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.
Exposure data available to developers of earthquake loss models are often very crudely aggregated spatially, and in such cases very considerable effort can be required to refine the geographical resolution of the building stock inventory. The influence of the geographical resolution of the exposure data for the Sea of Marmara region in Turkey is explored using several different levels of spatial aggregation to estimate the losses due to a single earthquake scenario. The results show that the total damage over an urban area, expressed as a mean damage ratio (MDR), is rather insensitive to the spatial resolution of the exposure data if a sufficiently large number of ground-motion simulations are used. However, the variability of the MDR estimates does reduce as the spatial resolution becomes higher, reducing the number of simulations required, although there appears to be a law of diminishing returns in going to very high exposure data resolution. This is largely due to the inherent and irreducible spatial variability of ground motion, which suggests that if only mean MDR estimates are needed, the effort required to refine the spatial definition of exposure data is not justified.
LINK
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.
