''Heritage buildings are often subjected to loading conditions that they were not exposed to in their earlier life span. Induced earthquakes in non-seismic regions caused by energy exploitation activities, or strains in the ground that are caused by the climate changes, are new phenomena that alter the usual loading situations for historical buildings.In this paper, monitoring results of a historical building in Groningen (Netherlands) in case of induced seismicity as well as climate change effects has been presented. Long-term monitoring results, detected cracks and relevance of the monitoring data are discussed. In the special case of Groningen, weak and agricultural soil properties dominate the structural response in the region. The gas extraction activities caused a soil subsidence in the giant Groningen Gas Field, resulting decameters of settlement in the entire area, thus an increase of the ground water level in respect to the ground surface. This is the reason why the heritage structures in the region are more vulnerable to soil-water-foundation interactions caused by climate change as compared to the time these heritage structures were constructed. The ground water monitoring as well as the interaction of soil movements with the structural response become important. The study presented here suggests ways on how to effectively monitor historical structures subjected to induced seismicity as well as harsh climate effects at the same time.It was shown here that the newly developed cracks on the structure were detected in a very narrow time window, coinciding with extreme drought and a small induced earthquake at the same time. One explanation provided here is that the soil parameters, such as shrinking of water-sensitive soil layers, in combination with small earthquakes, may cause settlements. The soil effects may superimpose with the earthquake effects eventually causing small cracks and damage. The effects of the climate change on historical buildings is rather serious, and structures on similar soil conditions around the world would need detailed monitoring of not only the structure itself but also the soil-foundation and ground water conditions.''
During the 2015 Gorkha earthquake of 7.8 Mw that hit Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, numerous Nepalese Pagodas suffered extensive damage while others collapsed. Risk reduction strategies implemented in the region focused on disassembling historical structures and rebuilding them with modern material without in depth analysis of why they suffer damage and collapse. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of low-cost, low-intervention, reversible repair and strengthening options for the Nepalese Pagodas. As a case study, the Jaisedewal Temple, typical example of the Nepalese architectural style, was investigated. A nonlinear three-dimensional finite element model of the Jaisedewal Temple was developed and the seismic performance of the temple was assessed by undertaking linear, nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analyses. Also, different structural intervention options, suggested by local engineers and architects working in the restoration of temples in Nepal, were examined for their efficacy to withstand strong earthquake vibrations. Additionally, the seismic response of the exposed foundation that the Nepalese Pagodas are sitting on was investigated. From the results analysis, it was found that pushover analysis failed to capture the type of failure which highlights the necessity to perform time-history analysis to accurately evaluate the seismic response of the investigated temple. Also, stiffening the connections along the temple was found to enhance the seismic behaviour of the temple, while strengthening the plinth base was concluded to be insignificant. Outputs from this research could contribute towards the strategic planning and conservation of multi-tiered temples across Nepal and reduce their risk to future earthquake damage without seriously affecting their beautiful architectural heritage.
I was somewhat surprized with the fog in Groningen upon my arrival. This is notthe fog that covers the beautiful landscapes of the northern Netherlands in theevening and in the early morning. No… It is the fog that obscures the real aspectsof the earthquake problem in the region and is crystallised in the phrase “Groningen earthquakes are different”, which I have encountered numerous times whenever I raised a question of the type “But why..?”. A sentence taken out of the quiver as the absolute technical argument which mysteriously overshadows the whole earthquake discussion.Q: Why do we not use Eurocode 8 for seismic design, instead of NPR?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!Q: Why do we not monitor our structures like the rest of the world does?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!Q: Why does NPR, the Dutch seismic guidelines, dictate some unusual rules?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!Q: Why are the hazard levels incredibly high, even higher than most Europeanseismic countries?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!and so it keeps going…This statement is very common, but on the contrary, I have not seen a single piece of research that proves it or even discusses it. In essence, it would be a difficult task to prove that the Groningen earthquakes are different. In any case it barricades a healthy technical discussion because most of the times the arguments converge to one single statement, independent of the content of the discussion. This is the reason why our first research activities were dedicated to study if the Groningen earthquakes are really different. Up until today, we have not found any major differences between the Groningen induced seismicity events and natural seismic events with similar conditions (magnitude, distance, depth, soil etc…) that would affect the structures significantly in a different way.Since my arrival in Groningen, I have been amazed to learn how differently theearthquake issue has been treated in this part of the world. There will always bedifferences among different cultures, that is understandable. I have been exposed to several earthquake engineers from different countries, and I can expect a natural variation in opinions, approaches and definitions. But the feeling in Groningen is different. I soon realized that, due to several factors, a parallel path, which I call “an augmented reality” below, was created. What I mean by an augmented reality is a view of the real-world, whose elements are augmented and modified. In our example, I refer to the engineering concepts used for solving the earthquake problem, but in an augmented and modified way. This augmented reality is covered in the fog I described above. The whole thing is made so complicated that one is often tempted to rewind the tape to the hot August days of 2012, right after the Huizinge Earthquake, and replay it to today but this time by making the correct steps. We would wake up to a different Groningen today. I was instructed to keep the text as well as the inauguration speech as simple aspossible, and preferably, as non-technical as it goes. I thus listed the most common myths and fallacies I have faced since I arrived in Groningen. In this book and in the presentation, I may seem to take a critical view. This is because I try to tell a different part of the story, without repeating things that have already been said several times before. I think this is the very reason why my research group would like to make an effort in helping to solve the problem by providing different views. This book is one of such efforts.The quote given at the beginning of this book reads “How quick are we to learn: that is, to imitate what others have done or thought before. And how slow are we to understand: that is, to see the deeper connections.” is from Frits Zernike, the Nobel winning professor from the University of Groningen, who gave his name to the campus I work at. Applying this quotation to our problem would mean that we should learn from the seismic countries by imitating them, by using the existing state-of-the-art earthquake engineering knowledge, and by forgetting the dogma of “the Groningen earthquakes are different” at least for a while. We should then pass to the next level of looking deeperinto the Groningen earthquake problem for a better understanding, and alsodiscover the potential differences.
