An extension of analytical methods for building damage evaluation in subsidence regions to anisotropic beams

Ore and mineral extraction by underground mining often causes ground subsidence phenomena, and may induce severe damage to buildings. Analytical methods based on the Timoshenko beam theory is widely used to assess building damage in subsidence regions. These methods are used to develop abacus that allow the damage assessment in relation to the ground curvature and the horizontal ground strain transmitted to the building. These abacuses are actually developed for building with equivalent length and height and they suppose that buildings can be modelled by a beam with isotropic properties while many authors suggest that anisotropic properties should be more representative. This paper gives an extension of analytical methods to transversely anisotropic beams. Results are first validated with finite elements methods models. Then 72 abacuses are developed for a large set of geometries and mechanical properties

Comparison of building damage assessment methods for risk analysis in mining subsidence regions

The occurrence of subsidence phenomena in urban regions may induce small to severe damage to buildings. Many methods are provided in the literature to assess buildings damage. Most of these methods are empirical and use the horizontal ground strain as a subsidence intensity in the vicinity of a building. Application and comparison of these methods with a case study is the main objective of this paper. This comparison requires some harmonization of the existing methods and the development of a software, which combines the subsidence hazard prediction, the damage evaluation methods and a database of buildings with structural parameters as well as the geographical coordinates of the buildings An additional results is the development of a method for the prediction of the horizontal ground strain in the vicinity of each building. Results are given as a map of damaged buildings for the case study and the different existing methods with some statistical calculations such as the mean and the standard deviation of damage in the city. Comparison of these results allows identification of the “safer” method that give the higher mean of damage. The comparison of the calculated results and observed damage in Lorrain region show that, the Dzegeniuk et al. methods is more realistic in comparison of the other empirical methods

Development of building vulnerability functions in subsidence regions from analytical methods

Ore and mineral extraction by underground mining often causes ground subsidence phenomena, and may induce severe damage to buildings. This paper develops vulnerability and fragility functions to assess building damage in the context of mining subsidence hazards, comparable to functions used for other hazards. These functions are based on existing analytical methods for damage assessment. They take into account both the uncertainty of the geometric and mechanical parameters of the building and the soil–structure interaction phenomena that may have a critical influence on the building loading. The present paper discusses the methodology used to determine these functions, and the analytical method for damage evaluation is described. The second part is a detailed application of the methodology for a masonry building with or without reinforcement, for which both vulnerability and fragility functions are calculated. Finally, vulnerability functions are tested and validated with a set of three subsidences that occurred in Lorraine (France) between 1996 and 1999

Development of building vulnerability functions in subsidence regions from empirical methods

The extraction of ores and minerals by underground mining often causes ground subsidence phenomena. In urban regions, these phenomena may induce small to severe damage to buildings. To evaluate this damage, several empirical and analytical methods have been developed in different countries. However, these methods are difficult to use and compare due to differences in the number of criteria used (from 1 to 12). Furthermore, the results provided by damage evaluation may be significantly different from one method to another. The present paper develops vulnerability functions based on a concept that has been applied in other areas, such as earthquake engineering, and that appears to be a more efficient way to assess building vulnerability in undermined cities. A methodology is described for calculating vulnerability functions in subsidence zones using empirical methods. The first part of the paper focuses on existing empirical methods for damage evaluation, and selected necessary improvements or modifications are justified. The second part focuses on the development of a building typology in subsidence zones and its application in the Lorraine region, where many villages are subject to subsidence problems due to iron-ore mining. The third section describes and discusses the adopted methodology for determining vulnerability and fragility functions or curves. Finally, vulnerability functions are tested and validated with a set of three subsidences that occurred in Lorraine between 1996 and 1999

Determining relative block structure rating for rock erodibility evaluation in the case of non-orthogonal joint sets

The most commonly used method for assessing the hydraulic erodibility of rock is Annandale’s method. This method is based on a correlation between the erosive force of flowing water and the capacity of rock resistance. This capacity is evaluated using Kirsten’s index, which was initially developed to evaluate the excavatability of earth materials. For rocky material, this index is determined according to certain geomechanical factors related to the intact rock and the rock mass, such as the compressive strength of intact rock, the rock block size, the discontinuity shear strength and the relative block structure. To quantify the relative block structure, Kirsten developed a mathematical expression that accounted for the shape and orientation of the blocks relative to the direction of flow. Kirsten's initial concept for assessing relative block structure considers that the geological formation is mainly fractured by two joint sets forming an orthogonal fractured system. An adjusted concept is proposed to determine the relative block structure when the fractured system is non-orthogonal where the angle between the planes of the two joint set is greater or less than 90°. An analysis of the proposed relative block structure rating shows that considering a non-orthogonal fractured system has a significant effect on Kirsten’s index and, as a consequence, on the assessment of the hydraulic erodibility of rock

A method to determine relevant geomechanical parameters for evaluating the hydraulic erodibility of rock

Among the methods used for evaluating the potential hydraulic erodibility of rock, the most common methods are those based on the correlation between the force of flowing water and the capacity of a rock to resist erosion, such as Annandale's and Pells' methods. The capacity of a rock to resist erosion is evaluated based on erodibility indices that are determined from specific geomechanical parameters of a rock mass. These indices include unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of rock, rock block size, joint shear strength, a block's shape and orientation relative to the direction of flow, joint openings, and the nature of the surface to be potentially eroded. However, it is difficult to determine the relevant geomechanical parameters for evaluating the hydraulic erodibility of rock. The assessment of eroded unlined spillways of dams has shown that the capacity of a rock to resist erosion is not accurately evaluated. Using more than 100 case studies, we develop a method to determine the relevant geomechanical parameters for evaluating the hydraulic erodibility of rock in unlined spillways. The UCS of rock is found not to be a relevant parameter for evaluating the hydraulic erodibility of rock. On the other hand, we find that the use of three-dimensional (3D) block volume measurements, instead of the block size factor used in Annandale's method, improves the rock block size estimation. Furthermore, the parameter representing the effect of a rock block's shape and orientation relative to the direction of flow, as considered in Pells' method, is more accurate than the parameter adopted by Annandale's method