Advertisement

Evaluation of modelling strategies for estimating cumulative damage on Groningen masonry buildings due to recursive induced earthquakes

  • Vasilis Sarhosis
  • Dimitris Dais
  • Eleni Smyrou
  • İhsan Engin BalEmail author
S.I. : Induced Seismicity and Its Effects on Built Environment

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Masonry Cumulative damage Induced seismicity Discrete element method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Rui Pinho for providing the analyses data of the reports from Mozayk. Francesco Graziotti is also acknowledged for providing experimental data and facilitating the authors in the correct interpretation of these data.

References

  1. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 438–483Google Scholar
  2. Aschheim M, Black E (1999) Effects of prior earthquake damage on response of simple stiffness-degrading structures. Earthq Spectra 15(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chai YH (2005) Incorporating low-cycle fatigue model into duration-dependent inelastic design spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:83–96.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crowley H, Pinho R (2017) Report on the v5 fragility and consequence models for the Groningen Field, Pavia. A report prepared for NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij). https://nam-feitenencijfers.data-app.nl/download/rapportdialog/aaa228dc-71a3-4919-a560-571a4b262a9a. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
  5. Dais D, Bal İE, Smyrou E (2017) Discussion on the response of unreinforced masonry to low-amplitude recursive loads: case of groningen gas field. In: Proceedings of COMPDYN 2017, Rhodes, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  6. Di Sarno L (2013) Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response. Eng Struct 56:673–681.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.05.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elnashai AS, Di Sarno L (2008) Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Wiley, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esposito R, Terwel KC, Ravenshorst GJP, Schipper HR, Messali F, Rots JG (2017) Cyclic pushover test on an unreinforced masonry structure resembling a typical Dutch terraced house. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference earthquake, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  9. Giardina G (2013) Modelling of settlement induced building damage. Ph.D. thesis, TU Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Rossi A, Kallioras S, Mandirola M, Cenja E, Penna A, Magenes G (2015) Experimental campaign on cavity-wall systems representative of the Groningen building stock. Report, EUC318/2015U, EUCENTRE, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  11. Graziotti F, Rossi A, Mandirola M, Penna A, Magenes G (2016) Experimental characterisation of calcium–silicate brick masonry for seismic assessment. In: Brick and block masonry: trends, innovations and challenges—proceedings of the 16th international brick and block masonry conference, IBMAC 2016, pp 1619–1628Google Scholar
  12. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Kallioras S, Penna A, Magenes G (2017) Shaking table test on a full scale URM cavity wall building. Bull Earthq Eng 15(12):5329–5364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2018) Shaking table test on a full scale URM cavity wall building. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0478-6 Google Scholar
  14. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2009) Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 31(11):2744–2755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Chioccarelli E (2013) Gamma degradation models for earthquake-resistant structures. Struct Saf 45:48–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2013.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ITASCA (2011) UDEC—universal distinct element code manual: theory and background. Itasca Consulting Group, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D, Andrea Spillatura A (2017) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(10):1667–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Korswagen PA, Meulman E, Longo M, Rots JG (2018) Light crack initiation and propagation in unreinforced masonry specimens subjected to repeated loading such as earthquake vibrations. In: Milani G, Taliercio A, Garrity S (eds) 10th International masonry conference, Milan, Italy, 9–11 July 2018Google Scholar
  19. Max D, Abbiati G, Broccardo M, Beyer K, Danciu L, Petrović M, Mojsilović N, Stojadinovic B (2017) Quantification of non-structural damage in unreinforced masonry walls induced by geothermal reservoir exploration using quasi-static cyclic tests. In: Proceedings of the 13th Canadian masonry symposium, Halifax, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  21. Meguro K, Tagel-Din H (2000) Applied element method for structural analysis: theory and application for linear materials. JSCE Int J Struct Eng Earthq Eng 17(1):21–35Google Scholar
  22. Mouyiannou A, Penna A, Rota M, Graziotti F, Magenes G (2014) Implications of cumulated seismic damage on the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 47(2):157–170Google Scholar
  23. Mozayk (2017) Nonlinear dynamic analysis of index buildings for v5 fragility and consequence models. Deliverable D8. A report prepared for NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij) by Pinho R, Malomo D, and Brunesi E and reviewed by Helen Crowley. https://nam-feitenencijfers.data-app.nl/download/rapport/f479bb9c-807c-4c08-8aaf-17e10c278f20?open=true. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
  24. Rots JG, Messali F, Esposito R, Mariani V, Jafari S (2017) Multi-scale approach towards groningen masonry and induced seismicity. Key Eng Mater 747:653–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sarhosis V, Sheng Y (2014) Identification of material parameters for low bond strength masonry. Eng Struct 60:100–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sarhosis V, Oliveira DV, Lemos JV, Lourenco PB (2014) The effect of skew angle on the mechanical behaviour of masonry arches. Mech Res Commun 61:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sarhosis V, Garrity SW, Sheng Y (2015) Influence of brick-mortar interface on the mechanical behaviour of low bond strength masonry brickwork lintels. Eng Struct 88:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schijve J (2009) Fatigue of structures and materials. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN (1970) Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquake. ASCE J Struct Div 96(ST12):2557–2573Google Scholar
  30. Tomassetti U, Correia AA, Graziotti F, Marques AI, Mandirola M, Candeias PX (2017) Collapse shaking table test on URM cavity wall building representative of a Dutch terraced house. European Centre of Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), Pavia. A report prepared for NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij)Google Scholar
  31. Tomor A, De Santis S, Wang J (2013) Fatigue deterioration process of brick masonry. Mason Int 26(2):41–48Google Scholar
  32. van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017) Induced seismicity in Groningen—assessment of hazard, building damage and risk, report prepared for NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij). https://nam-feitenencijfers.data-app.nl/download/rapportdialog/3bebaa86-70cd-4d72-bf22-2346796d69ac. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
  33. Vasconcelos G, Lourenço PB (2009) Experimental characterization of stone masonry in shear and compression. Constr Build Mater 23:3337–3345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.06.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zucchini A, Lourenço PB (2009) A micro-mechanical homogenisation model for masonry: application to shear walls. Int J Solids Struct 46:871–886.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.09.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Research Centre for Built Environment NoorderRuimteHanze University of Applied SciencesGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations