Substandard reinforced concrete (RC) building stocks continue to pose a major seismic risk in earthquake-prone regions. While fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) jacketing has been widely demonstrated as an effective retrofitting technique at the member level, its rational application at a large scale requires rapid yet reliable decision-making tools. In this study, the accuracy and applicability of a rapid FRP retrofitting framework integrated into the PERA2019 performance-based seismic assessment methodology are evaluated through a detailed investigation of five actual representative existing RC buildings. For each building, seismic performance before and after FRP retrofitting was evaluated using both the PERA2019 procedure and detailed nonlinear pushover analyses, which served as benchmark solutions. In addition, the framework was validated against the results of a full-scale experimental study reported in the literature. The results indicate that PERA2019 provides seismic safety ratio estimates that are in satisfactory agreement with detailed analysis outcomes. Buildings classified as A class by PERA2019 were consistently shown to satisfy the corresponding controlled damage performance target in detailed analyses, whereas buildings failing to reach A class did not meet this target. A comparison with the experimental results further demonstrated that the framework accurately captured the relative performance improvement achieved through FRP retrofitting and remained on the safe side of the observed structural response. Overall, the findings confirm that the proposed methodology can reliably distinguish buildings that can be effectively upgraded using FRP jacketing from those requiring alternative interventions. The framework provides a computationally efficient and practically applicable tool for large-scale seismic risk mitigation and prioritization of FRP retrofitting strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aydoğdu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: