Seismic fragility assessment of revised MRT buildings considering typical construction changes

doi:10.1007/s11709-019-0560-4

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

2020, Vol. 14

Issue (1): 241-266 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0560-4

本期目录

Seismic fragility assessment of revised MRT buildings considering typical construction changes

Rakesh DUMARU¹, Hugo RODRIGUES²(

), Humberto VARUM¹

¹. CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculty of Engineering (FEUP), University of Porto, Porto 4200-465, Portugal
². RISCO, School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria 2411-901, Portugal

全文: PDF(6122 KB) HTML

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.

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

收稿日期: 2018-08-07 出版日期: 2020-02-21

Corresponding Author(s): Hugo RODRIGUES

引用本文:

. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2020, 14(1): 241-266.
Rakesh DUMARU, Hugo RODRIGUES, Humberto VARUM. Seismic fragility assessment of revised MRT buildings considering typical construction changes. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 241-266.

链接本文:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-019-0560-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2020/V14/I1/241

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Fig.3

Tab.2

beam	storey	at support	at mid-span
	1st	$3 Φ 16 2 Φ 16 + 1 Φ 12$	$2 Φ 16 2 Φ 16$
	2nd	$2 Φ 12 + 1 Φ 16 2 Φ 12 + 1 Φ 16$	$2 Φ 12 2 Φ 12$
	3rd	$2 Φ 12 2 Φ 12$	$2 Φ 12 2 Φ 12$
	1st	$3 Φ 16 2 Φ 16 + 1 Φ 12$	$2 Φ 16 2 Φ 16$
	2nd	$2 Φ 12 + 1 Φ 16 3 Φ 12$	$2 Φ 12 2 Φ 12$
	3rd	$2 Φ 12 2 Φ 12$	$2 Φ 12 2 Φ 12$
typical beam cross-section illustrating top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement

Tab.3

material	material properties	characteristics
steel	yield strength, f_y	415 MPa
	Young’s modulus, E_s	200 GPa
	Poisson’s ratio, n_s	0.3
	unit weight, ?s	78.5 kN/m³
concrete	compressive strength, f_ck	20 MPa
	Young’s modulus, E_c	$5000 f c k$ MPa
	Poisson’s ratio, n_c	0.2
	unit weight, ?c	24 kN/m³
masonry infill walls	compressive strength, f_bc	7.5 N/mm2
	Young’s modulus, E_b	2400 MPa
	Poisson’s ratio, n_b	0.15
	diagonal compressive strength, f_d	2.3 N/mm²
	tensile strength, f_t	0.575 N/mm²
	unit weight, ?_b	17 kN/m³

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Tab.7

Fig.7

Tab.8

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

Fig.18

Fig.19

Fig.20

Fig.21

Fig.22

Fig.23

Fig.24

Fig.25

Fig.26

Fig.27

Fig.28

1	R J Mainstone. Summary of paper 7360. On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1971, 49(2): 230 https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1971.6267
2	R J. Mainstone On the Stiffnesses and Strengths of Infilled Frames. Building Research Station, 1974
3	R Zarnic, M Tomazevic. 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	J B Mander, B Nair, K Wojtkowski, J Ma. An Experimental Study on the Seismic Performance of Brick-Infilled Steel Frames with and without Retrofit. Technical Report NCEER-93-0001, 1993
5	A B Mehrabi, P Benson Shing, M P Schuller, J L Noland. Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1996, 122(3): 228–237 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:3(228)
6	F J. Crisafulli Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Canterbury: University of Canterbury, 1997
7	A Pinto, H Varum, J. Molina 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	R Dumaru, H Rodrigues, A Furtado, H Varum. Seismic vulnerability and parametric study on a bare frame building in nepal. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2016, 2: 31 https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2016.00031
9	H Chaulagain. Seismic assessment and retrofitting of existing buildings in Nepal. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Aveiro: University of Aveiro, 2015
10	H Chaulagain, H Rodrigues, E Spacone, H Varum. Seismic safety assessment of existing masonry infill structures in Nepal. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2016, 15(2): 251–268 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-016-0320-6
11	H Varum. Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of existing buildings. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Aveiro: University of Aveiro, 2003
12	M Holmes. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Proceedings of the Institution of civil Engineers, 1961, 19, 473–478
13	M Holmes. Combined loading on infilled frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1963, 25(1): 31–38 https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1963.10685
14	V Bertero, S Brokken. Infills in seismic resistant building. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1983, 109(6): 1337–1361 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1983)109:6(1337)
15	D Gautam, H Rodrigues, K K Bhetwal, P Neupane, Y Sanada. Common structural and construction deficiencies of Nepalese buildings. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2016, 1(1): 1–18
16	T Pokharel, H Goldsworthy. 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	D Gautam, H Chaulagain. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.06.002
18	G O Nepal. Post Disaster Needs Assessment. Sector Reports. 2015
19	M Shakya, C K Kawan. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.10.003
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	H Chaulagain, H Rodrigues, J Jara, E Spacone, H Varum. Seismic response of current RC buildings in Nepal: A comparative analysis of different design/construction. Engineering Structures, 2013, 49: 284–294 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.10.036
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	N Vu-Bac, T Lahmer, X Zhuang, T Nguyen-Thoi, T Rabczuk. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.06.005
27	K M Hamdia, M Silani, X Zhuang, P He, T Rabczuk. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-017-0210-6
28	Seismosoft. SeismoStruct-A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed Structures. 2004
29	E Smyrou, C Blandon, S Antoniou, R Pinho, F Crisafulli. 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9262-6
30	H Rodrigues, H Varum, A Arêde, A Costa. 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-012-0141-1
31	J B Mander, M J Priestley, R Park. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988, 114(8): 1804–1826 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
32	J E Martínez-Rueda, A Elnashai. Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Materials and Structures, 1997, 30(3): 139–147 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02486385
33	P Madas, A Elnashai. 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290210503
34	M Menegotto, P Pinto. 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	J Bauschinger. Variations in the elastic limit of iron and steel. Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 1887, 12: 442–444
36	A Furtado, H Rodrigues, A Arêde, H Varum, M Grubišić, T K Šipoš. Prediction of the earthquake response of a three-storey infilled RC structure. Engineering Structures, 2018, 171: 214–235 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.054
37	R Pinho, A Elnashai. Dynamic collapse testing of a full-scale four storey RC frame. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 2000, 37: 143–163
38	H Rodrigues, A Furtado, N Vila-Pouca, H Varum, A R Barbosa. Seismic assessment of a school building in Nepal and analysis of retrofitting solutions. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 2018, 16(11): 1573–1589 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0297-9
39	H Varum, A Furtado, H Rodrigues, J Dias-Oliveira, N Vila-Pouca, A Arêde. 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9999-z
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	T Rossetto, A Elnashai. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Engineering Structures, 2003, 25(10): 1241–1263 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00060-9
43	A Ghobarah. On drift limits associated with different damage levels. In: International workshop on performance-based seismic design, 2004
44	L Macedo, M Araújo, J Castro. 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	T D Ram, G Wang. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in Nepal. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2013, 12(4): 577–586 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0191-z
46	S. Shrestha Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Kathmandu city, Nepal. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, 2014, 2(1): 24–33
47	B Subedi, H R Parajuli. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Nepal. In: Proceedings of IOE Graduate Conference, 2016, 265–270

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed