Skip to main content

Fundamental period of RC buildings with infill walls in Nepal

Abstract

The presence of infill walls in a building increases the stiffness and mass of the building leading to significant changes in the fundamental period. If this increase in stiffness is not considered, it may cause severe damages to the buildings during the earthquakes. This paper presents an analysis of the fundamental period of buildings considering the effect of infill walls. For this, a computer program was created to generate buildings with different configurations and calculate the fundamental period. It was found that besides the geometric parameters: number of stories and the height of the building, the bay span also had a significant effect on the fundamental period. Thus, a formula that takes into account those parameters was formulated for infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames. The building codes must take parameters like bay span and the presence of infill walls into account for estimating the fundamental period.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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

Code availability

The code of the program used for fundamental period calculation is available at a Github repository (https://github.com/bpanthi977/fundamental-period) of the author. Another repository has the code used for regression analysis and exploration of generated data. (https://github.com/bpanthi977/fundamental-period-workbook).

References

  1. Amanat, K., & Hoque, E. (2006). A rationale for determining the natural period of RC building frames having infill. Engineering Structures, 28(4), 495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and other Structures (ASCE Standard—ASCE/SEI) Provisions and Commentary. American Society of Civil Engineers.

  3. Aninthaneni, P., & Dhakal, R. (2016). Prediction of fundamental period of regular frame buildings. BBulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 49(2), 175–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Asteris, P., Repapis, C., Tsaris, A., Di Trapani, F., & Cavaleri, L. (2015). Parameters affecting the fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures. Earthquakes and Structures, 9(5), 999–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bureau of Indian Standards (2000). Indian Standard 456:2000: Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice. New Delhi, India

  6. Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016). Indian Standard 1893: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of earthquake structures-Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chopra, A.K., (2017). Dynamics of structures. Theory and applications to Earthquake Engineering.

  8. Crisafulli, F.J., (1997). Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, 1997.

  9. Crowley, H., & Pinho, R., (2006). Simplified equations for estimating the period of vibration of existing buildings. In First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (Vol. 1122).

  10. Dumaru, R., Rodrigues, H., Furtado, A., & Varum, H. (2016). Seismic vulnerability and parametric study on a bare frame building in Nepal. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2, 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eurocode 8 (EC8). (2004). Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.

  12. Goel, R. K., & Chopra, A. K. (1997). Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(11), 1454–1461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guler, K., Yuksel, E., & Kocak, A. (2008). Estimation of the fundamental vibration period of existing RC buildings in Turkey utilizing ambient vibration records. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(S2), 140–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hong, L., & Hwang, W. (2000). Empirical formula for fundamental vibration periods of reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 29(3), 327–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kose, M. (2009). Parameters affecting the fundamental period of RC buildings with infill walls. Engineering Structures, 31(1), 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. NBCC-2005. (2005). National Building Code of Canada 2005. National Research Council Canada.

  17. Nepal Building Code (NBC-105), (1994). Seismic design of buildings in Nepal. Kathmandu: Department of Building, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, Government of Nepal.

  18. Nepal Building Code (NBC-205), (1994). Mandatory rules of thumb: Reinforced concrete buildings without masonry infill. Kathmandu: Department of Building, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, Government of Nepal.

  19. Punmia, B.C., & Jain, A.K., (2007) Limit state design of reinforced concrete.

  20. Shrestha, R., & Karanjit, S. (2017). Comparative study on the fundamental period of RC buildings based on codal provision and ambient vibration test—a case study of Kathmandu valley. Journal of Science and Engineering, 4, 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

KBT conceived of the presented idea. PS carried out sample verification of buildings for member sizes using SAP2000. BP and PD wrote programming languages in LISP and MATLAB. BP made programs for the regression analysis, sensitivity analysis, and curve fitting in LISP. PD and PS conducted curve fitting and regression analysis in MATLAB and Excel. KBT supervised the findings of this work. BP, PD and PS wrote manuscript with the support from KBT. KBT reviewed the final manuscript and made subsequent corrections.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamal Bahadur Thapa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Sample calculation performed by the computer program

To elaborate on the method that the computer program uses, a sample calculation is presented here:

In the following steps, the fundamental period of the building with the below-mentioned geometry will be calculated.

Geometry

Number of stories (\(N = 3\)), story height (\(h = 3\)), bay span (\(B_{s} = 5\)) and two bays along each axis (\(B_{x} = 2,B_{y} = 2\)).

Member sizes and strength

Column size 0.3 m by 0.3 m, Beam Depth 0.500 m, Beam Width 0.300 m, Wall Thickness 0.230 m, Slab thickness 0.150 m, Column Elasticity \(5000\sqrt {25} {\text{MPa}} = 2.500*10^{10} {\text{Pa}}\), Wall Elasticity \(2.65*10^{9}\) Pa, Concrete Unit Weight 25 kN, Masonary Unit Weight 20 kN or Concrete Density = 2548.420 kg/m3 and Masonry Density = 2038.736 kg/m3.

Mass matrix

Mass calculation for Floor 1 and 2.

Total extra load of (3.5 kN/m2 = 356.779 kg/m2 (live load + floor finish)) on the floor is added on slab and subtracted from column and wall area.

  1. 1.

    Each column = 2548.420*0.300*0.300*2.850 − 356.779*0.300*0.300 = 621.560 kg

  2. 2.

    Columns total = 621.560*9 = 5594.04 kg

  3. 3.

    Each beam span = 2548.420*4.700*0.300*0.350 = 1257.645 kg

  4. 4.

    Beams total = 1257.645*12 = 15,091.74 kg

  5. 5.

    Each wall span = 2038.736*4.700*0.230*2.500 − 356.779*4.700*0.230 = 5124.006 kg

  6. 6.

    Walls total = 5124.006*12 = 61,488.072 kg

  7. 7.

    Slab = 2548.420*10.300*10.300*0.150 + 10.300*10.300*356.779 = 78,404.944 kg

Total mass = 160,578.796 kg.

And from the distribution of mass from the floor plan, the centroids and the mass moment of inertia about the centroid is calculated to be:

XC 5.000 X-coordinate of centroid
YC 5.000 Y-coordinate of centroid
MASS 160,578.798 Total mass
IXX 1,734,595.484 Moment of inertia along X-direction from the centroid
IYY 1,734,595.484 Moment of Inertia along Y-direction from the centroid
IPC 3,469,190.968 Polar Moment of Inertia

Mass calculation for 3rd floor

  • Each column = 2548.420*0.300*0.300*1.350 = 309.633

  • Each beam span = 2548.420*4.700*0.300*0.350 = 1257.645

  • Each wall = 2038.736*4.700*0.230*1.000 = 2203.874

  • Slab = 2548.420*10.300*10.300*0.150 + 10.300*10.300*0.000 = 40,554.283

MASS 84,879.207
IPC 1,838,611.448

Finally, we get the mass matrix:

160,578.798 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 160,578.7981 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 3,469,190.968 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 160,578.7981 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 160,578.7981 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,469,190.968 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84,879.2070 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84,879.2070 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,838,611.448

Stiffness matrix

  • Area moment of inertia of a column \(I_{c} = \frac{1}{12}0.3^{4}\) = 6.75*10–4

  • K of column = \(12\frac{{E_{c} I_{c} }}{{h^{3} }}\) = 75*105

Infill wall (length l = 5–0.3 = 4.7 m, height = 3–0.5 = 2.5 m).

  • \(L_{ds}\) = 5.323

  • \(\theta\) = 0.489

  • \(\alpha\) = 3.289

  • \(w_{ds}\) = 0.579

  • \(t_{ds} = \max \left( {\frac{h}{12},\frac{l}{12},\;b = 0.23} \right)\) = 0.392

  • Strut’s stiffness \(K = \frac{{t_{ds} w_{ds} E_{w} }}{{l_{ds} }}\cos^{2} \theta\) = 8.794*107

For a single frame in X-direction (single floor).

  • Stiffness from walls = 8.794*107*2 = 17.58*107

  • Stiffness from columns = 75*105 * 3 = 2.25 * 107

  • Total stiffness = \({k}_{1}={k}_{2}={k}_{3}=19.84*{10}^{7}\)

Local stiffness matrix (\(K_{lx1}\)).

396,755,259.2   − 198,377,629.6 0.0
 − 198,377,629.6 396,755,259.2  − 198,377,629.6
0.0  − 198,377,629.6 198,377,629.6

Local coordinate to the global coordinate transformation matrix \({A}_{x1}\) (for the first frame along X-axis).

1.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0

Finally, Stiffness matrix is obtained \(K = \sum \left[ {A_{xi}^{T} K_{lxi} A_{xi} + A_{yi}^{T} K_{lyi} A_{yi} } \right]\).

1,190,265,777.6 0.0  − 0.0000009537  − 595,132,888.8 0.0 0.00000047684 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1,190,265,777.6 0.0 0.0  − 595,132,888.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
 − 0.0000009537 0.0 39,675,525,920 0.00000047684 0.0  − 19,837,762,960 0.0 0.0 0.0
 − 595,132,888.8 0.0 0.00000047684 1,190,265,777.6 0.0  − 0.0000009537  − 595,132,888.8 0.0 0.00000047684
0.0  − 595,132,888.8 0.0 0.0 1,190,265,777.6 0.0 0.0  − 595,132,888.8 0.0
0.00000047684 0.0  − 19,837,762,960  − 0.0000009537 0.0 39,675,525,920 0.00000047684 0.0  − 19,837,762,960
0.0 0.0 0.0  − 595,132,888.8 0.0 0.00000047684 595,132,888.81 0.0  − 0.0000004768
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  − 595,132,888.8 0.0 0.0 595,132,888.81 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00000047684 0.0  − 19,837,762,960  − 0.0000004768 0.0 19,837,762,960

Once we have the stiffness and mass matrix we can solve the eigenvalue problem \(\left( {K - M\Omega^{2} } \right)\Phi = 0\).

  • Eigenvalues \(\left\{ {\omega_{i}^{2} } \right\}\) = 13,587.9, 7273.8, 974.4, 20,947.9, 11,212.6, 1502.0, 974.4, 13,587.9, 7273.8

  • Time-periods (sorted) \(T_{i} = 2\pi /\omega_{i}\) = 0.2012, 0.2012, 0.1621, 0.0736, 0.0736, 0.0593, 0.0539, 0.0539, 0.0434,

Hence, the fundamental period is 0.2012s.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panthi, B., Dahal, P., Shrestha, P. et al. Fundamental period of RC buildings with infill walls in Nepal. Asian J Civ Eng 22, 983–993 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-021-00359-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fundamental period
  • Seismic design
  • Infilled frames
  • Masonry wall
  • Nepali buildings
  • Computer modeling