You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

New perspectives to save cultural heritage
Altan, M. Orhan

CIPA 2003 XIX 11 ' International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey
Figure 4. West side of KAM 1979
Figure 5. West side of KAM 1998
Figure 6. North side of KAM
To find an answer to the open question of the original location
of the Peter-and-Paul-Basilica to which KAM was connected an
important hint could be the deformations of the four big pillars
on the southern part of the octagonal centre. Their upper parts
show a great deviation from the vertical in radial direction
while the four pillars on the northern part stand straight This
leads to the conclusion that in times of construction a static
stabilizing mass of any sort of building had adjoined to the
northern wall of KAM.
At least the orthophoto directs our attention to the fact that
KAM - we think most parts inclusive the octagonal centre and
the dome - had survived in the last 1500 years a lot of
desastrous earthquakes (average: one earthquake every 30
years), the last big one was the Izmit-earthquake august 1999
with a magnitude of 7,4 which will be discussed at the end of
the article.
The third example gives a first impression of the various cracks
in the building especially in the octagonal centre. The dome of
the KAM - later discussed in detail but now have a first look at
figure 13 - consists of sixteen different segments, eight
segments curved only in one direction with a window in it for
the light and for static reasons and eight stronger segments
curved in both directions in an alternate order. At the sides of
the windows next to the border between the different segments
there are theoretically weak points in the construction of the
dome, in reality there are a lot of cracks. In the following we
concentrate at two cracks of the described type: the first and
most prominent crack (A) in the north east of the building starts
in the dome in a height above the windows and passes through
the whole building inside and outside. Crack (B) in the south
west of the building is the symmetrical pendant and in some
way the static answer of (A). The third crack (C) is a little bit
untypical before it runs through the middle of a double curved
segment above one of the big pillars. Figure 7 shows the
context of the three discussed cracks.
Figure 7. Location of the discussed cracks
In figures 8-10 we show zoomed details of images taken at
different times and we see the changings of the three cracks
from the point of view of quality: two of the cracks can be seen
today but they didn’t exist or they were hidden at former times,
one crack could be seen years ago but today it is plastered. To
have a look at the changing of two of the cracks (A und C) from
the point of view of quantity some photogrammetric studies
were performed: measurements were performed on images
taken in the years 1979 and 2002 with the help of an analytical
photogrammetric system (WILD AC3), some photogrammetric
blocks were adjusted by the bundle-method. At this way the