Seismic Damage Assessment of Minarets: Insights from the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes (Türkiye)

Academic Editor: Eric M. Lui Received: 28 October 2025 Revised: 24 November 2025 Accepted: 28 November 2025 Published: 1 December 2025 Citation: Usta Evci, P.; Sever, A.E.; Şakalak, E.; Karimzadeh, S.; Lourenço, P.B. Seismic Damage Assessment of Minarets: Insights from the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes, Türkiye. Buildings 2025, 15, 4358. https://doi.org/10.3390/ buildings15234358 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article Seismic Damage Assessment of Minarets: Insights from the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes, Türkiye Pınar Usta Evci 1, Ali Ekber Sever 1, Elifnur Şakalak 1, Shaghayegh Karimzadeh 2,* and Paulo B. Lourenço 2 1Civil Engineering Department, Technology Faculty, Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Isparta 32040, Türkiye; [email protected] (P.U.E.); [email protected] (E.Ş.) 2ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Azurém, 4800‑058 Guimarães, Portugal; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Minarets, with their tall spires and intricate architectural designs, stand as iconic symbols of religious and cultural identity in many regions worldwide. Their slender profiles and unique structural characteristics make them particularly vulnerable to seismic forces dur‑ ing earthquakes. Türkiye, a country rich in history and culture, was struck by two dev‑ astating earthquakes of M7.7 and M7.6 on 6 February 2023. The epicenters were in the Pazarcık and Elbistan districts of Kahramanmaraş province. These earthquakes severely affected the city’s 11 districts, causing significant structural damage. Among the affected structures were the iconic symbols of the city’s architectural heritage, the minarets. This study investigates seismic damage to minarets incurred during the 2023 earthquakes, fo‑ cusing specifically on the Four‑Legged Minaret located in the province of Diyarbakır. For this purpose, modal and nonlinear time history analyses were performed on the historical Four‑Legged Minaret. The analysis results indicate that the Pazarcık earthquake produced higher base shear forces and peak displacement values compared to the Elbistan earth‑ quake. Stress concentrations were predominantly observed in the transition zone between the minaret’s base and cylindrical body. The damage patterns obtained from numerical simulations showed strong agreement with field observations. The study emphasizes the critical importance of using site‑representative seismic inputs, and, at the same time, identi‑ fies vulnerable regions that should be prioritized in conservation and strengthening efforts for slender historical masonry structures. Keywords: 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquakes; masonry; four‑legged minaret; modal analysis; nonlinear time history analysis; structural damage 1. Introduction Many devastating earthquakes occurred in Türkiye, which is located between the Eurasian, African, and Arabian plates. The North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ), East Ana‑ tolian Fault Zone (EAFZ), and West Anatolian Fault Zone (WAFZ), which together form Türkiye’s primary fault system, are responsible for the accumulation of tectonic stress that ultimately leads to the occurrence of earthquakes (Figure 1). On 6 February 2023, two earth‑ quakes happened on the EAFZ. The first, a magnitude of M7.7 event, struck at 04:17 local time with its epicenter in Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş), followed by a second earthquake at 13:24 with a magnitude of M7.6 and its epicenter in Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş). While the Buildings 2025,15, 4358 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15234358 Buildings 2025,15, 4358 2 of 26 Pazarcık earthquake happened at a depth of 8.6 km, the Elbistan earthquake occurred at a depth of 7.0 km. Both events were characterized by a left‑lateral strike‑slip mechanism. The first earthquake ruptured approximately 400 km along five distinct segments of the EAFZ, including Amanos, Pazarcık, Erkenek, Sakçagözü, and Narlı segments. The second event occurred farther north, rupturing a 200 km fault segment near Elbistan, including the Çardak and Doğanşehir segments [1]. The earthquakes were followed by numerous aftershocks of large magnitudes. Figure 2shows the epicenter of the earthquakes and the distribution of aftershocks. As a result of these earthquakes, widespread destruction and loss of life occurred in 11 provinces (Kahramanmaraş, Hatay, Gaziantep, Adıyaman, Malatya, Kilis, Şanlıurfa, Adana, Osmaniye, Diyarbakır, Elazığ), home to approximately 15 million people. Figure 1. Türkiye’s main fault lines. Figure 2. Seismic activity associated with the 6 February 2023 earthquakes in southeastern Türkiye. The black star marks the Pazarcık (M7.7) epicenter, and the orange star indicates the Elbistan (M7.6) epicenter [2]. Figure3showsthedistributionofthedamagecausedbythe2023Türkiye earthquakes obtained through NASA satellite data [3]. On 8 February 2023, data was assembled by the PULSAR‑2 radar instrument on the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Ad‑ vanced Land Observation Satellite‑2 (ALOS‑2) [4]. The collected data were processed in cooperation with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Caltech (California Institute of Technology), and a damage map caused by earthquakes was created by the Singapore Earth Observatory‑Remote Sensing Laboratory [5]. Approximately 51,000 people lost their lives, and 110,000 people were injured. According to the statements of the Ministry of En‑ Buildings 2025,15, 4358 3 of 26 vironment, Urbanization, and Climate Change [6], 36,932 buildings in the region collapsed during the earthquakes. At the end of 8 months, 311,000 buildings became unusable due to the damage they received. Examples of the widespread destruction caused by the 2023 earthquakes in the region, including surface ruptures, landslides, and the collapse of res‑ idential, historical, and public buildings, are given in Figure 4. Among them, many ma‑ sonry buildings were destroyed and damaged. Figure 5shows some of the collapsed and damaged historical buildings in the 11 districts affected by the earthquakes.  Figure 3. The spatial distribution of the damage caused by the 2023 Türkiye earthquakes. The dam‑ aged areas are shown in red (most damaged) to yellow (least damaged) [3].  Figure 4. Examples of the widespread destruction caused by the 2023 earthquakes in the re‑ gion, including surface ruptures, landslides, and the collapse of residential, historical, and public buildings [7]. Buildings 2025,15, 4358 4 of 26  Figure 5. Examples of historical buildings damaged or destroyed in the 11 provinces impacted by the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes [8]. Ersoy [9] conducted a field study on the effects of the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes on the historical buildings located around Antakya Kurtuluş Street. The findings revealed that one of the most common types of damage was the out‑of‑plane movement of the walls. Demir et al. [10] examined the masonry structures that were damaged in the 2023 Türkiye earthquakes. They observed thatdamageoccurred inthe formof shearcracks, out‑of‑plane movements, and overturning due to poor mortar quality, structural element weaknesses, weak connections, inadequate diaphragms, and incompatibility between different parts. Avcil et al. [11] investigated the structural damage in Kahramanmaraş city following the 6 February 2023 earthquakes and found that non‑retrofitted buildings with poor construc‑ tion practices experienced extensive failures, especially in load‑bearing elements. These structures were built due to the work of local craftsmen. Çambay [12] conducted a damage assessment of masonry buildings in Adıyaman province and concluded that deficiencies in material quality and detailing significantly contributed to the heavy damage observed in traditional structures. Mercimek [13] analyzed the seismic failure modes of masonry struc‑ tures and identified predominant collapse mechanisms such as out‑of‑plane wall failure, diaphragm instability, and pounding effects between adjacent buildings. Güleç [14] exam‑ ined the effects of the Kahramanmaraş earthquake on masonry buildings and highlighted that the absence of reinforcement and deterioration in mortar properties made these struc‑ tures highly susceptible to collapse. Arkan et al. [15] investigated the damage to the load‑ bearing walls of masonry buildings affected by the 2023 Türkiye earthquakes. They identi‑ fied the primary causes of the damage as inadequate use of horizontal/vertical bond beams, poor masonry work, use of more than one different wall material together, heavy soil lay‑ ers added to the roof, and use of low‑strength mortar. Kocaman [16] conducted a field survey for the performance evaluation of some of the historical masonry mosques and minarets in 11 different provinces that were exposed to the 6 February 2023 earthquakes. It was determined that dome collapses, minaret damage, and load‑bearing walls failures are common in historical mosques. The author also observed that minaret damage was concentrated in the cone parts and transition areas. The study by Onat et al. [17] exam‑ ined the seismic behavior of the historical Yusuf Pasha Mosque, which was affected by the 6 February 2023 earthquakes. The authors used non‑destructive methods to determine the material properties of the structure. They performed nonlinear time history analyses using eight earthquake records and found that the observed cracks aligned well with the Buildings 2025,15, 4358 5 of 26 analysis results. Dedeoglu et al. [18] examined the seismic behavior of the historical Ahi Musa Mosque in Elazığ province. They used the acceleration records of the Pazarcık and Elbistan earthquakes that occurred on 6 February 2023. They performed a nonlinear time history analysis of the building models. They found that the absolute displacement and base shear force values were greater in the Pazarcık earthquake than in the Elbistan earth‑ quake. Under the applied seismic effects, the maximum and minimum principal stresses were obtained in similar regions of the structure, indicating that both tensile and compres‑ sive demands tend to accumulate in the same critical zones. They found that there should be no collapse in this historical mosque. Nasery [19] investigated the causes of structural damage on the entrance gate of the Harran Grand Mosque due to the 6 February 2023 earthquake. For this purpose, a finite element model of the building was developed using the Abaqus program, and static and nonlinear dy‑ namic analyses were performed. The results revealed that the earthquake caused the out‑ of‑plane failure of the entrance arches, leading to collapse. Çavuşlu [20] carried out settle‑ ment creep and seismic analysis of the single‑span historical Çüngüş Bridge in Diyarbakır province, subjected to the 2023 earthquake records. The creep analysis revealed that the greatest damage and deformation occurred in the arch section of the bridge. Seismic analy‑ sis showed that earthquakes had a significant impact on the seismic safety of the historical bridge. Kahya et al. [21] investigated the possible causes of damage to masonry struc‑ tures as a result of the 2023 Türkiye earthquakes. They also performed a nonlinear finite element analysis of a historical building in Hatay. The results showed that the structure, while heavily damaged during the 6 February 2023 Pazarcık and Elbistan earthquakes, did not collapse; however, partial collapse occurred during the Defne earthquake in Hatay on 20 February 2023. Pouraminian [22] examined the safety of historic brick minarets under multi‑hazard conditions using a reliability‑based approach. The author evaluated the per‑ formance of the minarets, particularly under earthquake and wind loads, and highlighted the need for protective measures by demonstrating that structural safety was inadequate in certain situations. Pouraminian et al. [23] assessed the structural safety of the Bistoon historic arch bridge using reliability‑based methods. Their numerical analysis determined that the bridge had inadequate safety under certain loading scenarios and indicated the need for strengthening. There are various studies in the literature on the Four‑Legged Minaret; these stud‑ ies evaluated the structural behavior of the minaret, ground conditions, and damage with different methods. Kazaz et al. [24] evaluated the cracking behavior of the historic Four‑ Legged Minaret in