**Author details**

Alexander Tyapin *"Atomenergoproject", Moscow, Russia* 

### **12. References**


[7] Luco J (1976) Vibrations of a Rigid Disc on a Layered Viscoelastic Medium. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 36: 325-340.

176 Earthquake Engineering

at all.

**Author details** 

Alexander Tyapin

**12. References** 

396.

*"Atomenergoproject", Moscow, Russia* 

Reston, Virginia, USA. 1999.

in Vext.

3. SSI effects are frequency-dependent. Most of effects are valid in a certain frequency

4. SSI analysis requires special tools. General-purpose codes, including FEM soft, cannot treat SSI properly because of the infinite geometry of the initial problem. Special-

5. If direct approach is used, special attention should be paid to the boundaries. Preliminary analysis of test examples (e.g., initial soil without structure with the same

6. Wave nature of SSI effects requires special attention when FEM is used: element size for the soil and time step must be compared with frequency ranges of interest. Otherwise,

7. Non-linearity of different kinds is to be treated properly. Primary non-linearity of the soil is handled by SHAKE. Contact non-linearity is treated approximately as described above. If a structure itself is considerably non-linear, usually one has to omit wave SSI

Nowadays, the research goes forward. The current goal is to combine non-linearity inside Vint (including contact non-linearity and structural nonlinearity) with linearity of infinite soil

[1] Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary. ASCE4-98.

[2] A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Margin (Revision 1).

[3] Reissner E (1936) Stationare, axialsymmetriche durch eine Shuttelnde Masse erregte Schwingungen eines homogenen elastischen Halbraumes. Ingenieur-Archiv. 7/6: 381-

[4] Luco J.E (1982) Linear Soil-Structure Interaction: A Review. Earthquake Ground Motions and Its Effects on Structures. Applied Mechanics Division, ASME 53: 41-57. [5] Gulkan P, Clough R /Editors (1993) Developments in dynamic soil-structure interaction/Ed. NATO Advanced Institutes Series. Series C: Mathematical and Physical Sciences. Vol.390. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 439 p. [6] Seed H, Lysmer J (1977) Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis by Finite Element Method. State of the Art. Transactions of the International Conference on Structural Mechanics in

EPRI NP-6041-SL. Revision 1. Project 2722-23. August 1991. California, USA.

Reactor Technology (SMiRT-4). San Francisco. Vol.K. K2/1.

range. Out of this range they may lead to the opposite changes.

purpose tools like CLASSI, SASSI, etc. should be used.

boundaries and excitation) is strongly recommended.

the most significant effects may be missed.


[25] Tyapin A (2011) The effects of the base mat's flexibility on the structure's seismic response. Part I: wave solution. SMiRT21. New Delhi. #85.

**Section 2** 

**Seismic Performance and Simulation** 

**of Behavior of Structures** 

[26] Tyapin A (2011) The effects of the base mat's flexibility on the structure's seismic response. Part II: platform solutions. SMiRT21. New Delhi. #266.

**Seismic Performance and Simulation of Behavior of Structures** 

178 Earthquake Engineering

[25] Tyapin A (2011) The effects of the base mat's flexibility on the structure's seismic

[26] Tyapin A (2011) The effects of the base mat's flexibility on the structure's seismic

response. Part I: wave solution. SMiRT21. New Delhi. #85.

response. Part II: platform solutions. SMiRT21. New Delhi. #266.

**Chapter 7** 

© 2012 Sezen and Dogangun, licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2012 Sezen and Dogangun, licensee InTech. This is a paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**Seismic Performance of** 

Halil Sezen and Adem Dogangun

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51338

**1. Introduction** 

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

**Historical and Monumental Structures** 

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

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

The descriptions of ground motion characteristics, structural damage, and performance of structures during these earthquakes are provided in Sezen et al. (2003). Response spectra for selected acceleration histories for 5% damping are presented in Figure 1. The ground motions included in Figure 1 were recorded at: SKR station in Adapazari (Peak Ground

and minarets (tall slender towers) during the 1999 earthquakes is presented.

**2. Seismic design and construction practice in Turkey** 
