Earthquake Performance of Reinforced-Concrete

Shear-Wall Structure Using Nonlinear Methods

Özlem Çavdar 1; Ahmet Çavdar 2; and Ender Bayraktar 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In earthquake engineering, the performance-based design method is used to determine the expected performance level of struc-
tures under an earthquake effect. The level of performance is related to the damage situation that could occur in the structure after the
earthquake. In performance-based structural design, it is predicted that more than one damage level can emerge under one earthquake effect.
In this study, the seismic behavior of a reinforced-concrete shear-wall building that collapsed during the 2003 Bingöl earthquake was in-
vestigated by nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis. The selected reinforced-concrete shear-wall structure is located in
Bingöl, Turkey. Local code was considered for assessing a seismic performance evaluation of the selected reinforced-concrete shear-wall
building. The performance goals of the reinforced-concrete shear-wall structure were evaluated by applying the pushover (incremental equiv-
alent earthquake load) method and procedures of the code and nonlinear dynamic analysis. According to the code, the reinforced-concrete
shear-wall building was not expected to satisfy life safety performance levels under a design earthquake. In this study, one collapsed building
was selected in order to test the reliability and usability of performance analysis methods under different earthquakes. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CF.1943-5509.0001117. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Reinforced-concrete shear-wall structure; Pushover analysis; Nonlinear time-history analysis; Performance analysis.

Introduction
In Turkey, there are a large number of reinforced-concrete buildings
that just meet or fall short of the standards of earthquake safety.
In addition, many existing reinforced-concrete shear-wall buildings
in first-degree seismic zones need seismic evaluation due to non-
compliance with old code requirements, updating of codes, and
building design practice. Their maintenance and reinforcement is
not possible due to economic and technical reasons. A more real-
istic form of earthquake safety evaluation for existing buildings has
come into question. In the Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC) in 2007
(TEC 2007), performance-based evaluations were emphasized by
using advanced knowledge of earthquake engineering. Therefore,
performance-based design procedures have been recently investi-
gated for the structures. Several procedures for performance assess-
ment have been discussed in the literature. The most common
assessment procedures are explained in four main guidelines/codes:
Applied Technology Council (ATC) 40 (ATC 1996), Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency (FEMA) 356 (FEMA 2000), FEMA
440 (FEMA 2005), and TEC (2007). The TEC (2007) code came
into use in 2007. The nonlinear seismic performance of structures
under earthquake effects is determined by static pushover and time-
history analyses. Pushover analysis allows for direct evaluation of
the performance of the structure at each limit state (Tehranizadeh
and Moshref 2011). Nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) is the
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Gümüşhane Univ.,
Gümüşhane 29100, Turkey (corresponding author). E-mail: ozlem_cavdar@
hotmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Gümüşhane Univ.,
Gümüşhane 29100, Turkey. E-mail: ahmcavdar@hotmail.com
3
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Gümüşhane Univ., Gümüşhane 29100,
Turkey. E-mail: badblues81@hotmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 9, 2017; approved on
July 11, 2017; published online on November 24, 2017. Discussion period
open until April 24, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
most reliable analysis method among all the nonlinear analysis
methodologies. However, static pushover analysis has become im-
portant due to its easy application compared to time-history analy-
sis. Many papers have been published on the topic of performance
evaluation of existing reinforced-concrete buildings. Scawthorn and
Johnson (2000) investigated the predominant building type, which
consists of midrise nonductile reinforced-concrete frames with hol-
low clay tile infill, thousands of which have collapsed in a pancake
mode. Krawinkler and Seneviratna’s (1998) research indicated that
static pushover analysis may be less accurate for structures in which
the story shear force versus story drift relationships are sensitive to
the applied load. Sucuoğlu (2006) investigated Chapter 7 of TEC
(2007), entitled “Assessment and Strengthening of Existing Build-
ings,” which sets standards for the performance assessment and
rehabilitation of existing buildings. Kalkan and Kunnath (2007)
evaluated the seismic deformation demands of multistory steel and
concrete moment frames using nonlinear procedures based on the
spread hinge assumption. Inel et al. (2008) evaluated the seismic
performance of the most common reinforced-concrete building
stock in Turkey considering nonlinear behavior of the components.
Duan and Hueste (2012) investigated the seismic performance of
a multistory reinforced-concrete frame building that was designed
according to the provisions of the Chinese seismic code.
Bayraktar (2012) studied the performance of existing reinforced-
concrete shear-wall buildings determined by the nonlinear analysis
methods defined in the Turkish Seismic Code.
Inel and Meral (2016) evaluated the seismic performance of
existing low-rise and midrise reinforced-concrete buildings by com-
paring their displacement capacities and displacement demands
under selected ground motions experienced in Turkey. Çavdar and
Bayraktar (2014) investigated the nonlinear seismic behavior of a
collapsed reinforced-concrete residential building in the city of Van
in Turkey using static pushover and nonlinear time-history analyses.
In this study, nonlinear static pushover and nonlinear dynamic
analyses were used to estimate the expected seismic performance of
a reinforced-concrete shear-wall building that collapsed during the
2003 Bingöl earthquake in Turkey.

