Advertisement

Crack initiation and propagation in unreinforced masonry specimens subjected to repeated in-plane loading during light damage

  • Paul A. KorswagenEmail author
  • Michele Longo
  • Edwin Meulman
  • Jan G. Rots
Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

In recent years, gas extraction in the northern part of the Netherlands has been causing low-magnitude, induced, shallow earthquakes. Besides safety, the prediction and evaluation of ‘light’ damage due to these induced ground motions is important, as it is related to economic and serviceability losses, and societal unrest. An experimental and numerical campaign is ongoing at Delft University of Technology, aiming to improve the knowledge of the underlying physics of crack initiation and propagation in unreinforced masonry (URM) structures typical in the Netherlands. A damage scale and damage parameter are defined herein in order to objectively quantify cracking damage as a function of the number, length, and width of cracks in masonry walls. The cracking mechanisms are studied for URM walls and spandrels subjected to in-plane loading. Displacements, strains, and loads under which cracking starts and propagates are evaluated and correlations are sought. The Digital Image Correlation measuring system is used to accurately detect crack formation and the evolution of the cracking pattern. This is also utilised to validate and calibrate non-linear finite element models. From the experiments, drift values are obtained for the light damage state of the masonry walls. A range between 0.3‰ and 1.1‰ is set as belonging to light damage. Moreover, a damage accumulation or material degradation was observed during cyclic testing. Additionally, fracture-mechanics based, micro and macro finite element models are capable of reproducing the repetitive behaviour of the tests.

Keywords

Unreinforced masonry structures Earthquake damage Crack analysis Digital Image Correlation Damage scale Material degradation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM) under contract number UI67339 ‘Damage sensitivity of Groningen masonry building structures—Experimental and computational studies’, contract holders: Jan van Elk and Jeroen Uilenreef. This cooperation is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also express their gratitude to Piet van Staalduinen for participating in this project and linking it to damage surveys, and to Beatriz Zapico Blanco from Arup for reviewing tasks.

References

  1. Abo-El-Ezz A, Nollet M, Nastev M (2013) Seismic fragility assessment of low-rise stone masonry buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 12:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arup (2013) Groningen 2013—implementation study. Arup, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bal IE, Dais D, Smyrou E (2018) “Differences” between induced and natural seismic events. In: 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, Thessaloniki 18–21 June, 2018Google Scholar
  4. Beyer K, Mergos P (2015) Sensitivity of drift capacities of URM walls to cumulative damage demands and implications on loading protocols for quasi-static cyclic tests. In: 12th North American Masonry Conference, Denver, Colorado May 17–20, 2015Google Scholar
  5. Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Ntinalexis M (2017) Empirical ground-motion prediction equations for peak ground velocity from small-magnitude earthquakes in the Groningen field using multiple definitions of the horizontal component of motion. NAM, AssenGoogle Scholar
  6. Boscardin MD, Cording EJ (1989) Building response to excavation-induced settlement. J Geotech Eng 115(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burland JB, Wroth CP (1974) Settlement of buildings and associated damage. In: Proceedings of conference on settlement of structures, Cambridge. Pentech Press, pp 611–654Google Scholar
  8. Castellazzi G, D’Altri AM, de Miranda S, Chiozzi A, Tralli A (2017) Numerical insights on the seismic behaviour of a non-isolated historical masonry tower. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0231-6 Google Scholar
  9. Colangelo F (2015) On the code-compliant verification of seismic damage to non-structural masonry infills. Bull Earthq Eng 13:2051–2072.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9704-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crammond G, Boyd SW, Dulieu-Barton JM (2013) Speckle pattern quality assessment for digital image correlation. Opt Lasers Eng 51(2013):1368–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowley H, Pinho R, van Elk J, Uilenreef J (2018) Probabilistic damage assessment of buildings due to induced seismicity. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0462-1 Google Scholar
  12. de Vent I, Rots JG, van Hees RPJ (2011) Structural damage in masonry—developing diagnostic decision support. TU Delft, DelftGoogle Scholar
  13. Didier M, Abbiati G, Broccardo M, Beyer K, Danciu L, Petrović M, Mojsilović N, Stojadinović 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, Canada, June 2017Google Scholar
  14. Didier M, Abbiati G, Hefti F, Broccardo M, Stojadinovic B (2018) Damage quantification in plastered unreinforced masonry walls using digital image correlation. In: 10th Australasian Masonry Conference, 14–18 February, 2018Google Scholar
  15. Dyer BC, Schanz U, Spillmann T, Ladner F, Häring MO (2008) Microseismic imaging of a geothermal reservoir stimulation. Lead Edge 27(7):856–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elmenshawi AE, Sorour M, Mufti A, Jaeger LG, Shrive N (2010) In-plane seismic behaviour of historic stone masonry. Can J Civ Eng 37(3):465–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Esposito R, Terwel K, Ravenshorst GJP, Schipper HR, Messali F, Rots JG (2016) Cyclic pushover test on an unreinforced masonry structure resembling a typical Dutch terraced house. TU Delft, DelftGoogle Scholar
  18. Esposito R, Messali F, Ravenshorst GJP, Schipper HR, Rots JG (2018) Seismic assessment of a two-storey unreinforced masonry Dutch terraced house. Bull Earthq Eng (under review)Google Scholar
  19. Feenstra PH, Rots JG, Arnesen A, Teigen JG, Hoiseth KV (1998) A 3D constitutive model for concrete based on a co-rotational concept. In: Proceedings of Euro-C conference computational modelling of concrete structures, BalkemaGoogle Scholar
  20. Gattesco N, Macorini L, Dudine A (2016) Experimental response of brick-masonry spandrels under in-plane cyclic loading. ASCE J Struct Eng 142(2):04015146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giardina G, van de Graaf AV, Hendriks MAN, Rots JG, Marini A (2013a) Numerical analysis of a masonry façade subject to tunnelling-induced settlements. Eng Struct 54(2013):234–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giardina G, Rots JG, Hendriks MAN (2013b) Modelling of settlement induced building damage. TU Delft, DelftGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Grünthal G (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). European Seismological Commission, sub commission on Engineering Seismology, Working Group Macroseismic Scales. Conseil de l’Europe, Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, vol 15, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  25. Jafari S, Esposito R (2019) Summary of material properties of existing Dutch masonry—updated URM abacus (version 2). Delft University of Technology. Report number C31B67WP1-16, version 02Google Scholar
