Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 1521–1552 | Cite as

Numerical assessment of the dynamic response of a URM terraced house exposed to induced seismicity

  • Stylianos KalliorasEmail author
  • Francesco Graziotti
  • Andrea Penna
Original Research


This paper presents the results of a numerical study aimed at extending the utility of a shake-table test on an unreinforced masonry building prototype for the seismic assessment of terraced houses in the Groningen region of the Netherlands. The area, with no recorded tectonic activity to date, has recently experienced ground shakings induced by natural-gas production. Local buildings are mostly made of unreinforced masonry, often built with cavity walls, which were not specifically conceived for earthquake resilience; hence, they do not exhibit any seismic-resistant detailing. Numerical models were first generated and fine-tuned based on data obtained from incremental unidirectional dynamic tests on a full-scale building specimen, performed up to near-collapse conditions. The structure represented the end-unit of a typical Dutch terraced building with cavity walls and a flexible timber roof. Several issues concerning the numerical simulation of the dynamic response of unreinforced cavity-wall systems were addressed in the context of employing an equivalent-frame modelling approach. Analyses were conducted also considering the effect of the nonlinear out-of-plane response of walls. The calibrated single-unit model was then enlarged to numerically assess the effects of human-induced earthquakes on an entire row of terraced houses. A cloud method was selected to establish the probabilistic relationship between ground-motion intensity and nonlinear structural response, using a large suite of records characteristic of induced-seismicity earthquakes. The question of selecting an appropriate and comprehensive measure of shaking intensity for correlation with structural performance is also discussed.


Equivalent-frame macroelement models Nonlinear dynamic analyses URM cavity walls Terraced houses Induced seismicity Fragility functions 



The authors are grateful to H. Crowley and J. Bommer for providing the seismic input for numerical analyses, which was defined using the Groningen field hazard and disaggregation results made available by S. Bourne. The valuable advice of R. Pinho was essential to the study and is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks also go to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which helped improve the clarity of this manuscript.


  1. Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Senyurt M, Azari Sisi A, Ay BO, Traversa P, Douglas J, Cotton F, Luzi L, Hernandez B, Godey S (2014) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):311–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design of nuclear power plants, 1st edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 438–483Google Scholar
  3. Bommer JJ, Magenes G, Hancock J, Penazzo P (2004) The influence of strong-motion duration on the response of masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 2(1):1–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bommer JJ, Dost B, Edwards B, Stafford PJ, Van Elk J, Doornhof D, Ntinalexis M (2016) Developing an application-specific ground-motion model for induced seismicity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(1):158–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Edwards B, Dost B, Van Dedem E, Rodriguez-Marek A, Kruiver P, Van Elk J, Doornhof D, Ntinalexis M (2017) Framework for a ground-motion model for induced seismic hazard and risk analysis in the Groningen gas field, The Netherlands. Earthq Spectra 33(2):481–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bothara JK, Dhakal RP, Mander JB (2010) Seismic performance of an unreinforced masonry building: an experimental investigation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(1):45–68. Google Scholar
  7. Bourne SJ, Oates SJ, Bommer JJ, Dost B, Van Elk J, Doornhof D (2015) A Monte Carlo method for probabilistic hazard assessment of induced seismicity due to conventional natural gas production. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(3):1721–1738. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bracchi S, Galasco A, Penna A (2017) An improved macroelement model accounting for energy dissipation in in-plane flexural behavior of masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January 2017Google Scholar
  9. Bracchi S, Galasco A, Penna A, Magenes G (2018) An improved macroelement model for the nonlinear analysis of masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the 10th Australasian masonry conference, Sydney, Australia, 11–14 February 2018Google Scholar
  10. Brignola A, Pampanin S, Podesta S (2009) Evaluation and control of the in-plane stiffness of timber floors for the performance-based retrofit of URM buildings. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 42(3):204–221.
  11. Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W (2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthq Spectra 24(1):23–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chopra AK (2012) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa AA, Penna A, Magenes G (2011) Seismic performance of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry: from experimental testing of the in-plane capacity of walls to building response simulation. J Earthq Eng 15(1):1–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crisp DJ (1980) Damping models for inelastic structures. Dissertation, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  15. Crowley H, Pinho R (2017) Report on the v5 fragility and consequence models for the Groningen field. Report, EUCENTRE, Pavia, Italy. Accessed 9 Oct 2018
  16. Crowley H, Polidoro B, Pinho R, Van Elk J (2017) Framework for developing fragility and consequence models for local personal risk. Earthq Spectra 33(4):1325–1345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Den Bezemer T, Van Elk J (ed) (2018) Special report on the Zeerijp earthquake—8th January 2018. NAM technical report, Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV, Assen, The Netherlands.
  18. Dizhur D, Jiang X, Qian C, Almesfer N, Ingham J (2015) Historical development and observed earthquake performance of unreinforced clay brick masonry cavity walls. J Struct Eng Soc N Z 28(1):55–67.
  19. 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 on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January 2017Google Scholar
  20. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2017) HAZUS-MH MR4 multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: earthquake model. Technical manual, Washington DC, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  21. Frankie TM, Gencturk B, Elnashai AS (2013) Simulation-based fragility relationships for unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng ASCE 139(3):400–410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giaretton M, Dizhur D, Ingham J (2016) Shaking table testing of as-built and retrofitted clay brick URM cavity-walls. Eng Struct 125:70–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 No EUC318/2015U, EUCENTRE, Pavia, Italy.
  24. Graziotti F, Rossi A, Mandirola M, Penna A, Magenes G (2016a) Experimental characterization of calcium-silicate brick masonry for seismic assessment. In: Modena C, da Porto F, Valluzzi MR (ed) Brick and block masonry—proceedings of the 16th international brick and block masonry conference (IBMAC 2016), 1st edn. CRC Press, London, pp 1619–1627.
  25. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Penna A, Magenes G (2016b) Out-of-plane shaking table tests on URM single leaf and cavity walls. Eng Struct 125:455–470. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2016c) A nonlinear SDOF model for the simplified evaluation of the displacement demand of low-rise URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 14(6):1589–1612. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 15:5329–5364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2006) A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-motion duration on structural damage. Earthq Spectra 22(3):827–845. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2007) Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(4):291–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Housner GW (1952) Intensity of ground motion during strong earthquakes. Technical report, California Institute of Technology, California, United States.
  31. Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2006) Ground motion duration effects on nonlinear seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(1):21–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jalayer F, De Risi R, Manfredi G (2015) Bayesian cloud analysis: efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression. Bull Earthq Eng 13(4):1183–1203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kraaijpoel D, Dost B (2013) Implications of salt-related propagation and mode conversion effects on the analysis of induced seismicity. J Seismol 17(1):95–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lagomarsino L, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2013) TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct 56:1787–1799. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leger P, Dussault S (1992) Seismic-energy dissipation in MDOF structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 118(5):1251–1269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Magenes G, Calvi GM (1997) In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(11):1091–1112.;2-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Magenes G, Penna A, Senaldi IE, Rota M, Galasco A (2014) Shaking table test of a strengthened full-scale stone masonry building with flexible diaphragms. Int J Archit Herit Conserv Anal Restor 8(3):349–375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maio R, Tsionis G (2016) Seismic fragility curves for the European building stock: review and evaluation of analytical fragility curves. EUR 27635 EN, Joint Research Centre (European Commission), Ispra, Italy.
  39. Mandirola M, Kallioras S, Tomassetti U, Graziotti F (2017) Tests on URM clay and calcium-silicate masonry structures: identification of damage states. Research report, EUCENTRE, Pavia, Italy.
  40. Mann W, Müller H (1982) Failure of shear-stressed masonry—an enlarged theory, tests and application to shear walls. Proc Br Ceram Soc 30:223–235Google Scholar
  41. NPR 9998 (2017) Assessment of structural safety of buildings in case of erection, reconstruction and disapproval—basic rules for seismic actions: induced earthquakes. Dutch Standards, NEN, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  42. Park J, Towashiraporn P, Craig JI, Goodno BJ (2009) Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise unreinforced masonry structures. Eng Struct 31(1):125–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Penna A, Lagomarsino L, Galasco A (2014) A nonlinear macroelement model for the seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(2):159–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Penna A, Senaldi IE, Galasco A, Magenes G (2016) Numerical simulation of shaking table tests on full-scale stone masonry buildings. Int J Archit Herit Conserv Anal Restor 10(2–3):146–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peralta D, Bracci J, Hueste M (2004) Seismic behavior of wood diaphragms in pre-1950s unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng ASCE 130(12):2040–2050. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petry S, Beyer K (2015) Force–displacement response of in-plane-loaded URM walls with a dominating flexural mode. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(14):2551–2573. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R (2007) Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 23(2):471–489. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Priestley MJN, Grant DN (2005) Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis. J Earthq Eng 9(2):229–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia C (2008) Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(10–11):933–947. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rota M, Penna A, Magenes G (2010) A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based on stochastic nonlinear analyses. Eng Struct 32(5):1312–1323. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sarieddine M, Lin L (2013) Investigation correlations between strong-motion duration and structural damage. Structures congress 2013 (ASCE), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, 2–4 May 2013, pp 2926–2936.
  52. Simões A, Miloševic J, Meireles H, Bento R, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2015) Fragility curves for old masonry building types in Lisbon. Bull Earthq Eng 13:3083–3105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smyrou E, Priestley MJN, Carr AJ (2011) Modelling of elastic damping in nonlinear time-history analyses of cantilever RC walls. Bull Earthq Eng 9(5):1559–1578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tomassetti U, Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2018a) Modelling one-way out-of-plane response of single-leaf and cavity walls. Eng Struct 167:241–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tomassetti U, Correia AA, Candeias PX, Graziotti F, Campos Costa A (2018b) Two-way bending out-of-plane collapse of a full-scale URM building tested on a shake table. Bull Earthq Eng (accepted)Google Scholar
  56. Tondelli M, Graziotti F, Rossi A, Magenes G (2015) Characterization of masonry materials in the Groningen area by means of in situ and laboratory testing. Technical report, EUCENTRE, Pavia, Italy.
  57. Travasarou T, Bray JD, Abrahamson NA (2003) Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(7):1133–1155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vaculik J, Griffith MC (2017) Out-of-plane load-displacement model for two-way spanning masonry walls. Eng Struct 141:328–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Elk J, Doornhof D, Bommer JJ, Bourne S, Oates SJ, Pinho R, Crowley H (2017) Hazard and risk assessments for induced seismicity in Groningen. Neth J Geosci 96(5):259–269. Google Scholar
  60. Wilson A, Quenneville P, Ingham J (2013) In-plane orthotropic behavior of timber floor diaphragms in unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng ASCE 140(1) Article n. 04013038:1–11.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UME Graduate SchoolIUSS PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAr)University of PaviaPaviaItaly
  3. 3.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE)PaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations