Bhutan locates in a high seismicity region but has no seismic design code of its own. Recent devastating earthquake in Nepal, which is located in the same region as Bhutan and with similar construction types, raises the concern on the seismic safety of building structures in Bhutan. This study is aimed at assessing the performance of masonry-infilled and soft storey reinforced concrete frame buildings in Bhutan under the 475- and 2475-year return period ground motions predicted from the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. A nonlinear strut model is used to model the infill wall, and the influence of openings and soil–structure interaction are considered in the analyses. The result suggests that the masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frame buildings in Bhutan could suffer repairable and irreparable damages under the 475-year return period ground motions and severe damages and even collapse under the 2475-year return period ground motion. The buildings with the soft storey are found to be more vulnerable than the normal masonry-infilled reinforced concrete buildings. The design recommendation of Indian Seismic Code improves the performance of soft storey buildings but cannot fully negate the soft storey effect. This study is the first such effort in assessing the performance of general building stocks in the high seismicity Bhutan. The results can guide the seismic strengthening options and can be used for further loss predictions for seismic preparedness of the country.
ACI 318-14 (2014) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Detroit, MI: American Concrete Institute.
2.
Al-ChaarG (2002) Evaluating strength and stiffness of unreinforced masonry infill structures. Report no. ERDC/CERL-TR-02-1, January. Illinois, US: Engineer Research and Development Centre Champaign, US Army Corps of Engineers.
3.
ASCE/SEI 41-13 (2014) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.
4.
AsterisPGAntoniouSSophianopoulosD. (2011) Mathematical macromodeling of infilled frames: state of the art. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE137(12): 1508–1517.
5.
AsterisPGGiannopoulosIPChrysostomouCZ (2012) Modeling of infilled frames with openings. The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal6(1): 81–91.
6.
ATC-40 (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete building volume 1.
7.
BanerjeePBürgmannR (2002) Convergence across the northwest Himalaya from gap measurements. Geophysical Research Letters29(13): 30-1–30-4.
CrisafulliFJCarrAJParkR (2000) Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures: a general review. Bulletin-New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering33(1): 30–47.
10.
DaweJSeahC (1988) Lateral load resistance of masonry panels in flexible steel frames. In: 8th International brick and block masonry conference, Dublin, Ireland, 19–21 September, pp. 606–616. London: Elsevier Applied Science.
11.
DecaniniLLiberatoreLMollaioliF (2012) The influence of openings on the seismic behaviour of infilled framed structures. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, 24–28 September.
12.
DolšekMFajfarP (2002) Mathematical modelling of an infilled RC frame structure based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics31(6): 1215–1230.
13.
DolšekMFajfarP (2008) The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame – a deterministic assessment. Engineering Structures30(7): 1991–2001.
14.
DorjiJ (2009) Seismic performance of brick infilled RC frame structures in low and medium rise buildings in Bhutan. Master’s Degree Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
15.
DurraniAJLuoY (1994) Seismic retrofit of flat-slab buildings with masonry infills. Technical Report, National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, San Francisco, CA, 1March1994, pp. 1–8.
Eurocode-8 (2002) Design of structures for earthquake resistance – part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
18.
FardisMPanagiotakosTB (1997) Seismic design and response of bare and masonry-infilled reinforced concrete buildings. Part II: infilled structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering1(3): 475–503.
19.
FEMA-274 (1997) NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
20.
FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
21.
GhobarahA (2004) On drift limits associated with different damage levels. In: International workshop on performance-based seismic design, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 28 June–1 July.
22.
HaoHTashiC (2012) Earthquake ground motion prediction and its influence on building structures in Bhutan. In: 12th international symposium on structural engineering, Wuhan, China, 17–19 November 2012.
23.
HaseltonCB (2008) Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings. Report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
24.
HaseltonCBDeierleinG (2006) Toward the codification of modelling provisions for simulating structural collapse. In: 8th national conference on earthquake engineering (100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference), San Francisco, CA, 18–22 April, pp. 18–22.
25.
HaseltonCBGouletCAMitrani-ReiserJ. (2008) An assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete moment-frame building. Report no. 2007/12, August. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre.
26.
HolmesM (1961) Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers19(4): 473–478.
27.
IbarraLFMedinaRAKrawinklerH (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34(12): 1489–1511.
28.
IS-1893 (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures.
29.
KaushikHBRaiDCJainSK (2007) Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering19(9): 728–739.
30.
KaushikHBRaiDCJainSK (2009) Effectiveness of some strengthening options for masonry-infilled RC frames with open first story. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE135(8): 925–937.
31.
MainstoneR (1974) Supplementary Note on the Stiffness and Strength of Infilled Frames. 2nd ed.London: Institution of Civil Engineers, pp. 57–90.
32.
MondalGJainSK (2008) Lateral stiffness of masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames with central opening. Earthquake Spectra24(3): 701–723.
33.
MurtyCJainSK (2000) Beneficial influence of masonry infill walls on seismic performance of RC frame buildings. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 January–4 February.
34.
NegroPColomboA (1997) Irregularities induced by non-structural masonry panels in framed buildings. Engineering Structures19(7): 576–585.
35.
NegroPVerzelettiG (1996) Effect of infills on the global behaviour of RC frames: energy considerations from pseudo dynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics25(8): 753–773.
36.
NegroPVerzelettiGMagonetteG. (1994) Test on a four storey full scale RC frame designed according to Eurocode 8 and 2. Preliminary report, Joint Research Center, Ispra.
37.
PanagiotakosTBFardisMN (1996) Seismic response of infilled RC frames structures. In: 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 23–28 June.
38.
PanagiotakosTBFardisMN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Structural Journal98(2): 135–148.
39.
PEER-ATC-71-71 (2010) Modelling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings.
SattarSLielAB (2010) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame structures with and without masonry infill walls. In: 9th US National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada, 25–29 July.
42.
ŠipošTKSigmundV (2014) Damage assessment of masonry infilled frames. In: 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, 24–29 August.
43.
SmithBSCarterC (1969) A method of analysis for infilled frames. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers44: 31–48.
44.
SmyrouE (2006) Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames. Master’s Degree Thesis, ROSE School, Pavia.
45.
SmyrouEBlandonCAntoniouS. (2011) Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering9(5): 1519–1534.
46.
ThinleyKHaoHTashiC (2014) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in Bhutan. In: Australian earthquake engineering society 2014 conference, Lorne, VIC, Australia, 21–23 November.
47.
UNDP (2006) Report on Thimphu valley earthquake risk management program. Report, Standards and Quality Control Authority, Ministry of Works and Human Settlement, Thimphu, Bhutan.
48.
Vision 2000 (1995) Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Sacramento, CA: Structural Engineers Association of California.
49.
WallingMYMohantyWK (2009) An overview on the seismic zonation and micro zonation studies in India. Earth-Science Reviews96(1): 67–91.
50.
WilsonJLamNRodsinK (2008) Collapse modelling of soft storey buildings. In: Australian structural engineering conference (ASCE), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 26–27 June.