Diyarbakır using numerical analysis. Their analysis, using a finite ele‑ ment model based on data obtained from the actual structure, revealed that cracks were particularly concentrated in the base‑body junction area, indicating that this area was struc‑ turally weak. Uğurlu and Karaşin [25] assessed the structural damage to the Four‑Legged Minaret using field observations and documentary data. They analyzed in detail the cracks and deformations observed in the minaret’s supporting piers, demonstrating that damage was related to the effects accumulated over time and past earthquakes. Kazaz et al. [26] evaluated the seismic behavior of the Four‑Legged Minaret. As a result of the analysis performed under different earthquake scenarios, they determined that the four‑legged ge‑ ometric system provides a certain level of rigidity, but the likelihood of local damage is high, especially at the connection points. Unlike previous studies on the Four‑Legged Minaret, which mainly examined its gen‑ eral seismic behavior, assessed structural damage using simplified assumptions, or nu‑ merically evaluated pre‑existing cracks, this study provides the first post‑earthquake seis‑ mic assessment using site‑representative ground motion records from the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Earlier works did not incorporate real recorded motions or Buildings 2025,15, 4358 6 of 26 validate numerical predictions against observed post‑earthquake damage, leaving a signif‑ icant gap in understanding the actual seismic performance of the structure. By integrating these real earthquake recordings with a refined layered‑shell finite element model and ob‑ served damage patterns, the present work offers a novel, data‑driven understanding of the damage mechanisms affecting this unique historical structure [24–26]. This study offers a novel contribution by conducting a detailed seismic performance assessment of the historical Four‑Legged Minaret in Diyarbakır, one of the most iconic and structurally unique minarets in Türkiye, damaged during the 6 February 2023 Kahra‑ manmaraş earthquakes. For this purpose, this research utilizes ground motion records obtained from a seismic station located in proximity to the minaret, thereby ensuring site‑ representative seismic input in the analysis. A finite element model was developed using SAP2000 V23 [27], and both modal and nonlinear time history analyses were performed to investigate the dynamic behavior and damage mechanisms of the structure. The paper is structured to begin with a regional seismic overview and observed minaret damages, fol‑ lowed by the presentation of the case study, modeling methodology, and numerical results. In addition to identifying the most vulnerable parts of the minaret, the study provides valu‑ able insights into the seismic behavior of tall, slender masonry structures, contributing to the preservation and seismic safety assessment of cultural heritage. 2. Effects of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes on Minarets The epicenters of the 2023 Türkiye earthquakes were near populated areas, intensi‑ fying the impact on structures throughout the city. While buildings of various construc‑ tion types suffered damage, the focus here is on the minarets. Minarets exhibit distinct structural features that differentiate them from conventional buildings and pose specific challenges in earthquake‑prone regions. Minarets generally have a geometric structure with polygonal or circular cross‑sections. As tall and slender structures, they are particu‑ larly vulnerable to horizontal loading. Generally, their structural forms show geometric changes in different ways. In regions where geometric changes occur, stress concentrations appear under lateral loads such as earthquakes. As a result, when the carrying capacity is exceeded, damage and often collapse occur in areas of geometric changes. Past earth‑ quakes caused various types of damage to minaret structures, depending on their design, construction quality, and seismic vulnerability. The observed damage can be classified into three categories: (a) cracking, (b) residual displacements, and (c) toppling. During the 2023 earthquakes, one of the most common forms of damage observed was cracking. These cracks ranged from superficial fissures to more severe fractures, compromising the structural integrity of the affected minarets. In parallel, some minarets experienced sig‑ nificant residual displacement at their bases, indicating the inability of the foundation to withstand the lateral forces exerted during the earthquakes. This displacement not only affects the stability of the minaret but also poses a safety risk to surrounding structures and individuals. Lastly, minarets were observed to topple over entirely. This catastrophic failure not only results in the loss of a cultural and religious landmark but also highlights the need for improved seismic resilience in minaret design and construction. Some of the minarets damaged during the 2023 Türkiye earthquakes are shown in Figure 6. Buildings 2025,15, 4358 7 of 26  Figure 6. Examples of minarets damaged in the 2023 Türkiye earthquakes [28]. There are many studies about the behavior of masonry minarets under seismic ef‑ fects. Within this context, Erkek and Yetkin [29] examined the seismic performance of the historical Envarul Hamit Mosque, which was heavily damaged in the 6 February 2023 earthquakes, using both horizontal components of the first earthquake. From the analysis, peak displacement, base shear force, principal stresses, and plastic deformation parame‑ ters were obtained and evaluated. The authors compared the analysis results with the ac‑ tual damage suffered by the historical building. They found that the maximum principal stresses were obtained in the cross‑section transition zone of the historical minaret. Their findings revealed that, in the nonlinear analysis, the historical minaret collapsed from the uppertransition section. Nasery [30] examinedthepost‑earthquakesituation of theHarran Ulu Mosque (Great Mosque) minaret, which was severely damaged. A three‑dimensional model was developed to determine the damage status and crack propagation in inaccessi‑ ble parts of the minaret. The authors used laser scanning and digital oblique photogram‑ metry to detect cracks and damage areas in inaccessible areas of the minaret by navigating the 3D model. Işık et al. [31] investigated the seismic damage that occurred to minarets and mosques during the Kahramanmaraş earthquake of 6 February 2023. As a result of field research, they observed significant damage and collapses due to the earthquakes. Recent field reports confirm that the Four‑Legged Minaret sustained damage during the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. According to the post‑earthquake as‑ sessment conducted by local authorities, a pre‑existing vertical crack along the monolithic beam above the northern façade column extended further, and new separations developed along the joints above this beam. Similar vertical cracks were observed on the eastern façade column’s beam, with accompanying upward joint separations. On the southern façade, minor joint separations were also identified [32]. Finally, following the 6 Febru‑ ary 2023 earthquakes, a damage survey conducted around the minaret identified a vertical crack above the monolithic beam supported by the four columns, joint separations on the north, east, and south façades, and minor openings in the upper parts of the structure. Buildings 2025,15, 4358 8 of 26 These observations highlighted the seismic vulnerability of the minaret and motivated its selection as the focus of the numerical analysis presented in this study. 3. Numerical Modeling of the Selected Minaret 3.1. Case Study: The Four‑Legged Minaret The Four‑Leg Minaret was built in the year 906 Hijri (1500 AD) by Sultan Kasım, the ruler of the Akkoyunlu dynasty, as stated in the inscriptions of the mosque. This is one of the most fascinating structures in Diyarbakır. Apart from its main body, the minaret stands out distinctly from others, resting on four plain columns and capitals. The Türkiye earthquake hazard map, the 2023 earthquake epicenters, and the location of the historical minaret are shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. Türkiyeearthquake hazard map witha 475‑yearreturnperiod [1], showing the epicentersof the 6 February 2023 earthquakes and the location of the historical Four‑Legged Minaret in Diyarbakır. The zoomed‑in satellite view and photograph of the minaret are also included for reference. The minaret belongs to the Şeyh Mutahhar Mosque, located in the city center of Di‑ yarbakır, within the historical walls known as the Sur, which is home to many histori‑ cal buildings. The square body of the minaret is made of black and white ashlar stones and has an inscription on it. The upper cylindrical section, however, resembles other square‑bodied minarets in Diyarbakır. Although square‑bodied minarets are common in Buildings 2025,15, 4358 9 of 26 Diyarbakır and its surroundings, none of them is supported by four columns. In this re‑ spect, the Şeyh Mutahhar Mosque Minaret remains a unique example [33]. The elevation and cross‑sections at different heights of the minaret are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8. Geometric features of the minaret (m). 3.2. Finite Element Modeling of the Minaret For numerical modeling of masonry structures, three separate modeling approaches arecommonly used, whichare calledsimplified micro‑modeling, detailedmicro‑modeling, and macro‑modeling (Figure 9), depending on the size of the structural system and accu‑ racy sought [34]. In simplified micro‑modeling, the masonry units are expanded by half of the mortar layer, so that the mortar is neglected, and the masonry units are separated from each other by interface lines. On the other hand, in detailed micro‑modeling, the ma‑ terial properties of the masonry units and the mortar are evaluated separately. In macro modeling, masonry is considered composite without distinction between unit and mortar. Macro modeling technique is generally used in the examination of large building systems, as it greatly shortens the solution time and material data needed. Several studies used this approach in assessing the seismic performance of masonry structures [35–41]. In this case, the relationship between the mortar and the masonry unit is neglected, while the mate‑ rial is treated as a composite [42]. In this study, the minaret was modeled using layered shell elements in the SAP2000 computer program. Figure 10 shows the shell elements used in the modeling process. In the subsequent analyses, the numerical solution procedures were defined as follows: the modal analysis was conducted using a quasi‑static eigenvalue extraction procedure, and the nonlinear time‑history analyses were performed using an implicit direct‑integration scheme available in SAP2000. Buildings 2025,15, 4358 16 of 26 Figure 17. First five mode shapes and frequency values. To further interpret the dynamic characteristics identified through the modal analy‑ sis, the acceleration response spectra recorded at station 2101 for the Elbistan and Pazarcık earthquakes are presented in Figure 18, where the period T = 0.622 s corresponds to the fun‑ damental period of the analyzed minaret. The results indicate that, around the fundamen‑ tal period of the structure, the Pazarcık earthquake record exhibits higher spectral ampli‑ tudes than the Elbistan earthquake record at this station, which is the closest to the minaret. Figure 18. Comparison of the acceleration response spectra at station 2101 for the three orthogo‑ nal components (east–west: E, north–south: N, and vertical: U) recorded during the Elbistan and Pazarcık earthquakes. The black dashed line at T = 0.622 s denotes the fundamental period of the analyzed structure. Table 4compares the fundamental frequency obtained from the numerical model (f1 = 1.607 Hz) with the values calculated using empirical formulas available in the liter‑ ature for masonry towers (NTC08 [45], Shakya et al. [46], Ranieri and Fabbrocino [47], Fac‑ Buildings 2025,15, 4358 17 of 26 cio et al. [48], Testa [49], Diaferio [50]). As shown, the empirical estimates vary between 1.911 Hz and 2.571 Hz, which are systematically higher than the numerical value. This discrepancy, as shown by f1/f* ratio in Table 4, can be attributed to the geometric particu‑ larities of the Four‑Legged Minaret, especially the transition from the four‑legged base to the cylindrical shaft, which introduces additional flexibility not explicitly captured by the simplified height‑based empirical formulas. Nevertheless, the numerical result remains in the same order of magnitude as the empirical estimates, thereby confirming the reliability of the finite element model and its ability to represent the dynamic behavior of the minaret. Table 4. Fundamental frequencies were calculated according to formulas suggested in the literature. Reference Suggested Formula Estimated Fundamental Frequency, f* (Hz) f1/f* NTC08 [45]f (H) = 1 0.05 H3/4 1.911 0.84 Shakya et al. [46]f (H) = 1 0.0151 H1.08 2.251 0.71 Ranieri and Fabbrocino [47]f (H) = 1 0.01137 H1.138 2.493 0.64 Faccio et al. [48]f (H) = 1 0.0187 H2.335 0.69 Testa [49]f (H) = 42.12 1 H0.893 2.571 0.63 Diaferio et al. [50]f (H) = 28.35 1 H0.83 2.108 0.76 f (H) = 135.343 1 H1.32 2.170 0.74 5.2. Nonlinear Time History Analysis Nonlinear time history analysis was performed using the finite element model devel‑ oped in the SAP2000 V23 software, using the acceleration records presented in Figure 16. In all nonlinear time‑history analyses, geometric nonlinearity (large‑displacement effects) was not activated, as the expected lateral deformations were small compared with the height of the structure. A Rayleigh damping ratio of 5% was adopted in line with previ‑ ous studies involving historical masonry structures [35,36]. The resulting maximum base shear forces are given in Figure 19. The base shear forces resulting from the Pazarcık earth‑ quake are approximately three times higher in the X direction and 2.4 times higher in the Y direction compared to those from the Elbistan earthquake. (a)(b) 189.58 63.96 177.14 74.36 F(kN) X Y Figure 19. Maximum base shear forces obtained from the nonlinear time history analyses under the 2023 (a) Pazarcık and (b) Elbistan earthquakes. Buildings 2025,15, 4358 18 of 26 Figure20illustratesthe variationin displacementwithheightintheX and Y directions for the four‑legged minaret under the 2023 Pazarcık and Elbistan earthquakes. Displace‑ ments increase with elevation in both cases, reaching their maximum values near the top of the structure. The maximum horizontal displacements during the Pazarcık earthquake (44.3 mm in the X direction and 38.3 mm in the Y direction) were considerably larger than those obtained for the Elbistan earthquake (10.5 mm and 15.3 mm, respectively). This dif‑ ference is primarily attributed to the ground motion characteristics of the two events rather than to structural properties. As shown in Table 2, the Pazarcık records exhibit significantly higher PGAand PGVvaluescompared tothe Elbistan event, leading tostronger seismicde‑ mands on the structure. Therefore, the larger displacements observed under the Pazarcık earthquake result from the higher input motion intensity, while the structural response pat‑ ternsremainedconsistent in both cases. The maximum horizontal displacement during the Pazarcık earthquake was approximately 44.3 mm in the X direction and 38.3 mm in the Y direction. In contrast, the corresponding values for the Elbistan earthquake were 10.5 mm and 15.3 mm, respectively. From a spectral perspective, the dominant periods of the input ground motions fall within the range of the fundamental and higher modes of the minaret (around 0.6 s), as identified in the modal analysis. In particular, the horizontal components of the Pazarcık earthquake contain stronger spectral amplitudes around these periods com‑ pared to the Elbistan earthquake (see Figure 18), which explains the larger displacements recorded during the 70–80 s interval. Conversely, the lower spectral demand of the Elbis‑ tan event around the structure’s natural periods resulted in smaller peak displacements, observed between 60 and 70 s. As illustrated in Figure 18, the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the minaret (T = 0.622 s) is significantly higher for the Pazarcık mo‑ tion, confirming that the larger dynamic response of the structure is primarily governed by resonanceeffectsbetween the input motion andtheminaret’sfirstmodeThishighlights the direct relationship between the dynamic properties of the minaret and the spectral charac‑ teristics of the input ground motions. These findings indicate that the Pazarcık earthquake induced significantly greater horizontal displacements, highlighting its more severe dy‑ namic impact on the minaret. Figure 21 presents the relative displacement contours in all three directions, further illustrating the spatial distribution of the seismic response. Fi‑ nally, Figure 22 presents the displacement time‑history at the peak of the minaret, clearly illustrating the periods during which the maximum displacements occurred.  (a)(b) Figure 20. Absolute maximum displacement versus height from analyses using the 2023 Pazarcık and Elbistan earthquakes: (a) X direction; (b) Y direction. Buildings 2025,15, 4358 19 of 26 (a)(b) Figure 21. Contour plots of relative displacements in the X, Y, and Z directions (in mm) under the 2023 (a) Pazarcık and (b) Elbistan earthquakes. (a) (b) Figure 22. Displacement time‑history graph at the top of the minaret under the 2023 (a) Pazarcık and (b) Elbistan earthquakes. Buildings 2025,15, 4358 20 of 26 Table 5presents the maximum stress values obtained from the nonlinear time‑history analyses using the Pazarcık and Elbistan earthquake records. Smax and Smin represent the maximum and minimum principal stresses, respectively. The results indicate that the Pazarcık earthquake induced significantly higher stress demands on the minaret compared to the Elbistan event. Specifically, the maximum principal stress (Smax) reached 2.252 MPa during the Pazarcık earthquake record, compared to 0.862 MPa for the Elbistan earthquake record. Similarly, the minimum principal stress (Smin) increased from 3.352 MPa in the Elbistan case to 9.104 MPa in the Pazarcık case, highlighting the greater severity of the latter. These outcomes are consistent with the spectral results presented in Figure 18. Table 5. Maximum stresses resulting from the nonlinear time history analysis. Stress Pazarcık Elbistan Smax (MPa) 2.252 0.862 Smin (MPa) 9.104 3.352 Figure 23 illustrates the maximum and minimum principal stress contours under both earthquake loadings, showing that the highest stress concentrations occur around the door openings within the transition zone of the cylindrical body. Similarly, Figure 24 presents the normal stress distribution, revealing that the largest normal stresses for both earth‑ quakes also occurred in the same transition region near the doorway sections. In these areas, normal stresses increased significantly, with compressive stresses reaching up to 9 MPa during the Pazarcık earthquake. Shear stress concentrations were also notable, par‑ ticularly in the lower part of the transition zone. A similar stress distribution was detected in the Elbistan earthquake; however, the stress values calculated in this earthquake were at lower levels compared to the values obtained during the Pazarcık earthquake. These results highlight the structural vulnerability of transition zones, where abrupt changes in geometry and stiffness occur under seismic loading, identifying them as critical regions in terms of structural integrity and safety. (a)(b) Figure 23. Contours of maximum and minimum principal stresses under the 2023 (a) Pazarcık and (b) Elbistan earthquakes. Buildings 2025,15, 4358 21 of 26 (a)(b) Figure 24. Contours of normal and shear stresses under the 2023 (a) Pazarcık and (b) Elbistan earthquakes. Figure 25 illustrates the damage propagation observed in the minaret as a result of nonlinear dynamic analysis, highlighting the crack formation above the entrance and the joint separation in the middle and upper parts of the structure, which are consistent with the observed damage patterns. These analyses, performed using seismic records from the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (Pazarcık and Elbistan), revealed significant stress concen‑ trations that contributed to cracking. The simulation results identified critical stress re‑ gions, particularly areas where tensile stress concentrations exceed the cracking threshold and where joint‑opening tendencies develop under dynamic loading, and these numerical crack patterns align well with the damage observed in the field. Post‑earthquake inspec‑ tions confirmed a vertical crack along the monolithic beam supported by the columns on the north and east facades, along with new separations along the joints extending upward from the beam. Additional minor joint separations were also recorded on the south facade. As shown in this figure, there is a strong correlation between the numerical predictions and the actual damage patterns, validating the simulation’s ability to capture the structural re‑ sponse of the minaret under seismic loading. It is noted that, in this study, no damage mechanics model was implemented; there‑ fore, the reported stresses correspond to the direct tensor components from the finite ele‑ ment analysis and are not interpreted through invariant‑based damage formulations. Several physical mechanisms underlie the damage concentration in the transition zone. First, the abrupt transition from the four‑legged base to the single cylindrical body creates a significant stiffness discontinuity, causing horizontal loads to concentrate in this region. Second, the body above the beam, supported by four stone columns, presents a more limited load path under earthquake impact, increasing local bending moments and shear forces. Third, the transition zone is simultaneously subjected to both axial compres‑ sion from the upper body and earthquake‑induced horizontal bending demands, which contribute to the development of high principal stress gradients and crack initiation. Fi‑ Buildings 2025,15, 4358 22 of 26 nally, because the masonry and joints in this zone are subjected to simultaneous bend‑ ing and shear, the stress concentration is further amplified due to the low tensile strength of the material. These combined effects explain why the transition zone experiences the highest stress demand and why the numerical analysis results are in high agreement with the earthquake damage observed in the field. We also note that due to limited accessibil‑ ity during the post‑earthquake field survey, no direct photographs could be obtained for the rectangular–cylindrical transition zone. Nevertheless, the numerical results indicating high stress concentrations in this area are consistent with the expected behavior at this geometric discontinuity. Figure 25. Comparison of crack propagationobtainedfromnonlineardynamic analysis and observed damage from the 6 February 2023 Türkiye earthquakes. Finally, the findings highlight the vulnerability of minarets to a wide range of dy‑ namic responses during earthquakes, spanning from elastic deformations to extensive damage or even collapse. Although strong resonance effects were not explicitly observed in this case study, the slender and elongated geometry of minarets makes them particularly susceptible to dynamic amplification when their fundamental period approaches the domi‑ nant period of the input motion. The recordings at the nearby station show that the ground motion from the Pazarcık earthquake exhibits notably higher spectral amplitudes than that of the Elbistan event across all three components, with pronounced peaks occurring near the fundamental period of the structure. This spectral amplification likely contributed to the larger horizontal displacements observed during the Pazarcık earthquake. Hence, the intensified structural response of the minaret can be attributed to the combined influence of higher ground motion intensity and partial resonance effects near its fundamental period. 6. Conclusions This study presented a comprehensive seismic performance assessment of the histor‑ ical Four‑Legged Minaret in Diyarbakır, Türkiye, in light of the 6 February 2023 Kahra‑ manmaraş earthquakes. A detailed finite element model was developed in SAP2000 using shell elements and appropriate boundary conditions. Site‑specific ground motion records, obtained from the nearest station (2101) with compatible site conditions, were used to per‑ form nonlinear time history analyses. The reliability of the numerical approach was vali‑ dated by comparing simulation results with post‑earthquake field observations. The analyses yielded several critical findings: Buildings 2025,15, 4358 23 of 26 •Modal analysis showed a fundamental period of 0.622 s, consistent with the slender and flexible structure of the minaret. Nonlinear dynamic analyses revealed that the Pazarcık record generated significantly higher horizontal demands than the Elbistan record. Horizontal displacements increased along the height, with the largest values occurring at the top. Displacements in the X and Y directions were similar, while vertical values remained lower. •The regions with the highest normal and shear stresses are the transition zones, par‑ ticularly at the beginning of the cylindrical body. These regions are prime targets for strengthening because they coincide with the damage observed in the field; the principal stresses are also concentrated in the same region. •Damage patterns obtained from numerical analyses showed high agreement with field observations and validated the representativeness of the used modeling ap‑ proach and the selected ground motions. •The transition from the square base to the cylindrical upper body created a distinct geometric discontinuity, leading to stress accumulation and joint separation under earthquake effects. This behavior was clearly evident both in the analyses and in the field damage. •The monolithic beam supported by four stone columns acted as a stress amplifier under dynamic loads, creating a local stiffness discontinuity at the base. This explains the root cause of the cracks observed on the beam after the earthquake. In addition to these findings, several inherent characteristics of minarets, such as their high slenderness ratios, brittle masonry materials, inadequate foundation systems, and heavy ornamental elements, further increase their seismic vulnerability by amplify‑ ing structural demands during strong shaking. Although resonance was not observed in this study, it remains a concern for tall and slender masonry structures whose natural pe‑ riods may coincide with dominant ground motion frequencies. In such cases, amplified displacements and internal forces may occur, raising the likelihood of damage or collapse. Despite the robustness of the methodology, certain limitations should be acknowl‑ edged. The material properties were taken from the literature rather than in situ tests, which introduces uncertainty in representing the true behavior of the masonry and affects the precision of conservation decisions. The seismic input was also limited to two recorded motions from a nearby station. Future studies should use a broader set of site‑specific or physics‑based simulated ground motions and incorporate experimentally calibrated mate‑ rial models and soil structure interaction. These enhancements would enable more reliable evaluations of seismic vulnerability and support better targeted strengthening strategies for conservation. It should also be noted that the two earthquake records were applied independently in this study; however, future work should incorporate sequential input motions to better capture cumulative damage effects, including the potential propagation of cracks initiated during the first event. Finally, although geometric nonlinearity was not included due to the negligible lateral displacements observed, future studies should incorporate geometric nonlinear effects to assess potential differences in response under stronger near‑field shaking scenarios. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.U.E., A.E.S., E.Ş. and S.K.; methodology, A.E.S., P.U.E. and S.K.; software, A.E.S. and P.U.E.; validation, A.E.S., E.Ş. and P.U.E.; investigation, A.E.S. and P.U.E.; resources, P.U.E.; data curation, P.U.E.; writing—original draft preparation, A.E.S., E.Ş. and S.K.; writing—review and editing, P.U.E., A.E.S., S.K. and P.B.L.; visualization, A.E.S. and E.Ş.; su‑ pervision, P.U.E., S.K. and P.B.L.; project administration, P.U.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Buildings 2025,15, 4358 24 of 26 Funding: This study has been partly funded by the STAND4HERITAGE project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 re‑ search and innovation program (Grant agreement No. 833123), as an Advanced Grant. This work was supported by FCT/MCTES under the R&D Unit Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE), under reference UID/4029/2025, and under the Associate Laboratory Advanced Production and Intelligent Systems ARISE under reference LA/P/0112/2020. Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Acknowledgments: This study has been partly funded by the STAND4HERITAGE project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant agreement No. 833123), as an Advanced Grant. This work was supported by FCT/MCTES under the R&D Unit Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE), under reference UID/4029/2025, and under the Associate Labora‑ tory Advanced Production and Intelligent Systems ARISE under reference LA/P/0112/2020. Conflicts of Interest: On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest. Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: NAFZ North Anatolian Fault Zone EAFZ East Anatolian Fault Zone WAFZ West Anatolian Fault Zone JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency ALOS‑2 Advanced Land Observation Satellite‑2 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration Caltech California Institute of Technology AFAD Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency SAP2000 Structural Analysis Program 2000 PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PGV Peak Ground Velocity M Moment Magnitude Vs30 Average Shear Wave Velocity in the top 30 m of the soil ZC Local Soil Class RJB Joyner and Boore Distance Sa Spectral Acceleration Smax Maximum Principal Stress Smin Minimum Principal Stress References 1. Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency. Earthquake. 2023. Available online: https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/ (accessed on 2 March 2023). 2. Pamukçu, O.A.; Çırmık, A.; Gönenç, T.; Uluğtekin, M. Bölüm I Yerfiziği Anabilim Dali Deprem Ön Değerlendirme Raporu; Dokuz Eylül University: Konak, Turkey, 2023. 3. NASA Earth Observatory. Earthquake Damage in Turkey. Available online: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150949/ earthquake‑damage‑in‑turkiye (accessed on 27 November 2025). 4. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA); Japan. Available online: https://global.jaxa.jp/ (accessed on 27 November 2025). 5. Singapore Earth Observatory—Remote Sensing Laboratory; Singapore. Available online: https://earthobservatory.sg/research/ centres‑labs/eos‑rs (accessed on 27 November 2025). 6. Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change; Türkiye. Available online: https://csb.gov.tr/en (accessed on 27 November 2025). 