THE EFFECT OF SUBSOILS ON THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE CYLINDRICAL MINARETS

R. Acar 1 , R. Livaoğlu 2, A. Doğangün 3, H. Sezen 4

ABSTRACT

Minarets are special structures commonly used in Islamic architecture. The seismic behavior of minarets is quite
different from that of other well known structures because of their unique structural characteristics such as
slenderness, distinctive geometrical shape and support system. Both contemporary and historical minarets have
suffered substantial damage during recent earthquakes especially in some earthquake prone Islamic countries
including Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. Post-earthquake observations indicate that the soil characteristics play an
important role on the overall minaret behavior and damage. This study investigates the seismic response of a
reinforced concrete representative minaret located on the four different subsoil classes defined in the Turkish
Earthquake Code (2007). Finite element method is used to model the minaret. Seismic analyses are carried out
considering the design spectra defined by the Turkish Earthquake Code. Internal forces and lateral displacements
are estimated for the four subsoil classes. Analysis results are evaluated and conclusions are drawn regarding the
effects of subsoils on the dynamic response of reinforced concrete minarets.

Introduction

Turkey is located in one of the most seismically active regions of the world. 57 destructive earthquakes have struck
Turkey in the twentieth century resulting in destruction of infrastructure and more than 90,000 deaths. During these
earthquakes, many minarets were damaged or collapsed. Sezen et al. (2003) documents and discusses vulnerabilities
and damages to 64 masonry and RC minarets after the 1999 Kocaeli (Mw7.4) and Düzce (Mw7.2) earthquakes. As a
result of these two destructive earthquakes, the collapse of 115 minarets in the city of Düzce alone was reported
(Düzcedamla 2006). Sezen et al. (2003) reports that approximately 70 percent of the RC and masonry minarets
surveyed in Düzce sustained severe damage or collapsed. Even though the minarets are hardly ever occupied, they
are located mostly in residential areas or shopping districts, and their collapse sometimes causes loss of life. It is
important to regulate the construction and design of these slender structures for life safety in future earthquakes. In
addition to widespread earthquake damage and collapses, some reported failures of minarets due to wind loading
indicate that most of these tower structures are vulnerable to lateral loads. There are only a few studies investigating
the lateral response of minarets (e.g., Firat 2001, and Sezen et al. 2003). Dogangun et al. (2006a and 2006b)
investigate the architectural and structural properties of these slender structures.

1
Postgraduate Student, Dep of Civil Eng., Karadeniz Tech. University,Trabzon,Turkey, ramazan_acar04@hotmail.com
2
Assist. Professor, Dept of Civil Eng., Karadeniz Technical University, Gümüşhane, Turkey, rliva@ktu.edu.tr
3
Professor, Department of Civil Eng., Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey, adem@ktu.edu.tr,
4
Assistant Professor, Civil & EEG, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1275, sezen.l@osu.edu
Design Spectrum for Local Site Classes

Soil types to be considered according to Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC 2007) to represent the most common local
soil conditions are given in Table 1. The soil parameters defined in Table 1 should be considered as standard values
for guidance only in determining the soil type.

Table 1. Soil groups defined in Turkish Earthquake Code

Standard Relative Unconfinement Shear Wave

Soil
Description of Soil Group Penetration Density Compression Velocity
Group (m/s)
(N/30) (%) Strength (kPa)
1. Massive volcanic rocks, unweathered sound
metamorphic rocks, stiff - - > 1000 > 1000
(A)
2. Very dense sand, gravel... > 50 85-100 - > 700
3. Hard clay, silty lay > 32 - > 400 > 700
1. Soft volcanic rocks such as tuff and agglomerate,
weathered cemented sedimentary rocks with planes - - 500-1000 700-1000
(B) of discontinuity……
2. Dense sand, gravel 30-50 65-85 - 400-700
3. Very stiff clay, silty clay 16-32 - 200-400 300-700
1. Highly weathered soft metamorphic rocks and - - < 500 400-700
cemented sedimentary rocks with planes of discontinuity
(C)
2. Medium dense sand and gravel. 10-30 35-65 - 200-400
3. Stiff clay, silty clay 8-16 - 100-200 200-300
1. Soft, deep alluvial layers with high water table - - - < 200
(D) 2. Loose sand.. < 10 < 35 - < 200
3. Soft clay, silty clay. <8 - < 100 < 200

Local site classes to be considered as the bases of determination of local soil conditions and related spectrum
characteristic periods, TA and TB are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Local site classes and spectrum characteristic periods (TA ,TB) defined in TEC

Local Site Subsoil groups according to Table 3 and topmost layer thickness (h1) TA (s) TB (s)
Z1 Group (A) soils. Group (B) soils with h1 ≤ 15 m 0.10 0.30
Z2 Group (B) soils with h1 > 15 m. Group (C) soils with h1 ≤ 15 m 0.15 0.40
Z3 Group (C) soils with 15 m < h1 ≤ 50 m. Group (D) soils with h1 ≤ 10 m 0.15 0.60
Z4 Group (C) soils with h1 > 50 m. Group (D) soils with h1 > 10 m 0.20 0.90
Notes: In the case where the thickness of the topmost soil layer under the foundation is less than 3 m, the layer below
may be considered as the topmost soil layer indicated in this Table.

Soil investigations based on appropriate site and laboratory tests are mandatory and should be conducted for all
buildings with a total height exceeding 60 m in the first and second seismic zones and for buildings with
importance factor, I=1.5 and I=1.4 in all seismic zones. Regarding the buildings other than those defined above, in
the first and second seismic zones, available local information or inspection results shall be included or published
references shall be quoted in the seismic analysis reports to identify the soil groups and local site classes in
accordance with Table 1 and Table 2. In addition to these requirements in all seismic zones, Group (D) soils
according to Table 1 with water table less than 10 m from the soil surface shall be investigated and the results shall
be documented to identify whether liquefaction potential exists, by using appropriate analytical methods based on
in-situ and laboratory tests. Soil types described above are also given in Table 3 and compared with the soil types
defined in the UBC (1997), IBC (2003), FEMA 368 (2001) and EC8 (2004).
Table 3. Ground types defined in the TEC, UBC, IBC, FEMA 368 and EC8 (Dogangun and Livaoglu 2006).

UBC, IBC& FEMA

TEC EC8
368
Ground Ground Ground
Description Description Description
types types types
Massive volcanic rocks, unweathered sound Hard rock
metamorphic rocks, stiff cemented sedimentary rocks SA*
Vs>1500 m/s Rock or rock-like geological
-

Vs > 1000 m/s; Very dense sand, gravel Vs >700 m/s;

formation including most 5 m
Hard clay, silty clay Vs > 700 m/s
Z1 Rock A weaker material at the surface
Soft volcanic rocks such as tuff and agglomerate, SB Vs,30 >800 m/s
Vs≈760~1500
h1+≤15m

weathered cemented sedimentary rocks with planes of

discontinuity Vs ≈700~1000; Dense sand, gravel Vs Deposit of very dense sand,
≈400~700; Very stiff clay, silty clay Vs ≈300─700 gravel or very stiff clay, at
Soft volcanic rocks such as tuff and agglomerate, least several tens of m in
Very dense soil B thicknesses, characterized by a
h1>15m

weathered cemented sedimentary rocks with planes

SC or soft rock gradual increase of mechanical
of discontinuity Vs ≈700~1000; Dense sand, gravel Vs ≈360~760
Vs ≈ 400~700; Very stiff clay, silty clay Vs ≈300~700 properties with depth Vs,30
Z2 Highly weathered soft metamorphic rocks and ≈360~ 800
h1≤15m

cemented sedimentary rocks with planes of

discontinuity Vs ≈400~700; Medium dense sand and
gravel Vs ≈200~400;Stiff clay,silty clay Vs ≈200~300
Highly weathered soft metamorphic rocks and Deep deposits of dense or
15m<h1≤50

cemented sedimentary rocks with planes of medium-dense sand, gravel or

discontinuity Vs ≈400~700; Medium dense sand and Stiff soil stiff clay with thickness from
gravel Vs ≈200~400; Stiff clay, SD C
Vs ≈180~360 several tens to many hundreds
Z3 silty clay Vs≈ 200~300 of m
Vs,30 ≈180~360
h1≤ 10m

Soft, deep alluvial layers with high water table Vs <

200; Loose sand Vs ≈ 200; Soft clay, silty clay Vs <
200

Highly weathered soft metamorphic rocks and

cemented sedimentary rocks with planes of Deposits of loose-to-medium
h1>50m

discontinuity Vs ≈400~700; Medium dense cohesionless soil (with o r

sand and gravel Vs ≈200~400; Stiff clay, Soft Soil without some soft cohesive
Z4 silty clay Vs ≈200~300 SE
Vs <180
D
layers), or of predominantly
Soft, deep alluvial layers with high water table soft-to-firm cohesive soil.
h1>10

Vs < 200; Loose sand Vs <200; Soft clay, Vs,30 <180

m

silty clay Vs < 200

A soil profile consisting of
a surface alluvium layer
with Vs,30 values of class C
or D and thick-ness
E
varying between about 5m
In all seismic zones, soft, deep alluvial layers with and 20m, underlain by
high water table Vs < 200, loose sand Vs <200 and soft Soil requiring site stiffer material with
clay, silty clay Vs < 200 with water table less than 10 specific Vs,30>800 m/s
m from the the soil surface shall be investigated and evaluation. It is Deposits consisting or
- SF
the results shall be documented to identify whether the more detailed containing a layer at least 10 m
Liquefaction Potential exists, by using appropriate defined in the thick of soft clays/ silts with
analytical methods based on in-situ and laboratory IBC S1 high plasticity index (PI>40)
tests. and height water content, Vs,30
< 100 m/s
Deposits of liquefiable soils,
of sensitive clays, or any other
S2 soil profile not included in
types A-E or S1
*
SA, SB, SC, SD, SE and SF given in the UBC are symbolized with A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively, in the IBC & FEMA 368
B

+
h1 is the topmost layer thickness for subsoil.
The ordinates of elastic design spectra Se and inelastic design spectra Sd for the reference return period defined by
the earthquake codes except IBC can be determined using the expressions given in Table 4. In this table, agR is the
reference peak ground acceleration at the surface on rock for a reference mean return period, β is the lower bound
factor for the horizontal design spectrum, recommended value for β is 0.2 and the importance factor is denoted by γI.

Table 4. Ordinates of elastic and inelastic design spectra (Se and Sd ) for TEC, UBC and EC8 (Dogangun and
Livaoglu 2006).

T ≤ TB T B ≤ T ≤ TC T ≥ TC
0.8
⎡ T ⎤ ⎡T ⎤
Se = agR ⎢1 + 1.5 ⎥ Se = 2.5 ⋅ agR Se = 2.5 ⋅ agR ⎢ C ⎥
⎣ TB ⎦ ⎣T ⎦
TEC

2 .5 ⋅ a g
ag ⎡ T ⎤ Sd = 2.5ag ⎡ TC ⎤ 0.8
Sd = ⎢1 + 1.5 ⎥ Ra Sd =
Ra ⎣ TB ⎦ Ra ⎢⎣ T ⎥⎦
⎡ 1.5 ⋅ Ca ⋅ T ⎤ Cv
Se = ⎢Ca + ⎥⋅g Se = 2.5 ⋅ Ca ⋅ g Se = g
⎣ TB ⎦ T
UBC

γI
⎡ 1.5 ⋅ Ca ⋅ T ⎤ γI Sd = 2.5 ⋅ Ca ⋅ g ⋅ Cv γ I
Sd = ⎢Ca + ⎥⋅g⋅ R Sd = g⋅
⎣ T B ⎦ R T R

⎡T ⎤
TC ≤T≤TD→ Se = 2.5ag ⋅ S ⋅η ⋅ ⎢ C ⎥
⎣T ⎦

⎧ 2.5 ⎡T ⎤
⎪= ag ⋅ S ⋅ ⎢ C ⎥
⎡ T ⎤ TC≤T≤TD→ Sd ⎨ q ⎣T ⎦
Se = ag ⋅ S ⎢1 + (η 2.5 − 1)⎥ Se = 2.5 ⋅ ag ⋅ S ⋅η ⎪≥ β ⋅ a
⎣ TB ⎦ ⎩ g
EC8

2. 5
⎡ 2 T ⎛ 2.5 2 ⎞ ⎤ Sd = ⋅ ag ⋅ S
Sd = ag S ⎢ + ⎜ − ⎟⎥ q
⎣⎢ 3 TB ⎝ q 3 ⎠ ⎦⎥ ⎡T T ⎤
TD ≤T≤4s→ Se = 2.5a g ⋅ S ⋅η ⋅ ⎢ C 2D ⎥
⎣ T ⎦

2.5 ⎡T T ⎤
T ≥TD → Sd = ag ⋅ S ⋅ ⎢ C 2D ⎥ ≥ β ⋅ ag
q ⎣ T ⎦

Elastic design spectra were drawn as shown in Figure 1 using the expressions shown in Table 4 for all ground types
defined in the codes. Figure 1 shows that only TEC considers the same peak values for all ground types. EC8
defines the peak values for all ground types other than ground type A. The shapes of the elastic response spectra of
Type-2 are steeper for short period structures except for ground type A.

Inelastic design spectra can be obtained considering the structure importance factor, the behaviour factor and the
reference peak ground acceleration for sample structures and soil conditions. The concept of dividing the elastic
response spectra by a single factor to arrive at the inelastic design spectra is a practical one and has been adopted by
most earthquake codes. The factor used for reducing the elastic response spectrum is called behaviour factor q in
EC8, response modification coefficient R in FEMA 368 (2001), R coefficient in UBC and the seismic load reduction
factor Ra in the TEC. Earthquake codes describe different behaviour factors. The values of the maximum allowable
behaviour factor are selected considering the type of structural system, regularity in elevation and prevailing failure
mode in the system with walls in EC8, whereas TEC specifies period (T and TB) dependent values of behaviour
factor in addition to structural system.
 4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5
Normalized spectral acceleration

Normalized spectral acceleration

3.0 3.0 SD: Ground type
Z4: Ground
t
2.5 2.5 SE
2.0 Z3 2.0
SC
1.5 1.5

1.0 Z2 1.0 SB
0.5 Z2 0.5
SA
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period (sec.) Period (sec.)
(a) Elastic design spectra for TEC (b) Elastic design spectra for UBC

4.0 4.5
E Type-1 D: Ground type Type-2
4.0
3.5 Normalized spectral acceleration E
Normalized spectral acceleration

D: Ground type 3.5 C

3.0
3.0
2.5 C
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
B 1.5
1.0 1.0
A B
0.5 0.5 A

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period (sec.) Period (sec.)
(c) Elastic design spectra of Type-1 and Type-2 for EC8 ( η were taken to be 1.0)

Figure 1. Normalized elastic design spectra drawn for ground types described in TEC, UBC and EC8 (y-axis
normalized by the design ground acceleration) (Dogangun and Livaoglu 2006).

Seismic Analyses of Representative Minaret

The architectural, geometrical and material properties of minarets vary widely. For example, the height of a typical
minaret can be between 10 m and 55 m in Turkey. The minaret may have one or more balconies. The representative
reinforced concrete minaret investigated in this study is assumed to be 30 m high, including a 6 m boot or base, 2 m
transition segment, 17 m cylindrical body, and 5 m spire. The assumed outer diameter and thickness of the cylinder
is 1.76 m and 0.18 m, respectively. The plan view at the balcony level and elevation of the representative minaret
are shown in Figure 2.

The assumed material properties are as follows: specified concrete compressive strength, fc’ = 16 MPa (design
compressive strength is 11 MPa according to the Turkish codes), modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec = 27000
MPa, concrete unit weight, γ = 25 kN/m3, limiting concrete compressive strain εcu= 0.003, smooth reinforcing bars
with minimum specified yield strength, fy = 220 MPa, strain at hardening = 0.002, and fracture strain = 0.12. It is
assumed that the minaret is located in a high seismic region (Zone 1 in Turkish Earthquake Code, TEC 2007).
According to the TEC, the structural behavior factor, R is 3, and importance factor, I is 1.2 for such structures.
 +30.0 m
+3.000

+29.0 m +2.900

7m
4
+25.0 m +2.500

4.2
+20.08 m

0.8
+20.00 m

+19.00 m 0.2 0.35 0.55m 0.3 0.55m 0.35 0.2

C C

1
0.18 0.18
Section C-C

52 – 14 mm

5.2

30 m
17 m
diameter bars

+13.80 m
0.8

+13.00 m
+12.00 m
1

B B
1.4 m
+8.00 m
4

+800
1.76 m
Section B-B
+6.00 m
2

+600

52 - 16 mm
diameter bars
8m

A A
6m

+0.00 m
±0

40 - 14 mm
diameter bars
1.4 m

2.12 m
Section A-A
Figure 2. Geometrical and cross-sectional properties of the representative minaret

The finite element model includes all components of the minaret such as the interior spiral stairs, the two balconies
and door openings at the balcony levels as shown in Figure 3a.

The computer program, SAP2000 (2006) was used to analyze the models shown in Figure 3. Response spectrum
analyses of minarets located on four subsoil classes are carried out using the design spectrum specified in the TEC
(2007).

The maximum lateral displacement distribution over the height of the minaret model is shown in Figure 3b. The
maximum lateral displacements at the top of the minaret are calculated as 0.044, 0.055, 0.076 and 0.079 m for the
Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 subsoil classes, respectively. The overall lateral displacement distribution shows that more
flexural deformations obtained for relatively soft soils. The maximum difference between the results obtained for
lateral displacements corresponding to subsoil classes Z1 and Z4 is 79%.
 30

25

20

Height (m)
15

10

Z1
5 Z2
Z3
Z4
0
(b) Displaced minaret and
(a) Finite element model of distribution of lateral 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
representative minaret displacement along the Displacements (m)
minaret height.
Figure 3. Finite element model and displacements of the representative minaret

The tensile stress contours for the minaret model for four subsoil classes are shown in Figure 4 on the same scale.
Consistent with the observed performance, the stress contours show that both the largest compressive and tensile
axial stresses are concentrated in the cylindrical body within a few meters above the transition segment.

Figure 4. Tensile stress contours of the representative minaret on four subsoil types

The base shears of the representative minaret for four subsoil classes are shown in Figure 5. The maximum base
shear was obtained for subsoil class Z4 as 220.91 kN. The maximum difference between the base shears for soil
type Z1 (152.48 kN) and Z4 (220.91 kN) is 30%.
 300,0
216,51 220,91
172,44 200,0
152,48
100,0
0,0
1 Z4
Z2 Z3
Z1
Figure 5. Base shears obtained from seismic analyses of representative minaret

Conclusions

The dynamic behavior of the minaret model considered in this study changed significantly depending on the soil
conditions. Largest response variation occurred in the lateral displacements. The maximum lateral displacement of
the minaret on soft soil was 80 percent larger than that located on very rigid soil. A similar increase was calculated
for base shear forces, however with a maximum response increase up to 30 percent.

The calculated responses, including base shear and lateral displacements, for the two soft soil types defined by the
Turkish Earthquake Code (soil types Z3 and Z4) were very similar. The maximum tensile stresses were calculated
within the minaret body immediately above the transition segment (at approximately 8-10 m height) for all soil
types.

The studies investigating the seismic behavior of slender minaret structures are very limited. More detailed analyses
of various minarets are needed to develop guidelines for the evaluation, analysis and design of earthquake resistant
minarets.

References

Dogangün, A., and Livaoglu, R., (2006), A comparative study of the design spectra defined by Eurocode 8, UBC,
IBC and Turkish Earthquake Code on R/C sample buildings, Journal of Seismology, 10:335–351.
Dogangun, A., Tuluk, Ö.İ., Livaoglu, R., and Acar R., (2006a), Traditional Turkish minarets on the basis of
architectural and engineering concepts, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Restoration
of Heritage Masonry Structures, Cairo, Egypt, April 24-27, P34,1-10.
Dogangun, A., Acar, R., Livaoglu, R., and Tuluk, Ö.İ, (2006b), Performance of masonry minarets against
earthquakes and winds in Turkey, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Restoration of
Heritage Masonry Structures, Cairo, Egypt, April 24-27, P32,1-10.
Duzcedamla, 2006, Mosques expose the effects of earthquake, http://www.duzcedamla.com
/text/index.dwx?TextID=2811, In Turkish
EC 8., 2004, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings, European Norm. European Committee for Standardization, B-1050 Brussels
FEMA 368-369, 2001, NEHPR-recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings: Buildings
Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C., USA.
Firat, Y.G., 2001, A Study of the Structural Response of Minarets in the 1999 Anatolian Earthquakes. M. S. Thesis.
Purdue University. West Lafayette, Indiana. Also,
http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~anatolia/FIRAT/5adapazari/adapazari2.ppt#257,2,Slide 2
IBC., 2003, The International Building Code, International Code Council, Virginia, USA.
SAP2000, 2006, Integrated software for structural analysis & design. Computers and Structures Inc., California.
Sezen, H., Fırat, G.Y., and Sözen, M.A, 2003, Investigation of the performance of monumental structures during the
1999 Kocaeli and Duzce earthquakes, Paper No: AE-020, Fifth National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey.
TEC, 2007, Turkish Code. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. 1998. Specification for Structures to be Built
in Disaster Areas, Government of Republic of Turkey.
UBC., 1997, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, USA.