Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of infill masonry type on seismic safety of RC frame structures in Nepal

  • Technical paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Buildings with masonry infills are most common building typology in Nepal. These structures have significantly increased the collapse rate during earthquakes because of its complex nonlinear material behaviour. In fact, infill masonry walls are considered as non-structural elements during seismic design. This leads to inaccurate prediction of seismic performance of the buildings. Present codes unfortunately do not adequately address the analysis and design procedures of infilled frame structures. There was a negligible research work carried out addressing the effect of infill materials during seismic excitation. So, it is the prime concern in Nepalese context where variation in infill materials is considered during building construction in different localities. To this end, the effect of infill materials namely: solid concrete block masonry (INSB), brick masonry and hollow concrete block masonry (INHB) is investigated through nonlinear static pushover and dynamic time history analysis. The results are compared and analysed based on fundamental time period, lateral resistance capacity, lateral stiffness, inter-storey (IS) drift and trends of energy dissipation of infill materials. Study results highlighted that all the infill materials significantly increase the global strength and stiffness of structures; it decreases the inter-storey drift. Structures with solid concrete infill (INSB) have nearly double the lateral stiffness compared to hollow concrete infills (INHB). Finally, seismic safety of structure is studied based on drift limit purposed by standard international guidelines, showing that infill material types significantly modify the performance of structure.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Silva V (2016) Seismic safety assessment of existing masonry infill structures in Nepal. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 16(2):251–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Giardini G, Grunthal K, Shedlock ZP (1999) The GSHAP global seismic hazard map. Annali Di Deofisica. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Upreti BN (2015) Causes, Consequences and Future Earthquake Disaster in Nepal-insights from the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake. Department of Geology, School of Mines, University of Zambia

  4. USGS (2015) Gorkha Earthquake M7.8–36 km E of Khudi, Nepal: General Summary web page. United States Geological Survey

  5. NPC (2015) Nepal Earthquake 2015 Post disaster needs assessment. Government of Nepal, Nepal Planning Commission, Kathmandu (Vol A)

  6. Korkmaz KA, Demir F, Sivri M (2007) Earthquake assessment of R/C structures with masonry infill walls. Int J Sci Technol 2(2):155–164

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pujol S, Fick D (2010) The test of a full-scale three-story RC structure with masonry infill walls. Eng Struct 32(10):3112–3121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.05.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baranaure M, Ghita AM, Stoica DN (2016) Influence of the infill panel masonry type on the seismic behavior of a reinforced concrete structure. Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016(14):319–331

    Google Scholar 

  9. Crisafulli F, Carr A (2007) Proposed macro-model for the analysis of infilled frame structure. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 40(2):69–77

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2002) Mathematical modelling of an infilled RC frame structure based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 31(6):1215–1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Centeno J, Ventura C, Foo S, Lara O (2008) Seismic performance of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames with unreinforced masonry infill walls. In: Proc Structures Congress 2008: Crossing Borders. 2008; 1–13. Reston, VA: ASCE

  12. Mondal G, Jain SK (2008) Lateral stiffness of masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames with central opening. Earthq Spectra 24:701–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Celarec D, Ricci P, Dolšek M (2012) The sensitivity of seismic response parameters to the uncertain modelling variables of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames. Eng Struct 35:165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rajeev P, Tesfamariam S (2017) Effects of vertical irregularities and construction quality in seismic fragilities for reinforced concrete buildings. Int J Earthq Impact Eng 2(1):1–31. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIE.2017.083704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shing PB, Stavridis A, Koutromanos I, Willam K, Blackard B, Kyriakides MA, Billington SL, Arnold S (2010) Seismic performance of non-ductile RC frames with brick infill. In: Goodno B (ed) Proc improving the seismic performance of existing buildings and other structures. ASCE, Reston, VA, pp 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1061/41084(364)102

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Pires F (1990) Influeˆncia das paredes de alvenaria no comportamento de estruturas de beta˜o armado sujeitas a ac¸o˜es horizontais. LNEC

  17. Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Silva V (2014) Design procedures of reinforced concrete framed buildings in Nepal and its impact on seismic safety. Adv Struct Eng 17(10):1419–1442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nayak CB, Thakare SB (2019) Seismic performance of existing water tank after condition ranking using non-destructive testing. Int J Adv Struct Eng 11(4):395–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40091-019-00241-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ezirim ON, Chinwe U, Okpoechi CU (2020) Community-driven development strategy for sustainable infrastructure. J Hum Earth Future 1(2):48–59. https://doi.org/10.28991/HEF-2020-01-02-01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. NRA (2019) Hollow Concrete Blocks Manual for Load bearing structures for houses that have been under the housing reconstruction Programme. Government of Nepal National Reconstruction Authority Singhadurbar, Kathmandu

  21. IS 2185 (Part-1) (2005) Concrete masonry specifications, Part 1- Solid and hollow concrete blocks. Bureau of Indian Standards, ManakBhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi

  22. IS 1077 (1992) Common Burnt Clay building Bricks-Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards, ManakBhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi

  23. Elnashai AS (2001) Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Struct Eng Mech 12(1):51–69. https://doi.org/10.12989/SEM.2001.12.1.051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Khanal B, Chaulagain H (2020) Seismic elastic performance of L-shaped building frames through plan irregularities. Structures 27:22–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2007) Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings. Eng Struct 2007(29):305–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kare V, Nayak CB, Jagadale U, Jagadale U, Deulkar W (2020) Earthquake. Earthquake response of 3d frames with strap footing considering soil structure interaction. Techno-Societal, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9976-7_7

  27. Nayak CB, Sayyad SU, Khartode RR, Jagadale UT, Morkhade SG (2021) A parametric analysis of adjacent elevated service reservoir with structural coupling at various locations. Seism Hazards Risk. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9976-7_7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. ATC-40 (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technical Council, California Seismic Safety Commission, Report No. SSC 96– 01. Redwood City, California, US

  29. FEMA 356 (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  30. Li JH, Su RKL, Chandler AM (2003) Assessment of low-rise building with transfer beam under seismic forces. Eng Struct 25:1537–1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nayak CB (2021) A state-of-the-art review of vertical ground motion (VGM) characteristics, effects, and provisions. Innov Infrastruct Sol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00491-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Carvalho EC, Coelho E, Campos Costa A (1999) Preparation of the full-scale tests on reinforced concrete frames—Characteristics of the test specimens, materials and testing conditions. ICONS report, Innovative Seismic Design Concepts for New and Existing Structures, European TMR Network—LNEC, Lisbon

  33. Shaha PC, Kamatchi P, Nayak CB (2018) Effect of vertical ground motions on the response of long span roof truss. In: Conference: 16th symposium on earthquake engineering December 20–22, At: IIT Roorkee, India

  34. Nayak CB, Thakare SB (2017) Analysis and retrofitting of elevated water tank in Pune district: by Uttarkashi earthquake. J Eng Technol 6:201–211

    Google Scholar 

  35. SeismoStruct (2020) A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structure. http//www.seismosoft.com

  36. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1998) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Martinez-Rueda JE (1997) Energy dissipation devices for seismic upgrading of RC structures. PhD Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, London, UK

  38. Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY (1993) Performance of composite steel/concrete members under earthquake loading, part I: analytical model. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 22:315–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Menegotto M, Pinto PE (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: Symposium on the resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well-defined repeated loads. Zurich, Switzerland: International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. 15–22

  40. Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV (1983) Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behaviour of reinforced concrete joints. Report EERC 83–19. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California

  41. Crisafulli FJ (1997) Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Masonry Infills. PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

  42. Smyrou E, Blandon C, Antoniou S, Pinho R, Crisafulli F (2011) Implementation and Verification of a Masonry Panel Model for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Infilled RC Frames. Bull Earthq Eng 9(6):1519–1534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pinho R, Elnashai AS (2000) Dynamic collapse testing of a full-scale four storey RC frame. ISET J Earthq Eng Spec Issue Exp Tech 37(4):143–164

    Google Scholar 

  44. Newmark & Hall (1982) Earthquake spectra and design, engineering monograph. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  45. Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM (2002) Overstrength and force reduction factor of multi story reinforced concrete building. Struct Des Tall Struct Build 11(5):329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tasligedik AS (2014) Damage mitigation strategies for non-structural infill walls. PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the School of Engineering, Pokhara University, for providing the platform to conduct this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science and Technology, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Pokhara-30, Kaski, Nepal

    Hemchandra Chaulagain & Ram Giri

Authors
  1. Hemchandra Chaulagain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ram Giri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hemchandra Chaulagain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaulagain, H., Giri, R. Impact of infill masonry type on seismic safety of RC frame structures in Nepal. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 7, 158 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-022-00759-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-022-00759-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation