Advertisement

A comprehensive in situ and laboratory testing programme supporting seismic risk analysis of URM buildings subjected to induced earthquakes

  • F. Graziotti
  • A. Penna
  • G. Magenes
S.I. : Induced Seismicity and Its Effects on Built Environment
  • 95 Downloads

Abstract

The reliability of a risk assessment procedure is strictly dependent on the adopted hazard, exposure, fragility and consequence models. This paper presents the methodology adopted to support the assessment of the seismic vulnerability of buildings in the Groningen province of the Netherlands by means of a comprehensive in situ and laboratory testing programme. The area, historically not prone to tectonic ground motions, experienced seismic events induced by gas extraction and subsequent reservoir depletion in the last decades. The peculiarity of the input ground motions, the distinctive features and a general lack of knowledge on the seismic response characteristics of the Dutch building stock, and the goal to also assess the collapse risk drove the design and execution of a comprehensive test campaign comprising in situ tests and full-scale shaking table tests of buildings. An overview of the whole campaign is presented, focusing on the merits and roles of the different experimental techniques. The main outcomes of the experimental tests are summarized and additional and wider research findings together with potential research avenues for future studies are also identified.

Keywords

In situ test Quasi-static test Shake-table test Unreinforced masonry Structural response Induced seismicity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the EUCENTRE project “Study of the vulnerability of masonry buildings in Groningen”, within the research programme framework on hazard and risk of induced seismicity in the Groningen province, sponsored by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV (NAM). The authors would like to thank all parties involved in this project: the DICAr Laboratory of the University of Pavia and the EUCENTRE Laboratory, which performed the tests; and partners NAM, Arup, TU Delft and TU Eindhoven for their insight and contributions related to the test programme. The valuable advice of R. Pinho was essential to the project and is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks also go to J. Uilenreef, A. Campos Costa, P.X. Candeias, A.A. Correia, H. Crowley, F. Dacarro, A. Fragomeli, S. Girello, G. Guerrini, L. Grottoli, S. Kallioras, M. Mandirola, B. Marchesi, M. Miglietta, G. O’Reilly, S. Peloso, A. Rossi, S. Sharma, G. Sinopoli and U. Tomassetti for the practical support. Discussions with Prof. M.C. Griffith have been a valuable reference in several stages of the project. The authors would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments, which certainly contributed to an improvement of the manuscript.

References

  1. Andreotti G, Graziotti F, Magenes G (2018) Detailed micro-modelling of the direct shear tests of brick masonry specimens: the role of dilatancy. Eng Struct 168:929–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM C1196-14a (2014a) Standard test method for in situ compressive stress within solid unit masonry estimated using Flatjack measurements. ASTM International, West 612 Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org.  https://doi.org/10.1520/c1196-14a
  3. ASTM C1197-14a (2014b) Standard test method for in-situ measurement of masonry deformability properties using the Flatjack method. ASTM International, West 612 Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org.  https://doi.org/10.1520/c1197-14a
  4. ASTM C1531-16 (2016). Standard test methods for in-situ measurement of masonry mortar joint shear strength index. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org.  https://doi.org/10.1520/c1531-16
  5. Avanes C, Fusco C, Asghari Mooneghi M, Huang Y, Palmieri M, Sturt R (2018) LS-DYNA numerical simulation of full scale masonry cavity wall terraced house tested dynamically. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, 16ECEE, 18-21/6, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  6. Bommer JJ, Crowley H (2017) The purpose and definition of the minimum magnitude limit in PSHA calculations. Seismol Res Lett 88(4):1097–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bommer JJ, Crowley H, Pinho R, Polidoro B (2015) Selection of acceleration time-series for shake table testing of Groningen masonry building at the EUCENTRE, Pavia. Report—Groningen Field Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment Project, EUCENTRE, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):158–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonura V, Jafari S, Zapico Blanco B, Graziotti F (2018) Interpretation of in situ shear test for brick masonry: a benchmark study. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, 16ECEE, 18-21/6, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  10. 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):1721–1738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brunesi E, Peloso S, Pinho R, Nascimbene R (2018a) Cyclic testing of a full-scale two-storey reinforced precast concrete wall–slab–wall structure. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0359-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brunesi E, Peloso S, Pinho R, Nascimbene R (2018b) Cyclic testing and analysis of a full-scale cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall-slab-wall structure. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0374-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brunesi E, Peloso S, Pinho R, Nascimbene R (2018c) Dynamic shake-table testing of a full-scale two-storey reinforced precast concrete wall–slab–wall structure. Earthq Spectra (In review)Google Scholar
  14. Calvi GM, Kingsley GR, Magenes G (1996) Testing of masonry structures for seismic assessment. Earthq Spectra 12(1):145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Correia AA, Tomassetti U, Penna A, Magenes G, Graziotti F (2018) Collapse shake-table test on a URM-timber roof substructure. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, 16ECEE, 18-21/6, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  16. Crowley H, Pinho R (2017) Report on the v5 fragility and consequence models for the Groningen field. Report—Groningen Field Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment Project. www.nam.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/onderzoeksrapporten.html
  17. Crowley H, Pinho R, Polidoro B, van Elk J (2017a) Developing fragility and consequence models for buildings in the Groningen field. Neth J Geosci 96(5):s247–s257Google Scholar
  18. Crowley H, Polidoro B, Pinho R, van Elk J (2017b) Framework for developing fragility and consequence models for local personal risk. Earthq Spectra 33(4):1325–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Degli Abbati S, Lagomarsino S (2017) Out-of-plane static and dynamic response of masonry panels. Eng Struct 150:803–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dolatshahi KM, Aref AJ (2016) Multi-directional response of unreinforced masonry walls: experimental and computational investigations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(9):1427–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dost B, Edwards B, Bommer JJ (2018) The relationship between M and ML: a review and application to induced seismicity in the Groningen gas field, The Netherlands. Seismol Res Lett 89(3):1062–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. EN 1015-11 (1999) Methods of test for mortar for masonry—Part 11: determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. European Standards, CEN/TC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. EN 1052-1 (1998) Methods of test for masonry—Part 1: determination of compressive strength. European Standards, CEN/TC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. EN 1052-2 (1999) Methods of test for masonry—Part 2: determination of flexural strength. European Standards, CEN/TC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. EN 1052-3 (2002) Methods of test for masonry—Part 3: determination of initial shear strength. European Standards, CEN/TC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. EN 1052-5 (2005) Methods of test for masonry—Part 5: determination of bond strength by the bond wrench method. European Standards, CEN/TC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  28. EN 772-1 (2011) Methods of test for masonry units—Part 1: determination of compressive strength. European Standards, CEN/TC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 16th World conference on earthquake engineering, 16WCEE, Santiago, CLGoogle Scholar
  30. Esposito R, Messali F, Ravenshorst GJP, Schipper HR, Rots JG (2018) Can wind-resistant URM buildings withstand shallow earthquakes? The case study of a Dutch terraced house. Bull Earthq Eng (In Review)Google Scholar
  31. EUCENTRE (2017) URM walls in out-of-plane two-way bending. YouTube video playlist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg5WUyRX2IA&list=PLRDMVFxhFvQnMRn7SDXreqbcg044logeB&index=4
  32. Giaretton M, Dizhur D, Ingham JM (2016) Shaking table testing of as-built and retrofitted clay brick URM cavity-walls. Eng Struct 125:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gillian R, Miles P, Bruce R, Richard J (2018) Global review of human-induced earthquakes. Earth Sci Rev 178:438–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graziotti F, Rossi A, Mandirola M, Penna A, Magenes G (2016a) Experimental characterization of calcium-silicate brick masonry for seismic assessment. In: Proceedings of the 16th international brick and block masonry conference (IBMAC), Padova, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  35. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Penna A, Magenes G (2016b) Out-of-plane shaking table tests on URM single leaf and cavity walls. Eng Struct 125:455–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Sharma S, Grottoli L, Magenes G (2018a) Experimental response of URM single leaf and cavity walls in out-of-plane two-way bending generated by seismic excitation. Constr Build Mater (accepted)Google Scholar
