CIPA 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey
500
CARL ZEISS, ck = 60 mm, format 9 cm ■ 12 cm) and 35
images of a bundle block taken in 2002 (camera PENTAX67,
ck = 105 mm, format 6 cm • 7 cm).
: '
Figure 13: Surface of the dome inside, visualization of laser
measurements
A lot of natural points in the painted ornamental decoration of
the dome could be defined and measured in both data sets,
normally each point was identified and measured in more than 5
images of each dataset. The measurements of the image
coordinates were performed with the analytical
photogrammetric stereo system WILD AC3. In the year 1979
some points in the ornament were connected with a three
dimensional geodetic network with an overall precision of
±3mm.
Figure 14. Deformation vectors of the dome, xy-plane,
grid: 1 m, Cracks (A) and (B) signed
The 1979-bundle block with a precision of ±2 mm was in the
free adjustment settled with s-transformation to the geodetic
points. The precision of the 2002-bundle block was the same:
±2mm.
After extensive common analysis of the two blocks and looking
at the real situation of the cracks some points west of the cracks
in the lower and physically less disturbed regions of the dome
were chosen for the connection of the two blocks with the help
of the s-transformation in the free adjustment. Three
dimensional deformation vectors were projected to the xy-
plane, see figure 14, and to the xz-plane, see figure 15. It is not
surprising that the part of the dome in the east between the two
discussed cracks (A) and (B) had completely moved about 1 cm
in direction of the apse before the whole apse seems to be out of
balance. The height of the dome had sagged about 2 cm maybe
as a consequence of the horizontal moving of a part of the dome
but the definite analysis will just be possible with some more
information to be find in the future. From static point of view
the cracks - especially (A) and (B) - are very important
elements for a definite analysis. The question of the time
linearity of the moving is unanswered , next time we will look
for a third bundle-block of the year 1998, one year before the
big Izmit - earthquake.
—
1 i i
. i j..
V
)}
_L
u
’if
4
.
\
1 1
/j
l|
J
1
li
(
S'
\
Jl
\ w
y
i
f-rn
J
s
' ; T J*
i
/
\
3,
-
• :
T
N
; ^
*
■ -1
7*
!
CO
l i
V *.
u
r
"A’
r'
s•
a
rrt
t
'
f *
v\
1
.
l i
\
.
t
.
i
“7
•
.
L
r
„
• i
•
; C
m
.
I
U ;
Figure 15. Deformation vectors of the dome, xz-plane,
grid: 1 m
5. DOCUMENTATION OF THE EARTHQUAKE
DAMAGES
The shocks of the last big so called Izmit-earthquake in Turkey
(in august 1999, magnitude 7,4) gave reason for some
additional damages in the KAM which can be documented with
photographs and photogrammetric images, look at the examples
in figure 16. Some of the damages are really new but most of
them are hidden before or placed at the weak points of the
building well known to the experts, in figure 17 we see an
example of that theory: with the help of digital image
processing it could be shown, that the defect of the piece broken
in 1999 was known some years before, the piece was once more
renovated in former times.
