Non-Linear Time History Analysis-based Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings designed using Saudi Building Code 2018 Edition

Non-Linear Time History Analysis-based Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings designed using Saudi Building Code 2018 Edition | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Non-Linear Time History Analysis-based Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings designed using Saudi Building Code 2018 Edition Md Ashraful Hossain, Aly Emam, Khatib Zada Farhan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6895957/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The structural integrity of a building is crucial in ensuring the safety of the structure and its inhabitants. Proper building design can withstand significant earthquake occurrences without catastrophic damage. This study investigates the seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings designed according to the 2018 edition of the Saudi Building Code (SBC-301), emphasizing the resilience of structures during strong earthquake events. The objective is to assess how effectively updated SBC-301 provisions enhance structural integrity under seismic loads. Using nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA), two representative 10-story structural systems—moment-resisting buildings (MRB) and dual-system buildings (DSB)—were modeled and analyzed across four seismic zones in Saudi Arabia: Medina, Abu-Arish, Al-Bada, and Magna, varying from low to high seismic risk. Ten ground motion records were applied to simulate realistic seismic demands. The seismic performance evaluation of the structures was based on top displacement and inter-story drift ratios, assessed according to FEMA-356 standards. Key findings reveal that both MRB and DSB structures maintain acceptable structural performance under seismic loading; however, DSB consistently outperforms MRB by limiting inter-story drift ratios below the Immediate Occupancy (IO) threshold defined in FEMA-356 and reducing top displacement by up to 45%. These results underscore the importance of dual systems in high-seismic zones for enhancing structural resilience. The study findings demonstrate that structures designed according to SBC-301 provisions can withstand significant seismic events without significant damage to the structural elements or their occupants. Inter-story drift non-linear time history analysis structural integrity seismic performance Saudi Building Code SBC-301 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 1. Introduction In recent years, structural seismic resilience has become a critical concern in engineering practice, particularly in regions with evolving seismic codes such as Saudi Arabia. Although the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not in a high-seismic zone like Turkey or other regions globally, it nevertheless faces potential seismic hazards, particularly in the northwestern (Tabuk) and southwestern (Jizan) areas of the country (Riza Ainul et al., 2014 ). Saudi Arabia faces seismic risk due to its position along the Red Sea Rift, where the Arabian Plate diverges from the African Plate (Arfa et al., 2024 ; Fnais et al., 2015 , 2013 ; Zahran et al., 2023 ). This rifting process increases seismic hazard in the western part of the country. Over the past decade, 249 earthquakes, with magnitudes between 4.6 and 5.7, have occurred in various parts of Saudi Arabia, resulting in varying degrees of damage to structures, ranging from primary to nonstructural failures (Earthquake list in Saudi Arabia). To address these challenges, the Saudi Building Code (SBC) 301–2018 edition has been updated and implemented to enhance the structural integrity of buildings and the safety of their occupants. The 2018 editions of the Saudi Building Code, SBC-301, introduced significant changes, especially in its seismic and wind maps, as well as in the load combinations according to ASCE 7–10. It is crucial to assess how these changes affect the structural integrity and safety of buildings during strong seismic events. There is a clear lack of research examining how the modifications in the 2018 editions contribute to building resilience in seismic situations. This gap highlights the necessity of understanding the impact of the current edition's changes on the structural integrity of buildings. The study uses nonlinear time history analysis to evaluate the impact of the 2018 revision to the Saudi Building Code (SBC-301) on the structural integrity and safety of buildings, especially concerning lateral loads (Seismic). Rapid urbanization and extensive infrastructure development in Saudi Arabia have increased the demand for structurally sound and seismically resilient buildings. To ensure public safety and structural stability, it is essential to evaluate how well buildings can withstand lateral seismic forces during strong earthquakes. This study assesses the seismic performance of buildings designed according to the Saudi Building Code (SBC) using Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NLTHA), a highly reliable method for capturing the true dynamic and nonlinear behavior of structures under realistic earthquake loading conditions. Through this approach, the research provides critical insights into the adequacy of SBC provisions in preventing structural collapse and minimizing damage. It also highlights potential vulnerabilities that are often overlooked by traditional linear or static analyses. The findings are expected to inform engineering practice, support evidence-based code development, and improve seismic risk mitigation strategies in Saudi Arabia. 2. Modeling and Design of Buildings Reinforced concrete moment-resisting and dual-system structures are very common type of reinforced concrete buildings in Saudi Arabia. The study focuses on 10-story moment-resisting and dual-system reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. The design of these RC structures followed the 2018 edition of the Saudi Building Code, SBC-301, considering four separate seismic zones in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Medina (low seismic zone), Abu-Arish (medium seismic zone), Al-Bada (medium-high seismic zone), and Magna (low seismic zone). The buildings under consideration were designed with a 150 mm-thick two-way slab system supported by beams in both directions. The floor height of the buildings was 3.2 m, which is the most common scenario in Saudi Arabia (Nazar & Ismaeil, 2014 ). Strength, performance, integrity, and human comfort are essential requirements when designing a building to withstand gravitational and lateral forces, such as seismic and wind (Hosseini et al., 2017 ; Mahmoud et al., 2021 ; Mwafy & Khalifa, 2017 ; Rajeev et al., 2019 ). The required strength was achieved using reinforced concrete with a compressive strength of 40 MPa for columns, slabs, and beams, and reinforcement of 420 MPa yield strength. The soil profile was classified as class 'C,' as most of the soils in Saudi Arabia are sandy, have low cohesion, and have shallow to deep clay layers over rocks (Aba-Husayn and Sayegh, 1977 ; Abdelrahman et al., 2021 ; Almalki et al., 2022 ; Sallam, 2002 ). The ETABS software (version 17.0.1) was utilized for modeling and designing the representative buildings. The slabs of the buildings were modeled as two-way slabs using thin shell elements. The shear wall and coupling beam of the dual-system buildings were also modeled using thin shell elements. The properties of the T-beams were considered during the modeling of the beams. Flexural stiffness modifiers of 0.7 were applied to columns and shear walls, while 0.35 was assigned to beams and couplings to account for the cracked section properties. A modifier of 0.25 was used for slab sections. The selected buildings were designed rigorously according to the 2018 edition of SBC-301. To validate the design, several structural checks were performed, including story drift check, story overturning check, rebar percentage check, column PMM interaction check, torsional irregularity check, story displacement check, and member failure check. The over-design aspect was omitted to effectively assess the seismic performance of the structures. The architectural layout and 3D model of the representative buildings are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2 . The flowchart of the design procedure in the ETABS software is shown in Fig. 3 . 2.1 Applied loads and load combinations The dead and live load according to the SBC-301 was applied to the representative buildings during analysis and design. A uniform distribution of 6.0 kN/m2, including the self-weight of the structures and additional loads such as flooring and wall partitions, was considered. A load of 2.5 kN/m2 was applied to the floors, except for stair and exit ways, which were 5 kN/m 2 (Saudi Building Code, SBC-301- 2018 Edition; Saudi Building Code, SBC-304- 2018 Edition). The study applied the lateral loads, including seismic and wind loads, following the provisions of SBC-301, 2018 editions, which are illustrated in Table 2 . The load combinations given in Table 1 , were applied during the design of the buildings. Table 1 Load combinations used in the structural design of the selected buildings according to SBC-301. Dead Load 1.4D Dead Load + Live Load 1.4D + 1.7L Dead Load + Live Load + Wind Load 1.2D + 1.0W + 1.0L Dead Load + Wind Load 0.9D ± 1.0W Dead Load + Live Load + Seismic Load (1.2 + 0.2𝑆𝐷𝑆) 𝐷 +𝜌𝑄𝐸 +𝐿 Dead Load + Seismic Load (0.9-0.2SDS) D± 𝜌𝑄𝐸 L = 0.5 for LL less than 5 kN/m 2 and L = 1.0 for LL 5kN/m 2 𝜌=1.0 for SDC B and C 𝜌=1.3 for SDC D, E & F Table 2 Seismic and wind parameters used in the design of the buildings. Code SBC-301-2018 Zone Medina Abu Arish Al-Bada Magna Risk Category A C D D R/Ωo/Cd 2.5/3/2.5 4/3/4.5 6.5/3/5.5 6.5/3/5.5 Ss(g) 0.200 0.500 1.020 1.100 S1(g) 0.060 0.100 0.245 0.260 Fa(g) 1.200 1.200 1.000 1.000 Fv(g) 1.700 1.700 1.555 1.540 S MS (g) 0.240 0.600 1.020 1.100 S M1 (g) 0.102 0.170 0.381 0.400 S DS (g) 0.160 0.400 0.680 0.733 S D1 (g) 0.068 0.113 0.254 0.267 Wind Speed, V(mph) 108.0 108.0 115.0 115.0 3. Seismic Performance Analysis Method There are two primary methodologies for assessing the seismic performance of buildings: static and dynamic analysis, each divided into linear and non-linear techniques (Ahamed and Kori, 2013 ; Faiz and Kumar, 2023 ; Kumar Gupta et al.). Figure shows the available seismic analysis methods 4. The materials in structures do not behave elastically during intense seismic events. Instead, they experience cracking, yielding, and plastic deformation. Non-linear time history analysis (NLTHA) accurately simulates these nonlinear behaviors, including the formation of plastic hinges, steel yielding, and significant deformations, which linear methods cannot model effectively (Abd-Elhamid et al., 2020 ; Akash and Sinha, 2024; Azodi et al., 2022 ; Gamal Abd-Elhamid et al., n.d.; Sibayan and Bersamina, 2025 ). This study utilized NLTHA to thoroughly assess the seismic performance while accounting for the structures' non-linear behavior. NLTHA is an advanced seismic analysis method that significantly evaluates the dynamic response of structures. It simulates buildings' realistic, time-dependent, inelastic behavior under severe earthquakes, particularly when performance-based design is critical (Akash and Sinha, 2024; Ardalani and Aydin, 2025 ). NLTHA identified both the global deformation, which is based on the buildings' inter-story drift (ISD) ratio, and local failures such as plastic hinge formation or beam-column joint (Azodi et al., 2022 ; Deng, 2013 ; Karimzadeh et al., 2017 ; Mishra and Singh, 2022 ). The current study used the global deformation to assess the seismic integrity of the structures. The building’s seismic performance with NLTHA has been evaluated following the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA-356) criteria. In FEMA-356, performance levels are categorized as Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP). According to SBC-301 and ASCE 7–16 guidelines, a minimum of three ground motions should be used in NLTHA to obtain reliable results (SBC-301-2018 Edition. Ten ground motions with magnitudes ranging from 6.0 to 7.51 have been selected from the PEER ground motion database based on site class, fault proximity, and other factors to assess the seismic behavior of the structures accurately. Every selected earthquake is rigorously matched with the site’s Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) levels to ensure the most severe conditions the structure could meet. The specifications of the ten earthquakes and their spectral acceleration are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 5 , respectively. Table 3 The specifications of the selected earthquake. Earthquake Name Event- Station Magnitude Durations (s) Epicentral Distances (k) Northridge-01 LA - Sepulveda VA Hospital 6.69 47.6 20.4 Cape Mendocino Bunker Hill FAA 7.01 28.5 33.8 Hector Mine Seven Oaks Dam Project Office 7.13 66.95 100 Imperial Valley-06 Niland Fire Station 6.53 40 65 Kobe Japan MZH 6.9 150 70.3 Kocaeli Turkey Manisa 7.51 162.7 300 Landers Hemet Fire Station 7.28 55.87 74 Mammoth Lakes-01 Convict Creek 6.06 30 18.4 Dinar Turkey Bursa 6.4 27.01 300 Imperial Valley-06 Niland Fire Station 6.53 40 65 4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Seismic performance evaluation based on top displacement The top displacement of buildings is a critical factor during seismic events, as it greatly affects the structural integrity and safety of occupants (D’ayala, 2005 ; He et al., 2023 ). Seismic and wind loading exert lateral force on the structure, leading to the building's horizontal displacement. This lateral displacement of a structure depends on several factors, including structural height, structural system, fundamental period, seismic zone, and design category, wind map, exposure category, material properties, etc. High-rise structures tend to have much top displacement due to their increased flexibility (Merino et al., 2024 ). Moment-resisting frames and shear wall system buildings show different displacement characteristics, while the structures in higher seismic zones faced significant displacement due to seismic intensity. No specific guidelines for the allowable top displacement of structures are provided in international and national building codes such as the International Building Code (IBC,2021), ASCE 7, EC-8, and Saudi Building Code (SBC-301). However, these codes have clear guidelines about the inter-story drift, which is the relative displacement between two consecutive floors. Although ASCE 7, IBC, or EC8 do not explicitly define limits of H/500 or H/400 for top displacement due to wind and H/300 to H/250 for seismic displacement, especially in high-rise structures, engineers often apply the H/500 limit for acceptable top displacement for wind and H/250 to H/300 for displacement from seismic loading. This practice aims to prevent damage to cladding, wall partitions, facade elements, and occupants' comfort. In the study, the maximum displacement of the sample structure due to wind was not considered, as the impact of wind in Saudi Arabia is not significant. The research only focused on the displacement of the structure under seismic loading. As the study examined regular moment-resisting frames and dual system buildings, it considered H/250 as the acceptable top displacement limit to evaluate the structural integrity of the representative buildings. The 10-story buildings have heights of 32 m, which correspond to acceptable top displacements of 128 m. The evaluation of buildings' structural integrity based on top displacement obtained from NLTHA indicates that the top displacement of moment-resisting and dual-system buildings is far beyond the acceptable limit, as shown in Fig. 5 . The graph illustrates the comparison of buildings' maximum top displacement obtained during the NLTHA using ten seismic records across four seismic zones in Saudi Arabia. In all seismic zones, the 10-story DSB experienced lower displacements than the MRB due to the combination of beam-column and shear walls in the dual system. For instance, the top displacement in the Magna seismic zone reduced from 75.6mm in MRB to 45 mm in DSB, reflecting a reduction of nearly 40%. Similar trends are observed for other seismic zones, where the displacement reductions vary from 38–45%. However, all top displacement values of both MRB and DSB remain well below the acceptable limit, suggesting both categories of buildings have better structural integrity, where the DSB seems to be more efficient in minimizing top displacements. 4.2 Seismic performance evaluation based on inter-story drift (ISD) ratio The building's seismic performance with NLTHA has been assessed according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356 criteria. In FEMA-356, performance levels are classified as Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP). Table 3 outlines the damage limits associated with each performance level defined by FEMA-356. These limits indicate the extent of damage a structure may experience during seismic events, ranging from significant to minor. According to FEMA-356, the inter-story drift ratio is set at 1% for the IO level, 2% for the LS level, and 4% for the CP level. This study assesses the global performance of a selected earthquake to evaluate the structural integrity of buildings designed according to two editions of the Saudi Building Code. Table 4 Structural performance level (FEMA 356) (American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2000 ; Harsha G, 2014; Rajeev et al., 2019 ) PERFORMANCE LEVELS STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE NON-STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE Operational (O) Minimal damage. No drift. Minor damage. Immediate Occupancy (IO) Minor damage, significant original strength and rigidity, no permanent drift. Minor damage. Drift Ratio 1% 0.5% Life Safety (LS) Adequate damage, some permanent drift to the structure. Risk of falling and significant damage to the system. Drift Ratio 2% 1% Collapse Prevention (CP) Severe damage, significant permanent drift, and likely collapse of the building. Total collapse. Drift Ratio 4% 2% The research conducted Non-linear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) on a 10-story moment-resisting building (MRB) and a dual-system building (DSB) to evaluate their performance during significant seismic events in both high and moderate to low seismic zones, focusing on the SBC-301. The findings indicated that both building types maintain sufficient structural integrity and safety during the analyzed seismic incidents. Although the structural components experienced minimal damage, non-structural elements such as wall partitions showed relatively more damage, particularly during intense seismic events. The comparative results show that DSB consistently exhibited better structural integrity than MRB across all selected seismic regions. In medium-high and high seismic zones, MRB exceeded the Immediate Occupancy threshold when analyzed with 10 different seismic records. In contrast, the DSB consistently remained within the IO limit, showing only minimal damage during earthquakes with magnitudes between 6 and 7.5 on the Richter Scale. Overall, the NLTHA reveals that buildings designed according to the 2018 edition of SBC-301 demonstrate significant structural resilience. These buildings are anticipated to maintain adequate structural integrity, ensuring the safety of their occupants during major earthquakes while avoiding severe damage to their structural systems. 