Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

Material Model For URM With A Application On The Seismic Assessment Of A Hospital In Tyrol, Austria

Suikai Lu 1 , Rudolf Heuer 2 , Marian Ralbovský 3 , Rainer Flesch 4

1 Dipl.-Ing., Scientist, Business Unit Transport Routes Engineering, arsenal research, 1030 Vienna, Austria, suikai.lu@arsenal.ac.at 2 Professor, CMSD – Center of Mechanics and Structural Dynamics, Vienna University of Technology, 1040 Vienna, Austria, rh@allmech.tuwien.ac.at 3 Dipl.-Ing., Scientist, Business Unit Transport Routes Engineering, arsenal research, 1030 Vienna, Austria, marian.ralbovsky@arsenal.ac.at 4 Professor, Head of Business Unit, Business Unit Transport Routes Engineering, arsenal research, 1030 Vienna, Austria, rainer.flesch@arsenal.ac.at

1) Abstract The content of this paper presents a new model for unreinforced masonry (URM), based on the plastic material model by Ganz [1]. Here, the idea of Ganz [1] was followed, to use a combination of yielding surfaces in the stress space, where each surface describes one failure mode. Compared to the material model of Ganz [1], the new model was extended to cover even the tension strength aspects of masonry constructions in both directions (in plane, orthogonal and parallel to the horizontal joints) for each failure mode. The model still consists of only 5 convex yielding surfaces which describe the following failures, respectively:

-) tension failure -) compression failure -) shear failure -) sliding along the horizontal joints -) tension failure in the horizontal joints

Additionally to the theoretical background an application is shown, where laboratory experiments are used to test and calibrate the material model and its parameters. Therefore, this model was implemented into the Finite Element Software ANSYS. The implementation involves all the failure modes and an automatic searching for the positions of the masonry structures in the global FE-model. The result of this numerical implementation is the display of the cracked and yielded areas of the wall, respectively. The accuracy depends on the size of the finite elements chosen in the model. Furthermore, this model was applied to seismic assessment of a hospital located in Innsbruck, Tyrol, Austria. In a first step, in-situ measurements have been carried out to detect the dynamic parameters (natural frequencies and mode shapes) for updating the finite element model with these properties. Afterwards, the FE-model was analyzed by response spectra method using SRSS combination rule to simulate a code earthquake, as required in the Austrian national code for designing of buildings with seismic actions, ÖNORM B 4015 [9]. Finally, the new material model was introduced to display cracks in the structure occurring due to the earthquake excitation.

2) Introduction Based on the classical theory of plasticity, Ganz [1] formulated two material models in 1985, where he described yielding surfaces for each failure mode in masonry. First he formulated a model for URM, which covers only 5 yielding surfaces. Then he developed a model to include tension strength, where 12 surfaces were needed. The new model, presented in this paper extends the basic Ganz-model (without tension strength) by including tension in a new effective approach capturing the main failure modes of unreinforced masonry structures.

Both the analytical derivation as well as the software implementation in form of a macro for the FE Software ANSYS, are presented.

To verify the model, experimental laboratory tests were analyzed numerically by using this macro, in order to confirm and prove the analytical work.

In the last part of this paper, a practical application on a lifeline structure, a hospital in Tyrol, Austria was analyzed by using this new approach.

3) Original Model by Ganz In 1985, Ganz [1] formulated a material model for URM, where the two components brick and joints were split.

For the component brick, he focused on the most generally form, perforated bricks (see Figure 1). Within a limiting approach this theory can be also applied to a solid brick.

approach this theory can be also applied to a solid brick. Figure 1 – Brick Element

Figure 1 – Brick Element

The considered forces and cross sections are defined as follows:

F

x

= F + F

x ,1

x , 2

F

x

F

y

F

y

stands for the normal force, and

= F

y ,1

+ F

y , 2

F

x

stands for the horizontal force, and

,1

,

F

x , 2

act upon

A ,

x

F

y ,1

,

F

y , 2

act upon

A

xy

A ,

x

, respectively.

A

xy

, respectively.

F

xy

F

xy

= F

xy ,1

+ F

xy , 2

stands for the shear force, and

sectional area reads

F

xy ,1

,

F

xy , 2

act upon

A , A

x

xy

respectively. The total cross

A A

=

x

+

A

xy

+

A

0

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

By combining the uni- and biaxial parts of the forces using principal forces, the following three equations for failure in brick result:

f

1

f

2

f

3

τ

2

= −

xy

τ

2

= −

xy

2

= +

τ

xy

σ σ

x

(

σ

x

y

+

σ

y

(

σ

0

f

cx

y

+

)(

σ

y

f

cy

)

+

f

cy

0

)

0

tension failure in brick

compression failure in brick

shear failure in brick

(5)

(6)

(7)

For the component mortar, supposing that the vertical joints are not filled, it is only necessary to focus on the horizontal joints. With this assumption the model equations are on the “conservative side”.

Sliding in the joints is modeled by means of the Mohr-Coulomb´s law,

f

4

= τ

2

xy

( c

σ

x

tan( ))

ϕ

2

0

sliding along the horizontal joints

(8)

Finally, a tension cut-off for the Mohr Coulomb´s friction law is formulated,

f

5

=

τ

2

xy

+

σ

x

σ

x

+

2 tan(

c

π

+

ϕ

4

2

)

0

tension failure in the horizontal joints

(Eq 5 to Eq 9) describe the law for URM according to Ganz considering the components of

compressive strength

f

cx

,

f

cy

, respectively.

(9)

4) Modified Material Model The new model, developed within this research work, was expanded by the former model to consider also tension stresses. Taking the uniaxially exposed parts of the brick section, the governing equations can be written as:

β A F

t

x

x

,1

≥ −β A

c

x

F

y

,1

where

F

xy

,1

0

β

c

,

β

t

denote compression strength and tension strength of brick, respectively.

(10)

(11)

For the biaxially exposed parts, the inequation can be written by using the principal forces in terms of

2 ( F + F ) ⎛ F − F ⎞ x , 2 y
2
(
F
+
F
)
F
F
x
, 2
y
, 2
x
, 2
y
, 2
2
β A
F
=
±
+
F
t
xy
1, 2
xy
, 2
2
2
Combining (Eq 10 to Eq 12), and by substitution of
A
+
A
xy
x
A xy
β (
)
=
,
β
=
t
f tx
t
f ty
A
A

≥ −β A

c

xy

(12)

(13)

the former derived material laws for brick (Eq 5 and Eq 7) can be replaced by

f

1

f

3

=

=

τ

2

xy

τ

2

xy

(

σ

x

+

(

σ f

y

cy

f

tx

)(

f

ty

σ

+

y

σ

y

f

ty

)

0

)

f f

cy ty

0

(14)

(15)

The surface function

f

2

(Eq 6) remains unchanged.

To enclose tension in joints, criteria

tension cut-off

f

4

(Eq 8) can be remained unchanged too, but the equation for

f

5

(Eq 9) has to be modified (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Tension cut-off Finally, f 5 = τ f 5 2 xy +

Figure 2 – Tension cut-off

Finally,

f

5

=

τ

f

5

2

xy

+

can be written in terms of

σ

x

2

+ 2

c

cos

ϕ

sin

ϕ

f

tx

1 sin

ϕ

(

σ

x

f

tx

)

2

σ

x

f

tx

+

f

tx

2

0

(16)

The new material model (Eq 14, 6, 15, 8, 16) can be displayed graphically as a combined yielding surface (Figure 3):

graphically as a combined yielding surface (Figure 3): Figure 3 – Combined Yielding Surface of the

Figure 3 – Combined Yielding Surface of the extended model for URM

The failures of the corresponding five yielding surfaces can be interpreted in the same way as in the original model by Ganz (compare to the previous section).

5) Input URM parameters for analytical analysis

For numerical implementation of the URM model, some main input parameters are necessary. The following section presents an overview of the evaluation of the data used for the analysis.

-) Compression strength orthogonal to the horizontal joints [2]:

f

cx

= K β

c

0. 75

f

mc

0 .25

f

cx

(17)

with the module K = 1 . 0 ÷ 1 . 5 , and the compression strength of the considered mortar

f

mc

.

-) Compression strength parallel to the horizontal joints [3]:

URM consisting of solid brick:

f

cy

= 0.75 f

cx

f cy

URM consisting of perforated brick:

f

cy

= 0.5 f

cx

(18)

(19)

-) Tension strength orthogonal to the horizontal joints [4]:

The tension strength of URM depends only on the tension strength of the used mortar

written as:

f tx

f

tx

=

2

3

f

mt

f mt

and can be

(20)

-) Tension strength parallel to the horizontal joints [3]:

In case of tension strength parallel to the horizontal joints, two different crack types should be treated separately.

f ty

Crack Type A (Figure 4) occurs, if bricks are made of low quality materials and if large portions of

normal stresses

σ

x

are exposed to masonry members.

normal stresses σ x are exposed to masonry members. Figure 4 – Crack Type A, taken

Figure 4 – Crack Type A, taken from [5]

f

ty BT

,

_

where

A

h f

b

,

bt horiz

= 2 h

(

b

+

h

m

)

f

bt horiz

,

denotes the horizontal tension strength of used brick

(21)

Crack Type B (Figure 5) is typical for high strength bricks in combination with low quality mortar and/or

if the exposing normal stress σ

x is very small.

low quality mortar and/or if the exposing normal stress σ x is very small. Figure 5

Figure 5 – Crack Type B, taken from [5]

f

ty BT B

,

_

where τ

l = 2 h

(

b

τ

u

b

+

h

m

)

u stands for shear strength.

