Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic response of current RC buildings in Kathmandu Valley

  • Chaulagain, Hemchandra (Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro) ;
  • Rodrigues, Hugo (School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria) ;
  • Spacone, Enrico (University of Chieti-Pescara, Department PRICOS - Architettura) ;
  • Varum, Humberto (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto)
  • Received : 2014.04.14
  • Accepted : 2015.01.12
  • Published : 2015.02.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

RC buildings constitute the prevailing type of construction in earthquake-prone region like Kathmandu Valley. Most of these building constructions were based on conventional methods. In this context, the present paper studied the seismic behaviour of existing RC buildings in Kathmandu Valley. For this, four representative building structures with different design and construction, namely a building: (a) representing the non-engineered construction (RC1 and RC2) and (b) engineered construction (RC3 and RC4) has been selected for analysis. The dynamic properties of the case study building models are analyzed and the corresponding interaction with seismic action is studied by means of non-linear analyses. The structural response measures such as capacity curve, inter-storey drift and the effect of geometric non-linearities are evaluated for the two orthogonal directions. The effect of plan and vertical irregularity on the performance of the structures was studied by comparing the results of two engineered buildings. This was achieved through non-linear dynamic analysis with a synthetic earthquake subjected to X, Y and $45^{\circ}$ loading directions. The nature of the capacity curve represents the strong impact of the P-delta effect, leading to a reduction of the global lateral stiffness and reducing the strength of the structure. The non-engineered structures experience inter-storey drift demands higher than the engineered building models. Moreover, these buildings have very low lateral resistant, lesser the stiffness and limited ductility. Finally, a seismic safety assessment is performed based on the proposed drift limits. Result indicates that most of the existing buildings in Nepal exhibit inadequate seismic performance.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Eurasian University Network for International Cooperation in Earthquake (EU-NICE)

References

  1. Antoniou, S. and Pinho, R. (2006), "Development and verification of a displacement based adaptive pushover procedure", J. Earthq. Eng., 8(5), 643-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350504
  2. ATC-40 (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technical Council, California Seismic Safety Commission, Report No. SSC 96-01 (two volumes), Redwood City, California, US.
  3. Bilgin, H. (2013), "Fragility-based assessment of public buildings in Turkey", Eng. Struct., 56, 1283-1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.002
  4. Bracci, J.M., Kunnath, S.K. and Reinhorn, A.M. (1997), "Seismic performance, and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures", ASCE J. Struct. Eng., 123(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:1(3)
  5. BDCP (1994), Building Code Development Project: Seismic Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment for Nepal, UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat) Subproject: NEP/88/054/21.03, Min. Housing Phy., Planning, Kathmandu.
  6. Bernal, D. (1987), "Amplification factors for inelastic dynamic P-D effects in earthquake analysis", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15, 635-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290150508
  7. CBS, Nepal (2012), National population and Housing Census 2011, National Report, NPHC, Kathmandu.
  8. Chaulagain, H., Rodrigues, H., Jara, J., Spacone, E. and Varum, H. (2013), "Seismic response of current RC buildings in Nepal: a comparative analysis of different design/construction", Eng. Struct., 49, 284-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.10.036
  9. Chryssanthopoulos, M.K., Dymiotis, C. and Kappos, A.J. (2000), "Probabilistic evaluation of behaviour factors in EC8-designed R/C frames", Eng. Struct., 22(8),1028-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(99)00026-7
  10. Dundar, C. and Serkan, T.S (2012), "Strength of biaxially loaded high strength reinforced concrete columns", Struct. Eng. Mech., 44(5), 649-661. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2012.44.5.649
  11. Elnashai, A.S. and Elghazouli, A.Y. (1993), "Performance of composite steel/concrete members under earthquakemloading, Part I: analytical model", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 22, 315-345. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290220404
  12. Eurocode 8 (2005), Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, EN 1998-3, CEN, Brussels.
  13. FEMA-356 (2000), Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
  14. FEMA 273 (1996), NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 274, Commentary, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
  15. Filippou, F.C., Popov, E.P. and Bertero, V.V. (1983), Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints, Report EERC 83-19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
  16. Ghassemieh, M., Shamim, I. and Gholampour, A.A (2014), "Influence of the axial force on the behavior of endplate moment connections", Struct. Eng. Mech., 49(1), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2014.49.1.023
  17. Ghobarah, A. (2004), "On drift limits associated with different damage levels", Proceedings of the international workshop Bled, 28, Slovenia.
  18. Ghobaraha, A., Murat Saatcioglub, M. and Nistorb, I. (2006), "The impact of the 26 December 2004 earthquake and tsunami on structures and infrastructure", Eng. Struct., 28, 312-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.09.028
  19. Gupta, B. and Kunnath, S.K. (2000), "Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures", Earthq. Spectra,16(2), 367-91. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586117
  20. IS 1893 (Part1) (2002), Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, ManakBhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi.
  21. IS 13920 (1993), Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected to Seismic Force, Bureau of Indian Standards, ManakBhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
  22. JICA (2002), The Study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in the Kathmandu Valley Kingdom of Nepal, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Ministry of Home Affairs, His Majesty's Government of Nepal.
  23. Kazem, S.K., Tarbali, K. and Mohtasham Mohebbi, M. (2012), "An adaptive modal pushover procedure for asymmetric-plan buildings", Eng. Struct., 36, 160-172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.032
  24. Macrae, G.A. (1994), "Effects on single-degree-of-freedom structures in earthquakes", Earthq. Spectra, 10, 539-68. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585788
  25. Madas, P. and Elnashai, A.S. (1992), "A new passive confinement model for the analysis of concrete structures subjected to cyclic and transient dynamic loading", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21, 409-431. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290210503
  26. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1988), "Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete", J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804-1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
  27. Maria, P., Verderame, G.M. and Gaetano, M. (2011), "Static vulnerability of existing R.C. buildings in Italy: a case study", Struct. Eng. Mech., 39(4), 599-620. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2011.39.4.599
  28. Mehani, Y., Bechtoula, H., Kibboua, A. and Mounir Naili, M. (2013), "Assessment of seismic fragility curves for existing RC buildings in Algiers after the 2003 Boumerdes earthquake", Struct. Eng. Mech., 46(6), 791-808. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2013.46.6.791
  29. Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P.E. (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", Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland.
  30. Martinez-Rueda, J.E. (1997), "Energy dissipation devices for seismic upgrading of RC structures", PhD Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, London, UK.
  31. Moragaspitiya, H.N.P., Thambiratnam, D.P., Perera, N.J. and Chan, T.H.T (2014), "Use of vibration characteristics to predict the axial deformation of columns", Struct. Eng. Mech., 50(1), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2014.50.1.073
  32. NBC-205 (1994), Nepal National Building Code, HMG/Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, Department of Building.
  33. NSET (1999), Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Action Plan, NSET and GHI.
  34. Papaila, A. (2011), "Seismic fragility curves for reinforced concrete buildings", MSc Thesis, University of Patrax, Patras, Greece.
  35. Parajuli, H.R. (2009), "Dynamic analyses of low strength masonry houses based on site specific earthquake ground motions", PhD Thesis, Department of Urban Management, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Japan.
  36. Rana, B.S.J.R. (1935), Great earthquake of Nepal, Nepali Edition.
  37. Rodrigues, H., Varum, H., Arede, A. and Costa, A. (2013), "Behavior of reinforced concrete column under biaxial cyclic loading-state of the art", Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng., 5(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/2008-6695-5-1
  38. Rodrigues, H., Arede, A., Varum, H. and Costa, A. (2012), "Experimental evaluation of rectangular reinforced concrete column behaviour under biaxial cyclic loading", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(2), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2205
  39. Roger, B., Gaur, V. and Molnar, P. (2001), "Earthquakes: Himalayan seismic hazard", Science, 293(5534), 1442-1444. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062584
  40. Rossetto, T. and Elnashai, A. (2003), "Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data", Eng. Struct., 25(10), 1241-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00060-9
  41. SEAOC (1995), Performance based seismic engineering of buildings, Vision 2000, Vols. I and II: Conceptual Framework, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
  42. Silva, V. (2013), "Development of open models and tools for seismic risk assessment: application to Portugal", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aveiro, Portugal.
  43. SeismoSoft (2006), "Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed Structure", online available URL: http//www.seismosoft.com.
  44. Takizawa, H. and Aoyama, H. (1976), "Biaxial effects in modeling earthquake response of RC structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 4, 523-552. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290040602
  45. Thapa, N. (1988), Bhadau Panch Ko Bhukampa (in Nepali), Central Disaster Relief Committee, Nepal.
  46. UNDP/ Nepal (1994), Seismic Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment for Nepal, His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, UNDP/ UNCHS (Habitat) Subproject Nep/88/054.
  47. UNDP (2010), Recommendations for construction of Earthquake Safer Buildings-Earthquake Risk Reduction and Recovery Preparedness Programme for Nepal, UNDP/ ERRRP-Project: NEP/07/010, Department of Urban Development and Building Construction, Babarmahal, Kathmandu.
  48. Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. (2003), "Tests to structural collapse of single degree of freedom frames subjected toearthquake excitation", J. Struct. Eng., 129,1676-85. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:12(1676)
  49. Wibowo, A., Wilson, J.L., Lam, N.T.K and Gad, E.F. (2014), "Drift performance of lightly reinforced concrete columns", Eng. Struct., 59, 522-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.11.016
  50. Yeats, R.S. and Lillie, R.J. (1991), "Contemporary tectonics of the Himalayan frontal fault system: folds, blind thrusts and the 1905 Kangra earthquake", J. Struct. Geol., 13, 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8141(91)90068-T

Cited by

  1. Seismic Damage to Structures in the 2015 Nepal Earthquake Sequences vol.21, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1185055
  2. Field investigation on the performance of building structures during the April 25, 2015, Gorkha earthquake in Nepal vol.121, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.04.043
  3. Reconnaissance report on geotechnical and structural damage caused by the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, Nepal vol.55, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2015.09.006
  4. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame buildings in Bhutan based on fuzzy probability analysis vol.92, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.11.004
  5. The 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha Earthquake in Nepal and its aftershocks: analysis of strong ground motion vol.15, pp.7, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0084-z
  6. Seismic Strengthening of Deficient Reinforced Concrete Frames Using Reinforced Concrete Haunch pp.0889-3241, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14359/51710874
  7. Establishment of unit generation rates of building debris in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, after the Gorkha earthquake vol.20, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0731-8
  8. Estimation of response reduction factor of RC frame staging in elevated water tanks using nonlinear static procedure vol.62, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2017.62.2.209
  9. Seismic performance of RC frames retrofitted with haunch technique vol.67, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2018.67.1.001
  10. Seismic performance of RC frames retrofitted with haunch technique vol.67, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2018.67.1.001
  11. Haunch retrofitting technique for seismic upgrading deficient RC frames vol.17, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00638-9
  12. Response Modification Factor of RC Frames Strengthened with RC Haunches vol.2020, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3835015
  13. Global Seismic Fragility Functions for Low-Rise RC Frames with Construction Deficiencies vol.2020, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3174738
  14. Response Modification Factor of Haunch Retrofitted Reinforced Concrete Frames vol.34, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001525