## 6 Conclusions
The PGA values were calculated as 0.38-1.14 g for the probability of exceedance of 2%; 0.19-0.65 g for the 10% probability of exceedance; 0.07-0.28 g for the 50% probability of exceedance; and 0.05-0.18 g for the 68% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the provincial centers, according to the updated seismic hazard map. These discrepancies were caused by seismicity elements specific to the locations, the characteristics of fault or fault group, the distance from the fault or fault groups, and the earthquake history of the region, which are used in the updated code. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that calculation of the earthquake building parameters with site-specific analyses is the most important benefit of the updated code. Therefore, the behaviors of structures under an earthquake's effects can be obtained more accurately. Even in the same earthquake zone and same ground conditions, differences between the current and previous methods were obtained for the spectral acceleration coefficients. The design spectral acceleration coefficient (\(\text{S}_{\text{DS}}\)) for the ZA local soil type was lower than the previous code for the Agrn, Ardahan, Bitlis, Elazig, Hakkari, Igdr, Kars, Malatya, Mus, Tunceli, and Van provinces. Higher values were found for the Bingol, Erzincan, and Erzurum provinces than the previous one. In the ZE local soil class type, while lower values were obtained in the Hakkari and Bitlis provinces, higher values were obtained for other provinces. The percentages of change between TSDC-2007 and TBEC-2018 in the design spectral acceleration coefficient (\(\text{S}_{\text{DS}}\)) were 29% in Bingol for the ZE local soil type for the short period and 50% for Erzurum. While the spectral acceleration values in the previous code were the same for all soil classes in the same earthquake zones, they had different values for each local soil class and each geographical location with the current seismic design code. The current code takes into account both the local ground conditions and site-specific seismicity parameters. This reveals the importance of site-specific earthquake parameters. Structural analyses were performed using the same design spectrum curve for Bingol, Bitlis, Erzincan, Hakkari, Malatya, and Mus, which are in the first-degree earthquake hazard zone, and Agrn, Ardahan, Elazig, Erzurum, Igdr, Kars, Tunceli, and Van, which are in the second-degree earthquake hazard zone in the previous hazard map. Therefore, the obtained values took on the same values for these provinces in the same earthquake hazard zone. Different results were obtained for all provinces in the region in the updated code and seismic hazard map. The necessity of site-specific seismicity calculations emerged once again. The target displacements were lower than the values predicted in TSDC-2007 for the Bitlis, Hakkari, Malatya, Mus, Agrn, Ardahan, Igdr, Kars and Van provinces. The values obtained for Bingol, Erzincan, Elazig, Erzurum, and Tunceli were higher than the values of TSDC-2007. The same target displacements were obtained in the same earthquake hazard zone in the previous seismic hazard map. However, the values obtained through the updated code were different for all of these provinces. As the PGA value increased, the demands for target displacement expected from the structure also increased when the ground motion increased, and more significant displacement of the structure was expected. Four different earthquake ground motion levels were taken into account with TBEC-2018, while only one earthquake ground motion level was taken into account in TSDC-2007. Bingol, which had the highest PGA value in the region, was chosen as an example in order to reveal the effect of different earthquake ground motion levels on the building performance. For DD-1, which is the largest earthquake motion level, the expected target displacement values from the structure took on the largest values. The target displacements decreased as the earthquake repetition period decreased.