065 and 025 in coarse-shaped masonry re-spectively fb (MPa) refers to the compressive strength ofthe stone or brick fm (MPa) is the compressive strength ofthe mortar and is the maximum value that can be taken asdouble the value of fb

fk K middot fαb middot f

βm (1)

emodulus of elasticity of masonry is determined usingequation (2) derived by Lourenco in 2001 [30] e tensilestrength is taken as 10 of the compressive strengthPoissonrsquos ratio is recommended as 017 by Koccedilak [31] Inequation (1) ρ is a fixed value and varies according to theadherence between mortar and stonebrick tm refers to theaverage thickness of the mortar tu is the average height ofthe stone or brick Em is the modulus of elasticity of themortar and Eu is the modulus of elasticity of the stone orbrick [30]

E tm + tu

tmEm( 1113857 + tuEu( 1113857ρ (2)

Table 2 presents the calculatedmaterial parameters of themasonry walls used in the finite element analyses of theminaret

23 Initial Finite ElementModel of theMinaret According tothe drawings obtained from in situ surveying measure-ments the three-dimensional solid model and FEM modelof the minaret were prepared using the Abaqus [27]software (Figure 2) Convergence analysis was conducted

for the purpose of determining the most appropriate rangeof mesh in the FEM of the minaret In the convergenceanalysis the mesh size was initially selected as 055mModal analyses were carried out for each range of the meshgiven in Table 3 and the convergence graphics is given inFigure 3

According to the convergence analysis values in Table 3the range of the mesh in numerical analysis was chosen as025m A total of 28175 four-node tetrahedral (C3D4) solidelements and 8646 nodes were used for the initial FEM witha mesh size of 025m e modal analysis was carried outand the first four numerical frequency values and modeshapes profile and plan views are presented in Figure 4 efirst and the third mode shapes occur in the x direction andthe second and the fourth mode shapes occur in the ydirection

24 Operational Modal Analysis and Finite Element ModelUpdating of the Minaret e material values are the localproperties of the wall material When we apply these valuesto the whole structure it is difficult to achieve realisticvalues due to the regional differentiations erefore op-erational modal analysis is performed with the data ob-tained from the accelerometers which takes theenvironmental vibration data on the structure us ex-perimental modal behavior and damping rates of thestructure can be obtained By modifying the modulus ofelasticity a modal analysis is carried out by the finite el-ement method until it reaches the modes we have foundexperimentally When we reach the first mode value ob-tained from OMA we obtain the modulus of elasticity andthe damping ratio of the structure

Four Testbox-2010 data acquisition devices and sixteenuniaxial Sensebox-7021 accelerometers were used for theOMA method e accelerometers used in the experimentare sensitive to signals in the range 0ndash200Hz e signalsfrom the accelerometers are combined in the four-channelTestbox-2010 data acquisition unit and transferred to theTestlab-Network [32] data acquisition software After thesignals were processed experimental dynamic characteris-tics of the structure were obtained by using the ARTeMISModal Pro [33] software

OMA is an output-only method based on ambient vi-bration data In the experimental study the connectionpoints of the accelerometers were identified using the initialfinite element (FE) mode shapes of the minaret A total of 12uniaxial accelerometers were placed at these points as shownin Figure 5 Vibrations generated by the environmentaleffects on the minaret were collected by 12 uniaxial accel-erometers and data acquisition units

Acceleration data obtained from the OMA test weretransferred to the ARTeMIS Modal Pro [33] softwareand the experimental dynamic parameters of the minaretwere extracted using the SSI technique [34 35] estabilization diagram of estimated state space modelsobtained from the SSI technique and the experimentaldynamic characteristics are given in Figure 6 and Table 4respectively

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

It can be seen from Table 4 that there are differencesbetween the numerical and experimental frequencies eupdated FEM of the minaret is obtained by changingYoungrsquos modulus of brick Modulus of elasticity of the brickmasonry wall increases from 1300MPa to 5200MPa Table 5presents the first four numerical and experimental frequencyvalues obtained before and after the model calibration of theminaret e four mode shapes were obtained from the testsas shown in Figure 7(b) It can be seen from Table 5 andFigure 7 that the calibrated and experimental frequenciesand mode shapes are close to each other Besides it can beseen from Figures 4 and 7 that the twomode shapes obtainedfrom the initial and calibrated FEM occur in the samedirections

25 Seismic Damage Pattern Estimation of the MinaretSeismic damage propagation in the minaret was determinedby means of linear and nonlinear finite element models in

Pulpit

Transition segment

Cylindrical body

Balcony

Upper part of minaret body

Spire

(a)

3m2m

12m

11m

5m

2m266m

1m1

5m

A A

A-A section

(b)

Figure 1 (a) Parts of the minaret (b) Vertical and horizontal cross sections of the minaret

Table 1 Stone and brick material parameters from another similar study [28]

Compressivestrength (MPa)

Tensilestrength (MPa)

Modulus ofelasticity (MPa)

Ultrasonic pulsevelocity (ms)

Surfacehardness (R)

Density(kgm3)

Andesite stone 30 208 12240 1813 54 2200Full brick 82 186 2985 1051 31 2100Khorasan mortar 625 143 1100 mdash mdash 1340

Table 2 Initial material parameters of masonry walls

Materials Stonemasonry

Brickmasonry

Compressive strength (MPa) 7210 4210Tensile strength (MPa) 0721 0421Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 4400 1300Bulk density (kgm3) 2200 1750Poissonrsquos ratio 017 017

Figure 2 ree-dimensional solid model and finite element modelof the minaret

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

Abaqus e nonlinear analyses were performed using theCDP model e CDP model depends on the integration ofdamage mechanics and plasticity is improved to analyze thefailure of concrete and unreinforced brittle masonrystructures CDP describes the important characteristics ofthe failure process of concrete or masonry under multiaxialstress Material parameters for masonry in the CDP modelare summarized in Table 6

e failure of masonry can be modelled under uniaxialcompression and tension and by the plasticity characteris-tics CDP model response under uniaxial compression andtension is linear until the initial value of yield stress Whenthe failure stress is reached microcrack formation in ma-sonry is activated In the plastic regime the response istypically characterized by stress hardening followed by strainsoftening Beyond the failure stress the formation ofmicrocracks is represented macroscopically with a softeningstress-strain response as shown in Figure 8

Material properties of the masonry used in the minaretwere adopted from the study carried out by Kaushik et al[36] and are shown in Figure 9

e acceleration records of the earthquakes that tookplace in Ccedilay-Sultandagı (Mw 60) on Feb 3 2002 and Dinar(Mw 60) on Oct 10 1995 were used to determine theseismic damage patterns of Imaret Mosque Minaret Timehistories of two components of the earthquakes are depictedin Figure 10 e records are applied to the minaret in x-xand y-y horizontal directions simultaneously

26 Linear Analysis of Minaret under Ccedilay-Sultandagı andDinar Earthquakes Linear time-history analyses of theminaret are performed using the full Newton method in

Abaqus [27] e damping ratio is chosen as 5 emaximum lateral displacement values in U1 (x) and U2 (y)directions are 44 cm and 53 cm under the Ccedilay-Sultandagıearthquake and 129 cm and 376 cm under the Dinarearthquake respectively (Figure 11) e lateral displace-ment values throughout the height of the minaret underlinear analysis for Ccedilay-Sultandagı and Dinar earthquakes arepresented in Figure 12

Under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake it was observedthat the maximum (tension) principal stress (126MPa) wasconcentrated around the door which is in the transitionsegment that lies between the pulpit and the cylindricalbody while the minimum (compression) principal stress(136MPa) was concentrated on the opposite side of the door(Figure 13) Under the Dinar earthquake the maximum andminimum principal stresses occurred in the same locationand were obtained as 77MPa and 81MPa respectively asshown in Figure 14 e maximum and minimum stressesthat occurred in the minaret under the Dinar earthquakeexceeded limit tension (0421MPa) and compression(421MPa) values of the masonry wall However in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake only maximum principal stressesslightly exceeded tensile stresses (0421MPa) of the wallmaterial erefore it was shown that Ccedilay-Sultandagı doesnot cause a serious damage to the minaret During the Dinarearthquake maximum tensile and compressive stressesexceeded the limit tensile stress about 6 and 19 times re-spectively So linear analysis has shown that the minaretcould damage substantially under the Dinar earthquakeimpact

27 Nonlinear Analysis ofMinaret under Ccedilay-Sultandagı andDinar Earthquakes

271 Ccedilay-Sultandagı Earthquake According to the resultsof nonlinear time-history analysis for the Ccedilay-Sultandagıearthquake the maximum lateral displacement values areobtained as 48 cm and 36 cm in U1 and U2 directionsrespectively (Figure 14) Critical maximum and minimumprinciple stress contours under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earth-quake are presented in Figure 15

In CDP analysis the damage of the minaret can beachieved When this damage ratio exceeds 100 percent it isaccepted that the structure completely collapsed When theplastic deformation obtained with the nonlinear solution isinvestigated it was found that the safety boundary de-formation values also exceeded But the main criterion thatdetermines the damage and destruction of the structure isthe damage rate obtained by the CDP

e damage effect compression stress on the minaret iscalculated by CDP analysis and the damage percentagecontours at the end of time steps are presented in Figure 16

e compression damage on masonry of the minaretbegins at 1173 s and the plastic deformation value reaches00057 at the end of the analysis (t 25 s) (Figure 17)Limited number of elements exceeds the value of 0004which is the critical damage strain value of the masonry(Figure 9)

Table 3 Mesh size convergence

Meshsize (m)

e firstfrequency (Hz)

Number ofelements

055 0896 8710050 0869 9546045 0863 11170035 0854 17404025 0849 28175015 0846 105985

084

085

086

087

088

089

090

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

e fi

rst f

requ

ency

val

ues (

Hz)

Number of elements times10000

Figure 3 Frequency and mesh size convergence graphic

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atthe end of the analysis are presented in Figure 18 etension damage on masonry of the minaret begins at 1352 sand the plastic deformation value reaches 0014 at the end ofthe analysis (t 25 s) (Figure 19) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 00002 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is envisaged thatthe minaret would overcome this earthquake with minordamage It can be generally said that the masonry minaret issafe under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

272 Dinar Earthquake Nonlinear time-history analysis ofthe minaret under the Dinar earthquake shows that themaximum lateral displacement values are 174 cm and278 cm in U1 and U2 directions respectively (Figure 20)

Critical maximum and minimum principle stress con-tours under the Dinar earthquake are presented in Figure 21

e compression damage percentages of the minaret at theend of the analysis are presented in Figure 22

e compression damage on masonry of the minaretbegins at 38 s and the plastic deformation value reaches 017at the end of the analysis (Figure 23) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 0004 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9)

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atdifferent time steps are presented in Figure 24 e tensiondamage on masonry of the minaret begins at 33 s and theplastic deformation value reaches 038 at the end of theanalysis (t 25 s) (Figure 25) e upper part of the tran-sition segment exceeds the value of 00002 which is thecritical damage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parametersare around 85 of the tension and 90 of the pressure It isthought that the minaret will face major damage and failurein this earthquake hazard e events observed have shownthat thin and tall masonry structures like minarets aredamaged particularly at the transition segments [37]

e locations of compression and tension regions underlinear and nonlinear time-history analysis are coincidedSince the masonry cannot recover tensile stress the observedtension regions are critical although these regions are lim-ited Under a high ground motion the minaret may beconsiderably damaged from these regions and a specialprecaution must be implemented to these regions

3 Conclusions

Historical structures are of great importance to a countrye historical roots of a country have been exhibited bythem erefore they must be passed on from generation togeneration is study includes a valuable contribution tothis goal Seismic damage propagation estimations in the

Z

X

(a)

Z

YX

(b)

Z

X

(c)

Z

YX

(d)

Figure 4 e first four mode shapes profile and plan views and frequency values from the initial finite element model (a) Mode 1freq 0849 (cyclestime) (b) Mode 2 freq 0851 (cyclestime) (c) Mode 3 freq 4339 (cyclestime) (d) Mode 4 freq 4364 (cyclestime)

