PSI - Issue 64

Maysam Jalilkhani et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 161–167 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

162

2

subsidence attributed to both abandoned and active mines. Hence, it is imperative to accurately assess the structural damage of buildings near these areas affected by ground subsidence, and subsequently develop effective risk mitigation strategies to reduce their potential negative impacts (Saeidi et al, 2013). Moreover, ground vibrations induced by mining operations can cause significant damage to nearby structures, especially in regions previously unaffected by seismic activity (Da Silva et al, 2021). Man-made earthquakes have raised concerns all around the globe as they are becoming more frequent. Examples include earthquakes in the state of Oklahoma, consequence of oil and gas drillers, where billions of gallons of wastewater are being injected underground (Worland, 2015), seismic events regularly occurring since 1980 in Groningen, Netherlands due to gas extraction (Verdoes and Boin, 2021), and the Crooked Lake, Canada, earthquake sequences, induced by shale-gas hydrofracturing (Gillian et al, 2017). Structural damage assessment methods for buildings affected by mining-induced ground subsidence often fall into three categories: analytical, empirical, and numerical (Saeidi et al, 2012). Although some methods demonstrate relative efficacy in evaluating structural damages, significant challenges and unresolved issues persist regarding their accuracy, sufficiency, and applicability. Foremost among the challenges and issues are: (1) Variability in methodologies among countries and reliance on various damage databases, limiting their applicability to buildings sharing similar site conditions (Saeidi et al, 2008), (2) Lack of standardization leads to non-comparability of results, owing to different concepts and criteria employed, (3) The complexities and uncertainties associated with effective parameters sometimes hinder the accurate evaluation of potential damage risks (Malinowska 2008, Hejmanowski and Malinowska 2009, and Malinowska and Hejmanowski 2010), (4) These methods often prove more appropriate for assessing the damage of individual buildings rather than city-level assessments. Therefore, a comprehensive literature review is imperative. Such an examination enables the identification of strengths and weaknesses of each method, paving the way for the development and standardization of existing methods. This advancement facilitates a more realistic assessment of structural damage in areas prone to ground subsidence risks. This paper presents a comprehensive review of methods for assessing damage from mining subsidence. It also briefly outlines key parameters for evaluating building vulnerability to induced ground vibrations. Based on this review, a methodology for predicting building performance near mines is proposed.

Nomenclature ε br

Tensile strain resulting from pure bending Tensile strain resulting from pure shear

ε sr

ε bmax ε smax

Maximum tensile strain due to pure bending deflection Maximum tensile strain due to pure shear deflection

ε h

Horizontal ground strain Peak strain value Modulus of elasticity

ε max

E G

Shear modulus

2. Empirical methods The empirical methods found in literature lack a robust philosophy and mathematical background. They often use past structural damages from ground subsidence to develop relationships between damage and measurable/defined structural parameters (Boone, 1996). Additionally, some empirical methods use principles of structural engineering to determine relationships for assessing the maximum permissible ground settlement across different structural systems, dimensions, and material properties. These methods assess structural damage across a broad range of buildings by analyzing events usually involving the correlation of subsidence parameters (i.e., ground sinking from underground movement) and building properties. They rely on observed damage in subsidence-affected areas. Horizontal ground strain is generally selected as the main parameter to gauge subsidence intensity near the building under study (Saeidi et al, 2013, Malinowska, A., 2013). However, variations exist among these methods in the thresholds of horizontal ground strain used to define the severity of subsidence-induced damage to buildings, owing to differing developmental conditions.