Abstract
Unreinforced Masonry (URM) is the most common partitioning material in framed buildings in India and many other countries. Although it is well-known that under lateral loading the behavior and modes of failure of the frame buildings change significantly due to infill-frame interaction, the general design practice is to treat infills as nonstructural elements and their stiffness, strength and interaction with the frame is often ignored, primarily because of difficulties in simulation and lack of modeling guidelines in design codes. The Indian Standard, like many other national codes, does not provide explicit insight into the anticipated performance and associated vulnerability of infilled frames. This paper presents an analytical study on the seismic performance and fragility analysis of Indian code-designed RC frame buildings with and without URM infills. Infills are modeled as diagonal struts as per ASCE 41 guidelines and various modes of failure are considered. HAZUS methodology along with nonlinear static analysis is used to compare the seismic vulnerability of bare and infilled frames. The comparative study suggests that URM infills result in a significant increase in the seismic vulnerability of RC frames and their effect needs to be properly incorporated in design codes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
ACI Committee 530 (2005), Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, ACI 530-05/ASCE 5-05/TMS 402-05, Masonry Standards Joint Committee: U.S.A.
ASCE (2006), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, (ASCE/SEI 7-05), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE (2007), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-06), American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, Virginia.
ATC (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC-40, Vol. 1), Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
Barbat AH, Pujades LG, and Lantada N (2006). “Performance of Buildings under Earthquakes in Barcelona, Spain,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 21(8): 573–593.
BIS (1987a), IS: 875 (Part 1)-1987 Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
BIS (1987b), IS: 875 (Part 2)-1987 Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
BIS (1993), IS: 13920 (1993) Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces — Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.
BIS (2000), IS 456 (2000) Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice (Fourth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
BIS (2002), IS 1893 (Part 1)-2002 Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Vélez LF and Crowley H (2006). “Development of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies over the Past 30 Years,” ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 43(3): 75–104.
FEMA (2003), HAZUS-MH MR1, Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
FEMA (2006a), HAZUS-MH MR2, Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
FEMA (2006b), Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures (FEMA 440), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
Sahota MK and Riddington JR (2001). “Experimental Investigation into Using Lead to Reduce Vertical Load Transfer in Infilled Frames,” Engineering Structures, 23(1): 94–101.
SAP2000 (2010), CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000 (2010), Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California.
Singh H, Paul DK and Sastry VV (1998). “Inelastic Dynamic Response of Reinforced Concrete Infilled Frames,” Computers & Structures, 69(6): 685–693.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haldar, P., Singh, Y. & Paul, D.K. Effect of URM infills on seismic vulnerability of Indian code designed RC frame buildings. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 11, 233–241 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-012-0113-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-012-0113-5