YXYX

YXYXYXYX

Figure 5 Locations and directions of the accelerometers on theminaret

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

historical clay brick masonry minaret under differentground motion levels by using the updated FEM areimplemented in this paper Dinar (1995) and Ccedilay-Sultandagı(2002) earthquakes are considered in the linear and non-linear time-history analyses It is seen that only the materialinformation made by material tests is not sufficient estructure must be fully investigated After the OMA

experiment as a result of the finite element solution im-provement the modulus of elasticity increased from1300MPa to 5200MPa In the first mode the natural fre-quency increased from 0849 to 1425 Mode shapes are inparallel with those in the experimental study A three-di-mensional finite element model of the minaret is calibratedusing the ambient vibration test results e differencebetween the experimental and numerical frequencies at thefirst 4 modes is about 43 before the model calibration and112 after the calibration Due to their intensity the resultsfrom the Dinar earthquake are bigger than those from theCcedilay-Sultandagı earthquake When the two earthquakes arecompared the end point of the minaret is 5 cm in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake and 38 cm in the Dinar earthquakeApproximately 8 times the displacement difference is ob-servedeminaret has a displacement difference of 8 timesApproximately 6 times a stress difference occurred Underthe Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is thought that theminaret will overcome this earthquake with minor damageIt can be generally said that the masonry minaret is safeunder the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake Under the Dinarearthquake damage parameters are around 85 of thetension and 90 of the pressure It is thought that theminaret would face major damage and failure in thisearthquake hazard

0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

AA A AA A AAA AA A A A

Dimension Test setup 4OLCUMCanonical variate analysis

Figure 6 Stabilization diagram of estimated state space models obtained from the SSI technique

Table 4 e experimental dynamic characteristics

Mod 1 2 3 4Frequencies(Hz) 1425 1516 6530 7108

Table 5 e dynamic characteristics obtained before and after theFEM calibration

Mode

Numericalfrequencies FEM

(Hz)

Experimentalfrequencies OMA

Difference ()

Beforeupdate

Afterupdate SSI Before

updateAfterupdate

1 0849 1425 1425 minus57 0002 0851 1531 1516 minus66 0153 4339 6548 6530 22 0184 4362 6692 7108 27 minus416

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

e Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake would inflict limiteddamage on the minaret whereas the Dinar earthquakewould damage some parts of the elements in the transitionsegment of the minaret It is observed that linear time-history analysis results do not reflect actual response ofthe clay brick masonry minaret during the earthquakee maximum and minimum principal stresses obtained

from the nonlinear analyses exceeded the tensile andcompressive strength values of the masonry and theyconcentrated on the transition region At the end of thestudy the damage of the historical minaret against the twoselected earthquakes was obtained and it was determinedthat the minaret was at risk of collapse during a severeearthquake

Mode 1freq = 1425(cyclestime)

Mode 2freq = 1531(cyclestime)

Mode 3freq = 6548(cyclestime)

Mode 4freq = 6992(cyclestime)

Z

X

Z

YX

Z

YX

Z

X

(a)

2

3

4

6

5

6

5

2

3

4

1 1

6

5

2

3

4

1

1st modef1 = 1425Hz

2nd modef2 = 1516Hz

3rd modef3 = 6530Hz

4th modef4 = 7108Hz

1

2

5

6

3

4

(b)

Figure 7 e first four calibrated and experimental mode shapes (a) Updated FEM mode shapes profile and plan views (b) Experimentalmode shapes profile and plan views

Table 6 Material parameters for masonry in the CDP model

Dilation angle Eccentricity σboσco K

100 01 116 0666

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

It can be seen from the past earthquakes that masonryminarets are damaged particularly at the transition seg-ments Besides occurrence of stress concentration in the

regions where section variations take place indicates that thecalibrated finite element model represents the behavior ofthe minaret as close to reality as possible erefore safety

σc

(εcσc)

Eo

Eo

(1 ndash dc)Eo

εc

σcu

σc0

εcin~

εcpl εc

el~

ε0cel

(a)

σt

σt0

(εcσc)Eo

Eo(1 ndash dt)Eo

εtεtck~

εtpl εt

el~

ε0tel

(b)

Figure 8 Damage plasticity stress-strain diagrams (a) uniaxial tension and (b) uniaxial compression

000050100150200250300350400450

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1

Com

pres

sion

stres

ses (

Mpa

)

Strain()

(a)

000005010015020025030035040045

0 002 004 006 008 01

Tens

ile st

ress

es (M

pa)

Strain()

(b)

Figure 9 Stress-strain relationship for brick masonry (a) Compression (b) Tension

ndash200

ndash100

000

100

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

x-x directiony-y direction

(a)

x-x directiony-y direction

ndash400

ndash200

000

200

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

(b)

Figure 10 (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı and (b) Dinar earthquake acceleration records

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

00440040003700330029

00220026

00180015001100070004ndash0000

0000ndash0004ndash0009ndash0013ndash0018

ndash0026ndash0022

ndash0031ndash0035ndash0040ndash0044ndash0048ndash0053

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0044 U U2 Max ndash0053

(a)

0000ndash0011ndash0021ndash0032ndash0043

ndash0064ndash0054

ndash0075ndash0086ndash0096ndash0107ndash0118ndash0129

03760345031302820251

01880219

01570125009400630031ndash0000

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max ndash0129 U U2 Max 0376

(b)

Figure 11 Maximum displacement contour shapes under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

000

004

008

012

016

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(a)

ndash020ndash010

000010020030040

0 5 10 15 20 25Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(b)

Figure 12 Lateral displacements throughout the height for the linear analyses (a) U1 (b) U2

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

X Y

+13e + 06+11e + 06+10e + 06+91e + 05+80e + 05+68e + 05

ndash12e + 05ndash73e + 03+11e + 05+22e + 05+34e + 05+45e + 05+57e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1948

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+66e + 04ndash43e + 04ndash15e + 05ndash26e + 05ndash37e + 05ndash48e + 05

ndash12e + 06ndash11e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash92e + 05ndash81e + 05ndash70e + 05ndash59e + 05

(a)

Figure 13 Continued

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

2 Materials and Methods

21 Geometric and Mechanical Properties of Imaret MinaretBolvadin is one of the oldest settlements in Anatolia It datesback to 10000 years ago according to available documen-tation (Bayar 1996) Especially during the reign of theSeljuks it was decorated with mosques fountains innsbaths aqueducts and bridges e Imaret Mosque built in1481 AD is one of these works that has survived to thepresent day e bearing system of the minaret consists ofclay brick except pulpit which is stone masonry e heightof the minaret is 245m the pulpit has 266 times 266m oc-tagonal section and the cylindrical body has a diameter of20m Parts of the minaret and vertical and horizontal crosssections of the minaret are presented in Figure 1

22 Material Properties e material properties of theminaret are taken from the similar study of Nohutcu et aland are listed in Table 1 [28]

e minaret consists of stonebrick and mortar mate-rials Elastic material parameters of the masonry wall usingmaterials test results were calculated by equations recog-nized in the literature e compressive strength of masonryis determined by equation (1) from the European Committeefor Standardization (1995 p 51) [29] Here K values varyfrom 04 to 06 with a difference of 05 according to themorphological structure of the masonry system e valuesof α and β are 07 and 03 respectively in smooth-shapedmasonry and 065 and 025 in coarse-shaped masonry re-spectively fb (MPa) refers to the compressive strength ofthe stone or brick fm (MPa) is the compressive strength ofthe mortar and is the maximum value that can be taken asdouble the value of fb

fk K middot fαb middot f

βm (1)

emodulus of elasticity of masonry is determined usingequation (2) derived by Lourenco in 2001 [30] e tensilestrength is taken as 10 of the compressive strengthPoissonrsquos ratio is recommended as 017 by Koccedilak [31] Inequation (1) ρ is a fixed value and varies according to theadherence between mortar and stonebrick tm refers to theaverage thickness of the mortar tu is the average height ofthe stone or brick Em is the modulus of elasticity of themortar and Eu is the modulus of elasticity of the stone orbrick [30]

E tm + tu

tmEm( 1113857 + tuEu( 1113857ρ (2)

Table 2 presents the calculatedmaterial parameters of themasonry walls used in the finite element analyses of theminaret

23 Initial Finite ElementModel of theMinaret According tothe drawings obtained from in situ surveying measure-ments the three-dimensional solid model and FEM modelof the minaret were prepared using the Abaqus [27]software (Figure 2) Convergence analysis was conducted

for the purpose of determining the most appropriate rangeof mesh in the FEM of the minaret In the convergenceanalysis the mesh size was initially selected as 055mModal analyses were carried out for each range of the meshgiven in Table 3 and the convergence graphics is given inFigure 3

According to the convergence analysis values in Table 3the range of the mesh in numerical analysis was chosen as025m A total of 28175 four-node tetrahedral (C3D4) solidelements and 8646 nodes were used for the initial FEM witha mesh size of 025m e modal analysis was carried outand the first four numerical frequency values and modeshapes profile and plan views are presented in Figure 4 efirst and the third mode shapes occur in the x direction andthe second and the fourth mode shapes occur in the ydirection

24 Operational Modal Analysis and Finite Element ModelUpdating of the Minaret e material values are the localproperties of the wall material When we apply these valuesto the whole structure it is difficult to achieve realisticvalues due to the regional differentiations erefore op-erational modal analysis is performed with the data ob-tained from the accelerometers which takes theenvironmental vibration data on the structure us ex-perimental modal behavior and damping rates of thestructure can be obtained By modifying the modulus ofelasticity a modal analysis is carried out by the finite el-ement method until it reaches the modes we have foundexperimentally When we reach the first mode value ob-tained from OMA we obtain the modulus of elasticity andthe damping ratio of the structure

Four Testbox-2010 data acquisition devices and sixteenuniaxial Sensebox-7021 accelerometers were used for theOMA method e accelerometers used in the experimentare sensitive to signals in the range 0ndash200Hz e signalsfrom the accelerometers are combined in the four-channelTestbox-2010 data acquisition unit and transferred to theTestlab-Network [32] data acquisition software After thesignals were processed experimental dynamic characteris-tics of the structure were obtained by using the ARTeMISModal Pro [33] software

OMA is an output-only method based on ambient vi-bration data In the experimental study the connectionpoints of the accelerometers were identified using the initialfinite element (FE) mode shapes of the minaret A total of 12uniaxial accelerometers were placed at these points as shownin Figure 5 Vibrations generated by the environmentaleffects on the minaret were collected by 12 uniaxial accel-erometers and data acquisition units

Acceleration data obtained from the OMA test weretransferred to the ARTeMIS Modal Pro [33] softwareand the experimental dynamic parameters of the minaretwere extracted using the SSI technique [34 35] estabilization diagram of estimated state space modelsobtained from the SSI technique and the experimentaldynamic characteristics are given in Figure 6 and Table 4respectively

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

It can be seen from Table 4 that there are differencesbetween the numerical and experimental frequencies eupdated FEM of the minaret is obtained by changingYoungrsquos modulus of brick Modulus of elasticity of the brickmasonry wall increases from 1300MPa to 5200MPa Table 5presents the first four numerical and experimental frequencyvalues obtained before and after the model calibration of theminaret e four mode shapes were obtained from the testsas shown in Figure 7(b) It can be seen from Table 5 andFigure 7 that the calibrated and experimental frequenciesand mode shapes are close to each other Besides it can beseen from Figures 4 and 7 that the twomode shapes obtainedfrom the initial and calibrated FEM occur in the samedirections

25 Seismic Damage Pattern Estimation of the MinaretSeismic damage propagation in the minaret was determinedby means of linear and nonlinear finite element models in

Pulpit

Transition segment

Cylindrical body

Balcony

Upper part of minaret body

Spire

(a)

3m2m

12m

11m

5m

2m266m

1m1

5m

A A

A-A section

(b)

Figure 1 (a) Parts of the minaret (b) Vertical and horizontal cross sections of the minaret

Table 1 Stone and brick material parameters from another similar study [28]

Compressivestrength (MPa)

Tensilestrength (MPa)

Modulus ofelasticity (MPa)

Ultrasonic pulsevelocity (ms)

Surfacehardness (R)

Density(kgm3)

Andesite stone 30 208 12240 1813 54 2200Full brick 82 186 2985 1051 31 2100Khorasan mortar 625 143 1100 mdash mdash 1340

Table 2 Initial material parameters of masonry walls

Materials Stonemasonry

Brickmasonry

Compressive strength (MPa) 7210 4210Tensile strength (MPa) 0721 0421Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 4400 1300Bulk density (kgm3) 2200 1750Poissonrsquos ratio 017 017

Figure 2 ree-dimensional solid model and finite element modelof the minaret

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

Abaqus e nonlinear analyses were performed using theCDP model e CDP model depends on the integration ofdamage mechanics and plasticity is improved to analyze thefailure of concrete and unreinforced brittle masonrystructures CDP describes the important characteristics ofthe failure process of concrete or masonry under multiaxialstress Material parameters for masonry in the CDP modelare summarized in Table 6

e failure of masonry can be modelled under uniaxialcompression and tension and by the plasticity characteris-tics CDP model response under uniaxial compression andtension is linear until the initial value of yield stress Whenthe failure stress is reached microcrack formation in ma-sonry is activated In the plastic regime the response istypically characterized by stress hardening followed by strainsoftening Beyond the failure stress the formation ofmicrocracks is represented macroscopically with a softeningstress-strain response as shown in Figure 8

Material properties of the masonry used in the minaretwere adopted from the study carried out by Kaushik et al[36] and are shown in Figure 9

e acceleration records of the earthquakes that tookplace in Ccedilay-Sultandagı (Mw 60) on Feb 3 2002 and Dinar(Mw 60) on Oct 10 1995 were used to determine theseismic damage patterns of Imaret Mosque Minaret Timehistories of two components of the earthquakes are depictedin Figure 10 e records are applied to the minaret in x-xand y-y horizontal directions simultaneously

26 Linear Analysis of Minaret under Ccedilay-Sultandagı andDinar Earthquakes Linear time-history analyses of theminaret are performed using the full Newton method in

Abaqus [27] e damping ratio is chosen as 5 emaximum lateral displacement values in U1 (x) and U2 (y)directions are 44 cm and 53 cm under the Ccedilay-Sultandagıearthquake and 129 cm and 376 cm under the Dinarearthquake respectively (Figure 11) e lateral displace-ment values throughout the height of the minaret underlinear analysis for Ccedilay-Sultandagı and Dinar earthquakes arepresented in Figure 12

Under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake it was observedthat the maximum (tension) principal stress (126MPa) wasconcentrated around the door which is in the transitionsegment that lies between the pulpit and the cylindricalbody while the minimum (compression) principal stress(136MPa) was concentrated on the opposite side of the door(Figure 13) Under the Dinar earthquake the maximum andminimum principal stresses occurred in the same locationand were obtained as 77MPa and 81MPa respectively asshown in Figure 14 e maximum and minimum stressesthat occurred in the minaret under the Dinar earthquakeexceeded limit tension (0421MPa) and compression(421MPa) values of the masonry wall However in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake only maximum principal stressesslightly exceeded tensile stresses (0421MPa) of the wallmaterial erefore it was shown that Ccedilay-Sultandagı doesnot cause a serious damage to the minaret During the Dinarearthquake maximum tensile and compressive stressesexceeded the limit tensile stress about 6 and 19 times re-spectively So linear analysis has shown that the minaretcould damage substantially under the Dinar earthquakeimpact

27 Nonlinear Analysis ofMinaret under Ccedilay-Sultandagı andDinar Earthquakes

271 Ccedilay-Sultandagı Earthquake According to the resultsof nonlinear time-history analysis for the Ccedilay-Sultandagıearthquake the maximum lateral displacement values areobtained as 48 cm and 36 cm in U1 and U2 directionsrespectively (Figure 14) Critical maximum and minimumprinciple stress contours under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earth-quake are presented in Figure 15

In CDP analysis the damage of the minaret can beachieved When this damage ratio exceeds 100 percent it isaccepted that the structure completely collapsed When theplastic deformation obtained with the nonlinear solution isinvestigated it was found that the safety boundary de-formation values also exceeded But the main criterion thatdetermines the damage and destruction of the structure isthe damage rate obtained by the CDP

e damage effect compression stress on the minaret iscalculated by CDP analysis and the damage percentagecontours at the end of time steps are presented in Figure 16

e compression damage on masonry of the minaretbegins at 1173 s and the plastic deformation value reaches00057 at the end of the analysis (t 25 s) (Figure 17)Limited number of elements exceeds the value of 0004which is the critical damage strain value of the masonry(Figure 9)

Table 3 Mesh size convergence

Meshsize (m)

e firstfrequency (Hz)

Number ofelements

055 0896 8710050 0869 9546045 0863 11170035 0854 17404025 0849 28175015 0846 105985

084

085

086

087

088

089

090

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

e fi

rst f

requ

ency

val

ues (

Hz)

Number of elements times10000

Figure 3 Frequency and mesh size convergence graphic

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atthe end of the analysis are presented in Figure 18 etension damage on masonry of the minaret begins at 1352 sand the plastic deformation value reaches 0014 at the end ofthe analysis (t 25 s) (Figure 19) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 00002 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is envisaged thatthe minaret would overcome this earthquake with minordamage It can be generally said that the masonry minaret issafe under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

272 Dinar Earthquake Nonlinear time-history analysis ofthe minaret under the Dinar earthquake shows that themaximum lateral displacement values are 174 cm and278 cm in U1 and U2 directions respectively (Figure 20)

Critical maximum and minimum principle stress con-tours under the Dinar earthquake are presented in Figure 21

e compression damage percentages of the minaret at theend of the analysis are presented in Figure 22

e compression damage on masonry of the minaretbegins at 38 s and the plastic deformation value reaches 017at the end of the analysis (Figure 23) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 0004 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9)

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atdifferent time steps are presented in Figure 24 e tensiondamage on masonry of the minaret begins at 33 s and theplastic deformation value reaches 038 at the end of theanalysis (t 25 s) (Figure 25) e upper part of the tran-sition segment exceeds the value of 00002 which is thecritical damage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parametersare around 85 of the tension and 90 of the pressure It isthought that the minaret will face major damage and failurein this earthquake hazard e events observed have shownthat thin and tall masonry structures like minarets aredamaged particularly at the transition segments [37]

e locations of compression and tension regions underlinear and nonlinear time-history analysis are coincidedSince the masonry cannot recover tensile stress the observedtension regions are critical although these regions are lim-ited Under a high ground motion the minaret may beconsiderably damaged from these regions and a specialprecaution must be implemented to these regions

3 Conclusions

Historical structures are of great importance to a countrye historical roots of a country have been exhibited bythem erefore they must be passed on from generation togeneration is study includes a valuable contribution tothis goal Seismic damage propagation estimations in the

Z

X

(a)

Z

YX

(b)

Z

X

(c)

Z

YX

(d)

Figure 4 e first four mode shapes profile and plan views and frequency values from the initial finite element model (a) Mode 1freq 0849 (cyclestime) (b) Mode 2 freq 0851 (cyclestime) (c) Mode 3 freq 4339 (cyclestime) (d) Mode 4 freq 4364 (cyclestime)

YXYX

YXYXYXYX

Figure 5 Locations and directions of the accelerometers on theminaret

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

historical clay brick masonry minaret under differentground motion levels by using the updated FEM areimplemented in this paper Dinar (1995) and Ccedilay-Sultandagı(2002) earthquakes are considered in the linear and non-linear time-history analyses It is seen that only the materialinformation made by material tests is not sufficient estructure must be fully investigated After the OMA

experiment as a result of the finite element solution im-provement the modulus of elasticity increased from1300MPa to 5200MPa In the first mode the natural fre-quency increased from 0849 to 1425 Mode shapes are inparallel with those in the experimental study A three-di-mensional finite element model of the minaret is calibratedusing the ambient vibration test results e differencebetween the experimental and numerical frequencies at thefirst 4 modes is about 43 before the model calibration and112 after the calibration Due to their intensity the resultsfrom the Dinar earthquake are bigger than those from theCcedilay-Sultandagı earthquake When the two earthquakes arecompared the end point of the minaret is 5 cm in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake and 38 cm in the Dinar earthquakeApproximately 8 times the displacement difference is ob-servedeminaret has a displacement difference of 8 timesApproximately 6 times a stress difference occurred Underthe Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is thought that theminaret will overcome this earthquake with minor damageIt can be generally said that the masonry minaret is safeunder the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake Under the Dinarearthquake damage parameters are around 85 of thetension and 90 of the pressure It is thought that theminaret would face major damage and failure in thisearthquake hazard

0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

AA A AA A AAA AA A A A

Dimension Test setup 4OLCUMCanonical variate analysis

Figure 6 Stabilization diagram of estimated state space models obtained from the SSI technique

Table 4 e experimental dynamic characteristics

Mod 1 2 3 4Frequencies(Hz) 1425 1516 6530 7108

Table 5 e dynamic characteristics obtained before and after theFEM calibration

Mode

Numericalfrequencies FEM

(Hz)

Experimentalfrequencies OMA

Difference ()

Beforeupdate

Afterupdate SSI Before

updateAfterupdate

1 0849 1425 1425 minus57 0002 0851 1531 1516 minus66 0153 4339 6548 6530 22 0184 4362 6692 7108 27 minus416

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

e Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake would inflict limiteddamage on the minaret whereas the Dinar earthquakewould damage some parts of the elements in the transitionsegment of the minaret It is observed that linear time-history analysis results do not reflect actual response ofthe clay brick masonry minaret during the earthquakee maximum and minimum principal stresses obtained

from the nonlinear analyses exceeded the tensile andcompressive strength values of the masonry and theyconcentrated on the transition region At the end of thestudy the damage of the historical minaret against the twoselected earthquakes was obtained and it was determinedthat the minaret was at risk of collapse during a severeearthquake

Mode 1freq = 1425(cyclestime)

Mode 2freq = 1531(cyclestime)

Mode 3freq = 6548(cyclestime)

Mode 4freq = 6992(cyclestime)

Z

X

Z

YX

Z

YX

Z

X

(a)

2

3

4

6

5

6

5

2

3

4

1 1

6

5

2

3

4

1

1st modef1 = 1425Hz

2nd modef2 = 1516Hz

3rd modef3 = 6530Hz

4th modef4 = 7108Hz

1

2

5

6

3

4

(b)

Figure 7 e first four calibrated and experimental mode shapes (a) Updated FEM mode shapes profile and plan views (b) Experimentalmode shapes profile and plan views

Table 6 Material parameters for masonry in the CDP model

Dilation angle Eccentricity σboσco K

100 01 116 0666

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

It can be seen from the past earthquakes that masonryminarets are damaged particularly at the transition seg-ments Besides occurrence of stress concentration in the

regions where section variations take place indicates that thecalibrated finite element model represents the behavior ofthe minaret as close to reality as possible erefore safety

σc

(εcσc)

Eo

Eo

(1 ndash dc)Eo

εc

σcu

σc0

εcin~

εcpl εc

el~

ε0cel

(a)

σt

σt0

(εcσc)Eo

Eo(1 ndash dt)Eo

εtεtck~

εtpl εt

el~

ε0tel

(b)

Figure 8 Damage plasticity stress-strain diagrams (a) uniaxial tension and (b) uniaxial compression

000050100150200250300350400450

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1

Com

pres

sion

stres

ses (

Mpa

)

Strain()

(a)

000005010015020025030035040045

0 002 004 006 008 01

Tens

ile st

ress

es (M

pa)

Strain()

(b)

Figure 9 Stress-strain relationship for brick masonry (a) Compression (b) Tension

ndash200

ndash100

000

100

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

x-x directiony-y direction

(a)

x-x directiony-y direction

ndash400

ndash200

000

200

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

(b)

Figure 10 (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı and (b) Dinar earthquake acceleration records

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

00440040003700330029

00220026

00180015001100070004ndash0000

0000ndash0004ndash0009ndash0013ndash0018

ndash0026ndash0022

ndash0031ndash0035ndash0040ndash0044ndash0048ndash0053

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0044 U U2 Max ndash0053

(a)

0000ndash0011ndash0021ndash0032ndash0043

ndash0064ndash0054

ndash0075ndash0086ndash0096ndash0107ndash0118ndash0129

03760345031302820251

01880219

01570125009400630031ndash0000

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max ndash0129 U U2 Max 0376

(b)

Figure 11 Maximum displacement contour shapes under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

000

004

008

012

016

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(a)

ndash020ndash010

000010020030040

0 5 10 15 20 25Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(b)

Figure 12 Lateral displacements throughout the height for the linear analyses (a) U1 (b) U2

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

X Y

+13e + 06+11e + 06+10e + 06+91e + 05+80e + 05+68e + 05

ndash12e + 05ndash73e + 03+11e + 05+22e + 05+34e + 05+45e + 05+57e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1948

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+66e + 04ndash43e + 04ndash15e + 05ndash26e + 05ndash37e + 05ndash48e + 05

ndash12e + 06ndash11e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash92e + 05ndash81e + 05ndash70e + 05ndash59e + 05

(a)

Figure 13 Continued

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

It can be seen from Table 4 that there are differencesbetween the numerical and experimental frequencies eupdated FEM of the minaret is obtained by changingYoungrsquos modulus of brick Modulus of elasticity of the brickmasonry wall increases from 1300MPa to 5200MPa Table 5presents the first four numerical and experimental frequencyvalues obtained before and after the model calibration of theminaret e four mode shapes were obtained from the testsas shown in Figure 7(b) It can be seen from Table 5 andFigure 7 that the calibrated and experimental frequenciesand mode shapes are close to each other Besides it can beseen from Figures 4 and 7 that the twomode shapes obtainedfrom the initial and calibrated FEM occur in the samedirections

25 Seismic Damage Pattern Estimation of the MinaretSeismic damage propagation in the minaret was determinedby means of linear and nonlinear finite element models in

Pulpit

Transition segment

Cylindrical body

Balcony

Upper part of minaret body

Spire

(a)

3m2m

12m

11m

5m

2m266m

1m1

5m

A A

A-A section

(b)

Figure 1 (a) Parts of the minaret (b) Vertical and horizontal cross sections of the minaret

Table 1 Stone and brick material parameters from another similar study [28]

Compressivestrength (MPa)

Tensilestrength (MPa)

Modulus ofelasticity (MPa)

Ultrasonic pulsevelocity (ms)

Surfacehardness (R)

Density(kgm3)

Andesite stone 30 208 12240 1813 54 2200Full brick 82 186 2985 1051 31 2100Khorasan mortar 625 143 1100 mdash mdash 1340

Table 2 Initial material parameters of masonry walls

Materials Stonemasonry

Brickmasonry

Compressive strength (MPa) 7210 4210Tensile strength (MPa) 0721 0421Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 4400 1300Bulk density (kgm3) 2200 1750Poissonrsquos ratio 017 017

Figure 2 ree-dimensional solid model and finite element modelof the minaret

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

Abaqus e nonlinear analyses were performed using theCDP model e CDP model depends on the integration ofdamage mechanics and plasticity is improved to analyze thefailure of concrete and unreinforced brittle masonrystructures CDP describes the important characteristics ofthe failure process of concrete or masonry under multiaxialstress Material parameters for masonry in the CDP modelare summarized in Table 6

e failure of masonry can be modelled under uniaxialcompression and tension and by the plasticity characteris-tics CDP model response under uniaxial compression andtension is linear until the initial value of yield stress Whenthe failure stress is reached microcrack formation in ma-sonry is activated In the plastic regime the response istypically characterized by stress hardening followed by strainsoftening Beyond the failure stress the formation ofmicrocracks is represented macroscopically with a softeningstress-strain response as shown in Figure 8

Material properties of the masonry used in the minaretwere adopted from the study carried out by Kaushik et al[36] and are shown in Figure 9

e acceleration records of the earthquakes that tookplace in Ccedilay-Sultandagı (Mw 60) on Feb 3 2002 and Dinar(Mw 60) on Oct 10 1995 were used to determine theseismic damage patterns of Imaret Mosque Minaret Timehistories of two components of the earthquakes are depictedin Figure 10 e records are applied to the minaret in x-xand y-y horizontal directions simultaneously

26 Linear Analysis of Minaret under Ccedilay-Sultandagı andDinar Earthquakes Linear time-history analyses of theminaret are performed using the full Newton method in

Abaqus [27] e damping ratio is chosen as 5 emaximum lateral displacement values in U1 (x) and U2 (y)directions are 44 cm and 53 cm under the Ccedilay-Sultandagıearthquake and 129 cm and 376 cm under the Dinarearthquake respectively (Figure 11) e lateral displace-ment values throughout the height of the minaret underlinear analysis for Ccedilay-Sultandagı and Dinar earthquakes arepresented in Figure 12

Under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake it was observedthat the maximum (tension) principal stress (126MPa) wasconcentrated around the door which is in the transitionsegment that lies between the pulpit and the cylindricalbody while the minimum (compression) principal stress(136MPa) was concentrated on the opposite side of the door(Figure 13) Under the Dinar earthquake the maximum andminimum principal stresses occurred in the same locationand were obtained as 77MPa and 81MPa respectively asshown in Figure 14 e maximum and minimum stressesthat occurred in the minaret under the Dinar earthquakeexceeded limit tension (0421MPa) and compression(421MPa) values of the masonry wall However in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake only maximum principal stressesslightly exceeded tensile stresses (0421MPa) of the wallmaterial erefore it was shown that Ccedilay-Sultandagı doesnot cause a serious damage to the minaret During the Dinarearthquake maximum tensile and compressive stressesexceeded the limit tensile stress about 6 and 19 times re-spectively So linear analysis has shown that the minaretcould damage substantially under the Dinar earthquakeimpact

27 Nonlinear Analysis ofMinaret under Ccedilay-Sultandagı andDinar Earthquakes

271 Ccedilay-Sultandagı Earthquake According to the resultsof nonlinear time-history analysis for the Ccedilay-Sultandagıearthquake the maximum lateral displacement values areobtained as 48 cm and 36 cm in U1 and U2 directionsrespectively (Figure 14) Critical maximum and minimumprinciple stress contours under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earth-quake are presented in Figure 15

In CDP analysis the damage of the minaret can beachieved When this damage ratio exceeds 100 percent it isaccepted that the structure completely collapsed When theplastic deformation obtained with the nonlinear solution isinvestigated it was found that the safety boundary de-formation values also exceeded But the main criterion thatdetermines the damage and destruction of the structure isthe damage rate obtained by the CDP

e damage effect compression stress on the minaret iscalculated by CDP analysis and the damage percentagecontours at the end of time steps are presented in Figure 16

e compression damage on masonry of the minaretbegins at 1173 s and the plastic deformation value reaches00057 at the end of the analysis (t 25 s) (Figure 17)Limited number of elements exceeds the value of 0004which is the critical damage strain value of the masonry(Figure 9)

Table 3 Mesh size convergence

Meshsize (m)

e firstfrequency (Hz)

Number ofelements

055 0896 8710050 0869 9546045 0863 11170035 0854 17404025 0849 28175015 0846 105985

084

085

086

087

088

089

090

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

e fi

rst f

requ

ency

val

ues (

Hz)

Number of elements times10000

Figure 3 Frequency and mesh size convergence graphic

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atthe end of the analysis are presented in Figure 18 etension damage on masonry of the minaret begins at 1352 sand the plastic deformation value reaches 0014 at the end ofthe analysis (t 25 s) (Figure 19) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 00002 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is envisaged thatthe minaret would overcome this earthquake with minordamage It can be generally said that the masonry minaret issafe under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

272 Dinar Earthquake Nonlinear time-history analysis ofthe minaret under the Dinar earthquake shows that themaximum lateral displacement values are 174 cm and278 cm in U1 and U2 directions respectively (Figure 20)

Critical maximum and minimum principle stress con-tours under the Dinar earthquake are presented in Figure 21

e compression damage percentages of the minaret at theend of the analysis are presented in Figure 22

e compression damage on masonry of the minaretbegins at 38 s and the plastic deformation value reaches 017at the end of the analysis (Figure 23) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 0004 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9)

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atdifferent time steps are presented in Figure 24 e tensiondamage on masonry of the minaret begins at 33 s and theplastic deformation value reaches 038 at the end of theanalysis (t 25 s) (Figure 25) e upper part of the tran-sition segment exceeds the value of 00002 which is thecritical damage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parametersare around 85 of the tension and 90 of the pressure It isthought that the minaret will face major damage and failurein this earthquake hazard e events observed have shownthat thin and tall masonry structures like minarets aredamaged particularly at the transition segments [37]

e locations of compression and tension regions underlinear and nonlinear time-history analysis are coincidedSince the masonry cannot recover tensile stress the observedtension regions are critical although these regions are lim-ited Under a high ground motion the minaret may beconsiderably damaged from these regions and a specialprecaution must be implemented to these regions

3 Conclusions

Historical structures are of great importance to a countrye historical roots of a country have been exhibited bythem erefore they must be passed on from generation togeneration is study includes a valuable contribution tothis goal Seismic damage propagation estimations in the

Z

X

(a)

Z

YX

(b)

Z

X

(c)

Z

YX

(d)

Figure 4 e first four mode shapes profile and plan views and frequency values from the initial finite element model (a) Mode 1freq 0849 (cyclestime) (b) Mode 2 freq 0851 (cyclestime) (c) Mode 3 freq 4339 (cyclestime) (d) Mode 4 freq 4364 (cyclestime)

YXYX

YXYXYXYX

Figure 5 Locations and directions of the accelerometers on theminaret

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

historical clay brick masonry minaret under differentground motion levels by using the updated FEM areimplemented in this paper Dinar (1995) and Ccedilay-Sultandagı(2002) earthquakes are considered in the linear and non-linear time-history analyses It is seen that only the materialinformation made by material tests is not sufficient estructure must be fully investigated After the OMA

experiment as a result of the finite element solution im-provement the modulus of elasticity increased from1300MPa to 5200MPa In the first mode the natural fre-quency increased from 0849 to 1425 Mode shapes are inparallel with those in the experimental study A three-di-mensional finite element model of the minaret is calibratedusing the ambient vibration test results e differencebetween the experimental and numerical frequencies at thefirst 4 modes is about 43 before the model calibration and112 after the calibration Due to their intensity the resultsfrom the Dinar earthquake are bigger than those from theCcedilay-Sultandagı earthquake When the two earthquakes arecompared the end point of the minaret is 5 cm in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake and 38 cm in the Dinar earthquakeApproximately 8 times the displacement difference is ob-servedeminaret has a displacement difference of 8 timesApproximately 6 times a stress difference occurred Underthe Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is thought that theminaret will overcome this earthquake with minor damageIt can be generally said that the masonry minaret is safeunder the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake Under the Dinarearthquake damage parameters are around 85 of thetension and 90 of the pressure It is thought that theminaret would face major damage and failure in thisearthquake hazard

0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

AA A AA A AAA AA A A A

Dimension Test setup 4OLCUMCanonical variate analysis

Figure 6 Stabilization diagram of estimated state space models obtained from the SSI technique

Table 4 e experimental dynamic characteristics

Mod 1 2 3 4Frequencies(Hz) 1425 1516 6530 7108

Table 5 e dynamic characteristics obtained before and after theFEM calibration

Mode

Numericalfrequencies FEM

(Hz)

Experimentalfrequencies OMA

Difference ()

Beforeupdate

Afterupdate SSI Before

updateAfterupdate

1 0849 1425 1425 minus57 0002 0851 1531 1516 minus66 0153 4339 6548 6530 22 0184 4362 6692 7108 27 minus416

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

e Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake would inflict limiteddamage on the minaret whereas the Dinar earthquakewould damage some parts of the elements in the transitionsegment of the minaret It is observed that linear time-history analysis results do not reflect actual response ofthe clay brick masonry minaret during the earthquakee maximum and minimum principal stresses obtained

from the nonlinear analyses exceeded the tensile andcompressive strength values of the masonry and theyconcentrated on the transition region At the end of thestudy the damage of the historical minaret against the twoselected earthquakes was obtained and it was determinedthat the minaret was at risk of collapse during a severeearthquake

Mode 1freq = 1425(cyclestime)

Mode 2freq = 1531(cyclestime)

Mode 3freq = 6548(cyclestime)

Mode 4freq = 6992(cyclestime)

Z

X

Z

YX

Z

YX

Z

X

(a)

2

3

4

6

5

6

5

2

3

4

1 1

6

5

2

3

4

1

1st modef1 = 1425Hz

2nd modef2 = 1516Hz

3rd modef3 = 6530Hz

4th modef4 = 7108Hz

1

2

5

6

3

4

(b)

Figure 7 e first four calibrated and experimental mode shapes (a) Updated FEM mode shapes profile and plan views (b) Experimentalmode shapes profile and plan views

Table 6 Material parameters for masonry in the CDP model

Dilation angle Eccentricity σboσco K

100 01 116 0666

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

It can be seen from the past earthquakes that masonryminarets are damaged particularly at the transition seg-ments Besides occurrence of stress concentration in the

regions where section variations take place indicates that thecalibrated finite element model represents the behavior ofthe minaret as close to reality as possible erefore safety

σc

(εcσc)

Eo

Eo

(1 ndash dc)Eo

εc

σcu

σc0

εcin~

εcpl εc

el~

ε0cel

(a)

