Soil Settlement and Uplift Damage to Architectural Heritage Structures in Belgium: Country-Scale Results from an InSAR-Based Analysis

Abstract

Soil movement may be induced by a wide variety of natural and anthropogenic causes, which are detectable in the local scale, but may influence the movement of the soil over vast geographical expanses. Space borne interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) measurements of ground movement provide a method for the remote sensing of soil settlement and uplift over wide geographic areas. Based on this settlement and uplift evaluation, the assessment of the potential damage to architectural heritage structures is possible. In this paper an interdisciplinary monitoring and analysis method is presented that processes satellite, cadastral, patrimonial and building geometry data, used for the calculation of settlement and uplift damage to architectural heritage structures in Belgium. It uses processed InSAR data for the determination of the soil movement profile around each case study, of which the typology is determined from patrimonial information databases and the geometry is calculated from digital elevation models. The impact on the historic structures is calculated from the determined soil movement profile based on various soilstructure interaction models for buildings. The resulting damage is presented in terms of a numerical index illustrating its severity according to different criteria. In this way the potential soil movement damage is quantified in a large number of buildings in an easily interpretable and user-friendly fashion. The processing of InSAR data collected over the previous 3 decades allows the determination of the progress of settlement- and uplift-induced damage in this time period. With the integration of newly acquired and more accurate data, the methodology will continue to produce results in the coming years, both for the evaluation of soil settlement and uplift in Belgium as for introducing related damage risk data for existing architectural heritage buildings. Results of the analysis chain are presented in terms of potential current damage for selected areas and buildings.

Full document

References

[1] A. Amorosi, D. Boldini, G. de Felice, M. Malena, M. Sebastianelli, Tunnelling-induced deformation and damage on historical masonry structures, Géotechnique. 64 (2014) 118–130. doi:10.1680/geot.13.P.032.

[2] A. Drougkas, E. Verstrynge, P. Szekér, G. Heirman, L.-E. Bejarano-Urrego, G. Giardina, K. Van Balen, Numerical Modeling of a Church Nave Wall Subjected to Differential Settlements: Soil-Structure Interaction, Time-Dependence and Sensitivity Analysis, Int. J. Archit. Herit. (2020). doi:10.1080/15583058.2019.1602682.

[3] D. Peduto, G. Nicodemo, J. Maccabiani, S. Ferlisi, Multi-scale analysis of settlementinduced building damage using damage surveys and DInSAR data: A case study in The Netherlands, Eng. Geol. 218 (2017) 117–133. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.12.018.

[4] J. Walstra, C. Barbier, L.-E. Bejarano-Urrego, P.-Y. Declercq, D. Derauw, A. Drougkas, R. Hayen, F.-P. Hocquet, J.-F. Lopez, M. Shimoni, K. Van Balen, E. Verstrynge, The GEPATAR project: GEotechnical and Patrimonial Archives Toolbox for ARchitectural conservation in Belgium, in: Eur. Geosci. Union Gen. Assem. Vienna, 2018: p. 15918.

[5] P. Milillo, G. Giardina, M.J. DeJong, D. Perissin, G. Milillo, Multi-temporal InSAR structural damage assessment: The London crossrail case study, Remote Sens. 10 (2018) 20–22. doi:10.3390/rs10020287.

[6] D. Peduto, M. Korff, G. Nicodemo, A. Marchese, S. Ferlisi, Empirical fragility curves for settlement-affected buildings: Analysis of different intensity parameters for seven hundred masonry buildings in The Netherlands, Soils Found. 59 (2019) 380–397. doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2018.12.009.

[7] A. Ferretti, C. Prati, F. Rocca, Permanent scatterers in SAR interferometry, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 39 (2001) 8–20. doi:10.1109/36.898661.

[8] A. Hooper, H. Zebker, P. Segall, B. Kampes, A new method for measuring deformation on volcanoes and other natural terrains using InSAR persistent scatterers, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 (2004) 1–5. doi:10.1029/2004GL021737.

[9] A. Hooper, D. Bekaert, K. Spaans, M. Arikan, Recent advances in SAR interferometry time series analysis for measuring crustal deformation, Tectonophysics. 514 (2012) 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2011.10.013.

[10] J.B. Burland, C.P. Wroth, Settlement of buildings and associated damage, in: Settl. Struct. Proc. Conf. Br. Geotech. Soc., 1974: pp. 611–654.

[11] D. Fischer, Interaktion zwischen Baugrund und Bauwerk, PhD dissertation, 2009.

[12] ASCE, ASCE/SEI 41-06: Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE, Reston, Viriginia, 2007.

[13] E. Namazi, H. Mohamad, Potential damage assessment in buildings undergoing tilt, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Geotech. Eng. 166 (2013) 365–374. doi:10.1680/geng.14.00020.

[14] H. Netzel, Building Response Due To Ground Movements, PhD dissertation, 2009.

[15] A.W. Skempton, D.H. MacDonald, The allowable settlement of buildings, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 5 (1956) 727–768.

[16] H. Breth, G. Chambosse, Settlement behavior of buildings above subway tunnels in Frankfurt clay, in: Proc. Conf. Os Settl. Struct., 1974: pp. 329–333.

[17] M.D. Boscardin, E.J. Cording, Building Response to Excavation-Induced Settlement, J. Geotech. Eng. 115 (1989) 1–21.

[18] J.R. Standing, Elizabeth House, Waterloo, in: J.B. Burland, J.R. Standing, F.M. Jardine (Eds.), Case Stud. from Constr. Jubil. Line Extension, London, Thomas Telford, London, 2001: pp. 547–612.

[19] J. Anketell-Jones, J.B. Burland, The Mansion House Revisited, in: Proc. Int. Conf. Response Build. to Excav. Gr. Movements, 2003: pp. 165–176.

[20] R.J. Finno, F.T. Voss, E. Rossow, J.T. Blackburn, Evaluating Damage Potential in Buildings Affected by Excavations, J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 131 (2005) 1199–1210. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:10(1199).

[21] I.A. Macleod, J.G. Paul, Settlement monitoring of buildings in Central Scotland, Geotechnique. 34 (1984) 99–117.