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.
''On February 6th, 2023, two severe earthquakes struck southeastern Türkiye near the Syrian border. The first earthquake, Mw7.8, occurred at 04:17 local time in the East Anatolian Fault Zone near the city of Gaziantep. The second earthquake, Mw7.5, occurred approximately 9 h later at 13:24 local time near Elbistan County, in Kahramanmaraş province. These seismic events ruptured multiple segments of the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ), with rupture lengths exceeding 300 km, and deformation exceeding 5 m on both sides of the faults. In this study, we aim to analyze characteristics of the strong ground motion induced by the mainshocks, focusing on ground motion intensity measures such as the peak ground acceleration (PGA), the peak ground velocity (PGV), and the pseudo-acceleration response spectra (PSA). The first earthquake produced extremely high PGA values in both horizontal (> 2 g) and vertical (> 1 g) components. At near field distances, large PGVs are measured (> 180 cm/s) with more than 30 impulsive motions which may indicate source-related effects. Large spectral demands are also recorded for both earthquakes, partially underestimated by Ground Motion Models (GMMs), especially in the near-field. Specifically, we compare the PSA for horizontal directions with the design spectra provided by both the new and previous Turkish building codes. We also present building and ground damage observations that provide insights into the observed ground motions in the heavily damaged areas.''
Collapses of school or dormitory buildings experienced in recent earthquakes raise the issue of safety as a major challenge for decision makers. A school building is ‘just another structure’ technically speaking, however, the consequences of a collapse in an earthquake could lead to social reactions in the complex aftermath of a seismic tremor more than any other type of structure may possibly cause. In this paper a school building that collapsed during 2011 Tabanli, Van Earthquake in eastern Turkey, is analysed in order to identify the possible reasons that led to collapse. Apart from the inherent deficiencies of RC buildings built in Turkey in the 80's and 90's, its structural design exhibits a strikingly high asymmetry. In the analyses conducted, much attention has been given to the direction of the earthquake load and its coincidence with the bi-axial structural response parameters. The failure of the structure to comply with the 1975 Code, in vigor at the time of construction, has also been evaluated with respect to the structure’s collapse. Among the parameters that controlled the collapse, the high plan asymmetry and the coincidence of the vulnerable directions with the dominant shaking direction were critical, as well as the underestimation of the seismic hazard and the lateral design force level, specified by the then Turkish Earthquake Code.
LINK
Within the framework of resource efficiency it is important to recycle and reusematerials, replace fossil fuel based products with bio-based alternatives and avoidthe use of toxic substances. New applications are being sought for locally grownbiomass. In the area of Groningen buildings need reinforcement to guarantee safetyfor its users, due to man-induced earthquakes. Plans are to combine the workneeded for reinforcement with the improvement of energy performance of thesebuildings. The idea is to use bio-based building materials, preferably grown andprocessed in the region.In this study it is investigated whether it is feasible to use Typha (a swap plant) as abasis for a bio-based insulation product. In order to start the activities necessary tofurther develop this idea into a commercial product and start a dedicated company,a number of important questions have to be answered in terms of feasibility. Thisstudy therefore aims at mapping economic, organisational and technical issues andassociated risks and possibilities. On the basis of these results a developmenttrajectory can be started to set up a dedicated supply chain with the appropriatepartners, research projects can be designed to develop the missing knowledge andthe required funding can be acquired.
Post-earthquake structural damage shows that wall collapse is one of the most common failure mechanisms in unreinforced masonry buildings. It is expected to be a critical issue also in Groningen, located in the northern part of the Netherlands, where human-induced seismicity has become an uprising problem in recent years. The majority of the existing buildings in that area are composed of unreinforced masonry; they were not designed to withstand earthquakes since the area has never been affected by tectonic earthquakes. They are characterised by vulnerable structural elements such as slender walls, large openings and cavity walls. Hence, the assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings in the Groningen province has become of high relevance. The abovementioned issue motivates engineering companies in the region to research seismic assessments of the existing structures. One of the biggest challenges is to be able to monitor structures during events in order to provide a quick post-earthquake assessment hence to obtain progressive damage on structures. The research published in the literature shows that crack detection can be a very powerful tool as an assessment technique. In order to ensure an adequate measurement, state-of-art technologies can be used for crack detection, such as special sensors or deep learning techniques for pixel-level crack segmentation on masonry surfaces. In this project, a new experiment will be run on an in-plane test setup to systematically propagate cracks to be able to detect cracks by new crack detection tools, namely digital crack sensor and vision-based crack detection. The validated product of the experiment will be tested on the monument of Fraeylemaborg.
This project is devised for establishing pilot case studies in the Groningen gas field area for i) developing methodologies of proper evaluation of the monitoring data, ii) for establishing standards of structural monitoring in case of induced earthquakes, and for iii) increasing awareness among professionals on “why” and “how” to do structural monitoring in historical buildings in the region. The main focus of the project is both monitoring and also interpretation of results from the monitoring activities, which are the effects of maintenance and/or structural operations as well as the added value of monitoring in protecting historical buildings.