© ASCE 04017122-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122

 Performance Levels
As shown in Fig. 1(a), five points labeled A–E define the force-
deformation behavior of a plastic hinge. The values assigned to
each of these points vary depending on the type of element, material
properties, longitudinal and transverse steel content, and axial load
level of the element (ATC 40; FEMA 273) (Inel et al. 2008).
Similar to ATC and FEMA guidelines, three limit conditions
have been defined for ductile elements on the cross section in TEC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Column dimensions in a story are 30 × 55, 40 × 50, 20 × 40,
and 40 × 60 cm (Fig. 3). The column dimensions in a defined
position in the plan are the same in the other stories of the building.
Longitudinal rebars are 8∅16 (mm) for all columns. The longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratio of these columns varies between 1.1 and
1.5%. The dimensions of all the beams in the building are the same:
30 × 50 cm. Beam longitudinal rebars are 3∅16 on top and 5∅14
at the bottom for the residential building. Transverse rebars are
∅8=15 cm for columns and beams. Flexural rigidity was calculated

(2007). These are the minimum damage limit (MN), safety limit
(GV), and collapsing limit (GC). The term MN defines the begin-
ning of the behavior beyond elasticity, GV defines the limit of the
behavior beyond elasticity at which the section is capable of safely
ensuring strength, and GC defines the limit of the behavior before
collapsing. This classification does not apply to elements dam-
aged in a brittle condition. Elements in which the damage to critical
sections does not reach MN are within the minimum damage re-
gion, those in between MN and GV are within the marked damage
region, those in between GV and GC are in the advanced damage
region, and those going beyond GC are within the collapsing region
[Fig. 1(b)].
for each member. Beams and columns were modeled as frame
elements connected to each other at the joints.
A typical floor plan is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Because the
majority of buildings in Bingöl, Turkey, were constructed accord-
ing to TEC (1975), the selected building was designed according
to this code, too. Because all the static projects are available, the
reinforced-concrete properties of structural members are assumed
to be known completely.
The pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses were performed
by using the finite-element method in Structural Analysis Program
2000 (SAP2000) (Wilson and Habibullah 1997). Beam and column
elements were modeled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped

Description of Investigated Reinforced Concrete

3 cm
Structure
Ø8/15
The building investigated in this study is a typical beam-column
reinforced-concrete frame building with shear walls. Typical geom-
etry and reinforcing details of column and beam cross-section areas
are shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2, the number before ∅ is the number
of bars, and after ∅ it is the diameter of the bars in millimeters.
40 cm
8Ø16

Force

C
CP
LS 20 cm
B IO
(a)

3 cm
Ø8/15
D E

A Deformation
3Ø16
(a)
GV GÇ
Internal
50 cm

Force MN

5Ø14
Minimum Marked Advanced Collapsing
Damage Damage Damage Region
Region Region Region

Deformation 30 cm
(b) (b)

Fig. 1. Force-deformation relationship of a typical plastic hinge: Fig. 2. Geometry and reinforcement details of typical column and
(a) ATC 40, FEMA 273; (b) TEC (2007) beam: (a) 20 × 40 cm column; (b) 30 × 50 cm beam

© ASCE 04017122-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
04017122-3
Fig. 3. Typical basement plan

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
04017122-4
Fig. 4. Typical floor plan

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Table 1. Control of Torsional Irregularity Coefficient for X-Direction of
Residential Building
Minimum
Story Displacement displacement Restriction
height (Δimax) (Δimin) of TEC
Story (cm) (cm) (cm) Δi-ort ηbi < 1.4 (2007)
7 290 0.246 0.189 0.217 1.131 Suitable
6 290 0.223 0.170 0.196 1.136 Suitable
5 290 0.195 0.147 0.171 1.142 Suitable
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4 290 0.161 0.120 0.140 1.148 Suitable

3 290 0.122 0.089 0.105 1.156 Suitable
2 290 0.080 0.057 0.069 1.168 Suitable
1 290 0.041 0.028 0.035 1.190 Suitable

Table 2. Control of Torsional Irregularity Coefficient for Y-Direction of

Residential Building
Minimum
Fig. 5. Three-dimensional finite-element model of reinforced-concrete Story Displacement displacement Restriction
shear-wall building height (Δimax) (Δimin) of TEC
Story (cm) (cm) (cm) Δi-ort ηbi < 1.4 (2007)
7 290 0.244 0.157 0.200 1.217 Suitable
plasticity by defining plastic hinges at both ends of beams and 6 290 0.225 0.144 0.184 1.219 Suitable
columns. The SAP2000 program provides default or user-defined 5 290 0.199 0.128 0.163 1.218 Suitable
hinge properties options to model the nonlinear behavior of com- 4 290 0.165 0.107 0.136 1.214 Suitable
ponents. In this study, user-defined hinge properties were imple- 3 290 0.125 0.083 0.104 1.204 Suitable
2 290 0.081 0.057 0.069 1.180 Suitable
mented. The seismic performance evaluation was carried out in
1 290 0.040 0.032 0.036 1.121 Suitable
accordance with the recently published TEC (2007), which shares
similarities with FEMA 356 guidelines.
The structure is in Bingöl and in the first-degree seismic zone.
A design ground acceleration of 0.4 g and Soil Class Z3, which are and internal force volition concerning brittle behavior for a given
similar to Class C soil of FEMA 356, were considered in the analy- earthquake. Afterward, the magnitudes of the mentioned volitions
ses. The projected concrete class is C30/37 [described in EN 206 were compared with the deformation and internal force capacities
(BSI 2014)] and the projected reinforcing steel class is S420 [de- that are defined in TEC (2007) and a structural performance evalu-
scribed in EN 10080 (BSI 2005)]. The Young’s moduli of concrete ation was conducted both at the sectional and building level.
and reinforced steel are 32,000 and 205,000 MPa, respectively. The Pushover analysis is an approximate analysis method in which
reinforced-concrete shear-wall residential building had eight sto- the structure is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral forces
ries; Story 1 was 4.6 m high and the other stories were 2.9 m in with an invariant heightwise distribution until a target displacement
height (Fig. 5). Framing of the building was irregular in plan: there is reached. Pushover analysis consists of a series of sequential elas-
were five bays in the X-direction and three bays in the Y-direction.
tic analyses, superimposed to approximate a force-displacement
The floor plan was same for each story and had an area of 494 m2 .
curve for the overall structure. A predefined lateral load pattern dis-
The slab thickness was 12 cm. The dead load was G ¼ 3.5 kN=m2
tributed along the building height is then applied. The lateral forces
for all the floors except the top floor, where the dead load was con-
are increased until some members yield. The structural model is
sidered G ¼ 3 kN=m2 . The live load was Q ¼ 4 kN=m2 for each
modified to account for the reduced stiffness of yielded members
floor except the top floor, where the live load was considered zero.
and lateral forces are again increased until additional members
For buildings in which slabs act as rigid diaphragms on the hori-
zontal axis, two horizontal translocations per floor and independ- yield. The process is continued until a control displacement at the
ence levels for the rotations around the horizontal axis are top of the building reaches a certain level of deformation or the
considered. The independence levels of the floors were defined for structure becomes unstable. The roof displacement is plotted with
the center of mass of each floor and additional eccentricity was not the base shear to create the global capacity curve.
applied. According to TEC (2007), to be able to use pushover analysis
the number of floors of the building excluding the basement should
not be greater than eight and the torsional irregularity coefficient
Nonlinear Seismic Performance Evaluation of the (ηbi ), which is calculated in accordance with elastic linear behavior
Building without considering additional eccentricity, should meet the condi-
tion ηbi < 1.4 for each floor. The torsional irregularity values of the
building are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
Performance Evaluation with Nonlinear Pushover Moreover, in accordance with the earthquake taken into con-
Analysis sideration, the ratio of the active mass of the primary (dominant)
The aim of the nonlinear pushover analysis method to be used for vibration mode, calculated taking the linear elastic behavior as a
determining the structural performance of buildings under a seismic base point, to the total mass of the building (except for the masses
effect and for strengthening analyses was to enable the measure- of the basement floors covered by the rigid frames) should be above
ment of the plastic deformation volition regarding ductile behavior 0.70 (TEC 2007). Because the building meets all these conditions,

