City authorities want to know how to match the charging infrastructures for electric vehicles with the demand. Using camera recognition algorithms from artificial intelligence we investigated the behavior of taxis at a charging stations and a taxi stand.
MULTIFILE
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 seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings with cavity walls is of high relevance in regions such as in Central and Northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand and China because of the characteristics of the masonry building stock. A cavity wall consists of two separate parallel walls usually connected by metal ties. Cavity walls are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes, as the out-of-plane capacity of each individual leaf is significantly smaller than the one of an equivalent solid wall. This paper presents the results of an experimental campaign conducted by the authors on metal wall tie connections and proposes a mechanical model to predict the cyclic behaviour of these connections. The model has been calibrated by us- ing the experimental results in terms of observed failure modes and force-displacement responses. Results are also presented in statistical format.
The Ph.D. candidate will investigate the seismic response of connection details frequently used in traditional Dutch construction practice, specifically in the Groningen area. The research will focus on the experimental and numerical definition of the complete load-deflection behaviour of each considered connection; specifically, the tests will aim at identifying stiffness, strength, ductility, and dissipative behaviour of the connections. The experiments will be conducted on scaled or full-scale components that properly resemble the as-built and retrofitted as well connection details. The tests will involve monotonic and cyclic loading protocols to be able to define the load and displacement response of the connection to reversal loads, such as earthquakes, as well as the development of failure mechanisms under such loading cases. Possibly, also dynamic tests will be performed. Numerical models will be created and calibrated versus the experimental findings. Characteristic hysteretic behaviours of the examined connection types will be provided for the use of engineers and researchers.
The project is for protecting valuable museum contents against seismic actions. Assessment and protection methods and equipment will be developed and tested. - Assessment methods for seismic safety of museum contents- Protective devices for the musem contentsA museum virtual exhibition room (MVER) will be created, it will contain exhibits such as sculptures and artefacts of different size and geometry, while the proposed experimental work will first examine the seismic behaviour of the test specimens without any protection system. The tests will be repeated using different protective configurations, emphasising on low-mass base isolation systems. Two new and highly efficient base isolation systems will be extensively tested for the first time. The first isolator is a pendulum-based system, while the second utilises shape-memory-alloy wires.The project will also develop and calibrate novel numerical models for single- and two- block rocking systems, while experimental and numerical results will be combined in order to develop quick overturning assessment criteria for the artefacts considered.The final task of the project will combine the shaking table experimental outcomes with numerical results using calibrated numerical models in order to develop fragility curves for museum artefacts.
In recent years, human-induced seismicity in the northern part of the Netherlands increased rendering the seismic response of unreinforced masonry (URM) structures critical. Majority of the existing buildings in the Netherlands are URM, which are not designed to withstand earthquakes. This issue motivates engineering and construction companies in the region to research on the seismic assessment of the existing structures.The companies working in the structural engineering field in the region were forced to adapt very quickly to the earthquake related problems, such as strengthening of existing buildings after earthquake. Such solutions are of prime importance for the Groningen region due to the extent of the earthquake problems and need for strengthening the houses. The research published in the literature show that the connections play an important role in seismic resistant of the houses. Fixing or improving the poor wall-to-wall or floor-to-wall connections may have a large positive impact on the overall seismic behaviour. Some strengthening solutions are already provided by SMEs, and an extensive experimental campaign was carried out at TU Delft on retrofitted connections. In this project, a new experiment will be run on a large shake-table, unique in the Netherlands, that can simulate earthquake vibrations. These tests, together with the previous experience, will complement the overall knowledge on the strengthening solutions and their performance under real-time actual earthquake vibrations.
