The results of FE model were compared with experimental tests. The distribution of first principal plastic strains predicted by the numerical model fits well the crack patterns observed on the large scale model of the Mosque during shaking table tests. As shown in Figures 6 and 9, in the case of the original Mosque cracks formed on the spandrels between the openings up to the tambour, while in the reinforced model cracks on the bearing walls were observed at the base of the structure, according to the predicted damage pattern.
With this regard, it should be noted, however, that sliding of the dome at tambour opening level has been observed before the collapse of the shear walls.
This collapse mechanisms is not predicted by numerical results and can be ascribed to a different quality of masonry at the base of the dome from other parts of the Mosque.
The comparison between experimental and numerical responses in terms of acceleration and relative displacement at the top is shown in Figures 16 and 17.
Also in this case, the numerical and experimental results are in good agreement.
In the case of Minaret, it should be noted that the experimental value of 0.2 g on the original model corresponds to first observed cracks and to the attainment of first plastic strains in the numerical model.
However, during the testing the original Minaret did not collapse for values of peak acceleration at the top up to 0.7 g and the structure exhibited a rigid block behaviour with rocking.
Also in the case of the strengthened Minaret the experimental peak accelerations at the top are higher than numerical ones. Considering that a non-linear static FE analysis was performed, this discrepancy can be ascribed to cyclic loading induced by seismic excitations and to the rigid block-type behaviour of the Minaret observed during testing.
Was this article helpful?