Seismic Assessment of Tall Buildings Designed According to the Turkish Building Earthquake Code

Orhan Ilkay Ergunes, Tulay Aksu Ozkul


For the first time, the 2018 edition of the Turkish Building Earthquake Code has added a dedicated chapter for the design of high-rise buildings in earthquake-prone areas. Keeping in view the widely practised design option of rigid shear walls at the centre of a high-rise structure, the latest code has additionally defined limits for shear-wall axial forces in high-rise buildings. The new shear-wall axial force limits have not been independently investigated for optimal design and criticality. This calls for a detailed investigation of the newly defined axial force limits for the design of high-rise buildings in Turkey, where seismic activity has historically remained high. This study, therefore, investigates the effect of variation in limit values of shear wall axial forces on the collapse prevention of such buildings. A high-rise building designed entirely according to the code was chosen as the base model. The location of the building is in Istanbul, which has the highest number of tall buildings as compared to other cities in Turkey. A total of 7 alternative models were created by changing the concrete material class and the thickness of shear walls. This approach allowed us to quantify the effect of shear-wall thickness and its criticality against another important design consideration, i.e., the compressive strength of concrete. Forty different earthquake ground motion records were used to analyse the models to determine how critical the axial force ratio of the shear walls is in terms of collapse probability. The method proposed in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) document FEMA P695 was followed to determine the collapse levels for the high-rise structures. A nonlinear analysis was performed to analyse the failure safety of the models. Results indicate that an increase or decrease in the axial force ratios by more than 15% renders the structure either overdesigned or deficient.


Doi: 10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-03-011

Full Text: PDF


High-Rise Buildings; Shear Walls; Nonlinear Analysis; TBDY-18; FEMA P695.


TBDY-2018. (2018). Turkish Building Earthquake Regulation. Ministry of Interior, Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD). Istanbul, Turkey (In Turkish). Available online: files/TBDY_2018.pdf (accessed on January 2022).

FEMA P-695. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factor. Applied Technology Council, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA. Washington, D.C., United States.

Gogus, A., & Wallace, J. W. (2015). Seismic Safety Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Walls through FEMA P695 Methodology. Journal of Structural Engineering, 141(10), 04015002. doi:10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001221.

ACI 318-95. (1995). Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. American concrete institute, Michigan, United States.

Haselton, C. B., Liel, A. B., & Deierlein, G. G. (2010). Example application of the FEMA P695 (ATC-63) methodology for the collapse performance evaluation of reinforced concrete special moment frame systems. 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada.

ASCE/SEI 7-05. (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute. Virginia, United States. doi:10.1061/9780784408094.

Li, T., Yang, T. Y., & Tong, G. (2019). Performance‐based plastic design and collapse assessment of diagrid structure fused with shear link. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 28(6), e1589. doi:10.1002/tal.1589.

Mashal, M., & Filiatrault, A. (2012). Quantification of seismic performance factors for buildings incorporating three-dimensional construction system. In World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.

Ezzeldin, M., Wiebe, L., & El-Dakhakhni, W. (2016). Seismic Collapse Risk Assessment of Reinforced Masonry Walls with Boundary Elements Using the FEMA P695 Methodology. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(11), 04016108. doi:10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001579.

Kuşyılmaz, A., & Topkaya, C. (2016). Evaluation of seismic response factors for eccentrically braced frames using FEMA P695 methodology. Earthquake Spectra, 32(1), 303-321. doi: 10.1193/071014EQS097M.

Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2013). Seismic performance evaluation of staggered wall structures using FEMA P695 procedure. Magazine of Concrete Research, 65(17), 1023–1033. doi:10.1680/macr.12.00237.

Khojastehfar, E., Mirzaei Aminian, F., & Ghanbari, H. (2021). Seismic risk analysis of concrete moment-resisting frames against near-fault earthquakes. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 235(1), 80–91. doi:10.1177/1748006X20940472.

Sadeghpour, A., & Ozay, G. (2020). Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Frames Designed Based on Previous Iranian Seismic Codes. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 45(10), 8069–8085. doi:10.1007/s13369-020-04548-w.

Siddiquee, K. N., Billah, A. M., & Issa, A. (2021). Seismic collapse safety and response modification factor of concrete frame buildings reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloy (SMA) rebar. Journal of Building Engineering, 42, 42 102468. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102468.

Gallo, W. W. C., Gabbianelli, G., & Monteiro, R. (2021). Assessment of Multi-Criteria Evaluation Procedures for Identification of Optimal Seismic Retrofitting Strategies for Existing RC Buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1–34. doi:10.1080/13632469.2021.1878074.

Mazza, F., & Vulcano, A. (2012). Effects of near-fault ground motions on the nonlinear dynamic response of base-isolated r.c. framed buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41(2), 211–232. doi:10.1002/eqe.1126.

Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., & Park, R. (1988). Theoretical Stress‐Strain Model for Confined Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804–1826. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).

Kolozvari, K., Orakcal, K., & Wallace, J. W. (2015). Shear-flexure interaction modeling for reinforced concrete structural walls and columns under reversed cyclic loading. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER Report, University of California, Berkeley, United States.

PEER. (2010). PEER Strong Motion Database. University of California, Berkeley, United States. Available online: (accessed on January 2022).

Wu, H., Wang, Q., Tiwari, N. D., & De Domenico, D. (2021). Comparison of Dynamic Responses of Parallel-Placed Adjacent High-Rise Buildings under Wind and Earthquake Excitations. Shock and Vibration, 2021, 6644158. doi:10.1155/2021/6644158.

Rahgozar, N., Rahgozar, N., & Moghadam, A. S. (2019). Equivalent linear model for fully self-centering earthquake-resisting systems. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 28(1), 28 1565. doi:10.1002/tal.1565.

Turkish Seismic Hazard Map. (2022). Ministry of Interior, Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD). Istanbul, Turkey. Available online: (accessed on January 2022).

Gerami, M., Mashayekhi, A. H., & Siahpolo, N. (2017). Computation of R factor for Steel Moment Frames by Using Conventional and Adaptive Pushover Methods. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 42(3), 1025–1037. doi:10.1007/s13369-016-2257-5.

Amirsardari, A., Lumantarna, E., Rajeev, P., & Goldsworthy, H. M. (2020). Seismic Fragility Assessment of Non-ductile Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Australia. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1–34. doi:10.1080/13632469.2020.1750508.

Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-03-011


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Orhan Ilkay Ergunes, Tulay Aksu Ozkul

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.