Zoekresultaten

Een nieuwe kijk op Lastmile planning : eerste inzichten en ideeën uit het project Lastmile.info.

Myths and fallacies in the Groningen earthquake problem

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.

Journalistiek over gezondheid, een delicate kwestie

Hoe gaat de journalistiek om met kritiek uit de buitenwereld?

Myths and fallacies in the Groningen earthquake problem

KNAW – minisymposium ‘Aardbevingsbestendige woningen’ 24 maart 2020Ondanks absentie van het symposium door de Corona crisis is dit boekje samengesteld voor digitale verzending en het drukken van een papieren versie.

Stedelijke logistiek anders organiseren : de aanleiding voor de ontwikkeling van een cityport in Cilolab.

Evaluating the infiltration performance of eight Dutch permeable pavements using a new full-scale infiltration testing method

Permeable pavements are a type of sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS)technique that are used around the world to infiltrate and treat urban Stormwater runoff and to minimize runoff volumes. Urban stormwater runoff contains significant concentrations of suspended sediments that can cause clogging and reduce the infiltration capacity and effectiveness of permeable pavements. It is important for stormwater managers to be able to determine when the level of clogging has reached an unacceptable level, so that they can schedule maintenance or replacement activities as required. Newly-installed permeable pavements in the Netherlands must demonstrate a minimum infiltration capacity of 194 mm/h (540 l/s/ha). Other commonly used permeable pavement guidelines in the Netherlands recommend that maintenance is undertaken on permeable pavements when the infiltration falls below 0.50 m/d (20.8 mm/h). This study used a newly-developed, full-scale infiltrationtest procedure to evaluate the infiltration performance of eight permeable pavements in five municipalities that had been in service for over seven years in the Netherlands. The determined infiltration capacities vary between 29 and 342 mm/h. Two of the eight pavements show an infiltration capacity higher than 194 mm/h, and all infiltration capacities are higher than 20.8 mm/h. According to the guidelines, this suggests that none of the pavements tested in this study would require immediate maintenance.