Engineering Assessment of Earthquake Resistant Building Code Based on Seismic Load Responses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26877/asset.v8i1.2400Keywords:
disaster risk reduction, earthquake-resistant design, nonlinear static analysis, performance-based assessment, seismic load responses, structural resilienceAbstract
Earthquake-resistant building design is fundamentally aimed at safeguarding life safety while controlling structural damage and preserving post-earthquake functionality under uncertain seismic actions. Although contemporary seismic codes provide detailed procedures for estimating earthquake-induced loads, differences in seismic hazard representation, force distribution rules, and deformation assumptions can lead to considerable variation in predicted structural response. This study presents a comprehensive engineering assessment of earthquake-resistant building codes based on seismic load responses in reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame structures. An integrated analytical framework combining elastic seismic analysis and nonlinear static performance evaluation is adopted to examine global force demand, displacement behavior, stiffness degradation, and post-yield response. Particular attention is given to the interaction between force-based seismic demand indicators, such as base shear and story forces, and deformation-based performance measures, including interstory drift and performance point characteristics. By systematically evaluating structural response across elastic and inelastic stages, the study demonstrates that reliance on elastic force demand alone is insufficient for capturing true seismic performance. The results emphasize the importance of performance-oriented assessment in enhancing the reliability, consistency, and resilience of earthquake-resistant building design.
References
[1] Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D, Karlaftis MG, Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M. Seismic assessment of structures and lifelines. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2015;334:29–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2013.12.031.
[2] Joyner MD, Sasani M. Building performance for earthquake resilience. Engineering Structures 2020;210:110371. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110371.
[3] Astawa MD, Tavio, Raka IGP. Ductile structure framework of earthquake-resistant high-rise buildings on exterior beam–column joints with partially prestressed reinforced concrete. Procedia Engineering 2013;54:413–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.038.
[4] Raka IGP, Tavio, Astawa MD. State-of-the-art report on partially prestressed concrete earthquake-resistant building structures for highly seismic regions. Procedia Engineering 2014;95:43–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.165.
[5] Abate M, Evangelista AC, Tam VWY. Advanced Seismic Analysis of a 44-Story Reinforced Concrete Building: A Comparison of Code-Based and Performance-Based Design Approaches. Infrastructures 2025;10. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10040093.
[6] Gutiérrez-Urzúa F, Freddi F, Di Sarno L. Comparative analysis of code-based approaches for seismic assessment of existing steel moment resisting frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2021;181:106589. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106589.
[7] Orellana MA, Ruiz SE, Bojórquez J, Reyes-Salazar A, Bojórquez E. Optimal load factors for earthquake-resistant design of buildings located at different types of soils. Journal of Building Engineering 2021;34:102026. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102026.
[8] Biva G, Huanjun J. Comparison of seismic fragility of RC moment-resisting frame structures designed according to Chinese and Indian codes. Structures 2023;50:347–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.02.053.
[9] Omidian P, Saffari H. Comparative analysis of seismic behavior of RC buildings with Shape Memory Alloy rebar in regular, torsional irregularity, and extreme torsional irregularity cases. Journal of Building Engineering 2018;20:723–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.020.
[10] Saikumar S, Mandava N. Comparative analysis of earthquake-resistant building design by considering bracings and shear wall system in ETABS software. Materials Today: Proceedings 2022;52:1831–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.490.
[11] Das TK, Choudhury S, Das P. Correlation between seismic performance levels and damage index for regular RC frame buildings designed using the unified performance-based design method. Journal of Building Engineering 2024;96:110565. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.110565.
[12] Sayin B, Akan AE, Cosgun T, Er A, Samadi K, Uzdil O, et al. Seismic performance assessment and restoration proposal for the 19th-Century Karacakaya mosque. Journal of Building Engineering 2025;108:112856. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.112856.
[13] Drozdov V V, Pshenichkina VA, Sukhina KN. Evaluation of Reliability of the Earthquake-Resistant Building Provided by Means of the Analysis for Design-Basis Earthquake. Procedia Engineering 2016;150:1841–7. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.180.
[14] Işık E, Hadzima-Nyarko M, Bilgin H, Ademović N, Büyüksaraç A, Harirchian E, et al. A Comparative Study of the Effects of Earthquakes in Different Countries on Target Displacement in Mid-Rise Regular RC Structures. Applied Sciences 2022;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122312495.
[15] Munni V, Chandra Mohan Rao BD V. A comparative study on seismic analysis of regular and plan-irregular buildings resting on different soils. Materials Today: Proceedings 2022;71:325–31. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.311.
[16] Kazaz İ, Avşar Ö, Dilsiz A. Importance of building inspection on the seismic response of a severely damaged RC structure during the February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence. Engineering Failure Analysis 2024;162:108410. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.108410.
[17] Suliman M, Lu L. A Comparative Study of Seismic Performance Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Using Chinese and African Seismic Codes. Advances in Civil Engineering 2024;2024:5588833. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5588833.
[18] Chalarca B, Bedoya-Ruiz D, Herrera JP. Experimental behavior and seismic performance assessment of Unbonded Post-tensioned Precast Concrete Walls for low-rise buildings. Engineering Structures 2023;289:116251. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116251.
[19] Biskinis D, Fardis MN. Cyclic shear resistance model for Eurocode 8 consistent with the second-generation Eurocode 2. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2020;18:2891–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00807-1.
[20] Aminian FM, Khojastehfar E, Ghanbari H. Effects of Near-fault Strong Ground Motions on Probabilistic Structural Seismic-induced Damages. Civil Engineering Journal (Iran) 2019;5:796–809. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2019-03091289.
[21] Chorafa E, Skrapalliou E, Katsimpini P. On the Nonlinear Behavior of Composite Structures under Multiple Earthquakes Considering Soil–Structure Interaction. CivilEng 2024;5:673–93. https://doi.org/10.3390/civileng5030036.
[22] Kassem MM, Mohamed Nazri F, Noroozinejad Farsangi E. The seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies: A state-of-the-art review. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 2020;11:849–64. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.04.001.
[23] Al-sabaeei MS, Dabhekar KR, Khedikar I. State of art on seismic comparison of different types (V, diagonal and X) of bracings on different shapes of buildings (L, H, T and rectangular) with response spectrum method. Materials Today: Proceedings 2023. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.07.016.
[24] El-Kholy AM, Sayed H, Shaheen AA. Comparison of Egyptian Code 2012 with Eurocode 8-2013, IBC 2015 and UBC 1997 for seismic analysis of residential shear-walls RC buildings in Egypt. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 2018;9:3425–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.07.004.
[25] Dadkhah M, Kamgar R, Heidarzadeh H. Improving the nonlinear seismic performance of steel moment-resisting frames with minimizing the ductility damage index. SN Applied Sciences 2021;3:86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04141-2.
[26] Kunwar S, Thapa D, Paudel A, Shrestha A. A comparative analysis of an RC low-rise building with the seismic codes of countries lying in the Himalayas: China, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. Discover Civil Engineering 2024;1:117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44290-024-00122-7.
[27] Ngoma MC, Kolawole O, Esteghamati MZ. Insights into susceptibility of underground infrastructure to geohazards due to subsurface urban heat Island. Sustainable Cities and Society 2025;125:106332. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2025.106332.
[28] Louzai A, Abed A. Effect of base shear ratios between moment-resisting frames and shear walls on the seismic behavior factor of RC dual structures. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 2023;24:2863–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00680-8.
[29] Guaygua B, Sánchez-Garrido AJ, Yepes V. A systematic review of seismic-resistant precast concrete buildings. Structures 2023;58:105598. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105598.