  38. Graziotti F, Guerrini G, Rossi A, Andreotti G, Magenes G (2018b) Proposal for an improved procedure and interpretation of ASTM C1531 for the in situ determination of brick-masonry shear strength. ASTM Selected Technical Papers: 2018 Masonry Symposium, San Diego, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. Griffith MC, Vaculik J, Lam NTK, Wilson J, Lumantarna E (2007) Cyclic testing of unreinforced masonry walls in two-way bending. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(6):801–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grünthal G (1998) Editor. European Macroseismic Scale 1998—EMS-98. Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie 15. Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, LUXGoogle Scholar
  41. Guerrini G, Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2017) Dynamic shake-table tests on two full-scale, unreinforced masonry buildings subjected to induced seismicity. In: International conference on experimental vibration analysis for civil engineering structures. Springer, Cham, pp 376–387Google Scholar
  42. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2006) A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-motion duration on structural damage. Earthq Spectra 22(3):827–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Housner GW (1952) Intensity of ground motion during strong earthquakes. Technical Report, California Institute of Technology, California, USA. http://authors.library.caltech.edu
  44. Jafari S, Rots JG, Esposito R, Messali F (2017) Characterizing the material properties of Dutch unreinforced masonry. Procedia Eng 193:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kallioras S (2017) Numerical simulation of shaking table tests on a URM cavity-wall building. Mason Int 30(2):39–48Google Scholar
  46. Kallioras S, Correia AA, Marques AI, Candeias P, Graziotti F (2018a) LNEC-BUILD-3: experimental investigation of the seismic response of a Dutch URM detached house with chimneys. Technical Report, EUCENTRE, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  47. Kallioras S, Guerrini G, Tomassetti U, Marchesi B, Penna A, Graziotti F, Magenes G (2018b) Experimental seismic performance of a full-scale unreinforced clay-masonry building with flexible timber diaphragms. Eng Struct 161:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kallioras S, Guerrini G, Tomassetti U, Peloso S, Graziotti F (2018c) Dataset from the dynamic shake-table test of a full-scale unreinforced clay–masonry building with flexible timber diaphragms. Data Brief 18:629–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S (2013) TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct 56:1787–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Malomo D, Comini P, Pinho R, Penna A (2018a) The applied element method and the modelling of both in-plane and out-of-plane response of URM walls. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16ECEE, 18-21/6, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  51. Malomo D, Pinho R, Penna A (2018b) Using the applied element method for modelling calcium silicate brick masonry subjected to in-plane cyclic loading. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(7):1610–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Malomo D, Pinho R, Penna A (2018c) Using the applied element method to simulate the dynamic response of full-scale URM houses tested to collapse or near-collapse conditions. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16ECEE, 18-21/6, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  53. Mandirola M, Kallioras S, Tomassetti U, Graziotti F (2017) Tests on URM clay and calcium silicate masonry structures: identification of damage limit states, Technical Report (Working version of October 2017), EUCENTRE, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  54. Messali F, Ravenshorst G, Esposito R, Rots J (2017) Large-scale testing program for the seismic characterization of Dutch masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE, Santiago, CLGoogle Scholar
  55. Messali F, Esposito R, Jafari S, Ravenshorst GJP, Korswagen P, Rots J (2018). A multiscale experimental characterisation of Dutch unreinforced masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (ECEE), 18–21 June, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  56. Miglietta M, Graziotti F, Guerrini G, Tomassetti U, Grottoli L, Mazzella L, Magenes G. (2018) Shake-table test on a cavity-wall building with flexible diaphragms. Report, EUCENTRE, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  57. Najafgholipour MA, Maheri MR, Lourenço PB (2013) Capacity interaction in brick masonry under simultaneous in-plane and out-of-plane loads. Constr Build Mater 38:619–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. NAM (2016) Technical Addendum to the Winningsplan 2016. http://www.nam.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/onderzoeksrapporten.html
  59. Rossi A, Graziotti F, Magenes G (2015) A proposal for the interpretation of the in-situ shear strength index test for brick masonry. In: Proceedings of the XVI ANIDIS Conference, L’Aquila, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  60. Sharma S, Grottoli L, Tomassetti U, Graziotti F (2018) Out-of-plane two-way bending shaking table tests on single leaf and cavity walls. Technical Report, EUCENTRE, Pavia, Italy. http://www.eucentre.it/project-nam/
  61. Tomassetti U, Correia A, Candeias PX, Graziotti F, Campos Costa A (2018a) Two-way bending out-of-plane collapse of a full-scale URM building tested on a shake table. Bull Earthq Eng (in review)Google Scholar
  62. Tomassetti U, Graziotti F, Penna A, Magenes G (2018b) Modelling one-way out-of-plane response of single-leaf and cavity walls. Eng Struct 167:241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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. http://www.eucentre.it/nam-project
  64. Vaculik J (2012) Unreinforced masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane seismic actions. PhD Thesis, Univ. of Adelaide, AUGoogle Scholar
  65. Vaculik J, Griffith MC (2018) Out-of-plane shaketable testing of unreinforced masonry walls in two-way bending. Bull Earthq Eng 16:2839–2876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Elk J, Doornho D, Bommer JJ, Bourne SJ, Oates SJ, Pinho R, Crowley H (2017) Hazard and risk assessments for induced seismicity in Groningen. Neth J Geosci 96(5):s259–s269Google Scholar
  67. Zapico Blanco B, Tondelli M, Jafari S, Graziotti F, Millekamp H, Rots J, Palmieri M (2018) A Masonry Catalogue for the Groningen Region. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16ECEE, 18-21/6, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, DICArUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering, EUCENTREPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations