In case of induced seismicity, expectations from a structural monitoring system are different than in the case of natural seismicity. In this paper, monitoring results of a historical building in Groningen (Netherlands) in case of induced seismicity has been presented. Results of the monitoring, particularities of the monitoring in case of induced earthquakes, as well as the usefulness and need of various monitoring systems for similar cases are discussed. Weak soil properties dominate the structural response in the region; thus, the ground water monitoring as well as the interaction of soil movements with the structural response has also been scrutinized. The proposed study could be effectively used to monitor historical structures subjected to induced seismicity and provide useful information to asset owners to classify the structural health condition of structures in their care.It was shown that the in-plane cracks at the building would normally not be expected in this structure during small induced earthquakes happening in Groningen. 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.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
This paper aims to quantify the evolution of damage in masonry walls under induced seismicity. A damage index equation, which is a function of the evolution of shear slippage and opening of the mortar joints, as well as of the drift ratio of masonry walls, was proposed herein. Initially, a dataset of experimental tests from in-plane quasi-static and cyclic tests on masonry walls was considered. The experimentally obtained crack patterns were investigated and their correlation with damage propagation was studied. Using a software based on the Distinct Element Method, a numerical model was developed and validated against full-scale experimental tests obtained from the literature. Wall panels representing common typologies of house façades of unreinforced masonry buildings in Northern Europe i.e. near the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands, were numerically investigated. The accumulated damage within the seismic response of the masonry walls was investigated by means of representative harmonic load excitations and an incremental dynamic analysis based on induced seismicity records from Groningen region. The ability of this index to capture different damage situations is demonstrated. The proposed methodology could also be applied to quantify damage and accumulation in masonry during strong earthquakes and aftershocks too.
DOCUMENT
Masonry structures represent the highest proportion of building stock worldwide. Currently, the structural condition of such structures is predominantly manually inspected which is a laborious, costly and subjective process. With developments in computer vision, there is an opportunity to use digital images to automate the visual inspection process. The aim of this study is to examine deep learning techniques for crack detection on images from masonry walls. A dataset with photos from masonry structures is produced containing complex backgrounds and various crack types and sizes. Different deep learning networks are considered and by leveraging the effect of transfer learning crack detection on masonry surfaces is performed on patch level with 95.3% accuracy and on pixel level with 79.6% F1 score. This is the first implementation of deep learning for pixel-level crack segmentation on masonry surfaces. Codes, data and networks relevant to the herein study are available in: github.com/dimitrisdais/crack_detection_CNN_masonry.
DOCUMENT
As part of the American Society of Civil Engineers E-Newsletter at page 5&6.
DOCUMENT
Does real estate still have the value that it once had, or will the valuation of real estate change due to surprising products and services, innovative business models, different market strategies, innovative ways of organizing and managing in the (real estate) markets? Innovation revolves around good facilities in an attractive and stimulating environment. Take disruptive real estate. The driving force behind these developments are new technology, viability, organizing differently and managing, and these have a big impact on the valuation of real estate. Established names like Nokia, Kodak, Blockbuster, Oad, Free Record Shop, Hyves and V&D collapse, and others, like Hema, Shell, hotel chains and healthcare institutions are the least bothered by it. However, disruptive organizations like Amazon, Zalando, Uber, Tesla and its competitor Faraday Future, who wants to exceed Tesla in everything, clearly respond to viability in the environment, and this is determinative for competitive strength and thus impacts the current and future valuation of real estate. Blockchain – a distributed database that contains a growing list of data items and that is hardened against manipulation and counterfeiting - plays an important role in that. The notaries and brokers have already experienced this in the recent period, and it will continue to have an effect on real estate owners, financiers, users, builders, brokers, notaries and the cadastre. The real estate world finds itself at a tipping point of a transition: a dramatic and irreversible shift in (real estate) systems in society.
DOCUMENT
This qualitative study examined how the complex institutional context of gas extraction in Groningen affects relations and processes of trust, and seeks to better understand what is necessary for restoring trust. In the Groningen gas case, responsibilities for dealing with multiple negative consequences of gas extraction are shared by many different organizations who together form a complex institutional system. Numerous professionals are doing their best to help solve the problems. As individuals, case managers and other professionals are seen as benevolent and hard-working people. But as representatives of (large) institutions these professionals struggle to be seen as trustworthy because of persistent problems with institutional performance, with professionals themselves feeling they have insufficient discretionary power. More than interpersonal trust, a different form of trust appears to be at stake here: confidence in the system itself. According to many respondents, confidence in the system is low because the perceived interests of the institutions that shaped this system are not aligned with those of residents and the region. In addition, the positions of power and responsibility within this system are opaque to both residents and professionals. Moreover, the institutional system is perceived to be based on a distrustful attitude toward citizens in general, resulting in elaborate procedures for accountability, control and monitoring. These factors have become obstacles to restoring confidence in the system, no matter how well residents and professionals get along as individuals.
DOCUMENT