© ASCE 04017122-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122

 nonlinear pushover analysis was used. Before incremental push-
over analysis, a static analysis was done by taking into consider-
ation vertical loads that are harmonic with the masses. This analysis
was force controlled and the results of this study were assumed as
initial conditions of the incremental pushover analyses. The vertical
loads in the nonlinear static pushover analysis are assumed as fol-
lows for the vertical load combination (TEC 2007):
G þ nQ ¼ G þ 0.3Q ð1Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where G = total dead load; n = live load participation factor; and

Q = total live load stories of building.
In this calculation, the cracked section bending rigidities of col-
umns and beams were determined by analyzing the bearing system
under the vertical loads that is harmonic with masses according to
TEC (2007); these were utilized in the incremental loading as a
linear method (TEC 2007). Points B and C in Fig. 1(a) are related
to yield and ultimate curvatures. Point B was obtained from
SAP2000 using approximate component initial effective stiffness
values as 0.4EI per beam and it obtained the following values
depending on the axial load level for columns (TEC 2007):
N
0.4EI for ≤ 0.1 ð2aÞ
ðAc × fcÞ
N
0.8EI for ≥ 0.4 ð2bÞ
ðAc × fcÞ
where fc = concrete compressive strength; N = axial load; and
Ac = area of section. Linear interpolation was made between 0.1
and 0.4 for the N=ðAc fcÞ values (TEC 2007). In this study,
moment-curvature analyses were carried out considering section
properties and a constant axial load on the structural element.
The values of the effective bending stiffness of the cracked section
were obtained from the code: 0.4EI for beams and values between
0.4 and 0.52EI, depending on axial load level, for columns. The
plastic hinge locations were assumed and defined on the two ends
of the column and beam elements constituting the bearing system.
The plastic hinge length was assumed to be half of the section depth
of the elements, as recommended in TEC (2007). Fig. 6 shows the
static pushover curvature obtained by analyzing the bearing system
under the vertical loads and proportional incremental interval seis-
mic loads for Soil Class Z3. The plastic hinges were obtained by
again pushing the bearing system up to this volition (Fig. 7).
The design earthquake was converted to a spectrum curve, the
modal displacement demand was determined, and performance
points were determined by TEC (2007), as seen in Fig. 8. The plas-
tic hinge locations were obtained by again pushing the bearing
system up to this demand. Fig. 8 shows that, in the case in which
the incremental repulsion analysis is conducted via applying the
incremental equivalence seismic load method, the modal capacity
diagram belonging to the primary (dominant) mode, the coordi-
nates of which are defined as modal translocation–modal acceler-
ation, was derived. The modal translocation volition belonging
to the primary (dominant) mode was set taking into consideration
the elastic behavior spectrum and the modifications applied on this
spectrum for different exceeding probabilities together with the
mentioned diagram. In the final step, the translocation, plastic de-
formation (plastic rotation), and inner force volitions that corre-
spond to the modal translocation volition were calculated.
The pushover analysis of the selected structure was actualized
under a design earthquake (10% in 50-year hazard level), as
proposed in TEC (2007). Nonlinear static pushover analyses are
determined by SAP2000. A design performance level is a statement
of the desired structural behavior of a building. After determination
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6. Capacity curves for (a) X-direction and (b) Y-direction by
pushover analysis for eight-story buildings
of the damage regions of sections, the performance level of the
building was controlled. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the hinges
through the X-direction and Y-direction of the structure after push-
over analysis were under the design earthquake (10% in 50-year
hazard level).
According to TEC (2007), the buildings that satisfy the condi-
tions mentioned as follows can be agreed to be in the life safety
(LS) performance level provided that brittle damaged components,
if any, are strengthened:
1. As the result of the calculations made for each earthquake di-
rection applied on each floor, at most 30% of the beams except
for the secondary ones (those that do not contribute to the hor-
izontal load-bearing system) and at most the proportion of the
columns defined in the following item can exceed the advanced
damage zone.
2. The total contribution of the columns in the advanced damage
zone to the shear force that is borne by the columns in each floor
should not exceed 20%. For the top floor, the ratio of the total
shear forces of the columns in the advanced damage zone to the
total shear forces of all the columns in that floor can be at
most 40%.
The performance levels MN, GV, and GC are considered as
specified in this code and several other international guidelines,
such as FEMA 356 and ATC 40 (Fig. 1). Displacement volition
estimates for earthquakes with a probability of exceedance of 10%
in 50 years are compared for MN, GV, and GC displacement
capacities. For any floor, if these ratios do not exceed the targeted
performance level’s ratio, it was concluded that the building is
sufficient for MN under the design earthquake.
It can be seen from the result under the Soil Class Z3 design
earthquake of the pushover analysis through the X-direction and
Y-direction (Figs. 7 and 8) that the building did not collapse before
reaching the push target. The maximum base shear force and maxi-
mum displacement in the X-direction and the maximum base shear

© ASCE 04017122-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Plastic hinges occurring through the X-direction and Y-direction of the building for design earthquake after pushover analysis: (a) front view;
(b) side view

force and maximum displacement in the Y-direction obtained from

the pushover analysis of the Z3 design earthquake were 16,595 kN,
0.348 m, 19,609 kN, and 0.414 m, respectively. It was concluded
from the nonlinear static pushover analysis under the design earth-
quake that, according to the displacement target of the building, the
building conformed to the LS rating in view of the LS level targeted
in TEC (2007). According to TEC (2007), the reinforced-concrete
shear-wall building is expected to satisfy LS performance levels
under the design earthquake.
It can be seen from the result under the design earthquake of the
pushover analysis through the X-direction [Fig. 7(a)] that the most
damage occurred in the first story. For this story, no damage oc-
curred in 67 beams (70%), minimum damage occurred in 27 beams
(28.13%), and marked damage occurred in 2 beams (2%), of a
(a) total of 96 beams. It can also be seen from the result under the
design earthquake of the pushover analysis through the X-direction
[Fig. 7(a)] that damage did not occur in the columns.
For the Y-direction, these values were 67 beams (70%),
25 beams (26%), and 4 beams (4%), respectively, of a total of
96 beams in the first story. And it can also be seen that no damage
occurred in the columns in the Y-direction [Fig. 7(b)].
In each floor, it is determined that shear forces bearing capacity
of columns and number of damaged beams provide a targeted per-
formance level.

Performance Evaluation with Nonlinear Dynamic

(b)
Fig. 8. Spectral acceleration, spectral displacement, and modal capa-
city curves for (a) X-direction and (b) Y-direction by pushover analysis
for eight-story buildings
Analysis
The aim of the nonlinear calculation within the scope of the time-
definition method was to integrate the movement equation of the
system step by step, taking the nonlinear behavior of the load-
bearing system. During the analysis, the translocation, plastic de-
formation, and internal force that came up in the system in each
increment and the maximum values of these magnitudes that cor-
respond to the seismic volition were calculated.

© ASCE 04017122-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122

 In addition to the static pushover analyses, in this study, perfor-
mance evaluation of the selected building was also determined with
NDA, comparatively. The mode superposition method considering
the Wilson-⊝ algorithm was used for solving the dynamic equilib-
rium equations. In nonlinear response time-history analysis, the
selection of acceleration records is an important step. The records
of the Bingöl, Adana-Ceyhan (1998), and Van earthquakes (2011)
were selected as ground motions. This set provided an opportunity
to examine the reasons for building damage during past earthquakes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in Turkey. The Bingöl, Adana-Ceyhan, and Van earthquakes had
destructive magnitudes 6.1, 6.2, and 7.1 Mw, respectively. The 2011
Van earthquake was the largest natural disaster in Turkey after the
Kocaeli and Duzce earthquakes in 1999. For the Van earthquake, the
official death toll was more than 600, with thousands of people
injured and thousands left homeless. The acceleration record from
Muradiye station, the nearest station, was used in the nonlinear
analysis.
The horizontal component [North–South (N–S)] of the acceler-
ation time history and spectral acceleration records used in the
analyses is shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Spectra for the acceleration
record and TEC (2007) are shown in Fig. 11.
According to TEC (2007), in linear and nonlinear analysis, in
the case of using three ground motions the maximum results (base
shear forces) shall be used for the design of a reinforced-concrete
shear-wall building.
The aim of the nonlinear calculation within the scope of the time
definition method was to integrate the movement equation of the
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 9. Acceleration time histories of (a) Bingöl earthquake, 2003;
(b) Adana-Ceyhan earthquake, 1998; (c) Van earthquake, 2011 (data
from AFAD 2017)
© ASCE 04017122-8
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122
system step by step, taking the nonlinear behavior of the load-
bearing system. During the analysis, the base shear force that came
up in the system in each increment and the maximum values of
these magnitudes that corresponded to the seismic volition were
calculated. Table 3 shows the base shear forces for NDA for differ-
ent earthquake acceleration records.
After comparing the ratios of base shear forces to building
weights (Table 3), the maximum earthquake volition was deter-
mined as that of the Adana-Ceyhan earthquake (1998).
It is seen from Figs. 12–14 that plastic hinges occurred through
the X-direction and Y-direction as a result of NDA. It can be seen
from Fig. 12 that these hinges were concentrated on the upper
floors.
Comparison of Performance Analysis Methods Used
The performances of the upper-story elements under the design
earthquake are compared for static pushover analysis and NDA
in Figs. 15 and 16. The section damage regions determined with
the nonlinear static analysis methods defined in TEC (2007) show
similarities to each other. Generally, the result variations of the sec-
tions differ by as much as three (minimum, marked, advanced)
damage regions. However, the results obtained from the nonlinear
dynamic method differ from those of the pushover analysis. It can
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 10. Spectral accelerations of (a) Bingöl earthquake, 2003;
(b) Adana-Ceyhan earthquake, 1998; (c) Van earthquake, 2011
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Spectra for the acceleration record of the earthquakes and TEC (2007)

Table 3. Determination of Earthquake Analysis for Reinforced-Concrete be seen that NDA (GC level) yields more dangerous results than
Shear-Wall Building pushover analysis (MN level) by about three levels.
Weight of Base Ratio The results from pushover analysis show lower damage ratios
building shear (base shear/ for the upper-story beams than those of NDA. The targeted perfor-
Direction Earthquake (kN) (kN) weight) mance level for a reinforced-concrete shear-wall building deter-
X Adana 38,583 13,580 0.352
mined in TEC (2007) is the collapsing region (GC) level. In the
Bingöl 38,583 11,080 0.287 X-direction, 91.7% of the beams reached this level for NDA only.
Van 38,583 5,835 0.151 Only 46.9% of the beams reached the GC level for linear analysis
in the Y-direction. Thus, according to these results, the building
Y Adana 38,583 10,920 0.283 performance level was achieved in pushover analysis, whereas the
Bingöl 38,583 10,830 0.281
building collapsed according to NDA. This is a great controversy for
Van 38,583 5,580 0.145
the two methods. On the one hand, NDA takes into consideration

Fig. 12. Plastic hinges occurring through the X-direction and Y-direction of the building for Adana earthquake after dynamic analysis: (a) front view;
(b) side view

© ASCE 04017122-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Plastic hinges occurring through the X-direction and Y-direction of the building for Bingöl earthquake after dynamic analysis: (a) front view;
(b) side view

Fig. 14. Plastic hinges occurring through the X-direction and Y-direction of the building for Van earthquake after dynamic analysis: (a) side view;
(b) side view

repetitive and directional effects; on the other hand, pushover
analysis takes into consideration the effect at one direction and mon-
otonic factors. The most important factor affecting it is torsional
irregularity.
Especially in the Y-direction, the torsional irregularity coeffi-
cient (ηbi ) is greater than 1.2 except at the basement, first floor,
and second floor. This value is not a problem for pushover analysis.
However, there is torsional action according to TEC (2007).
Torsion is greater in the upper stories than in the lower, as expected
in irregular structures because normal force levels absorbing tor-
sional effects at the upper floors are less than those downstairs.
One other detail increasing torsional action is the fact that the base-
ment floor shear walls were not distributed equally in two direc-
tions. If they were equally distributed, the torsional effect would
be decreased. Because the basement floor shear walls increase
the large moment of inertia in the direction of calculation and

