Determination of Earthquake Performance of Existing RC Building According to FEMA-356 and TBEC-2018.

Year 2025, Volume: 14 Issue: 3, 90 - 100, 26.09.2025

Mohamed Omar Hirabe , Elif Boru

https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1642050

Abstract

Turkey, with a high concentration of active fault lines, has experienced numerous earthquakes, highlighting the need for seismic safety. In recent 30 years, Turkey has faced a significant number of major earthquakes, causing considerable loss of life and property. The 06.02.2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes highlighted the severity of seismic activity, emphasizing the need for earthquake-resistant building design and retrofitting of buildings that do not meet modern standards. This ensures resilience and reduces economic losses in the face of earthquakes. This study evaluates the earthquake performance of an existing G+2 reinforced concrete (RC) structure using static pushover analysis, following the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA-356) and Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBEC-2018) regulations. The structural model was created using the building's existing design project's cross-sections and reinforcement data. Section capacities and nonlinear behavior characteristics were defined according to both FEMA-356 and TBEC-2018 codes. The analysis was conducted using SAP2000. The results from both TBEC-2018 and FEMA-356 were compared. The target displacements for both codes were calculated, and the damage distributions in structural elements were compared and presented in a numerical graph.

Keywords

Existing RC Building , Seismic Performance , Pushover Analysis , FEMA-356 , TBEC-2018

Determination of Earthquake Performance of Existing RC Building According to FEMA-356 and TBEC-2018.

Abstract

This study evaluates the earthquake performance of an existing G+2 reinforced concrete (RC) structure using static pushover analysis, following the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA-356) and Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBEC-2018) regulations. The structural model was created using the building's existing design project's cross-sections and reinforcement data. Section capacities and nonlinear behavior characteristics were defined according to both FEMA-356 and TBEC-2018 codes. The analysis was conducted using SAP2000. The results from both TBEC-2018 and FEMA-356 were compared. The target displacements for both codes were calculated, and the damage distributions in structural elements were compared and presented in a numerical graph.

Keywords

Existing RC Building , Seismic Performance , Pushover Analysis , FEMA-356 , TBEC-2018

References

• Naji DM, Akin MK, Cabalar AF. Evaluation of seismic site classification for Kahramanmaras City, Turkey. Environ Earth Sci. 2021;80(3):97. doi:10.1007/s12665-021-09396-x
• Tan OM, Tapirdamaz MC, Yörük A. Article 8 1-1-2008 part of the Earth Sciences Commons recommended citation. 2008.
• Doǧangün A. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 Bingöl Earthquake in Turkey. Eng Struct. 2004;26(6):841–856.
• Book Reviews. Int Stud. 2008;45(3):257–270. doi:10.1177/002088170904500305
• Duman TY, et al. Seismotectonic database of Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng. 2018;16(8):3277–3316
• Kasimzade A, Nematli E, Kuruoğlu M. The new criterion on performance-based design and application to recent earthquake codes. Earthq Struct. 2023;24(1)
• Monti G, Rabi RR, Vailati M. Direct displacement-based design of dissipative bracings for seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings. J Build Eng. 2024;82:108208.
• Bakalis AP, Makarios TK. Seismic enforced-displacement pushover procedure on multistorey R/C buildings. Eng Struct. 2021;229:111631.
• Dedeoğlu A, Zülfikar AC. Earthquake performance based design and resilience based analysis in high-rise buildings. Disaster Sci Eng. 2020;6(1):12–34.
• Hamburger RO, et al. FEMA P58: Next-generation building seismic performance assessment methodology. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2012.
• İbiş T, Ulutaş H. Yeni yapılacak betonarme bir binanın TBDY 2018’e göre deprem performansının belirlenmesi. Bitlis Eren Univ Fen Bilimleri Derg. 2021;10(3):1104–1124.
• Severcan MH, Sinani B. Mevcut betonarme yapıların deprem performansının analizi. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Univ Mühendislik Bilimleri Derg. 2019;8(2):936–947.
• Cabotaje RAC, Bernardo GR. Performance-based seismic evaluation of a four-story school building by pushover analysis using the Metro Davao Earthquake Model. Key Eng Mater. 2024;987:85–92.
• AL K, Keshavamurthy M, Ravikumar CM. Pushover analysis of an eight-story structure: a parametric study. 2024.
• Jamal R. A comparison of nonlinear performance evaluation TSC-2018 and ASCE 41-17 methods for reinforced concrete buildings [PhD thesis]. Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi; 2022.
• Isik E, et al. Seismic performance and failure mechanisms of reinforced concrete structures subject to the earthquakes in Türkiye. 2024.
• Yön B, et al. Evaluation of the seismic response of reinforced concrete buildings in the light of lessons learned from the February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye earthquake sequences. Nat Hazards. 2025;121(1):873–909
• Sonmez E, et al. Seismic performance assessment of structural systems in the aftermath of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes: Observations and fragility analyses. Earthquake Spectra. 2025;41(1):198–218.
• Kazaz I. Evaluation of seismic performance, design and practice of frame-wall buildings in Türkiye after the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. J Build Eng. 2025;99:111557.
• TBDY, “Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği ,” 2018.
• Dhannur B, Sushmitha N. Performance assessment of composite steel building considering plan irregularity before and after retrofit: pushover analysis. Mater Today Proc. 2023;88:71–76.
• Speicher MS, Harris JL 3rd. Collapse prevention seismic performance assessment of new eccentrically braced frames using ASCE 41. Eng Struct. 2016;117:344–357.
• Zameeruddin M, Sangle KK. Seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete frames subjected to seismic loads. J Inst Eng (India) Ser A. 2017;98(1):177–183.
• Patil VS, Tande SN. Probabilistic versus deterministic method of seismic performance evaluation. Asian J Civ Eng. 2018;19(2):165–176.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency, “ Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” Washington, D.C., 200AD
• Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div. 1971;97(7):1969–1990.
• Computers and Structures Inc. SAP2000 v24: Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures. Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures Inc; 2024
• Alhaddad MS, et al. Ductility damage indices based on seismic performance of RC frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2015;77:226–237.