This paper aims to quantify the cumulative damage of unreinforced masonry (URM) subjected to induced seismicity. A numerical model based on discrete element method (DEM) has been develop and was able to represented masonry wall panels with and without openings; which are common typologies of domestic houses in the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands. Within DEM, masonry units were represented as a series of discrete blocks bonded together with zero-thickness interfaces, representing mortar, which can open and close according to the stresses applied on them. Initially, the numerical model has been validated against the experimental data reported in the literature. It was assumed that the bricks would exhibit linear stress-strain behaviour and that opening and slip along the mortar joints would be the predominant failure mechanism. Then, accumulated damage within the seismic response of the masonry walls investigated by means of harmonic load excitations representative of the acceleration time histories recorded during induced seismicity events that occurred in Groningen, the Netherlands.
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
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
DOCUMENT
The majority of houses in the Groningen gas field region, the largest in Europe, consist of unreinforced masonry material. Because of their particular characteristics (cavity walls of different material, large openings, limited bearing walls in one direction, etc.) these houses are exceptionally vulnerable to shallow induced earthquakes, frequently occurring in the region during the last decade. Raised by the damage incurred in the Groningen buildings due to induced earthquakes, the question whether the small and sometimes invisible plastic deformations prior to a major earthquake affect the overall final response becomes of high importance as its answer is associated with legal liability and consequences due to the damage-claim procedures employed in the region. This paper presents, for the first time, evidence of cumulative damage from available experimental and numerical data reported in the literature. Furthermore, the available modelling tools are scrutinized in terms of their pros and cons in modelling cumulative damage in masonry. Results of full-scale shake-table tests, cyclic wall tests, complex 3D nonlinear time-history analyses, single degree of freedom (SDOF) analyses and finally wall element analyses under periodic dynamic loading have been used for better explaining the phenomenon. It was concluded that a user intervention is needed for most of the SDOF modelling tools if cumulative damage is to be modelled. Furthermore, the results of the cumulative damage in SDOF models are sensitive to the degradation parameters, which require calibration against experimental data. The overall results of numerical models, such as SDOF residual displacement or floor lateral displacements, may be misleading in understanding the damage accumulation. On the other hand, detailed discrete-element modelling is found to be computationally expensive but more consistent in terms of providing insights in real damage accumulation.
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
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
Fraeylemaborg is a noble house in an earthquake-stricken area of the Netherlands due to the induced seismicity events in the region. The structure is located in the middle of the town of Slochteren which gave its name to the largest gas field in the world upon its discovery in 1959. The gas extraction has caused small-magnitude shallow earthquakes during the last decade, damaging not only the residential inventory but also the historical structures in the area. The main building of Fraeylemaborg sits on an artificial island surrounded by water channels, rendering the problem of earthquake response even more complicated. A small part of the main structure on the island was built in the 14th century, while the construction of additional parts and morphological alterations had taken place until the 18th century. The structure has been subjected to several small magnitude earthquakes causing damages on the load bearing system. An extensive renovation and repair of damages took place in recent years, however the latest seismic events imposed again damage to the structure. This paper presents a project of monitoring, assessment and diagnosis of problems for the Fraeylemaborg, the most important “borg” of the region, underlining the particularities of the induced seismicity problem. The FE model has been calibrated by using ambient vibration tests. Combination of earthquake and soil settlement loads have been applied on the calibrated model. The paper develops scenarios that help in explaining the reasons behind the damages on this structure during the recent shallow and low-magnitude induced seismicity earthquakes.
LINK