© ASCE 04017122-10 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 15. Comparison chart of methods for the X-direction for upper
story beams obtained by the design earthquake
Fig. 16. Comparison chart of methods for the Y-direction for upper
story beams obtained by the design earthquake
Fig. 17. Comparison of top displacements and base shear force for
pushover and NDA for the X-direction of the reinforced-concrete
shear-wall building
are discontinuous at the upper floors, they cause important damage
in structures during earthquakes. It is interesting to note that torsion
did not affect pushover analysis in this study. However, nonlinear
analysis was a determinative factor.
It is seen from Figs. 17 and 18 that the top displacements for
pushover analysis were greater than in NDA. It was concluded from
nonlinear time-history analysis that, according to the damage con-
dition of the elements, the building does not warrant the LS rating
according to TEC (2007). Structural irregularities affect the seismic
performance of a building.
© ASCE
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122
Fig. 18. Comparison of top displacements and base shear force for
pushover and NDA for the Y-direction of the shear-wall reinforced-
concrete building
Conclusions
This paper investigated the seismic performance of an eight-story
reinforced-concrete building designed according to the provisions
of TEC (1975). The pushover and NDA techniques were used to
evaluate the seismic performance of the building and these two
methods were compared with each other. A performance evaluation
was performed using the current Turkish Earthquake Code, TEC
(2007). The performance levels MN, GV, and GC were considered
as specified in this code and several other international guidelines,
such as FEMA 356 and ATC 40. Pushover analysis and the criteria
of TEC (2007) were used to determine global displacements of the
building corresponding to the performance levels considered pre-
viously. Displacement volition estimates for an earthquake with
probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years were compared for
MN, GV, and GC displacement capacities.
The pushover analysis is a simple way to explore the nonlinear
behavior of buildings. The results obtained in terms of pushover
volition, capacity spectrum, and plastic hinges gave insight into
the real behavior of the structure. Pushover analysis is not only use-
ful for evaluating the seismic performance of a structure; it could
also be helpful for selecting seismic details that are more suitable
for withstanding the expected inelastic deformations. According
to TEC (2007), the reinforced-concrete shear-wall building is not
expected to satisfy MN performance levels under the design earth-
quake. Pushover can provide a reasonably accurate estimation of
performance level when a reinforced-concrete shear-wall building
is not severely damaged. If the building is seriously collapsed, push-
over analysis underestimates the building performance, regardless
of the lateral load distributions.
It was concluded from the NDA of the structure to the scaled
ground motion that, according to the damage conditions of the
elements, the building does not meet the MN rating in TEC (2007).
The building is far from satisfying the expected performance levels.
In addition, the results from pushover analysis show lower damage
ratios for the upper-story beams than those of NDA do.
References
AFAD (Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı). (2017). “Republic of
Turkey prime ministry disaster and emergency management authority.”
〈http://www.deprem.gov.tr〉 (Jun. 21, 2016) (in Turkish).
ATC (Applied Technology Council). (1996). “Seismic evaluation and retro-
fit of concrete buildings.” ATC-40, Redwood City, CA.
Bayraktar, E. (2012). “Determination of earthquake performance of
existing reinforced concrete shear wall structures with nonlinear
04017122-11 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 methods.” Master thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Gümüşhane Univ.,
Gümüşhane, Turkey.
BSI (British Standards Institution). (2005). “Steel for the reinforcement of
concrete—Weldable reinforcing steel—General.” EN 10080, London.
BSI (British Standards Institution). (2014). “Concrete—Specification,
performance, production and conformity.” EN 206, London.
Çavdar, Ö., and Bayraktar, A. (2014). “Pushover and nonlinear time history
analysis evaluation of a RC building collapsed during the Van (Turkey)
earthquake on October 23, 2011.” Nat. Hazards, 70(1), 657–673.
Duan, H., and Hueste, M. B. (2012). “Seismic performance of a reinforced
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
concrete frame building in China.” Eng. Struct., 41(4), 77–89.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2000). “Prestandard
and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” FEMA-356,
Washington, DC.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2005). “Improve-
ment of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures.” FEMA-440,
Washington, DC.
Inel, M., and Meral, E. (2016). “Seismic performance of RC buildings
subjected to past earthquakes in Turkey.” Earthquakes Struct., 11(3),
483–503.
Inel, M., Ozmen, H. B., and Bilgin, H. (2008). “Re-evaluation of build-
ing damage during recent earthquakes in Turkey.” Eng. Struct., 30(2),
412–427.
Kalkan, E., and Kunnath, S. K. (2007). “Assessment of current nonlinear
static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings.” Eng. Struct.,
29(3), 305–316.
© ASCE 04017122-12
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(1): 04017122
Krawinkler, H., and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. (1998). “Pros and cons of
a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation.” Eng. Struct.,
20(4–6), 452–464.
SAP2000 [Computer software]. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley,
CA.
Scawthorn, C., and Johnson, G. S. (2000). “Preliminary report:
Kocaeli (Izmit) earthquake of 17 August 1999.” Eng. Struct., 22(7),
727–745.
Sucuoğlu, H. (2006). “The Turkish seismic rehabilitation code.” 1st Euro-
pean Conf. on Earthquake, Engineering and Seismology (1st ECEES):
Joint Event of the 13th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and
the 30th General Assembly of the European Seismological Commission,
Curran Associates, Inc., New York.
TEC (Turkish Earthquake Code). (1975). “Specifications for buildings to
be built in seismic areas.” Ministry of Public Works and Settlement,
Ankara, Turkey.
TEC (Turkish Earthquake Code). (2007). “Specifications for buildings to
be built in seismic areas.” Ministry of Public Works and Settlement,
Ankara, Turkey.
Tehranizadeh, M., and Moshref, A. (2011). “Performance-based optimi-
zation of steel moment resisting frames.” Scientia Iranica A, 18(2),
198–204.
Wilson, E., and Habibullah, A. (1997). SAP2000 integrated finite element
analysis and design of structures basic analysis reference manual,
Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.