5. Conclusions The integrity of buildings during seismic events is a critical concern in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This country is experiencing many low to moderate-intensity seismic events every year. The Saudi Building Code (SBC) authority underwent revisions in 2018 to enhance the integrity of the structures against lateral forces, especially during severe earthquakes. The study aimed to evaluate the seismic performance of buildings designed by the 2018 edition to withstand earthquakes of magnitude up to 7.5 on the Richter scale. The study focused on two representative 10-story building types: moment-resisting buildings (MRB) and dual-system buildings (DSB), which were rigorously designed following the SBC-301 provisions across different seismic regions in Saudi Arabia. NLTHA was employed as an independent tool to accurately evaluate the seismic performance, where the key parameters were top displacement and inter-story drift (ISD) ratio, which were evaluated against the FEMA-356 criteria. According to the non-linear time history analysis, both DSB and MRB structures showed significant structural resilience when subjected to the selected seismic records, sustaining minimal damage during strong earthquakes. However, DSB structures consistently showed better structural integrity than MRB across all seismic zones, maintaining the inter-story drift ratio within the IO limit, while MRB regularly surpassed the IO limit in medium to high seismic regions. Additionally, DSB exhibited significantly lower top displacements compared to MRB, indicating enhanced seismic resilience. The study finds that generally, structures built following the 2018 version of SBC-301 have significant structural integrity and can guarantee occupant safety during significant seismic events. Moreover, especially in higher seismic areas, the use of dual systems combining moment-resisting frames and shear walls greatly improves seismic performance. This study emphasizes the need of thorough seismic analysis and resilient structural design in the sustainable development of Saudi Arabia's built environment as well as the efficacy of the revised SBC-301 criteria. Declarations Acknowledgments: The research received generous support from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at King Abdulaziz University. The department provided valuable assistance and resources, significantly contributing to the successful completion of this study, for which the authors are deeply thankful. Funding Declaration: This study was carried out without financial support. Data Availability: The data will be available upon request. Conflict of Interest: This is to certify that the authors have no conflict of interest. The authors affirm the work's originality and declare that they have no conflicting interests. Author Contribution Md Ashraful Hossain: Conceptualization, methodology, modeling and simulation (ETABS and NLTHA), data analysis, manuscript writing, and visualization.Dr. Aly Emam: Supervision, validation of analysis methodology, critical review of results, and guidance on structural dynamics and seismic analysis framework.Khatib Zada Farhan: Co-supervision, structural design review, assistance with interpretation of SBC-301 provisions, and manuscript revision and editing. References Aba-Husayn, M.M., Sayegh, A.H., 1977. Mineralogy of Al-Hasa desert soils (Saudi Arabia). Clays Clay Miner 25. https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1977.0250211 Abd-Elhamid, S.G., El-Tahawy, R.M.G.E., Fayed, M.N.E.-D., 2020. Dynamic Behavior of Multi-Story Concrete Buildings Based on Non-Linear Pushover & Time History Analyses. Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal 5, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj050219 Abdelrahman, K., Ibrahim, E., Qaysi, S., Mogren, S., Zaidi, F., Ghrefat, H., 2021. Evaluation of kinetic moduli and soil competence scale of soil profiles in Jizan area, southwestern Saudi Arabia. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06376-6 Ahamed, S., Kori, G., 2013. PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF AN UNSYMMETRICAL BUILDING USING PUSHOVER ANALYSIS, International Journal of Engineering Research-Online. Akash, Sinha, A.K., 2024. Nonlinear time history seismic performance of a base isolated vertically irregular reinforced concrete framed buildings for the near-pulsing ground vibrations. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 25, 5179–5195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-024-01105-w Almalki, K.A., Al Mosallam, M.S., Aldaajani, T.Z., Al-Namazi, A.A., 2022. Landforms characterization of Saudi Arabia: Towards a geomorphological map. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 112, 102945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2022.102945 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Building (FEMA 356). Federal Emergency Management Agency 1–518. Ardalani, A., Aydin, A.C., 2025. Nonlinear Seismic Performance Assessment of Energy-Based Steel Structures with Semi-Rigid Connections. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-024-01715-z Arfa, M., Awad, H.A., Abbas, H., Peláez, J.A., Sawires, R., 2024. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of the Southwestern Region of Saudi Arabia. Applied Sciences 14, 6600. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156600 Azodi, M., Banazadeh, M., Mahmoudi, A., 2022. Seismic performance assessment of high-rise steel moment frame building with Reinforced Concrete (RC) core wall based on nonlinear time history analysis. Research, Society and Development 11, e35711427464. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i4.27464 D’ayala, D.F., 2005. Force and Displacement Based Vulnerability Assessment for Traditional Buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 3, 235–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-1239-x Deng, Y., 2013. Non-Linear Time History Analysis of A Highly Horizontally Curved Bridge on Yerba Buena Island (YBI) WB On-Ramps, Bay Bridge, San Francisco, CA, in: Structures Congress 2013. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 502–513. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412848.045 Faiz, M., Kumar, R., 2023. Comparative Effectiveness of Equivalent Static Analysis & Response Spectrum Analysis in Extreme Seismic Zones, in: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Institute of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1110/1/012013 FEMA-356, n.d. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 356 / November 2000 PRESTANDARD AND COMMENTARY FOR THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS. Fnais, M., Al-Amri, A., Abdelrahman, K., Abdelmonem, E., El-Hady, S., 2015. Seismicity and Seismotectonics of Jeddah-Makkah Region, West-Central Saudi Arabia. Journal of Earth Science 26, 746–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-015-0587-y Fnais, M.S., Abdelrahman, K., E-Hady, Sh., Abdel-monem, E., 2013. Seismicity and seismotectonics of the Jeddah area, Saudi Arabia. pp. 219–232. https://doi.org/10.2495/ERES130181 Gamal Abd-Elhamid, S., Mohamed, R., Ebrahim El-Tahawy, G., Nour, M., Fayed, E.-D., n.d. Dynamic Behavior of Multi-Story Concrete Buildings Based On Non-Linear Pushover & Time History Analyses. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj050000 Harsha G, 214AD. Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft Storey Effect Using Pushover Analysis. Ijmer 4, 32–41. He, Z.-Z., Zhang, L.-X., Gao, H.-G., Wang, H.-S., Pan, P., 2023. Estimation of the displacement time history of high-rise building structures using limited measurement data and structural information. Mech Syst Signal Process 202, 110716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110716 Hosseini, M., Hashemi, B., Safi, Z., 2017. Seismic Design Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Near-Source Earthquakes by Using Nonlinear Time History Analyses. Procedia Eng 199, 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.225 Karimzadeh, S., Askan, A., Yakut, A., Ameri, G., 2017. Assessment of alternative simulation techniques in nonlinear time history analyses of multi-story frame buildings: A case study. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98, 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.04.004 Kumar Gupta, A., Hall, W.J., Edinburgh Melbourne, L., n.d. Response Spectrum Method In Seismic Analysis and Design of Structures. Mahmoud, S., Alsearheed, M., Abdallah, W., 2021. Seismic performance of high-rise buildings in selected regions in Saudi Arabia according to different seismic codes. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 20, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-021-2013-z Merino, R.J., Mucedero, G., Perrone, D., Monteiro, R., Aiello, M.A., Nascimbene, R., 2024. Estimation of consistent absolute acceleration and relative displacement floor response spectra in existing masonry-infilled reinforced concrete buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 22, 5083–5118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01961-6 Mishra, B., Singh, Dr.R., 2022. Non-Linear Time History Analysis of G+15 RC Frame Building with Shear Wall. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol 10, 1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.40818 Mwafy, A., Khalifa, S., 2017. Effect of vertical structural irregularity on seismic design of tall buildings. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 26, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1399 Nazar, S., Ismaeil, M.A., 2014. A Comparative Study on Seismic Provisions Made in UBC-1997 and Saudi Building Code for RC Buildings. International Journal of Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering 8, 454–460. Rajeev, A., Meena, N.K., Pallav, K., 2019. Comparative study of seismic design and performance of omrf building using indian, british, and european codes. Infrastructures (Basel) 4, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures4040071 Riza Ainul, H., Mohammed Sohaib, A., Samir A, A., 2014. Application of Pushover Analysis for Evaluating Seismic Performance of RC Building 3, 1657–1662. Sallam, A., 2002. Evaluation of some soils in Najd Plateau (Central region, Saudi Arabia). Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 1, 21–40. Saudi Building Code, S.-301-2018 E., Aziz, A., Saud, A., Prince, H.R.H., Bin, S., n.d. Gratitude In appreciation and gratitude to The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. Saudi Building Code, S.-304-2018 E., n.d. Saudi Loading Code SBC 301-CR Code Requirements. Sibayan, M.J.A., Bersamina, J.P.L., 2025. Application of Nonlinear Static Analysis and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis in Building Seismic Performance: A Review. pp. 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7766-2_11 The complete Saudi Arabia earthquake report (up-to-date 2024)., n.d. Zahran, H.M., Sokolov, V., Stewart, I.C.F., 2023. Seismic hazard assessment for areas of volcanic activity in western Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1862P Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6895957","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":486478937,"identity":"3ae3abf8-7055-4452-b971-8b04531ee250","order_by":0,"name":"Md Ashraful Hossain","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Abdulaziz University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Md","middleName":"Ashraful","lastName":"Hossain","suffix":""},{"id":486478938,"identity":"8f2036f8-64f1-4d38-b7dd-52cecccbb7ed","order_by":1,"name":"Aly Emam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Abdulaziz University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aly","middleName":"","lastName":"Emam","suffix":""},{"id":486478939,"identity":"47fc750e-a7e6-4e41-b05e-6518beadff2d","order_by":2,"name":"Khatib Zada Farhan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Abdulaziz University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Khatib","middleName":"Zada","lastName":"Farhan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-15 01:08:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6895957/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6895957/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":86934809,"identity":"57109cdc-77f6-4778-887b-3aa2ec22d8ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:32:39","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":37409,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePlan of the selected buildings: (a) regular moment-resisting frame, and (b) dual-system building plan.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/feee0b3bdd2bdb7d540add7c.png"},{"id":86934585,"identity":"091320ab-8c7c-4dce-8bbe-817d96e51ee0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:24:39","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":304280,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e3D model of the selected 10-story buildings: (a) regular moment-resisting buildings, and (b) dual-system building.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/c5cdb973647be8aad9bf7302.png"},{"id":86934587,"identity":"795e0981-e091-41b7-861f-f69969b038c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:24:39","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80886,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlowchart of design procedure in ETABS.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/fd45b6ca217518b1d4f30d93.png"},{"id":86933781,"identity":"35a8a3a6-da19-4c6a-95f3-032e462d07af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:16:39","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43017,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAvailable seismic analysis methods to assess the seismic performance of the buildings.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/04b03116dc9a6ce89cfcb624.png"},{"id":86933788,"identity":"febf0b0d-19f6-45b0-aeb0-db7571aa5355","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:16:39","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":72350,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSpectral acceleration of the selected earthquakes.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/73965fd9dab951ea693a006c.png"},{"id":86933786,"identity":"1f1a2602-f47a-4e1b-88de-2505bc6ef820","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:16:39","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":28261,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTop displacement for 10-story regular moment-resisting and dual-system buildings across various seismic zones.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eATD-Acceptable Top Displacement\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/5770dd99c522cfd7f90ac191.png"},{"id":86935888,"identity":"3e67b74c-764d-461f-9d2d-05a552047498","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:48:39","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79317,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInter-story drift comparison for 10-story buildings in Magna: (a) moment-resisting building, and (b) dual-system building.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/65f94fa1c278e5c0fda5b1cc.png"},{"id":86934589,"identity":"597c49ea-9293-40d8-b6c2-8a8464b5c554","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:24:39","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":78300,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInter-story drift comparison for 10-story buildings in Al-Bada: (a) moment-resisting building, and (b) dual-system building.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/d0e298f5804a083b9e5196ec.png"},{"id":86933789,"identity":"e619c9c6-ba7c-4a30-bb7b-7ca4d54aa976","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:16:39","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":75157,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInter-story drift comparison for 10-story buildings in Abu-Arish: (a) moment-resisting building, and (b) dual-system building.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/d97e5994e077c9bab664a71a.png"},{"id":86934810,"identity":"f0f5bdda-a61c-402f-a3f2-ca83a612db82","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-17 10:32:39","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":59224,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInter-story drift comparison for 10-story buildings in Medina: (a) moment-resisting building, and (b) dual-system building.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/d0f4ba0c368d97c78c76d479.png"},{"id":92693375,"identity":"2e761f39-75b4-4a0d-91e6-c23631263470","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-03 06:11:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1447183,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6895957/v1/d6155f37-390e-42ff-8d89-dd126717e26d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Non-Linear Time History Analysis-based Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings designed using Saudi Building Code 2018 Edition ","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn recent years, structural seismic resilience has become a critical concern in engineering practice, particularly in regions with evolving seismic codes such as Saudi Arabia. Although the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not in a high-seismic zone like Turkey or other regions globally, it nevertheless faces potential seismic hazards, particularly in the northwestern (Tabuk) and southwestern (Jizan) areas of the country (Riza Ainul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Saudi Arabia faces seismic risk due to its position along the Red Sea Rift, where the Arabian Plate diverges from the African Plate (Arfa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Fnais et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Zahran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This rifting process increases seismic hazard in the western part of the country. Over the past decade, 249 earthquakes, with magnitudes between 4.6 and 5.7, have occurred in various parts of Saudi Arabia, resulting in varying degrees of damage to structures, ranging from primary to nonstructural failures (Earthquake list in Saudi Arabia). To address these challenges, the Saudi Building Code (SBC) 301\u0026ndash;2018 edition has been updated and implemented to enhance the structural integrity of buildings and the safety of their occupants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 2018 editions of the Saudi Building Code, SBC-301, introduced significant changes, especially in its seismic and wind maps, as well as in the load combinations according to ASCE 7\u0026ndash;10. It is crucial to assess how these changes affect the structural integrity and safety of buildings during strong seismic events. There is a clear lack of research examining how the modifications in the 2018 editions contribute to building resilience in seismic situations. This gap highlights the necessity of understanding the impact of the current edition's changes on the structural integrity of buildings. The study uses nonlinear time history analysis to evaluate the impact of the 2018 revision to the Saudi Building Code (SBC-301) on the structural integrity and safety of buildings, especially concerning lateral loads (Seismic).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRapid urbanization and extensive infrastructure development in Saudi Arabia have increased the demand for structurally sound and seismically resilient buildings. To ensure public safety and structural stability, it is essential to evaluate how well buildings can withstand lateral seismic forces during strong earthquakes. This study assesses the seismic performance of buildings designed according to the Saudi Building Code (SBC) using Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NLTHA), a highly reliable method for capturing the true dynamic and nonlinear behavior of structures under realistic earthquake loading conditions. Through this approach, the research provides critical insights into the adequacy of SBC provisions in preventing structural collapse and minimizing damage. It also highlights potential vulnerabilities that are often overlooked by traditional linear or static analyses. The findings are expected to inform engineering practice, support evidence-based code development, and improve seismic risk mitigation strategies in Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Modeling and Design of Buildings","content":"\u003cp\u003eReinforced concrete moment-resisting and dual-system structures are very common type of reinforced concrete buildings in Saudi Arabia. The study focuses on 10-story moment-resisting and dual-system reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. The design of these RC structures followed the 2018 edition of the Saudi Building Code, SBC-301, considering four separate seismic zones in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Medina (low seismic zone), Abu-Arish (medium seismic zone), Al-Bada (medium-high seismic zone), and Magna (low seismic zone). The buildings under consideration were designed with a 150 mm-thick two-way slab system supported by beams in both directions. The floor height of the buildings was 3.2 m, which is the most common scenario in Saudi Arabia (Nazar \u0026amp; Ismaeil, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Strength, performance, integrity, and human comfort are essential requirements when designing a building to withstand gravitational and lateral forces, such as seismic and wind (Hosseini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mahmoud et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mwafy \u0026amp; Khalifa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Rajeev et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The required strength was achieved using reinforced concrete with a compressive strength of 40 MPa for columns, slabs, and beams, and reinforcement of 420 MPa yield strength. The soil profile was classified as class 'C,' as most of the soils in Saudi Arabia are sandy, have low cohesion, and have shallow to deep clay layers over rocks (Aba-Husayn and Sayegh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e; Abdelrahman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Almalki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sallam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ETABS software (version 17.0.1) was utilized for modeling and designing the representative buildings. The slabs of the buildings were modeled as two-way slabs using thin shell elements. The shear wall and coupling beam of the dual-system buildings were also modeled using thin shell elements. The properties of the T-beams were considered during the modeling of the beams. Flexural stiffness modifiers of 0.7 were applied to columns and shear walls, while 0.35 was assigned to beams and couplings to account for the cracked section properties. A modifier of 0.25 was used for slab sections. The selected buildings were designed rigorously according to the 2018 edition of SBC-301. To validate the design, several structural checks were performed, including story drift check, story overturning check, rebar percentage check, column PMM interaction check, torsional irregularity check, story displacement check, and member failure check. The over-design aspect was omitted to effectively assess the seismic performance of the structures. The architectural layout and 3D model of the representative buildings are illustrated in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The flowchart of the design procedure in the ETABS software is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Applied loads and load combinations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe dead and live load according to the SBC-301 was applied to the representative buildings during analysis and design. A uniform distribution of 6.0 kN/m2, including the self-weight of the structures and additional loads such as flooring and wall partitions, was considered. A load of 2.5 kN/m2 was applied to the floors, except for stair and exit ways, which were 5 kN/m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (Saudi Building Code, SBC-301- 2018 Edition; Saudi Building Code, SBC-304- 2018 Edition). The study applied the lateral loads, including seismic and wind loads, following the provisions of SBC-301, 2018 editions, which are illustrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The load combinations given in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, were applied during the design of the buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLoad combinations used in the structural design of the selected buildings according to SBC-301.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDead Load\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.4D\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDead Load\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Live Load\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.4D\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1.7L\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDead Load\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Live Load\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Wind Load\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.2D\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1.0W\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1.0L\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDead Load\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Wind Load\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.9D\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0W\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDead Load\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Live Load\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Seismic Load\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(1.2\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.2\u0026#119878;\u0026#119863;\u0026#119878;) \u0026#119863; +\u0026#120588;\u0026#119876;\u0026#119864; +\u0026#119871;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDead Load\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Seismic Load\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(0.9-0.2SDS) D\u0026plusmn; \u0026#120588;\u0026#119876;\u0026#119864;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5 for LL less than 5 kN/m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e and L\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.0 for LL 5kN/m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026#120588;=1.0 for SDC B and C\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026#120588;=1.3 for SDC D, E \u0026amp; F\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeismic and wind parameters used in the design of the buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSBC-301-2018\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eZone\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedina\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbu Arish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAl-Bada\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMagna\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRisk Category\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eR/Ωo/Cd\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.5/3/2.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4/3/4.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.5/3/5.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.5/3/5.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSs(g)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.200\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.500\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS1(g)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.060\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.245\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.260\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFa(g)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.200\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.200\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFv(g)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.700\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.700\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.555\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.540\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS\u003csub\u003eMS\u003c/sub\u003e(g)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.240\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.600\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS\u003csub\u003eM1\u003c/sub\u003e(g)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.102\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.170\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.381\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.400\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS\u003csub\u003eDS\u003c/sub\u003e (g)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.160\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.400\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.680\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.733\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS\u003csub\u003eD1\u003c/sub\u003e(g)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.113\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.254\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.267\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWind Speed, V(mph)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e108.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e108.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e115.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e115.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Seismic Performance Analysis Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere are two primary methodologies for assessing the seismic performance of buildings: static and dynamic analysis, each divided into linear and non-linear techniques (Ahamed and Kori, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Faiz and Kumar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kumar Gupta et al.). Figure shows the available seismic analysis methods 4. The materials in structures do not behave elastically during intense seismic events. Instead, they experience cracking, yielding, and plastic deformation. Non-linear time history analysis (NLTHA) accurately simulates these nonlinear behaviors, including the formation of plastic hinges, steel yielding, and significant deformations, which linear methods cannot model effectively (Abd-Elhamid et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Akash and Sinha, 2024; Azodi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Gamal Abd-Elhamid et al., n.d.; Sibayan and Bersamina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This study utilized NLTHA to thoroughly assess the seismic performance while accounting for the structures' non-linear behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNLTHA is an advanced seismic analysis method that significantly evaluates the dynamic response of structures. It simulates buildings' realistic, time-dependent, inelastic behavior under severe earthquakes, particularly when performance-based design is critical (Akash and Sinha, 2024; Ardalani and Aydin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). NLTHA identified both the global deformation, which is based on the buildings' inter-story drift (ISD) ratio, and local failures such as plastic hinge formation or beam-column joint (Azodi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Deng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Karimzadeh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mishra and Singh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The current study used the global deformation to assess the seismic integrity of the structures. The building\u0026rsquo;s seismic performance with NLTHA has been evaluated following the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA-356) criteria. In FEMA-356, performance levels are categorized as Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to SBC-301 and ASCE 7\u0026ndash;16 guidelines, a minimum of three ground motions should be used in NLTHA to obtain reliable results (SBC-301-2018 Edition. Ten ground motions with magnitudes ranging from 6.0 to 7.51 have been selected from the PEER ground motion database based on site class, fault proximity, and other factors to assess the seismic behavior of the structures accurately. Every selected earthquake is rigorously matched with the site\u0026rsquo;s Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) levels to ensure the most severe conditions the structure could meet. The specifications of the ten earthquakes and their spectral acceleration are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe specifications of the selected earthquake.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEarthquake Name\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvent- Station\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMagnitude\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDurations (s)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEpicentral Distances (k)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNorthridge-01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLA - Sepulveda VA Hospital\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.69\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCape Mendocino\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBunker Hill FAA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHector Mine\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeven Oaks Dam Project Office\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e66.95\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImperial Valley-06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNiland Fire Station\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKobe Japan\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMZH\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKocaeli Turkey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eManisa\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e162.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e300\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLanders\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHemet Fire Station\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMammoth Lakes-01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConvict Creek\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDinar Turkey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBursa\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e300\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImperial Valley-06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNiland Fire Station\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Seismic performance evaluation based on top displacement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe top displacement of buildings is a critical factor during seismic events, as it greatly affects the structural integrity and safety of occupants (D\u0026rsquo;ayala, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Seismic and wind loading exert lateral force on the structure, leading to the building's horizontal displacement. This lateral displacement of a structure depends on several factors, including structural height, structural system, fundamental period, seismic zone, and design category, wind map, exposure category, material properties, etc. High-rise structures tend to have much top displacement due to their increased flexibility (Merino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Moment-resisting frames and shear wall system buildings show different displacement characteristics, while the structures in higher seismic zones faced significant displacement due to seismic intensity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo specific guidelines for the allowable top displacement of structures are provided in international and national building codes such as the International Building Code (IBC,2021), ASCE 7, EC-8, and Saudi Building Code (SBC-301). However, these codes have clear guidelines about the inter-story drift, which is the relative displacement between two consecutive floors. Although ASCE 7, IBC, or EC8 do not explicitly define limits of H/500 or H/400 for top displacement due to wind and H/300 to H/250 for seismic displacement, especially in high-rise structures, engineers often apply the H/500 limit for acceptable top displacement for wind and H/250 to H/300 for displacement from seismic loading. This practice aims to prevent damage to cladding, wall partitions, facade elements, and occupants' comfort. In the study, the maximum displacement of the sample structure due to wind was not considered, as the impact of wind in Saudi Arabia is not significant. The research only focused on the displacement of the structure under seismic loading. As the study examined regular moment-resisting frames and dual system buildings, it considered H/250 as the acceptable top displacement limit to evaluate the structural integrity of the representative buildings. The 10-story buildings have heights of 32 m, which correspond to acceptable top displacements of 128 m.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evaluation of buildings' structural integrity based on top displacement obtained from NLTHA indicates that the top displacement of moment-resisting and dual-system buildings is far beyond the acceptable limit, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. The graph illustrates the comparison of buildings' maximum top displacement obtained during the NLTHA using ten seismic records across four seismic zones in Saudi Arabia. In all seismic zones, the 10-story DSB experienced lower displacements than the MRB due to the combination of beam-column and shear walls in the dual system. For instance, the top displacement in the Magna seismic zone reduced from 75.6mm in MRB to 45 mm in DSB, reflecting a reduction of nearly 40%. Similar trends are observed for other seismic zones, where the displacement reductions vary from 38\u0026ndash;45%. However, all top displacement values of both MRB and DSB remain well below the acceptable limit, suggesting both categories of buildings have better structural integrity, where the DSB seems to be more efficient in minimizing top displacements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Seismic performance evaluation based on inter-story drift (ISD) ratio\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe building's seismic performance with NLTHA has been assessed according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356 criteria. In FEMA-356, performance levels are classified as Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e outlines the damage limits associated with each performance level defined by FEMA-356. These limits indicate the extent of damage a structure may experience during seismic events, ranging from significant to minor. According to FEMA-356, the inter-story drift ratio is set at 1% for the IO level, 2% for the LS level, and 4% for the CP level. This study assesses the global performance of a selected earthquake to evaluate the structural integrity of buildings designed according to two editions of the Saudi Building Code.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStructural performance level (FEMA 356) (American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Harsha G, 2014; Rajeev et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePERFORMANCE LEVELS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSTRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNON-STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOperational (O)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMinimal damage. No drift.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMinor damage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImmediate Occupancy (IO)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMinor damage, significant original strength and rigidity, no permanent drift.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMinor damage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDrift Ratio\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLife Safety (LS)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdequate damage, some permanent drift to the structure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRisk of falling and significant damage to the system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDrift Ratio\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollapse Prevention (CP)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSevere damage, significant permanent drift, and likely collapse of the building.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal collapse.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDrift Ratio\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research conducted Non-linear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) on a 10-story moment-resisting building (MRB) and a dual-system building (DSB) to evaluate their performance during significant seismic events in both high and moderate to low seismic zones, focusing on the SBC-301. The findings indicated that both building types maintain sufficient structural integrity and safety during the analyzed seismic incidents. Although the structural components experienced minimal damage, non-structural elements such as wall partitions showed relatively more damage, particularly during intense seismic events.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe comparative results show that DSB consistently exhibited better structural integrity than MRB across all selected seismic regions. In medium-high and high seismic zones, MRB exceeded the Immediate Occupancy threshold when analyzed with 10 different seismic records. In contrast, the DSB consistently remained within the IO limit, showing only minimal damage during earthquakes with magnitudes between 6 and 7.5 on the Richter Scale. Overall, the NLTHA reveals that buildings designed according to the 2018 edition of SBC-301 demonstrate significant structural resilience. These buildings are anticipated to maintain adequate structural integrity, ensuring the safety of their occupants during major earthquakes while avoiding severe damage to their structural systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe integrity of buildings during seismic events is a critical concern in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This country is experiencing many low to moderate-intensity seismic events every year. The Saudi Building Code (SBC) authority underwent revisions in 2018 to enhance the integrity of the structures against lateral forces, especially during severe earthquakes. The study aimed to evaluate the seismic performance of buildings designed by the 2018 edition to withstand earthquakes of magnitude up to 7.5 on the Richter scale. The study focused on two representative 10-story building types: moment-resisting buildings (MRB) and dual-system buildings (DSB), which were rigorously designed following the SBC-301 provisions across different seismic regions in Saudi Arabia. NLTHA was employed as an independent tool to accurately evaluate the seismic performance, where the key parameters were top displacement and inter-story drift (ISD) ratio, which were evaluated against the FEMA-356 criteria.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the non-linear time history analysis, both DSB and MRB structures showed significant structural resilience when subjected to the selected seismic records, sustaining minimal damage during strong earthquakes. However, DSB structures consistently showed better structural integrity than MRB across all seismic zones, maintaining the inter-story drift ratio within the IO limit, while MRB regularly surpassed the IO limit in medium to high seismic regions. Additionally, DSB exhibited significantly lower top displacements compared to MRB, indicating enhanced seismic resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study finds that generally, structures built following the 2018 version of SBC-301 have significant structural integrity and can guarantee occupant safety during significant seismic events. Moreover, especially in higher seismic areas, the use of dual systems combining moment-resisting frames and shear walls greatly improves seismic performance. This study emphasizes the need of thorough seismic analysis and resilient structural design in the sustainable development of Saudi Arabia's built environment as well as the efficacy of the revised SBC-301 criteria.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe research received generous support from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at King Abdulaziz University. The department provided valuable assistance and resources, significantly contributing to the successful completion of this study, for which the authors are deeply thankful.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e This study was carried out without financial support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability:\u003c/strong\u003e The data will be available upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest:\u003c/strong\u003e This is to certify that the authors have no conflict of interest. The authors affirm the work\u0026apos;s originality and declare that they have no conflicting interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMd Ashraful Hossain: Conceptualization, methodology, modeling and simulation (ETABS and NLTHA), data analysis, manuscript writing, and visualization.Dr. Aly Emam: Supervision, validation of analysis methodology, critical review of results, and guidance on structural dynamics and seismic analysis framework.Khatib Zada Farhan: Co-supervision, structural design review, assistance with interpretation of SBC-301 provisions, and manuscript revision and editing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAba-Husayn, M.M., Sayegh, A.H., 1977. Mineralogy of Al-Hasa desert soils (Saudi Arabia). Clays Clay Miner 25. https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1977.0250211\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbd-Elhamid, S.G., El-Tahawy, R.M.G.E., Fayed, M.N.E.-D., 2020. Dynamic Behavior of Multi-Story Concrete Buildings Based on Non-Linear Pushover \u0026amp;amp; Time History Analyses. Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal 5, 143\u0026ndash;153. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj050219\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdelrahman, K., Ibrahim, E., Qaysi, S., Mogren, S., Zaidi, F., Ghrefat, H., 2021. Evaluation of kinetic moduli and soil competence scale of soil profiles in Jizan area, southwestern Saudi Arabia. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06376-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhamed, S., Kori, G., 2013. PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF AN UNSYMMETRICAL BUILDING USING PUSHOVER ANALYSIS, International Journal of Engineering Research-Online.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkash, Sinha, A.K., 2024. Nonlinear time history seismic performance of a base isolated vertically irregular reinforced concrete framed buildings for the near-pulsing ground vibrations. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 25, 5179\u0026ndash;5195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-024-01105-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlmalki, K.A., Al Mosallam, M.S., Aldaajani, T.Z., Al-Namazi, A.A., 2022. Landforms characterization of Saudi Arabia: Towards a geomorphological map. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 112, 102945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2022.102945\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmerican Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Building (FEMA 356). Federal Emergency Management Agency 1\u0026ndash;518.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArdalani, A., Aydin, A.C., 2025. Nonlinear Seismic Performance Assessment of Energy-Based Steel Structures with Semi-Rigid Connections. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-024-01715-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArfa, M., Awad, H.A., Abbas, H., Pel\u0026aacute;ez, J.A., Sawires, R., 2024. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of the Southwestern Region of Saudi Arabia. Applied Sciences 14, 6600. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156600\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAzodi, M., Banazadeh, M., Mahmoudi, A., 2022. Seismic performance assessment of high-rise steel moment frame building with Reinforced Concrete (RC) core wall based on nonlinear time history analysis. Research, Society and Development 11, e35711427464. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i4.27464\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD\u0026rsquo;ayala, D.F., 2005. Force and Displacement Based Vulnerability Assessment for Traditional Buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 3, 235\u0026ndash;265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-1239-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeng, Y., 2013. Non-Linear Time History Analysis of A Highly Horizontally Curved Bridge on Yerba Buena Island (YBI) WB On-Ramps, Bay Bridge, San Francisco, CA, in: Structures Congress 2013. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 502\u0026ndash;513. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412848.045\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaiz, M., Kumar, R., 2023. Comparative Effectiveness of Equivalent Static Analysis \u0026amp; Response Spectrum Analysis in Extreme Seismic Zones, in: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Institute of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1110/1/012013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFEMA-356, n.d. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 356 / November 2000 PRESTANDARD AND COMMENTARY FOR THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFnais, M., Al-Amri, A., Abdelrahman, K., Abdelmonem, E., El-Hady, S., 2015. Seismicity and Seismotectonics of Jeddah-Makkah Region, West-Central Saudi Arabia. Journal of Earth Science 26, 746\u0026ndash;754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-015-0587-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFnais, M.S., Abdelrahman, K., E-Hady, Sh., Abdel-monem, E., 2013. Seismicity and seismotectonics of the Jeddah area, Saudi Arabia. pp. 219\u0026ndash;232. https://doi.org/10.2495/ERES130181\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGamal Abd-Elhamid, S., Mohamed, R., Ebrahim El-Tahawy, G., Nour, M., Fayed, E.-D., n.d. Dynamic Behavior of Multi-Story Concrete Buildings Based On Non-Linear Pushover \u0026amp; Time History Analyses. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj050000\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarsha G, 214AD. Seismic Vulnerability of RC Building With and Without Soft Storey Effect Using Pushover Analysis. Ijmer 4, 32\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, Z.-Z., Zhang, L.-X., Gao, H.-G., Wang, H.-S., Pan, P., 2023. Estimation of the displacement time history of high-rise building structures using limited measurement data and structural information. Mech Syst Signal Process 202, 110716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110716\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHosseini, M., Hashemi, B., Safi, Z., 2017. Seismic Design Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Near-Source Earthquakes by Using Nonlinear Time History Analyses. Procedia Eng 199, 176\u0026ndash;181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.225\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarimzadeh, S., Askan, A., Yakut, A., Ameri, G., 2017. Assessment of alternative simulation techniques in nonlinear time history analyses of multi-story frame buildings: A case study. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98, 38\u0026ndash;53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.04.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar Gupta, A., Hall, W.J., Edinburgh Melbourne, L., n.d. Response Spectrum Method In Seismic Analysis and Design of Structures.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMahmoud, S., Alsearheed, M., Abdallah, W., 2021. Seismic performance of high-rise buildings in selected regions in Saudi Arabia according to different seismic codes. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 20, 179\u0026ndash;191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-021-2013-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMerino, R.J., Mucedero, G., Perrone, D., Monteiro, R., Aiello, M.A., Nascimbene, R., 2024. Estimation of consistent absolute acceleration and relative displacement floor response spectra in existing masonry-infilled reinforced concrete buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 22, 5083\u0026ndash;5118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01961-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMishra, B., Singh, Dr.R., 2022. Non-Linear Time History Analysis of G+15 RC Frame Building with Shear Wall. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol 10, 1074\u0026ndash;1083. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.40818\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMwafy, A., Khalifa, S., 2017. Effect of vertical structural irregularity on seismic design of tall buildings. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 26, 1\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1399\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNazar, S., Ismaeil, M.A., 2014. A Comparative Study on Seismic Provisions Made in UBC-1997 and Saudi Building Code for RC Buildings. International Journal of Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering 8, 454\u0026ndash;460.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRajeev, A., Meena, N.K., Pallav, K., 2019. Comparative study of seismic design and performance of omrf building using indian, british, and european codes. Infrastructures (Basel) 4, 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures4040071\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRiza Ainul, H., Mohammed Sohaib, A., Samir A, A., 2014. Application of Pushover Analysis for Evaluating Seismic Performance of RC Building 3, 1657\u0026ndash;1662.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSallam, A., 2002. Evaluation of some soils in Najd Plateau (Central region, Saudi Arabia). Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 1, 21\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaudi Building Code, S.-301-2018 E., Aziz, A., Saud, A., Prince, H.R.H., Bin, S., n.d. Gratitude In appreciation and gratitude to The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaudi Building Code, S.-304-2018 E., n.d. Saudi Loading Code SBC 301-CR Code Requirements.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSibayan, M.J.A., Bersamina, J.P.L., 2025. Application of Nonlinear Static Analysis and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis in Building Seismic Performance: A Review. pp. 129\u0026ndash;139. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7766-2_11\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe complete Saudi Arabia earthquake report (up-to-date 2024)., n.d.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZahran, H.M., Sokolov, V., Stewart, I.C.F., 2023. Seismic hazard assessment for areas of volcanic activity in western Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1862P\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Inter-story drift, non-linear time history analysis, structural integrity, seismic performance, Saudi Building Code SBC-301","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6895957/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6895957/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe structural integrity of a building is crucial in ensuring the safety of the structure and its inhabitants. Proper building design can withstand significant earthquake occurrences without catastrophic damage. This study investigates the seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings designed according to the 2018 edition of the Saudi Building Code (SBC-301), emphasizing the resilience of structures during strong earthquake events. The objective is to assess how effectively updated SBC-301 provisions enhance structural integrity under seismic loads. Using nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA), two representative 10-story structural systems\u0026mdash;moment-resisting buildings (MRB) and dual-system buildings (DSB)\u0026mdash;were modeled and analyzed across four seismic zones in Saudi Arabia: Medina, Abu-Arish, Al-Bada, and Magna, varying from low to high seismic risk. Ten ground motion records were applied to simulate realistic seismic demands. The seismic performance evaluation of the structures was based on top displacement and inter-story drift ratios, assessed according to FEMA-356 standards. Key findings reveal that both MRB and DSB structures maintain acceptable structural performance under seismic loading; however, DSB consistently outperforms MRB by limiting inter-story drift ratios below the Immediate Occupancy (IO) threshold defined in FEMA-356 and reducing top displacement by up to 45%. These results underscore the importance of dual systems in high-seismic zones for enhancing structural resilience. The study findings demonstrate that structures designed according to SBC-301 provisions can withstand significant seismic events without significant damage to the structural elements or their occupants.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Non-Linear Time History Analysis-based Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings designed using Saudi Building Code 2018 Edition","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-17 10:16:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6895957/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3a93c08e-c1b6-446c-97d0-8442901415e8","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-03T05:38:51+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-17 10:16:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6895957","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6895957","identity":"rs-6895957","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}