σt

σt0

(εcσc)Eo

Eo(1 ndash dt)Eo

εtεtck~

εtpl εt

el~

ε0tel

(b)

Figure 8 Damage plasticity stress-strain diagrams (a) uniaxial tension and (b) uniaxial compression

000050100150200250300350400450

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1

Com

pres

sion

stres

ses (

Mpa

)

Strain()

(a)

000005010015020025030035040045

0 002 004 006 008 01

Tens

ile st

ress

es (M

pa)

Strain()

(b)

Figure 9 Stress-strain relationship for brick masonry (a) Compression (b) Tension

ndash200

ndash100

000

100

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

x-x directiony-y direction

(a)

x-x directiony-y direction

ndash400

ndash200

000

200

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

(b)

Figure 10 (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı and (b) Dinar earthquake acceleration records

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

00440040003700330029

00220026

00180015001100070004ndash0000

0000ndash0004ndash0009ndash0013ndash0018

ndash0026ndash0022

ndash0031ndash0035ndash0040ndash0044ndash0048ndash0053

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0044 U U2 Max ndash0053

(a)

0000ndash0011ndash0021ndash0032ndash0043

ndash0064ndash0054

ndash0075ndash0086ndash0096ndash0107ndash0118ndash0129

03760345031302820251

01880219

01570125009400630031ndash0000

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max ndash0129 U U2 Max 0376

(b)

Figure 11 Maximum displacement contour shapes under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

000

004

008

012

016

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(a)

ndash020ndash010

000010020030040

0 5 10 15 20 25Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(b)

Figure 12 Lateral displacements throughout the height for the linear analyses (a) U1 (b) U2

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

X Y

+13e + 06+11e + 06+10e + 06+91e + 05+80e + 05+68e + 05

ndash12e + 05ndash73e + 03+11e + 05+22e + 05+34e + 05+45e + 05+57e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1948

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+66e + 04ndash43e + 04ndash15e + 05ndash26e + 05ndash37e + 05ndash48e + 05

ndash12e + 06ndash11e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash92e + 05ndash81e + 05ndash70e + 05ndash59e + 05

(a)

Figure 13 Continued

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

Abaqus e nonlinear analyses were performed using theCDP model e CDP model depends on the integration ofdamage mechanics and plasticity is improved to analyze thefailure of concrete and unreinforced brittle masonrystructures CDP describes the important characteristics ofthe failure process of concrete or masonry under multiaxialstress Material parameters for masonry in the CDP modelare summarized in Table 6

e failure of masonry can be modelled under uniaxialcompression and tension and by the plasticity characteris-tics CDP model response under uniaxial compression andtension is linear until the initial value of yield stress Whenthe failure stress is reached microcrack formation in ma-sonry is activated In the plastic regime the response istypically characterized by stress hardening followed by strainsoftening Beyond the failure stress the formation ofmicrocracks is represented macroscopically with a softeningstress-strain response as shown in Figure 8

Material properties of the masonry used in the minaretwere adopted from the study carried out by Kaushik et al[36] and are shown in Figure 9

e acceleration records of the earthquakes that tookplace in Ccedilay-Sultandagı (Mw 60) on Feb 3 2002 and Dinar(Mw 60) on Oct 10 1995 were used to determine theseismic damage patterns of Imaret Mosque Minaret Timehistories of two components of the earthquakes are depictedin Figure 10 e records are applied to the minaret in x-xand y-y horizontal directions simultaneously

26 Linear Analysis of Minaret under Ccedilay-Sultandagı andDinar Earthquakes Linear time-history analyses of theminaret are performed using the full Newton method in

Abaqus [27] e damping ratio is chosen as 5 emaximum lateral displacement values in U1 (x) and U2 (y)directions are 44 cm and 53 cm under the Ccedilay-Sultandagıearthquake and 129 cm and 376 cm under the Dinarearthquake respectively (Figure 11) e lateral displace-ment values throughout the height of the minaret underlinear analysis for Ccedilay-Sultandagı and Dinar earthquakes arepresented in Figure 12

Under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake it was observedthat the maximum (tension) principal stress (126MPa) wasconcentrated around the door which is in the transitionsegment that lies between the pulpit and the cylindricalbody while the minimum (compression) principal stress(136MPa) was concentrated on the opposite side of the door(Figure 13) Under the Dinar earthquake the maximum andminimum principal stresses occurred in the same locationand were obtained as 77MPa and 81MPa respectively asshown in Figure 14 e maximum and minimum stressesthat occurred in the minaret under the Dinar earthquakeexceeded limit tension (0421MPa) and compression(421MPa) values of the masonry wall However in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake only maximum principal stressesslightly exceeded tensile stresses (0421MPa) of the wallmaterial erefore it was shown that Ccedilay-Sultandagı doesnot cause a serious damage to the minaret During the Dinarearthquake maximum tensile and compressive stressesexceeded the limit tensile stress about 6 and 19 times re-spectively So linear analysis has shown that the minaretcould damage substantially under the Dinar earthquakeimpact

27 Nonlinear Analysis ofMinaret under Ccedilay-Sultandagı andDinar Earthquakes

271 Ccedilay-Sultandagı Earthquake According to the resultsof nonlinear time-history analysis for the Ccedilay-Sultandagıearthquake the maximum lateral displacement values areobtained as 48 cm and 36 cm in U1 and U2 directionsrespectively (Figure 14) Critical maximum and minimumprinciple stress contours under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earth-quake are presented in Figure 15

In CDP analysis the damage of the minaret can beachieved When this damage ratio exceeds 100 percent it isaccepted that the structure completely collapsed When theplastic deformation obtained with the nonlinear solution isinvestigated it was found that the safety boundary de-formation values also exceeded But the main criterion thatdetermines the damage and destruction of the structure isthe damage rate obtained by the CDP

e damage effect compression stress on the minaret iscalculated by CDP analysis and the damage percentagecontours at the end of time steps are presented in Figure 16

e compression damage on masonry of the minaretbegins at 1173 s and the plastic deformation value reaches00057 at the end of the analysis (t 25 s) (Figure 17)Limited number of elements exceeds the value of 0004which is the critical damage strain value of the masonry(Figure 9)

Table 3 Mesh size convergence

Meshsize (m)

e firstfrequency (Hz)

Number ofelements

055 0896 8710050 0869 9546045 0863 11170035 0854 17404025 0849 28175015 0846 105985

084

085

086

087

088

089

090

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

e fi

rst f

requ

ency

val

ues (

Hz)

Number of elements times10000

Figure 3 Frequency and mesh size convergence graphic

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atthe end of the analysis are presented in Figure 18 etension damage on masonry of the minaret begins at 1352 sand the plastic deformation value reaches 0014 at the end ofthe analysis (t 25 s) (Figure 19) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 00002 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is envisaged thatthe minaret would overcome this earthquake with minordamage It can be generally said that the masonry minaret issafe under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

272 Dinar Earthquake Nonlinear time-history analysis ofthe minaret under the Dinar earthquake shows that themaximum lateral displacement values are 174 cm and278 cm in U1 and U2 directions respectively (Figure 20)

Critical maximum and minimum principle stress con-tours under the Dinar earthquake are presented in Figure 21

e compression damage percentages of the minaret at theend of the analysis are presented in Figure 22

e compression damage on masonry of the minaretbegins at 38 s and the plastic deformation value reaches 017at the end of the analysis (Figure 23) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 0004 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9)

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atdifferent time steps are presented in Figure 24 e tensiondamage on masonry of the minaret begins at 33 s and theplastic deformation value reaches 038 at the end of theanalysis (t 25 s) (Figure 25) e upper part of the tran-sition segment exceeds the value of 00002 which is thecritical damage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parametersare around 85 of the tension and 90 of the pressure It isthought that the minaret will face major damage and failurein this earthquake hazard e events observed have shownthat thin and tall masonry structures like minarets aredamaged particularly at the transition segments [37]

e locations of compression and tension regions underlinear and nonlinear time-history analysis are coincidedSince the masonry cannot recover tensile stress the observedtension regions are critical although these regions are lim-ited Under a high ground motion the minaret may beconsiderably damaged from these regions and a specialprecaution must be implemented to these regions

3 Conclusions

Historical structures are of great importance to a countrye historical roots of a country have been exhibited bythem erefore they must be passed on from generation togeneration is study includes a valuable contribution tothis goal Seismic damage propagation estimations in the

Z

X

(a)

Z

YX

(b)

Z

X

(c)

Z

YX

(d)

Figure 4 e first four mode shapes profile and plan views and frequency values from the initial finite element model (a) Mode 1freq 0849 (cyclestime) (b) Mode 2 freq 0851 (cyclestime) (c) Mode 3 freq 4339 (cyclestime) (d) Mode 4 freq 4364 (cyclestime)

YXYX

YXYXYXYX

Figure 5 Locations and directions of the accelerometers on theminaret

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

historical clay brick masonry minaret under differentground motion levels by using the updated FEM areimplemented in this paper Dinar (1995) and Ccedilay-Sultandagı(2002) earthquakes are considered in the linear and non-linear time-history analyses It is seen that only the materialinformation made by material tests is not sufficient estructure must be fully investigated After the OMA

experiment as a result of the finite element solution im-provement the modulus of elasticity increased from1300MPa to 5200MPa In the first mode the natural fre-quency increased from 0849 to 1425 Mode shapes are inparallel with those in the experimental study A three-di-mensional finite element model of the minaret is calibratedusing the ambient vibration test results e differencebetween the experimental and numerical frequencies at thefirst 4 modes is about 43 before the model calibration and112 after the calibration Due to their intensity the resultsfrom the Dinar earthquake are bigger than those from theCcedilay-Sultandagı earthquake When the two earthquakes arecompared the end point of the minaret is 5 cm in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake and 38 cm in the Dinar earthquakeApproximately 8 times the displacement difference is ob-servedeminaret has a displacement difference of 8 timesApproximately 6 times a stress difference occurred Underthe Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is thought that theminaret will overcome this earthquake with minor damageIt can be generally said that the masonry minaret is safeunder the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake Under the Dinarearthquake damage parameters are around 85 of thetension and 90 of the pressure It is thought that theminaret would face major damage and failure in thisearthquake hazard

0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

AA A AA A AAA AA A A A

Dimension Test setup 4OLCUMCanonical variate analysis

Figure 6 Stabilization diagram of estimated state space models obtained from the SSI technique

Table 4 e experimental dynamic characteristics

Mod 1 2 3 4Frequencies(Hz) 1425 1516 6530 7108

Table 5 e dynamic characteristics obtained before and after theFEM calibration

Mode

Numericalfrequencies FEM

(Hz)

Experimentalfrequencies OMA

Difference ()

Beforeupdate

Afterupdate SSI Before

updateAfterupdate

1 0849 1425 1425 minus57 0002 0851 1531 1516 minus66 0153 4339 6548 6530 22 0184 4362 6692 7108 27 minus416

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

e Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake would inflict limiteddamage on the minaret whereas the Dinar earthquakewould damage some parts of the elements in the transitionsegment of the minaret It is observed that linear time-history analysis results do not reflect actual response ofthe clay brick masonry minaret during the earthquakee maximum and minimum principal stresses obtained

from the nonlinear analyses exceeded the tensile andcompressive strength values of the masonry and theyconcentrated on the transition region At the end of thestudy the damage of the historical minaret against the twoselected earthquakes was obtained and it was determinedthat the minaret was at risk of collapse during a severeearthquake

Mode 1freq = 1425(cyclestime)

Mode 2freq = 1531(cyclestime)

Mode 3freq = 6548(cyclestime)

Mode 4freq = 6992(cyclestime)

Z

X

Z

YX

Z

YX

Z

X

(a)

2

3

4

6

5

6

5

2

3

4

1 1

6

5

2

3

4

1

1st modef1 = 1425Hz

2nd modef2 = 1516Hz

3rd modef3 = 6530Hz

4th modef4 = 7108Hz

1

2

5

6

3

4

(b)

Figure 7 e first four calibrated and experimental mode shapes (a) Updated FEM mode shapes profile and plan views (b) Experimentalmode shapes profile and plan views

Table 6 Material parameters for masonry in the CDP model

Dilation angle Eccentricity σboσco K

100 01 116 0666

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

It can be seen from the past earthquakes that masonryminarets are damaged particularly at the transition seg-ments Besides occurrence of stress concentration in the

regions where section variations take place indicates that thecalibrated finite element model represents the behavior ofthe minaret as close to reality as possible erefore safety

σc

(εcσc)

Eo

Eo

(1 ndash dc)Eo

εc

σcu

σc0

εcin~

εcpl εc

el~

ε0cel

(a)

σt

σt0

(εcσc)Eo

Eo(1 ndash dt)Eo

εtεtck~

εtpl εt

el~

ε0tel

(b)

Figure 8 Damage plasticity stress-strain diagrams (a) uniaxial tension and (b) uniaxial compression

000050100150200250300350400450

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1

Com

pres

sion

stres

ses (

Mpa

)

Strain()

(a)

000005010015020025030035040045

0 002 004 006 008 01

Tens

ile st

ress

es (M

pa)

Strain()

(b)

Figure 9 Stress-strain relationship for brick masonry (a) Compression (b) Tension

ndash200

ndash100

000

100

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

x-x directiony-y direction

(a)

x-x directiony-y direction

ndash400

ndash200

000

200

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

(b)

Figure 10 (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı and (b) Dinar earthquake acceleration records

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

00440040003700330029

00220026

00180015001100070004ndash0000

0000ndash0004ndash0009ndash0013ndash0018

ndash0026ndash0022

ndash0031ndash0035ndash0040ndash0044ndash0048ndash0053

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0044 U U2 Max ndash0053

(a)

0000ndash0011ndash0021ndash0032ndash0043

ndash0064ndash0054

ndash0075ndash0086ndash0096ndash0107ndash0118ndash0129

03760345031302820251

01880219

01570125009400630031ndash0000

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max ndash0129 U U2 Max 0376

(b)

Figure 11 Maximum displacement contour shapes under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

000

004

008

012

016

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(a)

ndash020ndash010

000010020030040

0 5 10 15 20 25Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(b)

Figure 12 Lateral displacements throughout the height for the linear analyses (a) U1 (b) U2

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

X Y

+13e + 06+11e + 06+10e + 06+91e + 05+80e + 05+68e + 05

ndash12e + 05ndash73e + 03+11e + 05+22e + 05+34e + 05+45e + 05+57e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1948

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+66e + 04ndash43e + 04ndash15e + 05ndash26e + 05ndash37e + 05ndash48e + 05

ndash12e + 06ndash11e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash92e + 05ndash81e + 05ndash70e + 05ndash59e + 05

(a)

Figure 13 Continued

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atthe end of the analysis are presented in Figure 18 etension damage on masonry of the minaret begins at 1352 sand the plastic deformation value reaches 0014 at the end ofthe analysis (t 25 s) (Figure 19) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 00002 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is envisaged thatthe minaret would overcome this earthquake with minordamage It can be generally said that the masonry minaret issafe under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

272 Dinar Earthquake Nonlinear time-history analysis ofthe minaret under the Dinar earthquake shows that themaximum lateral displacement values are 174 cm and278 cm in U1 and U2 directions respectively (Figure 20)

Critical maximum and minimum principle stress con-tours under the Dinar earthquake are presented in Figure 21

e compression damage percentages of the minaret at theend of the analysis are presented in Figure 22

e compression damage on masonry of the minaretbegins at 38 s and the plastic deformation value reaches 017at the end of the analysis (Figure 23) Only small number ofelements exceeds the value of 0004 which is the criticaldamage strain value (Figure 9)

e tension damage effects calculated by CDP analysis atdifferent time steps are presented in Figure 24 e tensiondamage on masonry of the minaret begins at 33 s and theplastic deformation value reaches 038 at the end of theanalysis (t 25 s) (Figure 25) e upper part of the tran-sition segment exceeds the value of 00002 which is thecritical damage strain value (Figure 9) Damage parametersare around 85 of the tension and 90 of the pressure It isthought that the minaret will face major damage and failurein this earthquake hazard e events observed have shownthat thin and tall masonry structures like minarets aredamaged particularly at the transition segments [37]

e locations of compression and tension regions underlinear and nonlinear time-history analysis are coincidedSince the masonry cannot recover tensile stress the observedtension regions are critical although these regions are lim-ited Under a high ground motion the minaret may beconsiderably damaged from these regions and a specialprecaution must be implemented to these regions

3 Conclusions

Historical structures are of great importance to a countrye historical roots of a country have been exhibited bythem erefore they must be passed on from generation togeneration is study includes a valuable contribution tothis goal Seismic damage propagation estimations in the

Z

X

(a)

Z

YX

(b)

Z

X

(c)

Z

YX

(d)

Figure 4 e first four mode shapes profile and plan views and frequency values from the initial finite element model (a) Mode 1freq 0849 (cyclestime) (b) Mode 2 freq 0851 (cyclestime) (c) Mode 3 freq 4339 (cyclestime) (d) Mode 4 freq 4364 (cyclestime)

YXYX

YXYXYXYX

Figure 5 Locations and directions of the accelerometers on theminaret

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

historical clay brick masonry minaret under differentground motion levels by using the updated FEM areimplemented in this paper Dinar (1995) and Ccedilay-Sultandagı(2002) earthquakes are considered in the linear and non-linear time-history analyses It is seen that only the materialinformation made by material tests is not sufficient estructure must be fully investigated After the OMA

experiment as a result of the finite element solution im-provement the modulus of elasticity increased from1300MPa to 5200MPa In the first mode the natural fre-quency increased from 0849 to 1425 Mode shapes are inparallel with those in the experimental study A three-di-mensional finite element model of the minaret is calibratedusing the ambient vibration test results e differencebetween the experimental and numerical frequencies at thefirst 4 modes is about 43 before the model calibration and112 after the calibration Due to their intensity the resultsfrom the Dinar earthquake are bigger than those from theCcedilay-Sultandagı earthquake When the two earthquakes arecompared the end point of the minaret is 5 cm in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake and 38 cm in the Dinar earthquakeApproximately 8 times the displacement difference is ob-servedeminaret has a displacement difference of 8 timesApproximately 6 times a stress difference occurred Underthe Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is thought that theminaret will overcome this earthquake with minor damageIt can be generally said that the masonry minaret is safeunder the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake Under the Dinarearthquake damage parameters are around 85 of thetension and 90 of the pressure It is thought that theminaret would face major damage and failure in thisearthquake hazard

0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

AA A AA A AAA AA A A A

Dimension Test setup 4OLCUMCanonical variate analysis

Figure 6 Stabilization diagram of estimated state space models obtained from the SSI technique

Table 4 e experimental dynamic characteristics

Mod 1 2 3 4Frequencies(Hz) 1425 1516 6530 7108

Table 5 e dynamic characteristics obtained before and after theFEM calibration

Mode

Numericalfrequencies FEM

(Hz)

Experimentalfrequencies OMA

Difference ()

Beforeupdate

Afterupdate SSI Before

updateAfterupdate

1 0849 1425 1425 minus57 0002 0851 1531 1516 minus66 0153 4339 6548 6530 22 0184 4362 6692 7108 27 minus416

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

e Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake would inflict limiteddamage on the minaret whereas the Dinar earthquakewould damage some parts of the elements in the transitionsegment of the minaret It is observed that linear time-history analysis results do not reflect actual response ofthe clay brick masonry minaret during the earthquakee maximum and minimum principal stresses obtained

from the nonlinear analyses exceeded the tensile andcompressive strength values of the masonry and theyconcentrated on the transition region At the end of thestudy the damage of the historical minaret against the twoselected earthquakes was obtained and it was determinedthat the minaret was at risk of collapse during a severeearthquake

Mode 1freq = 1425(cyclestime)

Mode 2freq = 1531(cyclestime)

Mode 3freq = 6548(cyclestime)

Mode 4freq = 6992(cyclestime)

Z

X

Z

YX

Z

YX

Z

X

(a)

2

3

4

6

5

6

5

2

3

4

1 1

6

5

2

3

4

1

1st modef1 = 1425Hz

2nd modef2 = 1516Hz

3rd modef3 = 6530Hz

4th modef4 = 7108Hz

1

2

5

6

3

4

(b)

Figure 7 e first four calibrated and experimental mode shapes (a) Updated FEM mode shapes profile and plan views (b) Experimentalmode shapes profile and plan views

Table 6 Material parameters for masonry in the CDP model

Dilation angle Eccentricity σboσco K

100 01 116 0666

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

It can be seen from the past earthquakes that masonryminarets are damaged particularly at the transition seg-ments Besides occurrence of stress concentration in the

regions where section variations take place indicates that thecalibrated finite element model represents the behavior ofthe minaret as close to reality as possible erefore safety

σc

(εcσc)

Eo

Eo

(1 ndash dc)Eo

εc

σcu

σc0

εcin~

εcpl εc

el~

ε0cel

(a)

σt

σt0

(εcσc)Eo

Eo(1 ndash dt)Eo

εtεtck~

εtpl εt

el~

ε0tel

(b)

Figure 8 Damage plasticity stress-strain diagrams (a) uniaxial tension and (b) uniaxial compression

000050100150200250300350400450

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1

Com

pres

sion

stres

ses (

Mpa

)

Strain()

(a)

000005010015020025030035040045

0 002 004 006 008 01

Tens

ile st

ress

es (M

pa)

Strain()

(b)

Figure 9 Stress-strain relationship for brick masonry (a) Compression (b) Tension

ndash200

ndash100

000

100

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

x-x directiony-y direction

(a)

x-x directiony-y direction

ndash400

ndash200

000

200

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

(b)

Figure 10 (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı and (b) Dinar earthquake acceleration records

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

00440040003700330029

00220026

00180015001100070004ndash0000

0000ndash0004ndash0009ndash0013ndash0018

ndash0026ndash0022

ndash0031ndash0035ndash0040ndash0044ndash0048ndash0053

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0044 U U2 Max ndash0053

(a)

0000ndash0011ndash0021ndash0032ndash0043

ndash0064ndash0054

ndash0075ndash0086ndash0096ndash0107ndash0118ndash0129

03760345031302820251

01880219

01570125009400630031ndash0000

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max ndash0129 U U2 Max 0376

(b)

Figure 11 Maximum displacement contour shapes under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

000

004

008

012

016

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(a)

ndash020ndash010

000010020030040

0 5 10 15 20 25Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(b)

Figure 12 Lateral displacements throughout the height for the linear analyses (a) U1 (b) U2

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

X Y

+13e + 06+11e + 06+10e + 06+91e + 05+80e + 05+68e + 05

ndash12e + 05ndash73e + 03+11e + 05+22e + 05+34e + 05+45e + 05+57e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1948

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+66e + 04ndash43e + 04ndash15e + 05ndash26e + 05ndash37e + 05ndash48e + 05

ndash12e + 06ndash11e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash92e + 05ndash81e + 05ndash70e + 05ndash59e + 05

(a)

Figure 13 Continued

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

historical clay brick masonry minaret under differentground motion levels by using the updated FEM areimplemented in this paper Dinar (1995) and Ccedilay-Sultandagı(2002) earthquakes are considered in the linear and non-linear time-history analyses It is seen that only the materialinformation made by material tests is not sufficient estructure must be fully investigated After the OMA

experiment as a result of the finite element solution im-provement the modulus of elasticity increased from1300MPa to 5200MPa In the first mode the natural fre-quency increased from 0849 to 1425 Mode shapes are inparallel with those in the experimental study A three-di-mensional finite element model of the minaret is calibratedusing the ambient vibration test results e differencebetween the experimental and numerical frequencies at thefirst 4 modes is about 43 before the model calibration and112 after the calibration Due to their intensity the resultsfrom the Dinar earthquake are bigger than those from theCcedilay-Sultandagı earthquake When the two earthquakes arecompared the end point of the minaret is 5 cm in the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake and 38 cm in the Dinar earthquakeApproximately 8 times the displacement difference is ob-servedeminaret has a displacement difference of 8 timesApproximately 6 times a stress difference occurred Underthe Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake damage parameters remainaround 70 of the tensile and pressure It is thought that theminaret will overcome this earthquake with minor damageIt can be generally said that the masonry minaret is safeunder the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake Under the Dinarearthquake damage parameters are around 85 of thetension and 90 of the pressure It is thought that theminaret would face major damage and failure in thisearthquake hazard

0 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency (Hz)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

AA A AA A AAA AA A A A

Dimension Test setup 4OLCUMCanonical variate analysis

Figure 6 Stabilization diagram of estimated state space models obtained from the SSI technique

Table 4 e experimental dynamic characteristics

Mod 1 2 3 4Frequencies(Hz) 1425 1516 6530 7108

Table 5 e dynamic characteristics obtained before and after theFEM calibration

Mode

Numericalfrequencies FEM

(Hz)

Experimentalfrequencies OMA

Difference ()

Beforeupdate

Afterupdate SSI Before

updateAfterupdate

1 0849 1425 1425 minus57 0002 0851 1531 1516 minus66 0153 4339 6548 6530 22 0184 4362 6692 7108 27 minus416

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

e Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake would inflict limiteddamage on the minaret whereas the Dinar earthquakewould damage some parts of the elements in the transitionsegment of the minaret It is observed that linear time-history analysis results do not reflect actual response ofthe clay brick masonry minaret during the earthquakee maximum and minimum principal stresses obtained

from the nonlinear analyses exceeded the tensile andcompressive strength values of the masonry and theyconcentrated on the transition region At the end of thestudy the damage of the historical minaret against the twoselected earthquakes was obtained and it was determinedthat the minaret was at risk of collapse during a severeearthquake

Mode 1freq = 1425(cyclestime)

Mode 2freq = 1531(cyclestime)

Mode 3freq = 6548(cyclestime)

Mode 4freq = 6992(cyclestime)

Z

X

Z

YX

Z

YX

Z

X

(a)

2

3

4

6

5

6

5

2

3

4

1 1

6

5

2

3

4

1

1st modef1 = 1425Hz

2nd modef2 = 1516Hz

3rd modef3 = 6530Hz

4th modef4 = 7108Hz

1

2

5

6

3

4

(b)

Figure 7 e first four calibrated and experimental mode shapes (a) Updated FEM mode shapes profile and plan views (b) Experimentalmode shapes profile and plan views

Table 6 Material parameters for masonry in the CDP model

Dilation angle Eccentricity σboσco K

100 01 116 0666

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

It can be seen from the past earthquakes that masonryminarets are damaged particularly at the transition seg-ments Besides occurrence of stress concentration in the

regions where section variations take place indicates that thecalibrated finite element model represents the behavior ofthe minaret as close to reality as possible erefore safety

σc

(εcσc)

Eo

Eo

(1 ndash dc)Eo

εc

σcu

σc0

εcin~

εcpl εc

el~

ε0cel

(a)

σt

σt0

(εcσc)Eo

Eo(1 ndash dt)Eo

εtεtck~

εtpl εt

el~

ε0tel

(b)

Figure 8 Damage plasticity stress-strain diagrams (a) uniaxial tension and (b) uniaxial compression

000050100150200250300350400450

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1

Com

pres

sion

stres

ses (

Mpa

)

Strain()

(a)

000005010015020025030035040045

0 002 004 006 008 01

Tens

ile st

ress

es (M

pa)

Strain()

(b)

Figure 9 Stress-strain relationship for brick masonry (a) Compression (b) Tension

ndash200

ndash100

000

100

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

x-x directiony-y direction

(a)

x-x directiony-y direction

ndash400

ndash200

000

200

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

(b)

Figure 10 (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı and (b) Dinar earthquake acceleration records

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

00440040003700330029

00220026

00180015001100070004ndash0000

0000ndash0004ndash0009ndash0013ndash0018

ndash0026ndash0022

ndash0031ndash0035ndash0040ndash0044ndash0048ndash0053

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0044 U U2 Max ndash0053

(a)

0000ndash0011ndash0021ndash0032ndash0043

ndash0064ndash0054

ndash0075ndash0086ndash0096ndash0107ndash0118ndash0129

03760345031302820251

01880219

01570125009400630031ndash0000

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max ndash0129 U U2 Max 0376

(b)

Figure 11 Maximum displacement contour shapes under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

000

004

008

012

016

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(a)

ndash020ndash010

000010020030040

0 5 10 15 20 25Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(b)

Figure 12 Lateral displacements throughout the height for the linear analyses (a) U1 (b) U2

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

X Y

+13e + 06+11e + 06+10e + 06+91e + 05+80e + 05+68e + 05

ndash12e + 05ndash73e + 03+11e + 05+22e + 05+34e + 05+45e + 05+57e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1948

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+66e + 04ndash43e + 04ndash15e + 05ndash26e + 05ndash37e + 05ndash48e + 05

ndash12e + 06ndash11e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash92e + 05ndash81e + 05ndash70e + 05ndash59e + 05

(a)

Figure 13 Continued

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

e Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake would inflict limiteddamage on the minaret whereas the Dinar earthquakewould damage some parts of the elements in the transitionsegment of the minaret It is observed that linear time-history analysis results do not reflect actual response ofthe clay brick masonry minaret during the earthquakee maximum and minimum principal stresses obtained

from the nonlinear analyses exceeded the tensile andcompressive strength values of the masonry and theyconcentrated on the transition region At the end of thestudy the damage of the historical minaret against the twoselected earthquakes was obtained and it was determinedthat the minaret was at risk of collapse during a severeearthquake

Mode 1freq = 1425(cyclestime)

Mode 2freq = 1531(cyclestime)

Mode 3freq = 6548(cyclestime)

Mode 4freq = 6992(cyclestime)

Z

X

Z

YX

Z

YX

Z

X

(a)

2

3

4

6

5

6

5

2

3

4

1 1

6

5

2

3

4

1

1st modef1 = 1425Hz

2nd modef2 = 1516Hz

3rd modef3 = 6530Hz

4th modef4 = 7108Hz

1

2

5

6

3

4

(b)

Figure 7 e first four calibrated and experimental mode shapes (a) Updated FEM mode shapes profile and plan views (b) Experimentalmode shapes profile and plan views

Table 6 Material parameters for masonry in the CDP model

Dilation angle Eccentricity σboσco K

100 01 116 0666

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

It can be seen from the past earthquakes that masonryminarets are damaged particularly at the transition seg-ments Besides occurrence of stress concentration in the

regions where section variations take place indicates that thecalibrated finite element model represents the behavior ofthe minaret as close to reality as possible erefore safety

σc

(εcσc)

Eo

Eo

(1 ndash dc)Eo

εc

σcu

σc0

εcin~

εcpl εc

el~

ε0cel

(a)

σt

σt0

(εcσc)Eo

Eo(1 ndash dt)Eo

εtεtck~

εtpl εt

el~

ε0tel

(b)

Figure 8 Damage plasticity stress-strain diagrams (a) uniaxial tension and (b) uniaxial compression

000050100150200250300350400450

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1

Com

pres

sion

stres

ses (

Mpa

)

Strain()

(a)

000005010015020025030035040045

0 002 004 006 008 01

Tens

ile st

ress

es (M

pa)

Strain()

(b)

Figure 9 Stress-strain relationship for brick masonry (a) Compression (b) Tension

ndash200

ndash100

000

100

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

x-x directiony-y direction

(a)

x-x directiony-y direction

ndash400

ndash200

000

200

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

(b)

Figure 10 (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı and (b) Dinar earthquake acceleration records

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

00440040003700330029

00220026

00180015001100070004ndash0000

0000ndash0004ndash0009ndash0013ndash0018

ndash0026ndash0022

ndash0031ndash0035ndash0040ndash0044ndash0048ndash0053

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0044 U U2 Max ndash0053

(a)

0000ndash0011ndash0021ndash0032ndash0043

ndash0064ndash0054

ndash0075ndash0086ndash0096ndash0107ndash0118ndash0129

03760345031302820251

01880219

01570125009400630031ndash0000

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max ndash0129 U U2 Max 0376

(b)

Figure 11 Maximum displacement contour shapes under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

000

004

008

012

016

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(a)

ndash020ndash010

000010020030040

0 5 10 15 20 25Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(b)

Figure 12 Lateral displacements throughout the height for the linear analyses (a) U1 (b) U2

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

X Y

+13e + 06+11e + 06+10e + 06+91e + 05+80e + 05+68e + 05

ndash12e + 05ndash73e + 03+11e + 05+22e + 05+34e + 05+45e + 05+57e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1948

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+66e + 04ndash43e + 04ndash15e + 05ndash26e + 05ndash37e + 05ndash48e + 05

ndash12e + 06ndash11e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash92e + 05ndash81e + 05ndash70e + 05ndash59e + 05

(a)

Figure 13 Continued

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

It can be seen from the past earthquakes that masonryminarets are damaged particularly at the transition seg-ments Besides occurrence of stress concentration in the

regions where section variations take place indicates that thecalibrated finite element model represents the behavior ofthe minaret as close to reality as possible erefore safety

σc

(εcσc)

Eo

Eo

(1 ndash dc)Eo

εc

σcu

σc0

εcin~

εcpl εc

el~

ε0cel

(a)

σt

σt0

(εcσc)Eo

Eo(1 ndash dt)Eo

εtεtck~

εtpl εt

el~

ε0tel

(b)

Figure 8 Damage plasticity stress-strain diagrams (a) uniaxial tension and (b) uniaxial compression

000050100150200250300350400450

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1

Com

pres

sion

stres

ses (

Mpa

)

Strain()

(a)

000005010015020025030035040045

0 002 004 006 008 01

Tens

ile st

ress

es (M

pa)

Strain()

(b)

Figure 9 Stress-strain relationship for brick masonry (a) Compression (b) Tension

ndash200

ndash100

000

100

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

x-x directiony-y direction

(a)

x-x directiony-y direction

ndash400

ndash200

000

200

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

s2 )

Time (s)

(b)

Figure 10 (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı and (b) Dinar earthquake acceleration records

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

00440040003700330029

00220026

00180015001100070004ndash0000

0000ndash0004ndash0009ndash0013ndash0018

ndash0026ndash0022

ndash0031ndash0035ndash0040ndash0044ndash0048ndash0053

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0044 U U2 Max ndash0053

(a)

0000ndash0011ndash0021ndash0032ndash0043

ndash0064ndash0054

ndash0075ndash0086ndash0096ndash0107ndash0118ndash0129

03760345031302820251

01880219

01570125009400630031ndash0000

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max ndash0129 U U2 Max 0376

(b)

Figure 11 Maximum displacement contour shapes under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

000

004

008

012

016

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(a)

ndash020ndash010

000010020030040

0 5 10 15 20 25Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(b)

Figure 12 Lateral displacements throughout the height for the linear analyses (a) U1 (b) U2

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

X Y

+13e + 06+11e + 06+10e + 06+91e + 05+80e + 05+68e + 05

ndash12e + 05ndash73e + 03+11e + 05+22e + 05+34e + 05+45e + 05+57e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1948

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+66e + 04ndash43e + 04ndash15e + 05ndash26e + 05ndash37e + 05ndash48e + 05

ndash12e + 06ndash11e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash92e + 05ndash81e + 05ndash70e + 05ndash59e + 05

(a)

Figure 13 Continued

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

00440040003700330029

00220026

00180015001100070004ndash0000

0000ndash0004ndash0009ndash0013ndash0018

ndash0026ndash0022

ndash0031ndash0035ndash0040ndash0044ndash0048ndash0053

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0044 U U2 Max ndash0053

(a)

0000ndash0011ndash0021ndash0032ndash0043

ndash0064ndash0054

ndash0075ndash0086ndash0096ndash0107ndash0118ndash0129

03760345031302820251

01880219

01570125009400630031ndash0000

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max ndash0129 U U2 Max 0376

(b)

Figure 11 Maximum displacement contour shapes under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

000

004

008

012

016

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(a)

ndash020ndash010

000010020030040

0 5 10 15 20 25Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Height (m)

Cay earthquakeDinar earthquake

(b)

Figure 12 Lateral displacements throughout the height for the linear analyses (a) U1 (b) U2

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

X Y

+13e + 06+11e + 06+10e + 06+91e + 05+80e + 05+68e + 05

ndash12e + 05ndash73e + 03+11e + 05+22e + 05+34e + 05+45e + 05+57e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1948

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+66e + 04ndash43e + 04ndash15e + 05ndash26e + 05ndash37e + 05ndash48e + 05

ndash12e + 06ndash11e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash92e + 05ndash81e + 05ndash70e + 05ndash59e + 05

(a)

Figure 13 Continued

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

00480044004000360032

00240028

00200016001100070003ndash0001

0000ndash0003ndash0006ndash0009ndash0012

ndash0018ndash0015

ndash0021ndash0024ndash0027ndash0030ndash0033ndash0036

Z

X

Z

Y

U U1 Max 0048 U U2 Max ndash0036

ndash005

ndash003

ndash001

001

003

005

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time(s)

U1U2

Figure 14 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+77e + 06+70e + 06+63e + 06+55e + 06+48e + 06+41e + 06

ndash10e + 06ndash31e + 05+42e + 05+12e + 06+19e + 06+26e + 06+33e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 1874

Step step-1Step time = 2049

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+10e + 06+24e + 05ndash51e + 05ndash13e + 06ndash20e + 06ndash28e + 06

ndash81e + 06ndash73e + 06ndash66e + 06ndash58e + 06ndash51e + 06ndash43e + 06ndash35e + 06

(b)

Figure 13 Maximum and minimum principal stresses contour under the earthquakes (a) Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake (b) Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+49e + 05+39e + 05+30e + 05+20e + 05+10e + 05+57e + 03

ndash67e + 05ndash57e + 05ndash48e + 05ndash38e + 05ndash28e + 05ndash19e + 05ndash91e + 05

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+39e + 05+18e + 05ndash21e + 04ndash23e + 05ndash43e + 05ndash64e + 05

ndash21e + 06ndash19e + 06ndash17e + 06ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash84e + 05

Step step-1Step time = 1769

Step step-1Step time = 1991

Figure 15 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 8568

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+71e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+24e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 16 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

PEEC(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+57e ndash 03+52e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+43e ndash 03+38e ndash 03+33e ndash 03

+00e + 00+47e ndash 04+95e ndash 04+14e ndash 03+19e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+28e ndash 03

Z

XY

Figure 17 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 27623

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+70e ndash 01+65e ndash 01+59e ndash 01+53e ndash 01+47e ndash 01+41e ndash 01

+00e + 00+59e ndash 02+12e ndash 01+18e ndash 01+23e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+35e ndash 01

Z

XY

Figure 18 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+14e ndash 02+13e ndash 02+12e ndash 02+11e ndash 02+95e ndash 03+83e ndash 03

+00e + 00+12e ndash 03+24e ndash 03+36e ndash 03+47e ndash 03+59e ndash 03+71e ndash 03

Z

Y

Figure 19 Tension plastic strain contour under the Ccedilay-Sultandagı earthquake

ndash030

ndash020

ndash010

000

010

020

030

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disp

lace

men

t (m

)

Time (s)

U1U2

U U1

Z

X

017401590144012901130098

ndash0008000800230038005300680083

027802520227020101760150

ndash0029ndash000300220048007300990124

Z

Y

Max 0174 U U2 Max 0278

Figure 20 Time-history and contour graphs of displacements in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

S Max principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+15e + 06+12e + 06+99e + 05+74e + 05+49e + 05+24e + 05

ndash15e + 06ndash13e + 06ndash10e + 06ndash75e + 05ndash50e + 05ndash25e + 05ndash50e + 03

S Min principal(avg 75)

Z

XY

+12e + 06+68e + 05+16e + 05ndash35e + 05ndash87e + 05ndash14e + 06

ndash50e + 06ndash45e + 06ndash40e + 06ndash34e + 06ndash29e + 06ndash24e + 06ndash19e + 06

Step step-1Step time = 2035

Step step-1Step time = 1538

Figure 21 Maximum and minimum principal stresses in the minaret under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Com

pres

sion

dam

age

Time (s)

Compression damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 7643

Compression damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

X

Figure 22 Compression damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

PEEQ(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+17e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+14e ndash 01+13e ndash 01+12e ndash 01+10e ndash 01

+00e + 00+14e ndash 02+29e ndash 02+43e ndash 02+58e ndash 02+72e ndash 02+87e ndash 02

Z

YX

Figure 23 Compressive plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

000

020

040

060

080

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tens

ion

dam

age

Time (s)

Tension damage PI Imaret Minaret-1 E 12964

Tension damage(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+90e ndash 01+82e ndash 01+75e ndash 01+67e ndash 01+60e ndash 01+52e ndash 01

+00e + 00+75e ndash 02+15e ndash 01+22e ndash 01+30e ndash 01+37e ndash 01+45e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 24 Tension damage distribution for the minaret at different time steps under the Dinar earthquake

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

assessment of the masonry minarets under earthquakesshould be evaluated considering calibrated finite elementmodels and nonlinear time-history analyses

Data Availability

Readers can access the earthquake accelerations data eearthquake accelerations data used to support the findings ofthis study have been deposited in the repository available athttpkyhdatadepremgovtr2Kkyhdata_v4phpdstTU9EVUxFX05BTUU9ZXZ0RmlsZSZNT0RVTEVfVEFTSz1zZWFyY2g3D

Conflicts of Interest

e author declares that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

is research was conducted using the facilities of ManisaCelal Bayar University

References

[1] F Cakir B S Seker A Durmus A Dogangun and H UysalldquoSeismic assessment of a historical masonry mosque by ex-perimental tests and finite element analysesrdquo KSCE Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 19 no 1 pp 158ndash164 2014

[2] A Bayraktar B Sevim A C Altunisik and T TurkerldquoEarthquake analysis of reinorced concrete minarets usingambient vibration test resultsrdquo lte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 19 2008

[3] G M Binda R Tongini Folli and G M Roberti ldquoSurvey andinevstigation for the diagnosis of damaged masonry struc-tures the ldquoTorrazzordquo of Cremonardquo in Proceedings of 12thInternational BrickBlockMasonry Conference Madrid SpainJune 2000

[4] S Atamturktur P Fanning and T E Boothby ldquoTraditionaland operational modal testing of masonry vaultsrdquo Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Com-putational Mechanics vol 163 no 3 pp 213ndash223 2010

[5] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik B Sevim and T TurkerldquoSeismic response of a historical masonry minaret using afinite element model updated with operational modal testingrdquoJournal of Vibration and Control vol 17 no 1 pp 129ndash1492010

[6] C Gentile and A Saisi ldquoAmbient vibration testing of historicmasonry towers for structural identification and damageassessmentrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 21no 6 pp 1311ndash1321 2007

[7] F J Pallares A Aguero and S Ivorra ldquoA comparison ofdifferent failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment ofan industrial brickwork chimneyrdquo Materials and StructuresMateriaux et Constructions vol 42 no 2 pp 213ndash226 2008

[8] A Tomaszewska and C Szymczak ldquoIdentification of theVistula Mounting tower model using measured modal datardquoEngineering Structures vol 42 pp 342ndash348 2012

[9] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and M MongellildquoAmbient vibration testing dynamic identification andmodelupdating of a historic towerrdquo NDT amp E International vol 47pp 88ndash95 2012

[10] A Mortezaei A Kheyroddin and H R Ronagh ldquoFinite el-ement analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-oldheritage listed tall masonry mosquerdquolte Structural Design ofTall and Special Buildings vol 21 no 5 pp 334ndash353 2010

[11] A DrsquoAmbrisi V Mariani and M Mezzi ldquoSeismic assessmentof a historical masonry tower with nonlinear static and dy-namic analyses tuned on ambient vibration testsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 36 pp 210ndash219 2012

[12] G Bartoli M Betti and S Giordano ldquoIn situ static anddynamic investigations on the ldquoTorre Grossardquo masonrytowerrdquo Engineering Structures vol 52 pp 718ndash733 2013

[13] F Minghini G Milani and A Tralli ldquoSeismic risk assessmentof a 50m high masonry chimney using advanced analysistechniquesrdquo Engineering Structures vol 69 pp 255ndash270 2014

[14] M Diaferio D Foti and N I Giannocaro ldquoNon-destructivecharacterization and identification of the modal parameters ofan old masonry towerrdquo in Proceedings of 2014 IEEEWorkshopon Environmental Energy and Structural Monitoring SystemsProceedings (EESMS 2014) pp 57ndash62 Naples Italy Sep-tember 2014

PEEQT(avg 75)

Step step-1Step time = 2500

+38e ndash 01+35e ndash 01+32e ndash 01+29e ndash 01+26e ndash 01+22e ndash 01

+00e + 00+32e ndash 02+64e ndash 02+96e ndash 02+13e ndash 01+16e ndash 01+19e ndash 01

Z

YX

Figure 25 Tension plastic strain contour under the Dinar earthquake

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[15] M Diaferio D Foti C Gentile N I Giannoccaro andA Saisi ldquoDynamic testing of a historical slender buildingusing accelerometers and radarrdquo in Proceedings of 6th In-ternational Operational Modal Analysis Conference (IOMAC2015) Gijon Spain May 2015

[16] A Preciado ldquoSeismic vulnerability and failure modes simu-lation of ancient masonry towers by validated virtual finiteelement modelsrdquo Engineering Failure Analysis vol 57pp 72ndash87 2015

[17] A Preciado S T Sperbeck and A Ramırez-Gaytan ldquoSeismicvulnerability enhancement of medieval and masonry belltowers externally prestressed with unbonded smart tendonsrdquoEngineering Structures vol 122 pp 50ndash61 2016

[18] M Hejazi S M Moayedian and M Daei ldquoStructural analysisof Persian historical brick masonry minaretsrdquo Journal ofPerformance of Constructed Facilities vol 30 no 2 article04015009 2016

[19] A Demir H Nohutcu E Ercan E Hokelekli and G AltintasldquoEffect of model calibration on seismic behaviour of a his-torical mosquerdquo Structural Engineering and Mechanicsvol 60 no 5 pp 749ndash760 2016

[20] R Livaoglu M H Basturk A Dogangun and C SerhatogluldquoEffect of geometric properties on dynamic behavior of his-toric masonry minaretrdquo KSCE Journal of Civil Engineeringvol 20 no 6 pp 2392ndash2402 2016

[21] T Kocaturk and Y S Erdogan ldquoEarthquake behavior of M1minaret of historical sultan ahmed mosque (blue mosque)rdquoStructural Engineering and Mechanics vol 59 no 3pp 539ndash558 2016

[22] S Ivorra V Brotons D Foti and M Diaferio ldquoA preliminaryapproach of dynamic identification of slender buildings byneuronal networksrdquo International Journal of Non-LinearMechanics vol 80 pp 183ndash189 2016

[23] M Shakya H Varum R Vicente and A Costa ldquoEmpiricalformulation for estimating the fundamental frequency ofslender masonry structuresrdquo International Journal of Archi-tectural Heritage vol 10 no 1 pp 55ndash66 2014

[24] G Castellazzi A M DrsquoAltri S de Miranda and F UbertinildquoAn innovative numerical modeling strategy for the structuralanalysis of historical monumental buildingsrdquo EngineeringStructures vol 132 pp 229ndash248 2017

[25] M Diaferio D Foti N I Giannoccaro and S IvorraldquoOptimal model through identified frequencies of a masonrybuilding structure with wooden floorsrdquo International Journalof Mechanics vol 8 no 1 pp 282ndash288 2014

[26] D Foti M Diaferio N I Giannoccaro and S IvorraldquoStructural identification and numerical models for slenderhistorical structuresrdquo in Handbook of Research on SeismicAssessment and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures Chapter23 P Asteris and V Plevris Eds pp 674ndash703 EngineeringScience Reference Hershey PA USA 2015

[27] Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp ABAQUS V10 DassaultSystemes Simulia Corp RI USA 2010

[28] H Nohutcu A Demir E Ercan E Hokelekli and G AltintasldquoInvestigation of a historic masonry structure by numericaland operational modal analysesrdquolte Structural Design of Talland Special Buildings vol 24 no 13 pp 821ndash834 2015

[29] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 6 Eu-ropean Committee for Standardization Brussels Belgium1996

[30] P B Lourenccedilo ldquoAssessment of the stability conditions of aCistercian cloisterrdquo in Proceedings of 2nd InternationalCongress on Studies in Ancient Structures Istanbul TurkeyJuly 2001

[31] A Koccedilak Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis ofhistorical masonry structures Kuccediluk Aya Sofya Mosque PhDesis Yıldız Technical University Institute of Science andTechnology Civil Engineering Department Istanbul Turkey1999

[32] Testlab-Network Computer Program TDG Turkey 2012[33] ARTeMISModal Pro 30 2014 httpwwwsvibscom[34] P Van Overschee and B De Moor Subspace Identification for

Linear Systems Kluwer Academic Publishers DordrechtNetherlands 1996

[35] B Peeters System Identification and Damage Detection inCivil Engineering 2000 httpsliriaskuleuvenbehandle123456789212304

[36] H B Kaushik D C Rai and S K Jain ldquoStress-straincharacteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial com-pressionrdquo Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering vol 19no 9 pp 728ndash739 2007

[37] A Bayraktar A C Altunisik and M Muvafik ldquoDamages ofminarets during Ercis and Edremit earthquakes 2011 inTurkeyrdquo Smart Structures and Systems vol 14 no 3pp 479ndash499 2014

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom