Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic fragility assessment of revised MRT buildings considering typical construction changes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculty of Engineering (FEUP), University of Porto, Porto, 4200-465, Portugal

    Rakesh Dumaru & Humberto Varum

  2. RISCO, School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, 2411-901, Portugal

    Hugo Rodrigues

Authors
  1. Rakesh Dumaru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hugo Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Humberto Varum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugo Rodrigues.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dumaru, R., Rodrigues, H. & Varum, H. Seismic fragility assessment of revised MRT buildings considering typical construction changes. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 14, 241–266 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0560-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0560-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation