| 1 |
 |
“...Assessment of a School Building in Nepal and Analysis of Retrofitting Solutions
Hugo Rodrigues* 1 • Andre Furtado2 • Nelson Vila-Pouca2 • Humberto Varum2 • Andre R. Barbosa3
Received:25 September 2017 /Revised: 21 February 2018 / Accepted:27 February 2018 © Iran University of Science and Technology 2018
Abstract
Recent earthquakes highlighted the vulnerability of some infilled reinforced concrete structures due to the presence and distribution of the infill masonry walls. Buildings such as school buildings and residential buildings are typically not designed considering the contribution of the infill panels to the structure strength and stiffness, when these are subjected to earthquakes. The lack of consideration of the infill panel results in observed poor performance and structural collapses. This manuscript presents a numerical study of a school in Nepal, representative of those existent in the country. Non-linear numerical analyses were carried out to assess the seismic vulnerability in terms...”
|
|
| 2 |
 |
“...urban growth of the number of RC buildings was observed in Nepal. Consequently, notorious difficulties of the government in implementing building design codes accounting for seismic loads and/or the contribution of the infill masonry walls to the response has been lacking in Nepal. It is worth noting that most of the residential buildings and some important buildings, such as schools or government buildings were not designed according to the most recent seismic design codes. The lack of planning and structural knowledge by the structural designers and community at the time when these buildings were designed resulted in the construction of vulnerable structures when exposed to intense seismic ground shaking due to earthquakes [11].
Shaky a and Kawan [12] reported that most of the damaged RC buildings, after the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, were identified to be non-engineered buildings. According to Gautam et al. [13] and Varum et al. [14], the non-engineered buildings are built spontaneously following...”
|
|
| 3 |
 |
“...Rodrigues H, Jara J, Spacone E, Varum H (2013) Seismic response of current RC buildings in Nepal: a comparative analysis of different design/construction. Eng Struct 49: 284-294
25. Eurocode 8 (2003) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1-1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, B. European Committee for Standardization, Belgium
26. Rossetto T, Elnashai A (2003) Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Eng Struct 25 (10): 1241-1263
27. V. Seaoc (1995) Performance based seismic engineering of buildings,” Sacramento (CA): Structural Engineers Association of California, USA
28. F. E. M. A. FEMA-273, (1997) NEHRP Guidelines For The Seismic Rehabilitation Of Buildings. Applied Technology Council, Washington, DC
29. IS 1893-1 (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1: general provisions and buildings [CED 39: Earthquake Engineering]
30. Araujo M, Macedo L, Marques M, Castro JM...”
|
|