  26. Jafari S, Esposito R, Rots JG, Messali F (2017) Characterizing the material properties of Dutch unreinforced masonry. Procedia Eng 193:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Korswagen PA, Jonkman SN, Terwel K (2019) Probabilistic assessment of structural damage from coupled multi-hazards. Struct Saf 76:135–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruiver PP, van Dedem E, Romijn R, de Lange G, Korff M, Stafleu J, Gunnink JL, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bommer JJ, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017) An integrated shear-wave velocity model for the Groningen gas field, The Netherlands. Bull Earthq Eng 15:3555–3580.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0105-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laurin F, Charrier JS, Lévêque D, Maire JF, Mavel A, Nuñez P (2012) Determination of the properties of composite materials thanks to digital image correlation measurements. Procedia IUTAM 4(2012):106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lourenço PB (1996) Computational strategies for masonry structures. PhD Dissertation, TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  31. Lourenço PB, Rots JG (1997) Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry structures. J Eng Mech 123(7):660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mergos P, Beyer K (2014) Loading protocols for European regions of low to moderate seismicity. Bull Earthq Eng 12:2507–2530.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9603-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mergos P, Beyer K (2015) Loading protocols for structures designed for different behaviour factors. In: SECED 2015 conference: earthquake risk and engineering towards a resilient world 9–10 July 2015, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  34. Messali F, Rots JG (2018) In-plane drift capacity at near collapse of rocking unreinforced calcium silicate and clay masonry piers. Eng Struct 164(2018):183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Messali F, Ravenshorst GJP, Esposito R, Rots JG (2017) Large-scale testing program for the seismic characterization of Dutch masonry walls. In: 16th World Conference on earthquake, WCEE 2017, 9–13 Jan, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  36. Mignan A, Landtwing D, Kästli P, Mena B, Wiemer S (2015) Induced seismicity risk analysis of the 2006 Basel, Switzerland, Enhanced Geothermal System project: influence of uncertainties on risk mitigation. Geothermics 53(2015):133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mojsilović N, Salmanpour AH (2016) Masonry walls subjected to in-plane cyclic loading: application of Digital Image Correlation for deformation field measurement. Institute of Structural Engineering, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8093, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  38. NAM (2013) Technical Addendum to the Winningsplan Groningen 2013—subsidence, induced earthquakes and seismic hazard analysis in the Groningen field. NAM, AssenGoogle Scholar
  39. NAM (2016) Production, subsidence, induced earthquakes and seismic hazard and risk assessment in the Groningen Field. NAM, Technical Addendum to the Winningsplan Groningen 2016. www.NAM.nl
  40. Noorlandt R, Kruiver PP, de Kleine MPE, Karaoulis M, de Lange G, di Matteo A, von Ketlehodt J, Ruigrok E, Edwards B, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bommer JJ, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2018) Characterisation of ground motion recording stations in the Groningen gas field. J Seismol 2018(22):605–623.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9725-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Österberg G (1935) Topography of the layer of rods and cones in the human retina. Acta Ophthalmol [Suppl] 13(6):1–102Google Scholar
  42. Ramos T, Furtado A, Eslami S, Alves S, Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Tavares P, Moreira P (2015) 2D and 3D Digital Image correlation in civil engineering—measurements in a masonry wall. Procedia Eng 114(2015):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rots JG, Blaauwendraad J (1989) Crack models for concrete-discrete, smeared, fixed, multi-directional or rotating?. Heron 34. ISSN: 0046-7316Google Scholar
  44. Rots JG, vd Pluijm R, Vermeltfoort AT (1994) CUR Report 171, CUR, Gouda (Dutch version). See Rots et al., (1997) for english translationGoogle Scholar
  45. Rots JG, vd Pluijm R, Vermeltfoort AT (1997) Structural masonry—an experimental/numerical basis for practical design rules. Balkema. ISBN: 90 5410 680 8Google Scholar
  46. Rots JG, Messali F, Esposito R, Jafari S, Mariani V (2016) Computational modelling of masonry with a view to groningen induced seismicity. In: 10th SAHC structural analysis of historical construction, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  47. Schreppers GMA, Garofano A, Messali F, Rots JG (2016) DIANA validation report for masonry modelling. DIANA FEA Report 2016-DIANA-R1601 TU Delft Structural Mechanics Report CM-2016-17Google Scholar
  48. Slobbe AT, Hendriks MAN, Rots JG (2013) Systematic assessment of directional mesh bias with periodic boundary conditions: applied to the crack band model. Eng Fract Mech 109:186–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spetzler J, Dost B (2017) probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for induced earthquakes in Groningen—update. KNMI Report, PSHA Groningen, updateGoogle Scholar
  50. Theil H (1950) A rank-invariant method of linear and polynomial regression analysis. I, II, III. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch., Proc., 53: 386–392, 521–525, 1397–1412, MR 0036489Google Scholar
  51. Tomassetti U, Kallioras S, Graziotti F, Correia AA (2017) Preliminary report on the construction of the building prototype at the LNEC laboratory. Lisbon, March 2017Google Scholar
  52. Van Staalduinen P, Terwel K, Rots JG (2018) Onderzoek naar de oorzaken van bouwkundige schade in Groningen Methodologie en case studies ter duiding van de oorzaken. Delft University of Technology. Report number CM-2018-01, 11 July 2018. www.NationaalCoordinatorGroningen.nl
  53. Vecchio FJ, Collins MP (1986) The modified compression field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J 83(2):219–231Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations