Seismic fragility assessment of revised MRT buildings considering typical construction changes

Abstract

The present study investigates the vulnerability assessment of the prototype revised Mandatory Rule of Thumb (MRT) buildings initially designed and detailed for three storeys bare frame building; later modified through variable number of storeys (three, four, and five) and different arrangement of infill walls (bare frame, soft-storey, irregular infilled, and fully infilled). The application of infill walls increases the fundamental frequencies, stiffness, and maximum strength capacity, but reduces the deformation capability than the bare frame building. The vulnerability was also reduced through infill walls, where the probability of exceeding partial-collapse and collapse damage reduced by 80% and 50%, respectively. Furthermore, the increased in storeys (three to five) also increases the failure probability, such that partial-collapse and collapse for fully infilled increases by almost 55% and 80%, respectively. All obtained results and discussions concluded that the structural sections and details assigned for MRT building is not sufficient if considered as bare frame and soft-storey. And increase in number of storeys causes building highly vulnerable although the infill walls were considered.

Keywords

mid-rise buildings / revised NBC 205: 2012 / masonry infill walls / configurations of infill walls / vulnerability assessment and inter-storey drift

References

[1] Mainstone R J. Summary of paper 7360. On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1971, 49(2): 230

[2] Mainstone R J. On the Stiffnesses and Strengths of Infilled Frames. Building Research Station, 1974

[3] Zarnic R, Tomazevic M. An experimentally obtained method for evaluation of the behavior of masonry infilled RC frames. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1988, 163–168

[4] Mander J B, Nair B, Wojtkowski K, Ma J. An Experimental Study on the Seismic Performance of Brick-Infilled Steel Frames with and without Retrofit. Technical Report NCEER-93-0001, 1993

[5] Mehrabi A B, Benson Shing P, Schuller M P, Noland J L. Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1996, 122(3): 228–237

[6] Crisafulli F J. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Canterbury: University of Canterbury, 1997

[7] Pinto A, Varum H, Molina J. Experimental assessment and retrofit of full-scale models of existing RC frames. In: Advances in Earthquake Engineering for Urban Risk Reduction. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006, 353–367

[8] Dumaru R, Rodrigues H, Furtado A, Varum H. Seismic vulnerability and parametric study on a bare frame building in nepal. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2016, 2: 31

[9] Chaulagain H. Seismic assessment and retrofitting of existing buildings in Nepal. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Aveiro: University of Aveiro, 2015

[10] Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Spacone E, Varum H. Seismic safety assessment of existing masonry infill structures in Nepal. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2016, 15(2): 251–268

[11] Varum H. Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of existing buildings. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Aveiro: University of Aveiro, 2003

[12] Holmes M. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Proceedings of the Institution of civil Engineers, 1961, 19, 473–478

[13] Holmes M. Combined loading on infilled frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1963, 25(1): 31–38

[14] Bertero V, Brokken S. Infills in seismic resistant building. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1983, 109(6): 1337–1361

[15] Gautam D, Rodrigues H, Bhetwal K K, Neupane P, Sanada Y. Common structural and construction deficiencies of Nepalese buildings. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2016, 1(1): 1–18

[16] Pokharel T, Goldsworthy H. Lessons Learned from the Nepal Earthquake 2015. In: Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building an Earthquake Resilient Pacific. Sydney, 2015

[17] Gautam D, Chaulagain H. Structural performance and associated lessons to be learned from world earthquakes in Nepal after 25 April 2015 (M W 7.8) Gorkha earthquake. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2016, 68: 222–243

[18] Nepal G O. Post Disaster Needs Assessment. Sector Reports. 2015

[19] Shakya M, Kawan C K. Reconnaissance based damage survey of buildings in Kathmandu valley: An aftermath of 7.8 Mw, 25 April 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2016, 59: 161–184

[20] NBC 205:1994. Mandatory Rules of Thumb, Reinforced Concrete Buildings without Masonry Infill. HMG/Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, Department of Building, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1994

[21] NBC 205:2012. Mandatory Rules of Thumb, Reinforced Concrete Buildings without Masonry Infill. HMG/Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, Department of Building, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2012

[22] NBC 201:1994. Mandatory Rules of Thumb, Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Masonry Infill. HMG/Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, Department of Building, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1994

[23] Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Jara J, Spacone E, Varum H. Seismic response of current RC buildings in Nepal: A comparative analysis of different design/construction. Engineering Structures, 2013, 49: 284–294

[24] IS1893, B. I. S. Indian Standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures (part 1): General provisions and buildings. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2002

[25] NBC 105:1994. Mandatory Rules of Thumb, Reinforced Concrete Buildings without Masonry Infill. HMG/Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, Department of Building, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1994

[26] Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31

[27] Hamdia K M, Silani M, Zhuang X, He P, Rabczuk T. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227

[28] Seismosoft. SeismoStruct-A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed Structures. 2004

[29] Smyrou E, Blandon C, Antoniou S, Pinho R, Crisafulli F. Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2011, 9(5): 1519–1534

[30] Rodrigues H, Varum H, Arêde A, Costa A. Comparative efficiency analysis of different nonlinear modelling strategies to simulate the biaxial response of RC columns. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2012, 11(4): 553–566

[31] Mander J B, Priestley M J, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988, 114(8): 1804–1826

[32] Martínez-Rueda J E, Elnashai A. Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Materials and Structures, 1997, 30(3): 139–147

[33] Madas P, Elnashai A. A new passive confinement model for the analysis of concrete structures subjected to cyclic and transient dynamic loading. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1992, 21(5): 409–431

[34] Menegotto M, Pinto P. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: IABSE Congress Reports of the Working Commission, 1973

[35] Bauschinger J. Variations in the elastic limit of iron and steel. Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 1887, 12: 442–444

[36] Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H, Grubišić M, Šipoš T K. Prediction of the earthquake response of a three-storey infilled RC structure. Engineering Structures, 2018, 171: 214–235

[37] Pinho R, Elnashai A. Dynamic collapse testing of a full-scale four storey RC frame. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 2000, 37: 143–163

[38] Rodrigues H, Furtado A, Vila-Pouca N, Varum H, Barbosa A R. Seismic assessment of a school building in Nepal and analysis of retrofitting solutions. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 2018, 16(11): 1573–1589

[39] Varum H, Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Dias-Oliveira J, Vila-Pouca N, Arêde A. Seismic performance of the infill masonry walls and ambient vibration tests after the Ghorka 2015, Nepal earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 15(3): 1185–1212

[40] FEMA-273. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington DC: The Agency, 1997

[41] SEAOC. V. Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Sacramento: Structural Engineers Association of California, 1995

[42] Rossetto T, Elnashai A. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Engineering Structures, 2003, 25(10): 1241–1263

[43] Ghobarah A. On drift limits associated with different damage levels. In: International workshop on performance-based seismic design, 2004

[44] Macedo L, Araújo M, Castro J. Assessment and calibration of the Harmony Search algorithm for earthquake record selection. In: Proceedings of the Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2013

[45] Ram T D, Wang G. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in Nepal. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2013, 12(4): 577–586

[46] Shrestha S. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Kathmandu city, Nepal. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, 2014, 2(1): 24–33

[47] Subedi B, Parajuli H R. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Nepal. In: Proceedings of IOE Graduate Conference, 2016, 265–270

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2019 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature