buildings

Article
Structural Analysis of Five Historical Minarets in Bitlis (Turkey)
Ercan Işık 1 , Ehsan Harirchian 2, * , Enes Arkan 3 , Fatih Avcil 1 and Mutlu Günay 1

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Bitlis Eren University, Bitlis 13100, Turkey; [email protected] (E.I.);
[email protected] (F.A.); [email protected] (M.G.)
2 Institute of Structural Mechanics (ISM), Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, 99423 Weimar, Germany
3 Department of Architecture, Bitlis Eren University, Bitlis 13100, Turkey; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Bitlis has hosted many civilizations and is located in Turkey’s significant strategic transit
corridor. Many historical structures belong to different cultures in the city. The structural analysis of
five minarets mentioned in folk songs and the brand value of Bitlis city in terms of historical buildings
is the subject of this study. These minarets are precious because they witness important events in
Bitlis city. Non-destructive test methods determined the material properties of the Bitlis stone used
in constructing minarets. Within the scope of the study, detailed information about each minaret
was given, and on-site measurements determined its dimensions and current structural conditions.
For each minaret, its seismic behavior has been selected by using the vertical and horizontal design
spectrum in the recent earthquake code of Turkey. Historical masonry minarets were modeled using
the finite element method. In addition to stress distribution in the minarets under different loading
conditions, period and displacement results are also investigated.

Keywords: historical heritage; finite element analysis; damage assessment; minaret






Citation: Işık, E.; Harirchian, E.; 1. Introduction
Arkan, E.; Avcil, F.; Günay, M. Studies on historical artifacts have an important place in preserving their historical
Structural Analysis of Five Historical and cultural heritage and transferring it to the next generations. Such works contain
Minarets in Bitlis (Turkey). Buildings information about the social life of the societies of the period and construction technologies.
2022, 12, 159. https://doi.org/ The fact that they have survived over time is an indication that such structures receive
10.3390/buildings12020159 outstanding engineering services without any high-level technology [1–3]. The protection
Academic Editor: Chiara Bedon of cultural heritage and its safe transfer to the future are among essential engineering
research and implementation subjects of the 21st century. Since this vital subject meets on
Received: 12 January 2022
common ground with fields of science such as engineering, architecture, art history, and
Accepted: 28 January 2022
archeology, it also attracts the attention of interdisciplinary working groups, which have
Published: 2 February 2022
gained importance in recent years [4–8].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Historical buildings are invaluable cultural assets that strongly connect the past and
with regard to jurisdictional claims in the future. Historical buildings are also an indicator of societies’ engineering background,
published maps and institutional affil- artistic understanding, and economic status. The Van Lake basin has hosted many civiliza-
iations. tions in the historical process such as Hurrian, Urartian, Med, Persian, Sassanid, Seljuk,
and Ottoman civilizations. Since the basin is a very old residential area, it has carried the
historical structures and cultural values left behind by many civilizations until today. There
are many historical buildings in the basin that were built in very old times and are still in
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
use after restoration works. Bitlis is one of the centers in this basin that has cradled many
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
civilizations. Lake Van basin is also a region that causes great loss of life and properties
This article is an open access article
after destructive earthquakes.
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Investigation of earthquake resistance of buildings, determining and examining earth-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
quake safety, and the parameters affecting the safety of the buildings have increased its
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
importance in recent years. For these reasons, determining earthquake behavior and the
4.0/). safety of structures is one of the most basic study fields of earthquake engineering. From

Buildings 2022, 12, 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020159 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2022, 12, 159 2 of 22

the results of previous earthquakes, it can be observed that heavy damage and destruction
in structures are relatively high depending on the level of development. However, it is
crucial to distinguish and separately analyze the parameters that share in the formation of
these damages and destructions. For this reason, when observing the behavior of structures
under the effects of earthquakes, knowing the factors that will affect the earthquake resis-
tance of structures attains particular importance. Studies and research on historical artifacts,
which are a part of cultural heritage, both in our country and in different parts of the world
are becoming more common day by day [9–12]. Some of these research studies include
Bajrakli Mosque (Western Kosovo) [13], SS. Rosario Church Bell Tower [14], St. Mary of
Carmel Church [15], Ben Ezra Synagogue [16], Athena Temple [17], Madre Santa Maria
del Borgo Church [18], and Gazi Hasan Pasha mosque [19]. These studies are studies on
monumental structures built in a masonry style. These studies can also be considered as
case studies for the modelling and strengthening of monumental masonry structures with
the finite element method, determining the material properties used, and determining their
seismic behaviour using different analysis methods.
Minarets have an important place among historical monumental structures. Since
these structures, which are symbols of faith, were built differently in different civilizations,
they provide information about the construction and construction technologies of that
period. Although minarets are built in different systems, historical minarets are commonly
encountered as masonry structures. Generally, they were built by local cut stones and
minaret masters of the region. There are many studies on minarets, which are an integral
part of our historical assets. In studies on such minarets, the behavior under the influence
of earthquakes has been examined in general. Çaktı et al. (2013) [20], by giving information
about the damage to the minarets in the 2011 Van earthquake, provided the results of the
study for forty-one new and historical minarets in Istanbul. In the study, the earthquake
behavior of the Edirnekapı Mimrimah Sultan Mosque minaret has been specifically exam-
ined. In addition, information about earthquake recording and monitoring systems used
in minarets is given. Işık and Antep (2018) [21] determined the seismic behavior of the
minaret of the historical Kadı Mahmut Mosque in Ahlat district in terms of different load
combinations, using the design spectra specified in the Turkish Seismic Design Code-2007
(TSDC-2007) [22]. In the study carried out by Kılıç et al. (2020) [23], the dynamic behavior
of the Kırklareli Hızırbey Mosque Minaret was determined. In the study, analyses were
investigated by the methods given in both TSDC-2007 and the Turkish Building Earthquake
Code (TBEC-2018) [24]. Ural and Çelik (2018) [25] attempted to determine earthquake
behavior and dynamic analysis of masonry minarets with a single balcony. In this context,
seven different minarets in Aksaray district were chosen as examples. The finite element
method was used in the analysis of minarets. Mutlu and Şahin (2016) [26], on the other
hand, investigated the earthquake behavior of the historical Ulu Mosque minaret in Bursa
by using different modeling techniques. Dynamic analyses were performed in the time
history using acceleration time curves. Bayraktar et al. (2013) [27] determined the dy-
namic properties of the minaret of the historical Sundura Mosque, for which renovation
was carried out, using environmental vibration test methods after restoration. Günaydın
(2018) [28], in his study, determined the dynamic characteristics of the minaret of the Trab-
zon İskender Pasha Mosque after restoration processes. These processes were carried out
experimentally. Çarhoğlu et al. (2013) [29] analyzed the seismic behavior of the minarets
of the Hagia Sophia Mosque, one of the most important mosques of our country, in their
work. The time-history analysis method was used in this study. Uğurlu et al. (2017) [30]
carried out structural analyses by modeling the Four-Legged Minaret, one of the important
historical buildings of Diyarbakır. Oğuzmert (2002) [31], in his master’s thesis, informa-
tion was given about the structural analysis of masonry minarets built differently and the
methods used in masonry structures. Döven et al. (2018) [32], in the study, determined
the dynamic behavior of the Green Minaret in the city of Kütahya in the case of closed
and open balconies and compared them. Güneş et al. (2021) [33] focused on the seismic
assessment of a reconstructed ruined mosque built between 1807 and 1820. Ertek and
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 3 of 22

Fahjan (2007) [34], in their study, provided information about the construction systems and
technologies of the historical minarets of the Ottoman period, their classification, and how
to model and analyze them. Çalık et al. (2017) [35] provided information on simplified
natural frequency formulas for historical masonry minarets using experimental methods.
Yetkin et al. in their study in 2021 [36] examined the damage to the minarets in Elazig city
after the 6.8-magnitude earthquake that occurred in the Sivrice district of Elazig city on
24 January 2020. The sections where the damages occurred in the minarets examined were
determined, and the reasons for the formation of these damages were evaluated.
Structural analyses of five minarets, which are the subject of the song Five Minarets
in Bitlis written to describe the situation in the occupied city, were carried out using the
horizontal and vertical design spectrum defined in the current Turkish Building Earthquake
Code (TBEC-2018) and obtained using the Earthquake Hazard Maps Application of Turkey.
The local name Bitlis stone was used in the construction of the minarets. This stone’s
material properties (modulus of elasticity and Poisson ratio) were obtained by using non-
destructive test methods, and these values were used in the analyses. A survey study was
conducted for each minaret, and finite element models of minarets were created. In this
study, while giving detailed information about Five Minarets, their current situation is also
stated based on observation. The safe transfer of these minarets to the next generations,
which are of great value for Bitlis, is significant for preserving its historical and cultural
heritage. The information obtained within the scope of this study will be an archive for
such structures. For the first time, the modulus of elasticity and the Poison ratio were
obtained for Bitlis stone. It is crucial to be the first and detailed study on Five Minarets, one
of the brand structures of Bitlis city.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Five Minarets
This study is important in that it is the first study on the structural analysis of Five
Minarets, which is one of the important cultural and historical advertising structures of
Bitlis city. The most well known is the minaret of the Ulu Mosque of Five Minarets. This
minaret was built after the mosque. The Ulu Mosque, to which the minaret belongs, is one
of the oldest mosques in Bitlis. In addition to the Ulu Mosque in Bitlis, the Şerefiye Külliye,
Dört Sandık Gökmeydan, Ayn’el Barit (Soğuk Pınar), Sultaniye, Meydan, Kızıl Mescit, Seyit
İbrahim, Alemdar, Hacı Begiye, Kureyşi, and Memi Dede mosques are important historical
places of worship of the city. The minarets, which are the subject of the song “Five Minarets
in Bitlis”, belong to the Ulu Mosque, Şerefiye Mosque, Meydan, and Gökmeydan mosques.
It is estimated that the fifth minaret belonged to one of the Hatuniye, Kalealtı, or Kadiri
mosques, and when it was destroyed, a new one was built in its place. The positions of
Five Minarets are shown in Figure 1 and visuals are shown in Figure 2.
In general, minarets consist of the pulpit, the transition segment, the body, the balcony,
the upper part of the body, the spire, and the end ornament from bottom to top. As an
example, parts of the Ulu Mosque minaret are shown in Figure 3. The parts of the other
four minarets are similar to the Ulu Mosque minaret. There is no difference in the parts of
Five Minarets.
When the city of Bitlis is mentioned, the folk song “Five Minarets in Bitlis” comes to
mind immediately. The story of this song is as follows. Bitlis, which was under Russian
occupation for 5 months and 5 days and gained its freedom on 8 August 1916 took the
appearance of a ruined city due to the fact that the city was destroyed during the occupation.
A father and son, who fled from Bitlis during the war, returned to Bitlis after the withdrawal
of the enemy and reached the foot of Dideban Mountain, where the city of Bitlis is visible.
The father sends his son to the city to find out if somebody is alive in the city. After
examining the city for a while, the son turns to his father and calls out from afar: “There is
no trace of life in the city”. When he said, “Only five minarets have survived”, his father,
hearing this, collapses and kneels down and calls his son to him with a lament: “Five
Minarets in Bitlis, come back, son, come back, my heart is full of wounds, come back, son,
 Buildings 2022, 12, 159 4 of 22

come back”. This lament, sung by the father, has survived to the present day as the subject
of folk songs and poems. The folk song “Five Minarets in Bitlis” was composed in 1970 by
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 24
Fatih Gündoğdu, who worked at Turkish Radio and Television (TRT)-Istanbul Radio. This
song has become the advertisement words of Bitlis city over time [37–46].

Figure 1. (a) The location of the Bitlis city in Turkey. (b) The location of Five Minarets in Bitlis city.
Figure 1. (a) The location of the Bitlis city in Turkey. (b) The location of Five Minarets in Bitlis city.
(c) The site plan of the Ulu Mosque and its minaret. (d) The site plan of the Şerefiye Külliye and its
(c) The site plan of the Ulu Mosque and its minaret. (d) The site plan of the Şerefiye Külliye and its
minaret. (e) The site plan of the Meydan Mosque and its minaret. (f) The site plan of the Kalealtı
minaret. (e) The site plan of the Meydan Mosque and its minaret. (f) The site plan of the Kalealtı
Mosque and its minaret. (g) Plan of Gökmeydan Mosque and Minaret.
Mosque and its minaret. (g) Plan of Gökmeydan Mosque and Minaret.
 Figure 1. (a) The location of the Bitlis city in Turkey. (b) The location of Five Minarets in Bitlis city.
Buildings 2022, 12, 159
(c) The site plan of the Ulu Mosque and its minaret. (d) The site plan of the Şerefiye Külliye and its
5 of 22
minaret. (e) The site plan of the Meydan Mosque and its minaret. (f) The site plan of the Kalealtı
Mosque and its minaret. (g) Plan of Gökmeydan Mosque and Minaret.

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24

In general, minarets consist of the pulpit, the transition segment, the body, the bal-
cony, the upper part of the body, the spire, and the end ornament from bottom to top. As
an example, parts of the Ulu Mosque minaret are shown in Figure 3. The parts of the other
Figure 2. Visualsare
four minarets of Five Minarets:
similar (1) Ulu
to the(1)
Ulu Mosque Minaret, (2) Şerefiye Mosque Minaret, (3) Mey-
Figure 2. Visuals of Five Minarets: UluMosque
Mosque minaret. There
Minaret, (2) is no
Şerefiye difference
Mosque in the
Minaret, parts
(3) Meydanof
dan Mosque
Five Minaret, (4) Kalealtı Mosque Minaret, and (5) Gökmeydan Mosque Minaret.
Minarets.
Mosque Minaret, (4) Kalealtı Mosque Minaret, and (5) Gökmeydan Mosque Minaret.

Figure3.3.Parts
Figure Partsof
ofthe
theminaret
minaretof
ofthe
theUlu
UluMosque.
Mosque.
2.2. Ulu Mosque and Minaret
When the city of Bitlis is mentioned, the folk song “Five Minarets in Bitlis” comes to
Although the exact date of construction of the Ulu Mosque in Gazibey district is not
mind immediately. The story of this song is as follows. Bitlis, which was under Russian
known, it is stated that the structure was one of the mosques destroyed by Byzantium in
occupation for 5 months and 5 days and gained its freedom on August 8 1916 took the
928, as Şen reported from İbn’ül Esir in 2018. This means that the mosque was built in the
appearance of a ruined city due to the fact that the city was destroyed during the occupa-
city in the 7th or 8th century after the first Islamic conquests [44]. The mosque, together
tion. A father and son, who fled from Bitlis during the war, returned to Bitlis after the
with the Bitlis Castle, is the oldest building in the city center of Bitlis.
withdrawal of the enemy and reached the foot of Dideban Mountain, where the city of
There are three inscriptions on the construction/repair of the mosque, which are the
Bitlis is visible. The father sends his son to the city to find out if somebody is alive in the
most important historical documents among the immovable cultural assets. These are
city. After
located examining
on the theofcity
upper part thefor a while,
middle and the son turns
western doors to
at his
the father and
entrance to calls out from
the sanctuary
afar: “There is no trace of life in the city”. When he said, “Only five minarets
from the courtyard and the upper part of the minaret pulpit (boot). The inscriptions belong have sur-
to the renovations and restorations of the mosque. The inscription dated 1150 on the middlea
vived,” his father, hearing this, collapses and kneels down and calls his son to him with
lament:
door “Five
is an Minarets
inscription in Bitlis,to
belonging come back, son, come
the renovation of theback, my heart
building is full of wounds,
and corresponds to the
come back, son, come back”. This lament, sung by the father, has survived
reign of Dilmaçoğulları. The other renovation inscription dated 1651 corresponds to the to the present
day asof
period the
thesubject of folk
Serefhans songs
under theand
rulepoems. The folk Empire.
of the Ottoman song “Five
UluMinarets
Mosque, in Bitlis”
which was
is one
composed in 1970 by Fatih Gündoğdu, who worked at Turkish Radio and Television
(TRT)-Istanbul Radio. This song has become the advertisement words of Bitlis city over
time [37–46].

2.2. Ulu Mosque and Minaret

Buildings 2022, 12, 159 6 of 22

of the first examples of a rectangular horizontal plan mosque, also sets an example for the
plan development of the Artuqid period [45–48].
The minaret is at the northwest part of the courtyard with the portico, which was
unearthed as a result of the restoration works in 2012. There is an inscription on the construc-
tion of the minaret, dated 1492–1493, on the entrance door in the eastern direction [44,48].
Its construction date coincides with the period of Serefhans. The upper parts of the minaret,
which has a square prism-shaped pulpit, were chamfered and a circular body was passed
with a two-stage bracelet. The body is divided into three parts by two cornices. There is an
inscription on the south face of the middle one of these partitions, which does not contain
any ornamental elements. The transition to the balcony was made with a bracelet. The
wall of the balcony is plain. The upper part and spire of the minaret were destroyed by a
lightning strike, and these parts were repaired in an inaccurate manner. There is a door
opening to the south in the plain upper part section of the minaret with a cylindrical body.
The spire section was renovated in the form of an octagonal prism.

2.3. Gökmeydan Mosque and Minaret

It is written on the inscription on the east side of the Gökmeydan Mosque, which is
located in the Taş District, that it was built in 1801. The southern part of the mosque, which
was built on sloping topography, was designed as two floors. The building, in which the
original function of the lower floor is used as a madrasa zawiya or khalwa and the upper
floor as a place of worship, has a rectangular plan in the north–south direction.
The minaret was built to the west of the mosque, near the southwest corner. There
is an inscription that also mentions Atatürk, dated 1924. It is the minaret with the most
ornaments among the existing minarets. The square prism pulpit is entered through a door
with a relieving arch in the southern part. The pulpit is divided into two with a cornice
on the door. On the lower part of the south face, there is a circular inscription with floral
motifs. Just above this, there is a relief decoration with lozenges. The part of the pulpit that
connects to the bracelet on the body is built in the form of an inverted pendentive. The part
of the pedestal that connects to the bracelet on the body is built in the form of an inverted
pendentive. On the body part, an ornamental arrangement was preferred with motifs in
the form of rosette-drop-rosette-triangle in four rows from bottom to top. In the lower part
of the balcony, there is a row of ornaments made of white limestone in the form of lozenges,
two cornices with ornaments in between, and a similar ornamentation series with a lozenge
embossed from Bitlis stone. It has a metal railing balcony. The upper parts of the minaret
section are octagonal prism, and there is a passage to the minaret on its four faces. There
are four passages on four faces. The decorated eaves are covered with a stone dome [44,46].

2.4. Meydan(Çarşı) Mosque and Minaret

Meydan Mosque was destroyed in the 1915 Russian occupation, and its minaret stood
alone in the bazaar square to the south of Bitlis Castle until the beginning of the 2000s.
Reconstruction studies were carried out by the relevant institutions in 2003 [46,49]. There
is an entrance door on the east face of the square prism pulpit of the minaret, which was
built adjacent to the northwest part of the mosque. Passing from square prism to octagonal
transition segment is provided with triangulations. There are eight blind arches in the
transition segment. In the transition to the cylindrical body with blind arches, it is passed
with a double cornice section. The body is divided into two with a double cornice. There is
no ornament on the body, which has a window opening to the east in the lower part. The
balcony wall was built with stone blocks. The upper parts of the minaret section with a
door opening to the southwest are plain. The minaret, which is covered with an octagonal
pyramid spire, has a crescent-tipped end ornament. This minaret resembles the minaret of
the Şerefiye Mosque without ornaments.
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 7 of 22

2.5. Kalealtı (Aşağı Kale) Mosque and Minaret

Kalealtı (Aşağı kale) Mosque is located in the southwest of Bitlis Castle, next to the
Kömüs stream. There is no inscription about its construction or repair in the mosque, which
can also be classified as a neighborhood mosque. Arık (1971) [44] states that it is a 17,18th
century structure typologically. The northwest corner and southeast part of this historical
building, which has a square plan, were beveled due to the building it was built next to
and the road. A lower section constructed at a different period than the main building
was added to the entrance door of the sanctuary in the eastern part of the mosque [44].
The minaret of the mosque is not visible from time to time in old photographs. Today,
in the southern part of the annex building, a minaret has a square prism-shaped pulpit
built adjacent to the sanctuary wall. The minaret, which does not contain any ornamental
elements, is transitioned from a cylindrical body to a stone-walled balcony with a five-
stepped stone row. The cylindrical upper part of the minaret has a door opening to the
south. A crescent-tipped end ornament is placed on the spire wrapped by lead sheets,
which is uncommon in Bitlis [44,46].

2.6. Şerefiye Külliye and Minaret

The Şerefiye Külliye (complex of buildings) was built where the Kömüs (Hüsrev) and
Rabat (Sapkor Suyu) Streams merged to form the Bitlis Stream. The mosque, minaret, imaret
(the public soup kitchen), cupola, madrasah, and arasta (bazaar) were built on the west
side of the streams, and the hammam was built on the east side. The connection between
the Külliye is provided by the Şerefiye I Bridge on the Kömüs Stream and the Şerefiye II
Bridge on the Rabat Stream. There is a mosque in the south of Külliye, the entrance gap,
a cupola in the southeast, an imaret in the north, and a minaret in the northeast. In the
eastern part of the külliye, there is a courtyard where the Kömüs stream is located. This
section is entered through a portal opened from the south. There is an inscription on its
portal states that it was built by Şeref Beg in 1528–1529. The door opens to a gap and
there is the south window of the cupola. The left side opens to the portico of the mosque.
Şerefiye Mosque is the only mosque in the city center with a portico place. The cupola,
which was built by Emir Şemseddin in 1533, is the continuation of this section. There
is a burial ground in the section between the cupola and the minaret. The imaret in the
northern section was built at the same time as the mosque, and the northeast section was
destroyed because of the overflow of the Kömüs stream. At the end of the imaret top cover
of the square prism pulpit, there is an ornament element between the double cornices. In
the south part, a panel with the inscription basmala in Kufic calligraphy was placed under
the cornice. There is the entrance door of the minaret in the western part. Passing from
square prism to octagonal transition segment is provided with triangulations. There are
eight blind arches in the transition segment and, on the walls on the inner surface of these,
panels with floral ornaments and the Kufic inscriptions are placed. In the transition to
the cylindrical body with blind arches, it is passed with Kufic calligraphy inscribed ar the
double cornice section. The body is divided into two by a plain double cornice. There are
drop motif decorations in the lower part. The decorations in the section that passes to the
balcony are made of limestone. The metal railing balcony was rebuilt with stone blocks
during recent restoration works. The cylindrical upper part of the minaret section with a
door opening to the southwest is plain. The minaret, which is covered with an octagonal
pyramid spire, has an end ornament with a single-stage metal knob [44].

3. Results
3.1. The Observed Damages in the Minarets
Observational analyzes were made to reveal the current structural situation for each
minaret. With these analyzes, information is given about the damages that occur in the
minarets today. In short, before proceeding to the detailed structural analysis processes,
structural analyses based on observation were made in order to provide information
about the current status of Five Minarets. The purpose of this analysis is to reveal the
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 8 of 22

current state of the building as well as to provide information about the damage and
deformations that occur in the structure. Minarets have survived to the present day with
protection and interventions by the relevant public institutions and organizations. However,
partial damage occurred due to the high-temperature differences in the city and excessive
precipitation. Bitlis Stone, with its local name, was used in all of the minarets. The stones
obtained from the quarries in Bitlis were used in minarets after being subjected to the
cutting process. One of the general features of Bitlis stone is discoloration and color change
over time with the effects of natural conditions. Discoloration and color change were
partially observed in almost all minarets studied. The Bitlis city, where the minarets are
located, is one of the city centers with the highest snowfall in Turkey. Some of the minarets,
which were examined due to excessive precipitation, have calcifications in places due to
water effects. Some of the stones used in the building have occasional rupture and damage.
It has been observed that there are almost no consolidation effects over time since the
soil properties are good in the investigated structures. Although vegetative formations
were noticeable in different parts of the minarets, they did not cause great damage to the
minarets. It is seen that maintenance and restoration were conducted over time in all Five
Minarets. Conducting such maintenance and restoration over time is an important step
towards prolonging the life of the buildings and preserving the originality of the buildings.
In addition, the bullet traces of the occupation forces during the years of occupation are also
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
clearly visible. Neither random renovation nor restoration were made to the buildings.9 Theof 24

images of the damages and deformations observed in Five Minarets are shown in Figure 4.

Figure4.4.Damages
Figure Damagesobserved
observedin inFive
FiveMinarets:
Minarets:a.a.high
hightemperature
temperaturedifference;
difference;b.b.discoloration
discolorationand
and
color change; c. water effects; d. rupture damage; e. vegetation and f. bullet traces.
color change; c. water effects; d. rupture damage; e. vegetation and f. bullet traces.

3.2.The
3.2. TheDetermination
Determinationofofthe
theBitlis
BitlisStone
StoneProperties
PropertiesUsed
UsedininMinarets
Minarets
ItIthas
hasbeen
beenconsidered
consideredas asaasingle
singletype
typeof
ofthe
thematerial,
material,which
whichisislocally
locallycalled
calledBitlis
Bitlis
Stone, and
Stone, and isisused
usedininall
allthe
theminarets
minaretsconsidered
considered inin the
the study.
study. Modulus
Modulus of of elasticity
elasticity (E),
(E),
Poisson ratio,
Poisson ratio, and
and the
the weight
weight per
per unit
unit volume
volume (γ)
(γ) values
values for
forBitlis
Bitlis stone
stone was
wastaken
taken as
asaa
single
single value
valueforforall
allminarets.
minarets. While
While determining
determining these
these values,
values, thethe unit
unit volume
volume and and the
the
specific
specificweight
weightvalues
valueswere
weretaken
takendirectly
directlyfrom
fromthe
thestudy
studyby byIşık
Işıketetal.
al.(2020)
(2020)[50].
[50].For
Forthe
the
other two properties, the results were obtained by using the nondestructive test method.
The propagation changes of the ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) wave are analyzed and
applied without causing any deterioration in the material in the UPV method. This
method, which enables the investigation of material homogeneity, can be considered an
important method in the evaluation of concrete or natural stone structures [51]. In this
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 9 of 22

other two properties, the results were obtained by using the nondestructive test method.
The propagation changes of the ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) wave are analyzed and
applied without causing any deterioration in the material in the UPV method. This method,
which enables the investigation of material homogeneity, can be considered an important
method in the evaluation of concrete or natural stone structures [51]. In this method, an idea
of the strength of the specimen is obtained based on the propagation speed of ultrasonic
sound waves at certain frequencies in the specimen. Sound waves give an idea of cracks in
the sample. An ultrasonic pulse is applied to one side of the sample with an ultrasonic pulse
velocity tester, and pressure waves (P waves) are generated and recorded from the other
side of the specimen. The ultrasonic pulse velocity tester measures the time taken by the
pulse to proceed through the specimen. UPV equipment consists of a receiver, a transmitter,
and a digital display [52]. The propagation times of the waves read from the device display
were divided by the size of the specimen, and the propagation rates were determined for
each sample. UPV test was applied to cube specimens of 15 cm × 15 cm × 15 cm. The
results obtained for the specimens are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Test results of Bitlis stone.

Specimen UPV (m/s) Vs (m/s) Poisson Modulus of Elasticity

Number Direction 2 Direction 3 Direction 2 Direction 3 Direction 2 Direction 3 kN/m2
1 1574.5 ± 93.9 1804.5 ± 57.5 1032.9 ± 62.33 1185.557 ± 38.17 0.214295 ± 0.002 0.2085 ± 0.001 3755487 ± 4.77 4924239 ± 4.13
2 1751.0 ± 22.24 1805.5 ± 13.6 1150.4 ± 14.1 1184.95 ± 8.63 0.208497 ± 0.001 0.2125 ± 0.001 4604603 ± 1.21 4901648 ± 1.05
3 1543.25 ± 58.55 1687.5 ± 36.06 1009.3 ± 39.2 1105.313 ± 24 0.226122 ± 0.002 0.2202 ± 0.001 3570909 ± 2.82 4261941 ± 2.44
4 1340.0 ± 44.6 1449.25 ± 27.31 875.02 ± 29.72 947.8095 ± 18.19 0.232153 ± 0.002 0.2261 ± 0.001 2791537 ± 1.91 3259257 ± 1.65
5 1573.75 ± 41.84 1676.25 ± 25.62 1024.5 ± 27.92 1092.915 ± 17.1 0.244454 ± 0.002 0.2383 ± 0.001 3786705 ± 2.05 4287804 ± 1.77
6 1608.0 ± 6.94 1625.00 ± 4.25 1058.1 ± 5.23 1070.875 ± 3.2 0.202775 ± 0.002 0.1971 ± 0.001 3930450 ± 3.14 4007304 ± 2.72

According to the fracture test performed on cube specimens of 15 × 15 × 15 cm

dimensions taken from natural stones known as Bitlis ignimbrites and used as building
stones and the elastic property examinations obtained separately in two directions, the
following results were obtained:
• Specimen 1 has the highest fracture load (179.5 kN). The weight per unit volume was
calculated as 14.2 kN/m3 , average modulus of elasticity 4.34 × 106 (kN/m2 ), average
Poisson ratio 0.21, and average shear modulus 1.79 × 106 (kN/m2 );
• The fracture load of specimen 2 was obtained as 163.8 kN. The weight per unit volume
was calculated as 14.12 kN/m3 , average modulus of elasticity 4.75 × 106 (kN/m2 ),
average Poisson ratio 0.21, and average shear modulus 1.96 × 106 (kN/ m2 );
• The fracture load of specimen 3 was obtained as 146.4 kN. The weight per unit volume
was calculated as 14.02 kN/m3 , average modulus of elasticity 3.92 × 106 (kN/m2 ),
average Poisson ratio 0.22, and average shear modulus 1.60 × 106 (kN/m2 );
• The fracture load of specimen 4 was determined as 153.2 kN. The weight per unit vol-
ume was calculated as 14.51 kN/m3 , average modulus of elasticity 3.03 × 106 (kN/m2 ),
average Poisson ratio 0.23, and average shear modulus 1.23 × 106 (kN/m2 );
• The fracture load of specimen 5 was obtained as 153.2 kN. The weight per unit volume
was calculated as 14.22 kN/m3 , average elastic modulus 4.04 × 106 (kN/m2 ), average
Poisson ratio 0.24, and average shear modulus 1.63 × 106 (kN/m2 );
• The fracture load of specimen 6 was obtained as 153.2 kN. The unit volume weight
was calculated as 14.32 kN/m3 , average modulus of elasticity 3.97 × 106 (kN/m2 ),
average Poisson ratio 0.20, and average shear modulus 1.65 × 106 (kN/m2 ).
Ignimbrites may be of different compositions due to their formation and may change
over short distances when an evaluation is made about the specimens in general. The
weight per unit volume of the six specimens examined is very close to each other and
does not show great compositional differences. Porosity values are also in the range of
25%–26%, and it is understood that they do not have a significant difference in terms of their
formation. However, strength properties show significant changes. Measurements of the
specimens taken from both directions showed that there were different strength values in
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 10 of 22

both directions. Although the specimens have similar physical properties, the main reason
why they have different values in strength properties is considered to be meteorological
conditions. Particularly, the small amount of cracking in the direction where the specimen
is exposed to the natural environment may cause a decrease in material strength. However,
in general terms, it has sufficient strength conditions as a building block. Using the average
values of these results, the material properties that are the basis for structural analysis are
shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Material properties considered for Bitlis stone used in minarets.

Modulus of Specific Weight Weight per Unit

Material Type Poisson Ratio
Elasticity (kN/m2 ) (kN/m3 ) Volume (t/m3 )
Bitlis Stone 4006824 20 1.46 0.22

Modelling of masonry walls is extremely important in the evaluation and design

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 24
of historical and modern masonry structures. Masonry walls can be modelled using
three different modelling techniques such as detailed micro-modelling, simplified micro-
modelling, and macro-modelling. These models can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Modelling methods of masonry: (a) detailed

detailed micro
micro modelling;
modelling; (b)
(b) simplified
simplified micro
micro mod-
mod-
elling; and (c) Macro modelling.
elling; and (c) Macro modelling.

In detailed micro-modelling, the mechanical properties of the masonry unit and the
mortar forming the masonry wall are taken separately. separately. In this approach,
approach, it is assumed that
cracks will occur at the interfaces between the masonry unit and the mortar. In simplified
micro-modelling, mass mass densification
densification was wasmade
madeatateacheachconnection
connectionpoint pointconsisting
consistingofofa
amortar
mortarandandtwotwomasonry
masonryunit–mortar
unit–mortarinterfaces,
interfaces,andanditit was
was accepted
accepted thatthat cracks that
could occur
occur inin masonry
masonrycould couldoccuroccuratatthe
themean
mean interface
interface line,
line, assuming
assuming thethe average
average in-
interface. Findings
terface. Findings differ
differ slightly
slightly from
from detailed
detailed micro-modelling,
micro-modelling, as the
as the Poisson
Poisson ratioratio of
of the
the mortar
mortar is not
is not taken
taken intointo account
account here.here. However,
However, thisthis difference
difference is small
is so so smallthatthat it can
it can be
be neglected
neglected [53–55].
[53–55].
The
The macro modeling
macro modeling technique
technique is is one
one of the masonry
of the masonry structural
structural modeling
modeling techniques
techniques
and is widely used. While performing this type of modeling, analyses
and is widely used. While performing this type of modeling, analyses are carried out are carried out with-
with-
out
out making
making anyanydistinction
distinctionbetween
betweenthe thebinding
bindingmaterial
material(mortar,
(mortar, etc.) used
etc.) usedin in
thethe
building
build-
and the structural
ing and elements.
the structural elements.In this modelling,
In this the masonry
modelling, the masonry unitunit
andandthe properties
the properties of the
of
mortar are homogenized and considered as a masonry composite
the mortar are homogenized and considered as a masonry composite material. The me- material. The mechanical
properties of this model
chanical properties are
of this the values
model are theobtained as a result
values obtained asof the homogenization
a result process.
of the homogenization
Macro modelling is more convenient in practice because it requires
process. Macro modelling is more convenient in practice because it requires less memoryless memory and time.
However, with macro modelling, stress distributions in masonry units
and time. However, with macro modelling, stress distributions in masonry units and mor- and mortar can be
obtained accurately [55–58] In this respect, structural masonry elements
tar can be obtained accurately [55–58] In this respect, structural masonry elements are are considered
composites, and an equivalent
considered composites, and an material
equivalent model is used
material for all
model minarets
is used for allmodels.
minarets Structural
models.
analyses were carried out for the Five Minarets in Bitlis using this macro-modeling
Structural analyses were carried out for the Five Minarets in Bitlis using this macro-mod- tech-
nique. The mortar and Bitlis stone used in the minarets were considered as a single material.
eling technique. The mortar and Bitlis stone used in the minarets were considered as a
The sign criterion for the stress components of the elements used in the finite element model
single material. The sign criterion for the stress components of the elements used in the
of the structure is shown in Figure 6, in accordance with the assumptions stipulated by the
finite element model of the structure is shown in Figure 6, in accordance with the assump-
software [59] in which numerical modeling is made.
tions stipulated by the software [59] in which numerical modeling is made.

Table 2. Material properties considered for Bitlis stone used in minarets.

Modulus of Elasticity Specific Weight Weight per Unit
Material Type Poisson Ratio
(kN/m2) (kN/m3) Volume (t/m3)
Bitlis Stone 4006824 20 1.46 0.22
 Table 2. Material properties considered for Bitlis stone used in minarets.
Modulus of Elasticity Specific Weight Weight per Unit
Material Type Poisson Ratio
(kN/m2) (kN/m3) Volume (t/m3)
Bitlis Stone 4006824 20 1.46 0.22
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 11 of 22

Figure 6. The sign criterion for the stress components.

Figure 6. The sign criterion for the stress components.
As stated in Figure 6, S11 is vertical stress in (x) direction, S22 is vertical stress in (y)
direction, S33 is vertical stress in (z) direction, and S12 = S21 constitute shear stresses in the
x-y plane. With TBEC-2018, which was updated in 2018 and entered into force on 1 January
2019, the biggest change was the use of site-specific design spectra. Turkey Earthquake
Maps Interactive Web Application has been developed to calculate design spectra and
site-specific earthquake parameters. With the help of this application, horizontal and
vertical design spectra can be obtained as well as earthquake parameters belonging to any
desired geographical location. By using the coordinate values obtained for each minaret,
design spectra and earthquake parameters were obtained with the help of this application.
While obtaining these values, the design ground motion level DD-2 was chosen as the
earthquake ground motion level. From the ground survey reports received from the
relevant institutions, the ZB soil class was taken into account for all five minarets as the
local soil class. As it can be seen from Table 3, the design spectra were obtained close to each
other since the seismic parameters for the minarets are close to each other. The horizontal
and vertical spectra obtained for the Ulu Mosque Minaret are shown in Figure 7 as an
example. In these curves, the horizontal axis represents period values, while the vertical
axes represent the horizontal and vertical elastic design spectral accelerations, respectively.

Table 3. The seismic parameters obtained for Five Minarets.

Ulu Gökmeydan Meydan Kalealtı Şerefiye

Parameter
Mosque Mosque Mosque Mosque Mosque
Local soil classes ZB ZB ZB ZB ZB
Short period map spectral acceleration coefficient (SS ) 0.614 0.614 0.614 0.614 0.614
Map spectral acceleration coefficient for a 1.0 s period (S1 ) 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172
Peak ground acceleration (PGA) (g) 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260
Peak ground velocity (PGV) (cm/sn) 15.081 15.123 15.082 15.084 15.079
Local soil effect coefficient for the short period region (FS ) 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
Local soil effect coefficient for 1.0 s period (F1 ) 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800
Short period design spectral acceleration coefficient
0.553 0.553 0.553 0.553 0.553
(unitless) (SDS )
Design spectral acceleration coefficient for a 1.0 s period
0.138 0.138 0.138 0.138 0.138
(unitless) (SD1 )
TA 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
TB 0.249 0.249 0.249 0.249 0.249
TAD 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
TBD 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083

The earthquake parameters obtained for each minaret and used in structural analysis
with the help of the Interactive Web Earthquake application are shown in Table 3.
While the dimensions of Five Minarets are shown in Figure 8, the three-dimensional
models obtained from the software program are shown in Figure 9.
 vant institutions, the ZB soil class was taken into account for all five minarets as the local
soil class. As it can be seen from Table 3, the design spectra were obtained close to each
other since the seismic parameters for the minarets are close to each other. The horizontal
and vertical spectra obtained for the Ulu Mosque Minaret are shown in Figure 7 as an
example. In these curves, the horizontal axis represents period values, while the vertical
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 12 of 22
axes represent the horizontal and vertical elastic design spectral accelerations, respec-
tively.

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24

TAD 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017

TBD TAD 0.017
0.083 0.017
0.083 0.017
0.083 0.017
0.083 0.017
0.083
TBD 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083
While the dimensions of Five Minarets are shown in Figure 8, the three-dimensional
While thefrom
models obtained dimensions of Fiveprogram
the software Minaretsare
areshown
shown inin Figure
Figure 8,
9. the three-dimensional
Figure
Figure 7.obtained
models7. Horizontal andthe
from vertical design
software spectraare
spectra
program obtained
obtained for
shownfor the
inthe minaret
minaret
Figure 9. ofof the
the Ulu
Ulu Mosque.
Mosque

The earthquake parameters obtained for each minaret and used in structural analysis
with the help of the Interactive Web Earthquake application are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. The seismic parameters obtained for Five Minarets.

Ulu Gökmeydan Meydan Kalealtı Şerefiye

Parameter
Mosque Mosque Mosque Mosque Mosque
Local soil classes ZB ZB ZB ZB ZB
Short period map spectral acceleration coefficient
0.614 0.614 0.614 0.614 0.614
(SS)
Map spectral acceleration coefficient for a 1.0 s
0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172
period (S1)
Peak ground acceleration (PGA)(g) 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260
Peak ground velocity (PGV) (cm/sn) 15.081 15.123 15.082 15.084 15.079
Local soil effect coefficient for the short period
0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
region (FS)
Local soil effect coefficient for 1.0 s period (F1) 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800
Short period design spectral acceleration coefficient
0.553 0.553 0.553 0.553 0.553
(unitless) (S
Figure DS)
Figure 8. Dimensions
8. Dimensions
Figure 8. ofofFive
of Five
Dimensions Minarets.
Minarets.
Five Minarets.
Design spectral acceleration coefficient for a 1.0 s
0.138 0.138 0.138 0.138 0.138
period (unitless) (SD1)
TA 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
TB 0.249 0.249 0.249 0.249 0.249

Figure 9. Three-dimensional models obtained from the software program of Five Minarets.

Figure 9. Three-dimensional
Figure models
9. Three-dimensional obtained
models fromfrom
obtained the software program
the software of Five
program Minarets.
of Five Minarets.
In the structural analysis of the minarets, the finite element method, where the cross-
section and material properties can be easily defined, was used. In finite element analysis,
In the structural analysis of the minarets, the finite element method, where the cross-
the geometry of the structure or structural elements is determined by a finite number of
section and
nodal material
points. The properties can be easily
general structural defined,
properties of thewas used. In
minarets, thefinite element
number analysis,
of nodes, and
the geometry of the structure or structural elements is determined by
the number of shell elements modelled in the software are shown in Table 4. a finite number of
nodal points. The general structural properties of the minarets, the number of nodes, and
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 13 of 22

In the structural analysis of the minarets, the finite element method, where the cross-
section and material properties can be easily defined, was used. In finite element analysis,
the geometry of the structure or structural elements is determined by a finite number of
nodal points. The general structural properties of the minarets, the number of nodes, and
the number of shell elements modelled in the software are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Characteristics and structural model properties of Five Minarets.

Minaret Ulu Mosque Şerefiye Mosque Meydan Mosque Kalealtı Mosque Gökmeydan Mosque
Date of Construction 1492/93 1533 17th century 17–18th century 1924
√ √ √ √ √
Stone
Material Brick
Earth
√ √ √ √ √
Single
Balcony
Double
Height (cm) 3048 2766 2450 1280 3490
Northwest of Northeast of Northwest of
East of mosque
Location courtyard courtyard mosque next Southwest of mosque
at annex
(at outside) (at inside) to portico
Footing Dimensions (m) 3.10 × 3.10 3.0 × 3.0 3.75 × 3.75 2.15 × 2.15 2.90 × 2.90
Body Diameter (m) 3.1 2.7 3.1 1.8 2.6
Body wall thickness (m) 0.6 0.45 0.5 0.2 0.35
Height (m) 30.48 27.66 24.5 12.8 34.9
Number of nodes 6808 7096 7220 1558 2648
Number of Shell element 1710 1781 1812 393 666

Modal analysis is a dynamic analysis method that enables the determination of free
vibration periods, frequency values, mass participation rates, and mode shapes of the
structure. In order to determine the dynamic properties of the minarets, primarily modal
analyzes were carried out. In TBEC-2018, it was requested to be determined according
to the rule that the mass participation rates in the X and Y directions should not be less
than 95%. In this case, modal analyses were carried out by considering the first 34 modes
for the Ulu Mosque minaret; the first 24 modes for Gökmeydan mosque minaret; the first
44 modes for the Meydan Mosque minaret; the first 31 modes for the Kalealtı mosque
minaret; and the first 43 modes for the Şerefiye Mosque minaret. The values related to
the mass participation rates, natural vibration periods, and effective modes obtained by
considering the first five modes of Five Minarets as a result of the modal analysis are shown
in Table 5. Torsion in all minarets occurred in the fifth mode.
The dead-load, live-load, and earthquake-load are taken into account for stress calcula-
tions. The software program according to material properties made dead load calculations.
Horizontal and vertical elastic design spectra obtained from Turkey Earthquake Hazard
Maps Interactive Web Applications were used as design spectra. For the earthquake load,
load definition was made in three directions as EQx, EQy, and EQz. Structural analyses
were performed for different load combinations by using these values. The load combi-
nations envisaged in the TBEC-2018, which is currently used in Turkey, have been taken
into account. Load combinations have been selected in accordance with the definition
under the title of Combining Earthquake Effect with other Effects in TBEC-2018. Load
combinations are defined by the constant load effect, live load effect, earthquake effects
defined in perpendicular directions, and the vertical earthquake effect together with the
load coefficients. The stress diagrams for S11 (vertical stress in the x-direction) obtained
from different load combinations are shown in Figure 10.
Buildings 2022,2022,
Buildings 12, x12,
FOR159 PEER REVIEW 14 of 2216 of 24

Figure
Figure10.
10.The
Themaximum stressfor
maximum stress forFive
Five Minarets
Minarets (S11).
(S11).

The
Themaximum stressdiagrams
maximum stress diagramsforfor
thethe vertical
vertical stress
stress in y-direction
in the the y-direction (S22) obtained
(S22) obtained
from different load combinations are shown in Figure
from different load combinations are shown in Figure 11. 11.
Buildings 2022,
Buildings 12, x12,FOR
2022, 159 PEER REVIEW 1517ofof
22 24

Figure 11.11.
Figure The maximum
The maximumstress
stressfor
forFive
Five Minarets (S22).
Minarets (S22).

The
Thediagrams
diagramsofof shear stressininthe
shear stress the
x-yx-y directions
directions (S12)
(S12) for minarets
for five five minarets
under under dif-
different
load load
ferent combinations are shown
combinations in Figure
are shown 12.
in Figure 12.
Buildings 2022,
Buildings 12,12,
2022, x FOR
159 PEER REVIEW 16 18 of 24
of 22

Figure
Figure12.
12.Maximum
Maximum shear
shear stress for Five
stress for FiveMinarets
Minarets(S12).
(S12).

Thecomparison
The comparison ofof the maximum
maximumtensiletensilestresses
stressesfor
forFive Minarets
Five according
Minarets to the
according to the
resultsof
results ofthe
thestructural
structural analysis
analysis isisgiven
givenininTable
Table6.6.
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 17 of 22

Table 5. Modal analysis results of Five Minarets.

Minaret Mode Period (s) UX (m) UY (m) ∑UX (%) ∑UY (%) RX (m) RY(m) ∑RX (%) ∑RY (%)
1 0.7104 0.01394 0.55769 1.39 55.77 0.4139 0.01027 41.39 1.03
2 0.7077 0.55858 0.01379 57.25 57.15 0.0104 0.41305 42.43 42.33
Ulu 3 0.1450 0.07872 0.09275 65.13 66.42 0.0648 0.05621 48.91 47.95
4 0.1423 0.10062 0.07766 75.19 74.19 0.0555 0.07397 54.46 55.35
5 0.0991 3.88 × 10−6 1.82 × 10−5 75.19 74.19 1.8 × 10−5 2.86 × 10−7 54.46 55.35
1 1.7760 0.5089 6.00 × 10−7 50.89 0.00 4.7 × 10−7 0.49011 0.00 49.01
2 1.7410 4.89 × 10−7 0.51229 50.89 51.23 0.4872 5.05 × 10−7 48.72 49.01
Gökmeydan 3 0.3126 0.00581 0.21057 51.47 72.29 0.0925 0.00258 57.97 49.27
4 0.3103 0.22133 0.00575 73.60 72.86 0.0026 0.1001 58.23 59.28
5 0.1486 0.04561 0.00032 78.16 72.89 0.0003 0.05404 58.25 64.68
1 0.6206 0.01356 0.53314 1.36 53.31 0.4317 0.01086 43.17 1.09
2 0.6135 0.53401 0.01338 54.76 54.65 0.011 0.43069 44.27 44.16
Meydan 3 0.1201 0.2624 0.00205 81.00 54.86 0.0014 0.17858 44.40 62.01
4 0.1186 0.00214 0.2621 81.21 81.07 0.1711 0.00139 61.51 62.15
5 0.1054 0.00829 3.85 × 10−5 82.04 81.07 2.4 × 10−5 0.00433 61.52 62.58
1 0.2861 0.00246 0.49748 0.25 49.75 0.4953 0.00252 49.53 0.25
2 0.2807 0.48622 0.00251 48.87 50.00 0.0025 0.49927 49.78 50.18
Kalealtı 3 0.0658 0.24789 6.76 × 10−6 73.66 50.00 8.0 × 10−7 0.08725 49.78 58.90
4 0.0603 3.99 × 10−6 0.22776 73.66 72.78 0.0926 1.37 × 10−7 59.04 58.90
5 0.0490 4.80 × 10−5 0.00033 73.66 72.81 0.0003 0.00024 59.07 58.93
1 0.7953 0.53912 0.01179 53.91 1.18 0.0096 0.43307 0.96 43.31
2 0.7824 0.01191 0.53782 55.10 54.96 0.4332 0.0095 44.28 44.26
Şerefiye 3 0.1449 0.00015 0.26134 55.12 81.10 0.1848 9.16 × 10−5 62.76 44.27
4 0.1400 0.24586 0.0002 79.70 81.12 0.0002 0.16751 62.78 61.02
5 0.1160 8.23 × 10−6 0.00301 79.71 81.42 0.0007 6.39 × 10−6 62.85 61.02

Table 6. Comparison of the maximum tensile stresses obtained for Five Minarets.

Minaret Load Combination S11 (MPa) S22 (MPa)

Ulu Mosque 0.9G + EQX + 0.3EQY − 0.3EQZ 1.992 1.992
Gökmeydan Mosque G + EQX 0.928 1.286
Meydan Mosque 0.9G + EQY − 0.3EQX 2.817 4.229
Kalealtı Mosque 1.4G 1.467 1.102
Şerefiye Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ 3.575 5.761

The comparison of the maximum compressive stresses according to the analysis results
for Five Minarets is given in Table 7.

Table 7. Maximum compressive stresses obtained for Five Minarets.

Minaret Load Combination S11 (MPa) S22 (MPa)

Ulu Mosque 0.9G + EQX + 0.3EQY − 0.3EQZ 2.953 8.859
Gökmeydan Mosque G + EQX 2.268 4.901
Meydan Mosque 0.9G + EQY − 0.3EQX 2.517 12.099
Kalealtı Mosque 1.4G 0.967 1.280
Şerefiye Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ 4.062 14.460

The comparison of the maximum shear stress values obtained from the structural
analyzes for Five Minarets is given in Table 8.

Table 8. Comparison of the maximum shear stresses obtained for Five Minarets.

Minaret Load Combination S12 (MPa)

Ulu Mosque 0.9G + EQX + 0.3EQY − 0.3EQZ 1.652
Gökmeydan Mosque G + EQX 1.327
Meydan Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ 1.793
Kalealtı Mosque 1.4G 0.507
Şerefiye Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ 3.034
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 18 of 22

According to the analysis results of Five Minarets, the maximum displacement of

connection elements in both negative and positive Ux (U1 ) directions is given in Table 9.

Table 9. Maximum displacements of Five Minarets in Ux direction.

Minaret Load Combination Type U1 (mm)

Ulu Mosque 0.9G + EQX + 0.3EQY − 0.3EQZ Negative 17.66536
Gökmeydan Mosque G + EQX Positive 44.45398
Meydan Mosque 0.9G + EQX + 0.3EQY − 0.3EQZ Positive 14.28112
Kalealtı Mosque G + EQX Negative 0.13602
Şerefiye Mosque 0.9G + EQX + 0.3EQY − 0.3EQZ Positive 19.88931

According to the analysis results of Five Minarets, the maximum displacement of

connection elements in both negative and positive Uy (U2 ) directions is given in Table 10.

Table 10. Maximum displacements of Five Minarets in Uy direction.

Minaret Load Combination Type U2 (mm)

Ulu Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ Negative −17.93548
Gökmeydan Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ Negative −40.81252
Meydan Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ Negative −14.92157
Kalealtı Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ Negative −0.23223
Şerefiye Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ Positive 19.13056

According to the analysis results of Five Minarets, the maximum displacement of

connection elements in both negative and positive Uz (U3 ) directions is given in Table 11.

Table 11. Maximum displacements of Five Minarets in UZ direction.

Minaret Load Combination Type U3 (mm)

Ulu Mosque 0.9G + EQX+0.3EQY − 0.3EQZ Negative −3.72910
Gökmeydan Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ Negative −6.17395
Meydan Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ Negative −4.44064
Kalealtı Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ Negative −0.39179
Şerefiye Mosque G + EQY + 0.3EQX + 0.3EQZ Negative −5.48402

The highest period value was obtained for the Gökmeydan mosque minaret, which is
the highest minaret, while the lowest period value was obtained for the Kalealtı mosque
minaret. The variation of height directly affected the period values. The highest tensile
stress values were obtained for the minaret of the Şerefiye Mosque, while the lowest values
were obtained for the minaret of the Gökmeydan Mosque. The differences in the structural
dimensions affected the tensile stresses. The highest values in terms of compressive stresses
were obtained for the minaret of the Şerefiye Mosque, while the lowest values were obtained
for the minaret of the Kalealtı Mosque. The highest shear stresses occurred in the minaret of
the Şerefiye mosque, while the lowest shear stresses occurred in the minaret of the Kalealtı
mosque. The largest displacements were obtained for the Gökmeydan mosque minaret,
which is the highest minaret, while the smallest displacement values were obtained for the
Kalealtı mosque minaret, which is the lowest one. All values obtained are considerably
smaller than the minimum compression, tensile, and shear stress values in TS EN 1467 [60],
which is used for natural stones and raw blocks in Turkey and includes natural stone
properties. Accordingly, the minimum safe compressive stress is 34 MPa [60]. Therefore,
the values found in all of the minarets were obtained below this value. In addition, the
minimum tensile strength in bending for blasted stones can be taken as 8 MPa [61] For
stone walls built in masonry, the safe shear stress (τs ) can be calculated by Equation (1).
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 19 of 22

τs = 0.10 + 0.5 σ (1)

Here, σ indicates the compressive strength of the material. The compressive strength
value, which was calculated as 34 MPa above, was substituted in Equation (1), and the
safe shear stress value was calculated as 17 MPa. The maximum compressive, shear, and
tensile stresses obtained from the analyses show thag these stresses can be safe to be carried
by the structure. This result is in accordance with the fact that the structure survived in
the process.

4. Conclusions
In the Bitlis stones, which formed the minarets under the influence of natural condi-
tions, partial mass loss, rupture, and wear were observed over time. It has been surveyed
that the vegetative cell formations formed on the minarets over time damaged the stones
and the joining elements that formed the minaret. In some minarets, traces of moisture
were observed, partly due to the harmful effects of water and the stone’s characteristics.
Many lead traces are still clearly observed on the minaret of the Ulu Mosque. Authorized
institutions are proceeding to fix these damages and protect the structure from further
damage in the future. Therefore, it was not possible to make a comparison between the
damage conditions on the minarets and the results obtained.
In this study, structural analyses for Five Minarets, which are the significant cultural
heritage of Bitlis province and have been the subject of songs, were carried out using
observational and finite element methods. The fact that these minarets are exposed to many
adverse effects over time makes these minarets’ construction technologies and earthquake
behavior more critical. Within the scope of this study, the seismic behavior of the minarets
was determined by using the design spectrum given in the Turkish Building Earthquake
Code (TBEC-2018), taking into account the different loading conditions for all five minarets.
For this purpose, the mechanical properties of Bitlis stone used in minarets were determined
for the first time within the scope of this thesis by using non-destructive test methods.
Structural analysis of the minarets was carried out using the obtained values using the
macro modeling method. S11, S22, and S12 stresses were founded for different loading
cases of each minaret. Periods and mode shapes and data about minarets are given. The
causes and results of the damage and destruction caused by the observational examinations
made in the field are presented. Mainly, the maximum stress occurred in the transition
zones of the minarets. It has been determined that the minaret can carry on these stresses.
It expressed the engineering knowledge and experience when the minarets were built. In
minarets, the effect of the cylindrical body and upper part of the minaret in the first mode
is more significant than the pulpit. The common elements in the transition zones where
cross-sectional changes occur in the minarets can be expressed as risky places. The fact
that the elements that formed the pulpits have more rigidity indicates that the degree of
damage will remain at lower values in this region. In this case, transition zones in minarets
can be expressed as risky zones.
Bitlis stone, which is used in all of the minarets, is weak strength and has high porosity
ratio, as well as the high-temperature difference in the city, the high and long-term snowfall
causes fragmentation and partial rupture of these stones. In a city where the winter season
is long, the freezing–thawing factor is one of the important reasons for decreasing the
strength of the stone. Therefore, Bitlis stone, which is the main structural element of
minarets, may lose its mechanical properties over time and affect its strength. In order
to solve this problem, institutions/organizations related to minarets should observe the
minarets structurally and ensure that the necessary engineering interventions are made in
a timely. In this respect, the relevant public institutions and organizations have preserved
the originality of the minarets by carrying out the necessary works and procedures. The
continuity of such works and transactions is very important in order to transfer the minarets
to the next generations.
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 20 of 22

The fact that the structural dimensions such as total height, diameter, wall thickness,
and pulpit dimensions of the minaret had different values for Five Minarets caused the
analysis results to be different from each other. Therefore, compressive, tensile, shear
stresses, period, and displacement values differed.
Five Minarets are in Bitlis city center, they are close to each other, and the design
spectra obtained are close to each other because the local soil class has the same values. In
future studies, the effects of these variables on the behavior of masonry minaret structures
will be examined. In this subject, this paper can be used as a source. In the study, only
macro modeling was considered while performing structural analyses for each minaret.
The material properties of the elements that make up the minarets will be determined in
future studies. In addition, the analysis in the time history analyzes using micro modeling
technique will also contribute.
It is vital that the Five Minarets are the most important historical structures of Bitlis
city and be transferred to the next generations. For this purpose, these minarets should
be observed according to the structural monitoring system, and when necessary, their
maintenance work should be perfomed correctly. It is recommended that the necessary
applications be made by the relevant institutions and organizations at the point of inclusion
of Five Minarets in the UNESCO World heritage. This and similar studies will make
important contributions to make this process happen faster and on a scientific basis.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.I., F.A., and E.H.; methodology, M.G., E.I., E.A. and
E.H.; software, M.G. and E.I.; validation, E.A., E.I., F.A. and E.H.; formal analysis, E.H.; investigation,
E.I. and M.G.; resources, E.A., E.I., M.G. and E.H.; data curation, E.I. and M.G.; writing—original
draft preparation, E.H. and E.A.; writing—review and editing, E.H., E.I. and F.A.; visualization, E.A.;
supervision, E.H. and E.I.; project administration, E.I.; funding acquisition, E.H. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Most data are included in the manuscript.
Acknowledgments: This research was produced from master thesis of fifth author of the article. We
acknowledge the support of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Bauhaus-Universität
Weimar within the Open-Access Publishing Programme.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Ademovic, N.; Pavic, G.; Sipos, T.K. Strengthening techniques for masonry structures of cultural heritage
according to recent Croatian provisions. Earthq. Struct. 2018, 15, 473–485.
2. Isik, E.; Antep, B.; Buyuksarac, A.; Isik, M.F. Observation of behavior of the Ahlat Gravestones (TURKEY) at seismic risk and
their recognition by QR code. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2019, 72, 643–652.
3. Pavić, G.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Plaščak, I.; Pavić, S. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical unreinforced masonry
buildings in Osijek using capacity spectrum method. Acta Phys. Pol. A 2019, 135, 1138–1141. [CrossRef]
4. Bilgin, H. Typological classification of churches constructed during post-Byzantine period in Albania. Gazi Univ. J. Sci. Part B Art
Humanit. Des. Plan. 2015, 3, 1–15.
5. Akan, A.E.; Başok, G.; Er, A.; Örmecioğlu, H.T.; Koçak, S.Z.; Cosgun, T.; Uzdil, O.; Sayin, B. Seismic evaluation of a renovated
wooden hypostyle structure: A case study on a mosque designed with the combination of Asian and Byzantine styles in the
Seljuk era (14th century AD). J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 103112. [CrossRef]
6. Karasin, I.B.; Isik, E. Protection of Ten-Eyed Bridge in Diyarbakır. Budownictwo i Architektura 2016, 15, 87–94. [CrossRef]
7. Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Mišetić, V.; Morić, D. Seismic vulnerability assessment of an old historical masonry building in Osijek,
Croatia, using Damage Index. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 28, 140–150. [CrossRef]
8. Giordano, A.; Mele, E.; De Luca, A. Modelling of historical masonry structures: Comparison of different approaches through a
case study. Eng. Struct. 2002, 24, 1057–1069. [CrossRef]
9. Işık, E.; Antep, B.; Büyüksaraç, A. Structural analysis and mapping of historical tombs in Ahlat District (Bitlis, Turkey). Jcr-E-GFOS
2019, 10, 22–35. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 21 of 22

10. De Backer, L.; Janssens, A.; Steeman, M.; De Paepe, M. Evaluation of display conditions of the Ghent altarpiece at St. Bavo
Cathedral. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 29, 168–172. [CrossRef]
11. Ortega, J.; Vasconcelos, G.; Rodrigues, H.; Correia, M.; Lourenço, P.B. Traditional earthquake resistant techniques for vernacular
architecture and local seismic cultures: A literature review. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 27, 181–196. [CrossRef]
12. Cosgun, T.; Sayin, B.; Gunes, B.; Osman Avşar, A.; Şengün, R.; Gümüşdağ, G. Rehabilitation of historical ruined castles based on
field study and laboratory analyses: The case of Bigalı Castle in Turkey. Rev. Constr. 2020, 19, 52–67. [CrossRef]
13. Bilgin, H.; Ramadani, F. Numerical study to assess the structural behavior of the Bajrakli Mosque (Western Kosovo). Adv. Civ.
Eng. 2021, 2021, 4620916. [CrossRef]
14. Formisano, A.; Milani, G. Seismic vulnerability analysis and retrofitting of the SS. Rosario church bell tower in Finale Emilia
(Modena, Italy). Front. Built. Environ. 2019, 5, 70. [CrossRef]
15. Illampas, R.; Ioannou, I.; Lourenço, P.B. Seismic appraisal of heritage ruins: The case study of the St. Mary of Carmel church in
Cyprus. Eng. Struct. 2020, 224, 111209. [CrossRef]
16. Hemeda, S. Geotechnical and geophysical investigation techniques in Ben Ezra Synagogue in Old Cairo area, Egypt. Herit. Sci.
2019, 7, 23. [CrossRef]
17. Carpinteri, A.; Lacidogna, G.; Manuello, A. The b-value analysis for the stability investigation of the ancient Athena Temple in
Syracuse. Strain 2011, 47, e243–e253. [CrossRef]
18. Castellazzi, G.; Gentilini, C.; Nobile, L. Seismic vulnerability assessment of a historical church: Limit analysis and nonlinear finite
element analysis. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2013, 2013, 517454. [CrossRef]
19. Karantoni, F.V.; Dimakopoulou, D. Displacement-based assessment of the Gazi Hasan Pasha mosque in Kos island (GR) under
the 2017 M6. 6 earthquake and Eurocode 8, with proposals for upgrading. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 19, 1213–1230. [CrossRef]
20. Çaktı, E.; Saygılı, Ö.; Görk, S.; Zengin, E.; Oliveira, C.S.; Lemos, J.V. Earthquake behavior of the minaret of the Mihrimah Sultan
mosque in Edirnekapı, İstanbul. Restorasyon Yıllığı Dergisi 2013, 6, 33–40.
21. Işık, E.; Antep, B. Structural analysis of historical masonry minaret in Ahlat. BEU J. Sci. 2018, 7, 46–56.
22. TSDC-2007. Turkish Seismic Design Code; T.C. Resmi Gazete: Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
23. Kılıç, İ.; Bozdoğan, K.B.; Aydın, S.; Gök, S.G.; Gündoğan, S. Determination of dynamic behaviour of tower type structures: The
case of Kırklareli Hızırbey Mosque minaret. J. Polytech. 2020, 23, 19–26.
24. TBEC. Turkish Building Earthquake Code; T.C. Resmi Gazete: Ankara, Turkey, 2018.
25. Ural, A.; Çelik, T. Dynamic analyses and seismic behavior of masonry minarets with single balcony. Aksaray J. Sci. Eng. 2018,
2, 13–27. [CrossRef]
26. Mutlu, Ö.; Şahin, A. Investigating the effect of modeling approaches on earthquake behavior of historical masonry Minarets-Bursa
Grand Mosque case study. Sigma 2016, 7, 123–136.
27. Bayraktar, A.; Çalık, İ.; Türker, T. Structural dynamic identification of a restored historical masonry Sundura mosque and minaret
using ambient vibration. Restorasyon Yıllığı 2013, 6, 53–62.
28. Günaydın, M. Experimental determination of the dynamic characteristics of a historical masonry minaret after repairing. GU J.
Sci. Technol. 2018, 8, 381–395.
29. Çarhoğlu, A.I.; Usta, P.; Korkmaz, K.A. Seismic behaviour investigation of historical minaret structures: Hagia Sophıa case. SDU
Int. Technol. Sci. 2013, 5, 36–43.
30. Uğurlu, M.A.; Günaslan, S.E.; Karaşin, A. Modelling and structural analysis of the Four-legged minaret. DU J. Eng. 2017, 8,
413–422.
31. Oğuzmert, M. Dynamic Behavior of Masonry Minarets. Master’s Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey, 2002.
32. Döven, M.S.; Serhatoğlu, C.; Kaplan, O.; Livaoğlu, R. Dynamic behaviour change of Kütahya Yeşil minaret with covered and
open balcony architecture. Eskişehir Tech. Univ. J. Sci. Technol. B-Theor. Sci. 2018, 6, 192–203.
33. Gunes, B.; Cosgun, T.; Sayin, B.; Ceylan, O.; Mangir, A.; Gumusdag, G. Seismic assessment of a reconstructed historic masonry
structure: A case study on the ruins of Bigali castle mosque built in the early 1800s. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 39, 102240. [CrossRef]
34. Ertek, E.; Fahjan, M.Y. Structural system of Ottoman minarets; classification, modelling and analysis. In Proceedings of the Sixth
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, İstanbul, Turkey, 16–20 October 2007; pp. 16–20.
35. Çalık, İ.; Bayraktar, A.; Türker, T. Simplified natural frequency formulas for historical masonry stone minarets based on experi-
mental methods. In Proceedings of the Uluslararası Katılımlı 6. Tarihi Yapıların Korunması ve Güçlendirilmesi Sempozyumu,
Trabzon, Turkey, 2–4 November 2007.
36. Yetkin, M.; Dedeoğlu, İ.Ö.; Calayır, Y. Investigation and assessment of damages in the minarets existing at Elazig after 24 January
2020 Sivrice earthquake. Fırat Univ. J. Eng. Sci. 2021, 33, 379–389.
37. Kültür Portalı. Türkiye Kültür Portalı. Available online: https://www.kulturportali.gov.tr/ (accessed on 25 December 2021).
38. Bitlis İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. Available online: https://bitlis.ktb.gov.tr/ (accessed on 20 December 2021).
39. Aslanapa, O. Anadolu’da ilk Türk Mimarisi: Başlangıcı ve Gelişmesi; Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüks. Yayını: Ankara, Turkey, 1991.
40. Baş, G. Bitlis’teki Mimari Yapılarda Süsleme; Bitlis Valiliği Kültür Yayınları: Bitlis, Turkey, 2002.
41. Hasol, D. Encyclopedic Architecture Dictionary; Building Industry Center Publications: Istanbul, Turkey, 1998.
42. Güler, M.; Aktuğ, İ.K. 12th century Anatolian Turkish mosques. İtüdergisi/a 2006, 5, 83–90.
43. T.R. Directorate General of Foundations. Available online: https://www.vgm.gov.tr/home-page (accessed on 25 December 2021).
44. Arık, O. Bitlis Yapılarında Selçuklu Rönesansı; Selçuklu Tarih ve Medeniyeti Enstitüsü Yayını: Ankara, Turkye, 1971.
Buildings 2022, 12, 159 22 of 22

45. Şen, K. Two important inscriptions belong to the Bitlis grand mosque and Bitlis castle. ASEAD 2018, 5, 147–156.
46. Uluçam, A. Ortaçağ ve Sonrasında Van Gölü Çevresi Mimarlığı-II-Bitlis; Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları: Ankara, Turkey, 2002.
47. Aslanapa, O. Anadolu’da Türk sanatı Anadolu’da Büyük Selçuklulara Bağlanan Camiler; Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayinlari: Ankara,
Turkey, 2007.
48. Ülkü, C.; Yeğin, M. Courtyard in 11–12 century mosques/The newly discovered courtyard in Bitlis Ulu Mosque. J. Soc. Sci. 2017,
17, 17–37.
49. Öztürk, Ş. Bitlis Merkez Meydan Camii. Vakıflar Dergisi 2004, 28, 157–171.
50. Işık, E.; Büyüksaraç, A.; Avşar, E.; Kuluöztürk, M.F.; Günay, M. Characteristics and properties of Bitlis ignimbrites and their
environmental implications. Materiales de Construcción 2020, 70, 214. [CrossRef]
51. Lorenzi, A.; Tisbierek, F.T.; Silva, L.C.P. Ultrasonic pulse velocity análysis in concrete specimens. In Proceedings of the IV
Conferencia Panamericana de END, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 22–26 October 2007.
52. Sharma, P.K.; Khandelwal, M.; Singh, T.N. A correlation between schmidt hammer rebound numbers with impact strength index,
slake durability index and P-wave velocity. Int. J. Earth Sci. 2011, 100, 189–195. [CrossRef]
53. Lourenço, P.B. An Orthotropic Continuum Model for the Analysis of Masonry Structures; Delft University of Technology: Delft,
The Netherlands, 1995; pp. 3–21.
54. Lee, J.S.; Pande, G.N.; Middleton, J.; Kralj, B. Numerical modelling of brick masonry panels subject to lateral loadings. Comput.
Struct. 1996, 61, 735–745. [CrossRef]
55. Pande, G.N.; Liang, J.X.; Middleton, J. Equivalent elastic modul for unit masonry. Comput. Geotech. 1989, 8, 243–265. [CrossRef]
56. Laurenco, P.B.; Rots, J.G.; Blaauwendraad, J. Two approaches for the analysis of masonry structures: Micro and macro-modeling.
Heron 1995, 40, 1995.
57. Pande, G.N.; Middleton, J.; Kralj, B. Computer METHODS in structural Masonry 4. In Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium on Computer Methods in Structural Masonry, Florence, Italy, 3–5 September 2017.
58. Lourenço, P.B. Computations on historic masonry structures. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2002, 4, 301–319. [CrossRef]
59. CSI Computers and Structures. SAP2000: Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design Ver. 19; CSI: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2017.
60. TS EN 1467. Doğal Taş-Ham Bloklar-Özellikleri; Türk Standardı: Ankara, Turkey, 2012.
61. Kuruşcu, A.O. Non-Lineer Modeling of Masonry Walls and Foundations. Ph.D. Thesis, YTU Graduate School of Science and
Technology, İstanbul, Turkey, 2012.