See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311887138

A case study: settlement response of the historic Hoca Pasha Mosque to a deep
circular shaft excavation

Conference Paper · April 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 194

4 authors:

Korhan Deniz Dalgic Max Hendriks

Izmir Institute of Technology Delft University of Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS    138 PUBLICATIONS   866 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Wout Broere Alper Ilki

Delft University of Technology Istanbul Technical University
133 PUBLICATIONS   840 CITATIONS    223 PUBLICATIONS   1,691 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Demonstration of Efficiency of Seismic Retrofit with CFRPs through Full-Scale Site Testing of Sub-Standard RC Structures View project

The 10th International Conference on Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE 2020) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Korhan Deniz Dalgic on 16 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EURO:TUN 2017, Innsbruck University, Austria

A case study: settlement response of the historic Hoca

Pasha Mosque to a deep circular shaft excavation

Korhan D. Dalgic1,2, Max A.N. Hendriks2,3, Wout Broere2 and Alper Ilki1

1
Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
2
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
3
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Abstract: This paper presents a finite element simulation of the response of the historic
Hoca Pasha Mosque in Istanbul to ground settlements stemming from a neighboring shaft
excavation. The focus is on the behavior of major existing cracks. A linear elastic material
model is adopted for the masonry walls. The settlement analyses are performed considering
possible free–field ground settlement profiles. The openings and closings of the existing
cracks are tracked by means of interface elements. The results show that settlement
response of the mosque was more sensitive to the curvature of the chosen settlement profile
rather than to the mechanical properties of the structure. Furthermore, for the considered
settlement scenarios, the effect of the existing cracks is negligible on the overall response.

1 INTRODUCTION

Deep excavations and tunneling can result in significant amount of ground movements in
their vicinity. The main reasons are the alternation in the stress state within the soil
(depending on the soil removal) and change in ground-water table (drainage conditions) [1].
These movements can be damaging on the buildings by impinging on their foundations. In
response, the buildings resist with their overall stiffness. Eventually, building response
becomes a function of the interaction between excavation, soil and the building.
Well-documented case studies in which different types of excavation, soil and building
conditions are examined form a great resource to understand this complicated interaction
problem. In many studies, finite element simulations with different extent of sophistication
in terms of geometrical modelling and material type are utilized. In some numerical studies
[2-3], the effect of initial cracks is also considered at model scale. However, due to the
difficulties arising from variety, quantification (in terms of crack size) and geometry
(smeared nature and indistinguishableness) of the existing building damages, involving
them in the numerical models is rarely possible. In a perfect case study all geotechnical soil
& foundation and structural building information is readily available. The excavation and
tunneling stages are clear–cut and 3D soil displacements and 3D building deformations,
including crack propagations and widenings, are well monitored for at least all critical
positions. From a scientific point of view damage, an observed damage category beyond
the moderately damage class is of most interest. Such perfect case studies would form an
ideal base for validating advanced methods to assess the response of buildings to
excavation and tunneling activities. However, such perfect case studies do not exist.
In the current paper an exemplary case study is presented. The case study is used to
demonstrate typical uncertainties when dealing with an actual case study. The role of
empirical relations to complete the input of a finite element model of the building is shown
and discussed. The main sources of uncertainty are concisely demonstrated.
The settlement response of the Hoca Pasha Mosque in Istanbul to a neighboring 58 m deep
shaft excavation of the underground Sirkeci station is examined by using finite element
analyses. The major existing cracks are included in the three dimensional (3D) numerical
model as discrete cracks. Linear analyses are performed considering possible ground
settlement profiles calculated according to Peck (1969) [4] and based on in–situ measured
values.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING AND THE SHAFT EXCAVATION

The Hoca Pasha Mosque is one of the listed buildings that have experienced settlement
during the construction activities of Sirkeci underground station of Marmaray project in
Istanbul, Turkey. The mosque was rebuilt in 1868 replacing the previous one destroyed by
a fire (Fig. 1a). The main structural system consists of 900 mm-thick load-bearing masonry
walls made of solid bricks and mortar joints. It has large arched windows (w×h: 1840×3860
mm) and doors in the northwest (N.W) (2100×5140 mm) and northeast (N.E) facades
(1520×4460 mm). Also, there is an internal wall which has almost the half of the storey
height between the narthex and prayer hall. The mosque is actually a one-storey building,
but there is a mezzanine floor inside. The mezzanine floor and wooden roof are supported
by the slender wooden columns situated inside the mosque and the external masonry walls.
The overall wall height is 7.32 m from the wall bottom to the eave. During the
examinations, only a strip foundation system was observed with the main load-bearing
walls extending approximately 1 m downwards into the ground. No additional foundation
reinforcement was found.
 (a) (b)
Figure 1: (a) The Hoca Pasha Mosque and (b) neighboring shaft excavation
An elliptic ventilation shaft excavation at an average distance of 10 m from the southeast
(S.E) façade was carried out as a part of the Sirkeci underground station (Fig. 1b). The shaft
diameter is 26.4 m on the long axis and 22.8 m on the short axis. The entire shaft depth is
58 m. The soil profile throughout the shaft depth is shown in Fig. 2a and consists of an over
10 m thick upper layer of made ground above the water table, followed by a few metres of
silty, clayey sand and bedrock from ca. 15 m below surface level. The first 21 m of the
shaft excavation (the upper shaft) was constructed using a secant pile wall technique. For
this purpose, grouted and reinforced concrete piles with 900 mm diameter were
consecutively cast on the perimeter of the elliptic shaft. Then, their tips were capped with a
rigid reinforced concrete ring beam (1500×1000 mm). As the excavation proceeds, piles
were connected circumferentially by reinforced concrete ring beams (1000×1000 mm) cast
at every 1500 mm. The ring beams significantly increase the radial rigidity of the circular
shaft. The remaining 37 m of the excavation (the lower shaft) was carried out in the
bedrock as a stepwise open face excavation supported by a thick wall consisting of wire
meshed shotcrete and HEB 200/100 steel profiles fixed via rock bolts. No internal cross
strutting was used at any stage of the shaft excavation, not to block the equipment access
through the shaft.
Because of the historical background of the excavation area, the excavation process was
paused occasionally by archeological surveys at the initial stages. Therefore, the piled wall
installation and the upper shaft excavation took 2 years (between February 2006 and
February 2008). Afterwards, the lower shaft excavation started. The shaft excavations were
completed on 31 July 2008.

3 SETTLEMENT MONITORING AND DAMAGES ON THE MOSQUE

During the both upper and lower shaft excavations, settlements of the mosque were
monitored. The measurements were performed by using levelling instruments. The building
settlement bolts (SB monitoring points) attached to the external walls were utilized during
the measurements (Fig. 2b). The mosque settlements were negligible in magnitude (≤ 1.5
mm) during the piled wall construction and upper shaft excavation. However, a remarkable
increase in the settlement values was observed with commencement of the lower shaft
excavation. Table 1 shows the settlement values taken from SB monitoring points at the last
day of the shaft excavation (31 July 2008), one and half month later and 3 months after the
completion of the excavation. As expected, the S.E façade experienced substantial more
settlement than the others due to the closeness to the shaft. As the shaft excavation was
completed, the average differential settlement between the S.E and N.W facades was 16
mm. While the average rigid rotation is 1/1000, the average angular distortion is 1/1250.
As seen in Table 1, there is a marginal increase of the settlement values after 3 months.
This shows that the time dependent response of the soil (drainage) was insignificant.
Table 1: Mosque settlements after the shaft excavation
Settlement readouts of each building monitoring points (mm)
Date
SB8 SB9 SB10 SB11 SB13 SB14 SB17 SB18 SB19
31 Jul 08 -6.00 -4.00 -4.00 -5.00 -13.0 -24.0 -21.5 -18.0 -10.6
15 Sep
-7.00 -6.00 -6.00 -7.00 -14.0 -25.0 -22.5 -19.0 -11.6
08
27 Oct 08 -7.00 -6.00 -6.00 -7.00 -15.0 -26.0 -24.5 -21.0 -12.6
Due to building congestion around the excavation site, free–field ground settlements could
only be measured at very few available monitoring points (GT points in Fig. 2b). Since this
data does not cover the whole shaft excavation process, free–field settlement values are not
presented in this paper.

(a) (b)

Figure 2: (a) Soil profile (b) Settlement monitoring points

A conditional survey conducted before the shaft excavation commenced revealed the
presence of localized cracks in all of the facades. These cracks began either from the vertex
or very proximity of door and window arches. Then, they propagated upward to the eaves
almost vertically. These cracks were also visible from the inside of the mosque. Among
these, the one above the arched door of the N.E façade was the largest with a width of ca.10
mm (see Fig.3 C1 and C2 cracks). When the shaft excavation was completed, no new crack
formation was observed, but there was an increase in the aperture for most of the existing
cracks. As is, the building was classified as moderately damaged considering its prior and
post condition.

4 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING AND DISCUSSIONS

The settlement response of the Hoca Pasha Mosque will be investigated using 3D
numerical analyses by DIANA FEA software. For this purpose, estimated free–field ground
movements and measured settlements are imposed to the bedding interface elements at the
bottom of the walls. Since the mosque does not have an effective foundation system to
accommodate these ground movements, the main function of the bedding will not be the
simulation of the foundation stiffness but the monitoring of the stress distribution
underneath the walls. Therefore, a relatively high stiffness value in normal and tangential
directions will be assigned (Table 2).
The study of Moorman [5] in which 530 case histories of retaining walls and ground
movements due to deep excavations are presented shows that retaining wall and ground
movements seem to be largely independent of the stiffness of the retaining system.
According to Moorman, once a sufficient stiffness is provided, the movements are
governed by other relevant factors. Thus, additional increase of system stiffness does not
provide a corresponding decrease of movements. Similar conclusions were also obtained by
Clough and O’Rourke [6] and Long [7]. Considering this, the mixed type wall construction
of the current shaft can be considered as single type wall and empirical settlement
relationships proposed for uniform retaining wall constructions can be used for the entire
depth of the shaft (𝐻= 58 m).
Moorman also shows that the maximum ground settlements (𝛿𝑣𝑚 ) behind an excavation
wall can vary in a wide range. For relatively stiff clays (undrained shear strength 𝑐𝑢 ≥
0.075 MPa), he observed that the maximum ground settlement (𝛿𝑣𝑚 ) to excavation depth
(𝐻) ratio takes a value between 0% (no ground settlement) and 0.90%. The average 𝛿𝑣𝑚 ⁄𝐻
ratio is reported as 0.18%. A similar range (0.00-0.20%) for the average value of 𝛿𝑣𝑚 ⁄𝐻
was also previously proposed by [6] and [7].
In the current study, based on the measured settlements and considering the elliptic
geometry of the current shaft excavation (which provides an additional radial stiffness due
to arching effect), a relatively low 𝛿𝑣𝑚 ⁄𝐻 ratio (0.05%) can be assumed. In this case, 𝛿𝑣𝑚
is calculated as 29 mm for 𝐻= 58 m. In order to calculate the corresponding ground
settlement profile for 𝛿𝑣𝑚 ⁄𝐻 = 0.05%, Peck’s curve function can be used after scaling. He
assumes that the maximum ground settlement occurs immediately behind the excavation
wall. Additionally, for comparison, another ground settlement profile is used, which is
derived from the average measured building settlements. The settlement profiles are
imposed to the bottom of the interface layer as a 2D prescribed displacement field.
For the masonry walls, a linear elastic material model is adopted. In addition, the effect of
different Young’s modulus values (𝐸1 = 350𝑀𝑃𝑎, 𝐸2 = 1000𝑀𝑃𝑎) are investigated. In
order to model the major open cracks, linear interface elements having relatively low
stiffness value are modelled (Table 2). Fig. 3 shows the finite element model including
bedding and open crack interfaces. The mezzanine floor, roof, internal columns and minaret
are not included in the model since their contribution to the overall stiffness is negligible.
Table 2: Material properties
Mechanical properties of the materials
Bedding interface
stiffness in normal Kn (kN/m3) 2×105
(n) and tangential
(s) directions Ks (kN/m3) 2×105

Crack interface 𝐸1 10-3=350

Kn (kN/m3)
stiffness in normal 𝐸2 10-3=103
(n) and tangential 𝐸1 10-3=350
(s) directions Ks (kN/m3)
𝐸2 10-3=103
𝐸1 (MPa) 350
Masonry wall
𝐸2 (MPa) 1000
Poisson
Figure 3: FE model and the interfaces 0.2
ratio (𝑣 )

Table 3 compares the relative displacements of the discrete cracks obtained from different
analyses in which two Young’s modulus (𝐸1 and 𝐸2 ) and two settlement profiles (scaled
Peck’s curve and the curve derived from average measured building settlements) are used.
In this table, relative displacement values at two ends of the cracks are listed. Negative
values show closings and positive values show openings. While only opening was
dominating for C5 and C7, a rotation (an opening at one end and a closing at another end)
was observed for the C1 and C2 cracks. C3-1, C3-2 and C10 cracks closed for both
settlement cases. Since the maximum settlements are obtained at the SB18 corner, which is
relatively close to the shaft wall, the S.W wall becomes the most affected facade for both
settlement profiles. Accordingly, the magnitude of the relative crack displacements is
higher for the C5 and C7 cracks in this facade. Whereas, in reality, SB14 was the most
settled corner and accordingly the opening of the C1 and C2 cracks was more pronounced.
The higher settlement at SB14 corner cannot be simulated using a settlement trough
centered on the shaft. The settlement might be explained by the variable layer thickness of
the silty sand layer on top of the bedrock in combination with significant draw–downs
during the deeper saft excavation. Also, as relative crack displacements were not measured
during the shaft excavation, any comparison between analysis and actual values cannot be
done. As seen in Table 3, variation in Young’s modulus has a minor effect on the crack
displacements. Considering this and the overall settlement response of the mosque, it can
be stated that the mosque’s response was less sensitive to the mechanical properties of the
structural elements. This situation proves the importance of a realistic settlement profile,
especially when the in–situ free–field settlement measurements are absent as in the current
case. It is obvious that the use of an average measured settlement profile with a higher
curvature (maximum angular distortion βmax=1/1000) results in more distortion than the
use of Peck’s curve with a lower curvature (βmax=1/1500). On the other hand, even if
Peck’s curve was scaled for another 𝛿𝑣𝑚 ⁄𝐻 ratio, the distortions would remain the same.
This is because the curvature would remain unchanged. Only total settlement magnitude
would change.
Evaluations made by [5], [6] and [7] based on the numerous case histories show that there
is an ample scatter in the excavation wall stiffness and corresponding maximum ground
settlement relationship. Since the effect of the excavation wall and additional supports is
uncertain, a wide range should be considered in terms of the possible ground settlements
and corresponding building distortions. Bloodworth and Houlsby [8] highlighted a
discrepancy between actual building settlements and 3D coupled (soil–structure–excavation
integrated) analysis results in the absence of free–field settlement data. According to the
authors, one of the reasons was the uncertainty of the volume loss. As seen, if free–field
data is not provided, even the use of more sophisticated 3D coupled analyses may not be
sufficient to obtain precise results.
Finally, for both models with crack interfaces and another model without crack interfaces,
the principal tensile strains (σ1) in all of the facades never exceed the 4.5×10 -4 value which
corresponds to negligible damage in the damage classification table presented in [1].
Table 3: Relative crack displacements
𝐸1 = 350 MPa and Kn=Ks=350 kN/m3
Settlement profile: Peck’s curve Settlement profile: Measured curve
(𝛿𝑣𝑚 ⁄𝐻 =0.05%) (βmax=1/1500) (βmax=1/1000)
C1: (-015)–(0.25) mm C1: (-0.6)–(0.8) mm
C2: (-0.15)–(0.20) mm C2: (-0.35)–(0.5) mm
C3–1: (-0.28)–(-0.17) mm C3–1: (-0.42)–(-0.28) mm
C3–2: (-0.25)–(-0.15) mm C3–2: (-0.19)–(-0.09) mm
C5: (0.45)–(0.70) mm C5: (1.45)–(2.38) mm
C7: (0.30)–(0.60) mm C7: (1.18)–(2.38) mm
C10: (-1.1)–(-0.6) mm C10: (-2.25)–(-1.3) mm
σ1,max : 1.5×10 -4
σ1,max : 3×10-4
𝐸2 = 1000 MPa and Kn= Ks=1000 kN/m3
Settlement profile: Peck’s curve Settlement profile: Measured curve
(𝛿𝑣𝑚 ⁄𝐻 =0.05%) (βmax=1/1500) (βmax=1/1000)
C1: (-019)–(0.26) mm C1: (-0.66)–(0.85) mm
C2: (-0.19)–(0.25) mm C2: (-0.45)–(0.58) mm
C3–1: (-0.27)–(-0.16) mm C3–1: (-0.40)–(-0.25) mm
C3–2: (-0.21)–(-0.13) mm C3–2: (-0.14)–(-0.05) mm
C5: (0.45)–(0.74) mm C5: (1.51)–(2.41) mm
C7: (0.30)–(0.60) mm C7: (1.18)–(2.35) mm
C10: (-1.09)–(-0.70) mm C10: (-2.35)–(-1.43) mm
σ1,max : 1.3×10-4 σ1,max : 2.5×10-4
 5 CONCLUSIONS

The settlement response of Hoca Pasha Mosque was numerically investigated. The
conclusions are presented as follows.
 The overall settlement response of the mosque is influenced mostly by the selected
settlement profile. The mechanical properties have a minor importance for the
considered cases. Although a decrease in the elastic properties of the building leads to
an increase of the tensile strain level, this increase does not result in any remarkable
change in the overall response.
 The results emphasize the importance of a detailed geotechnical site investigation and
the availability of free–field ground settlement and groundwater head measurements
during an excavation project.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their thanks to DLH Marmaray Directorate General for
their permission to use the project information. Special thanks are due Mr. Gokbora Akay,
control manager of the project, who generously gave of his time to help with the project
details. The architectural suggestions of Ms. Nurcan Sefer is appreciated. The first author
also acknowledge the financial support of Turkish Research Council (TUBITAK).
REFERENCES
[1] M. Boscardin, Building response to excavation–induced ground movements (Ph.D. dissertation)
(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign IL, 1980).
[2] M. Son, and E.J. Cording, Responses of buildings with different structural types to excavation
induced ground settlements, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (2011) 323-333.
[3] G. Giardina, M.A.N. Hendriks, and J.G. Rots, Sensitivity study on tunneling induced damage to a
masonry façade, Eng. Struct. 89 (2015) 111-129.
[4] R. B. Peck, Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground (state of the art report), Proc. VIIth
ICSMFE, Mexico, 7 (1969), 225-290.
[5] C. Moormann, Analysis of wall and ground movements due to deep excavations in soft soil
based on a new worldwide database, Soils and Foundations 44 (2004) 87-98.
[6] G. W. Clough, and T. D. O’Rourke, Construction induced movements of in–situ walls,
Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE 25 (1990) 439-470.
[7] M. Long, Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep excavations, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127 (2001) 203-224.
[8] A.G. Bloodworth, and G.T. Houlsby, Three dimensional analysis of building settlement caused by
shaft construction, Proc. of an International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Tokyo, July 1999.

View publication stats