7. Hasar Tespit Sistemi. Available online: https://hasartespit.csb.gov.tr/ (accessed on 4 August 2025). Buildings 2025,15, 4358 25 of 26 8. Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey; General Directorate of Foundations of the Republic of Turkey. Earthquake Special; Ministry of Culture and Tourism: Ankara, Turkey, 2023. 9. Ersoy, S. Evaluation of the Cultural Heritage Buildings in an Ancient District of Antakya after the Kahramanmaras Earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6). J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil. 2023. [CrossRef] 10. Demir, A.; Celebi, E.; Ozturk, H.; Ozcan, Z.; Ozocak, A.; Bol, E.; Sert, S.; Sahin, F.Z.; Arslan, E.; Yaman, Z.D.; et al. Destructive Impact of Successive High Magnitude Earthquakes Occurred in Türkiye’s Kahramanmaraş on February 6, 2023. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2025,23, 893–919. [CrossRef] 11. Avcil, F.; Işık,E.; İzol, R.; Büyüksaraç,A.; Arkan, E.; Arslan, M.H.; Aksoylu, C.; Eyisüren,O.; Harirchian, E.EffectsoftheFebruary 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş Earthquake on Structures in Kahramanmaraş City. Nat. Hazards 2024,120, 2953–2991. [CrossRef] 12. Çambay, E. Damage Assessment of Masonry Structures in Adyaman Province After Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes (February 6, 2023). Firat Univ. J. Exp. Comput. Eng. 2023,2, 117–123. [CrossRef] 13. Mercimek, Ö. Seismic Failure Modes of Masonry Structures Exposed to Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and 7.6) on Febru‑ ary 6, 2023. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2023,151, 107422. [CrossRef] 14. Güleç, A. Kahramanmaraş Depreminin Yığma Yapılar Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Araştırılması. Gazi J. Eng. Sci. 2024,9, 634–650. [CrossRef] 15. Arkan, E.; Işik, E.; Avcil, F.; İzol, R.; Büyüksaraç, A. Seismic Damages in Masonry Structural Walls and Solution Suggestions. Acad. Platf. J. Nat. Hazards Disaster Manag. 2023,4, 49–64. [CrossRef] 16. Kocaman, İ. The Effect of the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on Historical Masonry Mosques and Minarets. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2023,149, 107225. [CrossRef] 17. Onat, O.; Deniz, F.; Özmen, A.; Özdemir, E.; Sayın, E. Performance Evaluation and Damage Assessment of Historical Yusuf Ziya Pasha Mosque after February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquakes. Structures 2023,58, 105415. [CrossRef] 18. Dedeoğlu, İ.Ö.; Yetkin, M.; Erkek, H.; Calayır, Y. Nonlinear Earthquake Response of the Historic Ahi Musa Masjid. In Proceed‑ ings of the 3rd International Civil Engineering and Architecture Congress, Trabzon, Turkey, 12–14 October 2023. 19. Nasery, M.M. Investigating of the Reasons for the Collapse on the Entrance Arches of the Harran Grand Mosque (Ulu Cami) During the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6). Civ. Eng. Beyond Limits 2023,4, 1–8. [CrossRef] 20. Çavuşlu, M. Assessing Seismic Crack Performance of Diyarbakır Çüngüş Masonry Stone Bridge Considering 2023 Kahraman‑ maraş, Hatay, Malatya, Gaziantep Earthquakes. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilim. Derg. 2023,12, 544–556. [CrossRef] 21. Kahya, V.; Genç, A.F.; Sunca, F.; Roudane, B.; Altunişik, A.C.; Yilmaz, S.; Günaydin, M.; Dok, G.; Kirtel, O.; Demir, A.; et al. Evaluation of Earthquake‑Related Damages on Masonry Structures Due to the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş‑Türkiye Earth‑ quakes: A Case Study for Hatay Governorship Building. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024,156, 107855. [CrossRef] 22. Pouraminian, M. Multi‑hazard reliability assessment of historical brick minarets. J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil. 2022,7, 10. [CrossRef] 23. Pouraminian, M.; Pourbakhshian, S.; Noroozinejad Farsangi, E.; Berenji, S.; Keyani Borujeni, S.; Moosavi Asl, M.; Mohammad Hosseini, M. Reliability‑based safety evaluation of the BISTOON historic masonry arch bridge. Civ. Environ. Eng. Rep. 2020, 30, 87–110. [CrossRef] 24. Kazaz, İ.; Gülkan, P.; Kazaz, E. Numerical Assessment of Cracks on a Freestanding Masonry Minaret. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2021, 15, 526–547. [CrossRef] 25. Uğurlu, M.A.; Karasin, A. Evaluation of the Structural Damages of the Four‑Legged Minaret. In Proceedings of the 12th Inter‑ national Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, İstanbul, Turkey, 21–23 September 2016. 26. Kazaz, İ.; Akansel, V.; Gülkan, P.; Kazaz, E. Seismic Behavior of a Four‑Legged Masonry Minaret. In Proceedings of the 15th World Congress on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012. 27. Computers and Structures, Inc. SAP2000: Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures—Basic Analysis Reference Manual; Computers and Structures, Inc.: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2016. 28. Earthquake Database. 2023. Available online: https://earthquakedatabase.com/ (accessed on 15 January 2024). 29. Erkek, H.; Yetkin, M. Assessment of the Performance of a Historic Minaret during the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6). Structures 2023,58, 105620. [CrossRef] 30. Nasery, M.M. Post‑Earthquake Damage Assessment of Inaccessible Areas in the Harran Grand Mosque (Ulu Cami) Minaret Using Digital Twin Modeling. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Civil Engineering and Architecture Congress, Trabzon, Turkey, 12–14 October 2023. 31. Işık, E.; Avcil, F.; Arkan, E.; Büyüksaraç, A.; İzol, R.; Topalan, M. Structural Damage Evaluation of Mosques and Minarets in Adıyaman Due to the 06 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2023,151, 107345. [CrossRef] 32. Medyascope Deprem Bölgesinde—Ferit Aslan Diyarbakır’dan Bildiriyor: Surlar, Dört Ayaklı Minare ve Tarihi İki Cami Depremde Zarar Gördü. Available online: https://medyascope.tv/2023/03/01/medyascope‑deprem‑bolgesinde‑ferit‑aslan‑ diyarbakirdan‑bildiriyor‑surlar‑dort‑ayakli‑minare‑ve‑tarihi‑iki‑cami‑depremde‑zarar‑gordu/ (accessed on 24 July 2025). 33. Sözen, M. Anadoluʾda Akkoyunlu Mimarisi; Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu: Istanbul, Turkey, 1981. 34. Lourenço, P.B. Computational Strategy for Masonry Structures; Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 1996.