A Macro Modelling Blind Prediction of a Cyclic Push-Over Test on a Full Scale Masonry House

  • Troy Hoogeveen
  • Joe White
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)


Gas extraction in the Groningen region of The Netherlands has led to increasing levels of ‘induced’ seismic activity in the area over recent years. A wide ranging building assessment and strengthening programme is currently underway across the region—primarily focussing on large-scale low-rise residential developments. Delft University of Technology (TU-Delft) recently held a blind prediction test where invited participants attempted to determine the response of a full-scale structure, which is representative of a typical masonry house in the Groningen region. The test structure underwent a prescribed cyclic displacement profile. The authors participated in this blind prediction test using “ANSR”, a general purpose analysis program capable of both 2-D and 3-D static, dynamic and time domain analyses. ANSR follows a macro-modelling FEA approach where elements are modelled at a component level. This paper describes how ANSR was used to predict the behaviour of the test structure during the simulated seismic event. It also explores the selection of material properties and their influence on the theoretical performance of the structure. Lastly, the paper describes the benefits of macro-modelling as a viable and cost-effective procedure for undertaking building assessment, particularly where timeframes and accuracy of results are both critical.


Induced seismicity ANSR Netherlands Calcium silicate 



The authors would like to acknowledge TU-Delft for the opportunity to participate in this blind prediction competition and present our entry and post-prediction.


  1. Dost B, Kraaijpoel D (2013) The August 16, 2012 earthquake near Huizinge (Groningen). KNMI, De BiltGoogle Scholar
  2. ElAttar A, Zaghw A, Elansary A (2014) Comparison between the direct displacement based design and the force based design methods in reinforced concrete framed structures. In: Second European conference on earthquake engineering, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  3. Holmes Consulting Group LP (2014) Performance based evaluation of existing buildings: nonlinear pushover and time history analysis: reference manual. Revision 4 (September)Google Scholar
  4. Kelly T (2007) A Blind prediction test of nonlinear analysis procedures for reinforced concrete shear walls. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 40(3)Google Scholar
  5. Mondkar DP, Powell GH (1979) ANSR II analysis of non-linear structural response user’s manual, EERC 79/17, University of California, Berkeley (July)Google Scholar
  6. Moon FL, Yi T, Leon RT, Kahn LF (2006) Recommendations for seismic evaluation and retrofit of low-rise URM structures. J Struct Eng 132(5):663–672Google Scholar
  7. Nederlandse Praktijkrichtlijn (2015) Assessing structural safety in the construction of new structures and the renovation/alteration of existing structures. Principles of earthquake loads: induced earthquakes, NPR 9998 (December)Google Scholar
  8. Restrepo JI (2010) Concrete column blind prediction contest 2010. NEES, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  9. Tremayne B (2010) Benchmark modelling of a viscous damped steel frame, E-defence blind analysis contest. Hyogo, JapanGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Holmes ConsultingGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations