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.
The lack of in-depth understanding of the seismic behavior and ductility of precast concrete structures makes it difficult to reach to ductility demand which could be exhibited during an earthquake. The limitations are mainly related to the beam-to-column connections as the main load transfer paths. Two distinct exterior beam-column connections made of normal-strength concrete are investigated experimentally. Both dry and wet type installment techniques are used in the industrial type joints while the residential type joints are wet connections. The specimens are subjected cyclic displacement reversals in order to obtain information on strength, stiffness and ductility characteristics of the connection details. The preliminary design of the joints has been updated during the tests based on the damages observed, thus a set of improved specimens have also been built and tested, and a relatively better performance is obtained expectedly. The industrial and residential types of connections showed stable load-displacement cycles with high energy dissipation up to structural drift of 2%, though a significant level of pinching and deterioration of the critical section have occurred at around 3% drift level. The tested specimens have been numerically modeled to calibrate the analytical tools, and a satisfactory approximation has been obtained between experimental and numerical results.
LINK
Energy dissipative steel cushions (EDSCs) are simple units that can be used to join structural members. They can absorb a substantial amount of seismic energy due to their geometric shapes and the ductile behavior of mild steel. Large deformation capability and stable hysteretic behavior were obtained in monotonic and cyclic tests of EDSCs in the framework of the SAFECLADDING project. Discrete numerical modeling strategies were applied to reproduce the experimental results. The first and second models comprise two-dimensional shell elements and one-dimensional flexural frame elements, respectively. The uncertain points in the preparation of the models included the mesh density, representation of the material properties, and interaction between contacting surfaces. A zero-length nonlinear link element was used in the third attempt in the numerical modeling. Parameters are recommended for the Ramberg–Osgood and bilinear models. The obtained results indicate that all of the numerical models can reproduce the response, and the stiffness, strength, and unloading and reloading curves were fitted accurately.
Project goals: Come up with solutions for combined seismic strengthen- ing and sustainability measures based on social boundary conditions Gain insight in homeowners' willingness to move into action for sustainability measures Explore and expand the role of local energy cooperatives in the strengthening operation and sustainability measures. Using a bottom-up approach by co-creation with local stakeholders The project focuses on the social boundary conditions for taking action on sustainability measures in the earthquake region, in particular the willingness of homeowners to invest in their houses and to take action collectively as a community. In cooperation with local energy cooperatives and local stakeholders we will be able to create realistic and achievable solutions based on peoples' needs and preferences.