(22)

-) Young's modulus orthogonal to the horizontal joints [2]: E x

E

x

=

1000 f

cx

(23)

-) Young's modulus parallel to the horizontal joints [6], [7]: E Y

E

Y

E

X

= 1

+

2 π

f

where

f

h

b

4 l

b

.

(24)

-) Friction angle: ϕ ; and shear strength under no compressive stress: c The Friction angle ϕ varies normally between 20° and 40°, and the shear strength under no

compressive strength is between 0.2 – 2.5 MPa where some numbers for c are listed in [2] in table

3.4.

-) Shear strength

τ

u

(

= c + tan(ϕ ) σ

x

)

The shear strength is in accordance to a conventional Mohr-Coulomb friction law, where

the normal stress.

σ

x

(25)

denotes

6.) Implementation of the new model into the FE-Software ANSYS:

To implement the model into a FE-software, it should be taken into account, that

f tx

c

.

tan ϕ

If this condition is not maintained,

f

tx

c

has to be set equal to tan ϕ

(26)

, before continuing the analysis.

The stress state of the analyzed object must be verified. Four different positions can be distinguished (Figure 6). Therefore, an extra condition (Eq 27), has to be considered.

6). Therefore, an extra condition (Eq 27), has to be considered. Figure 6 – Positions of

Figure 6 – Positions of the analyzed stress state

f

5 / 2

T

=

c

cos

ϕ

sin

ϕ

f

tx

f

tx

+ σ

x

Together with condition

f ,

5

f

5

=

τ

2

xy

+

σ

x

2

+

2

c

cos

ϕ

sin

ϕ

f

tx

1 sin

ϕ

0

then the result is

1

< 0

then the result is

0

(

σ

x

f

tx

)

2

σ

x

f

tx

+

f

tx

2

0

> 0

then the result is

then the result is

(27)

0

1

,

(28)

the four positions P1 - P4 can be separated numerically in the following way:

P1:

f

5

f

5 / 2

T

=

0 1

=

0

; P2:

f

5

f

5 / 2

T

=

0 0

=

0

; P3:

f

5

f

5 / 2

T

=

1 0

=

0

; P4

f

5

f

5 / 2

T

=

1

1

=

1

(29)

Only in case of P4, the analyzed stress point is outside the combined yielding surface, which means that cracks will occur. The combined yielding surface was implemented into ANSYS (Figure 7) including the conditions described previously.

(Figure 7) including the conditions described previously. Figure 7 – Screenshot of the implemented Program for

Figure 7 – Screenshot of the implemented Program for URM

The implementation also involves an automatic detecting of the positions of masonry structures in the global coordinate system of the FE-model.

7) Verification of the material model by numerical analysis of laboratory tests:

In 1982, Ganz et al [8] made experimental tests on URM. They exposed the test specimen stepwise until collapse. Those walls were exposed either uniaxially and/or biaxially. Also the angle of the horizontal joints of each specimen varied between 0; 22.5; 45; 67.5 and 90 degrees.

To verify the material model and to demonstrate the implemented macro, these experimental tests have been recalculated numerically and were compared to the test results.

Input data for the computer simulation are given in Table 1.

Table 1 – Input data for computer simulation

In Figure

implementation.

8,

K3

of

density

ρ

[kg/m³]

905

strengths

f

cx

[N/mm²]

7.6

f

cy

[N/mm²]

2.7

f

tx

[N/mm²]

0.03

f

ty

[N/mm²]

0.00

Cohesion

c

[N/mm²]

0.06

Friction angle

ϕ

[°]

39

the test series

is displayed graphically, to show the effectiveness of the

is displayed graphically, to show the effectiveness of the Figure 8 – left: numerical implementation; right:
is displayed graphically, to show the effectiveness of the Figure 8 – left: numerical implementation; right:

Figure 8 – left: numerical implementation; right: laboratory experiment on real test specimen

A summary of additional results is given in Table 2, where stresses were measured in the middle of the wall and were taken from the middle element of the FE-Model.

Table 2 – Comparison between test results and numerically analyzed results

Test

Angle of

Ratio F H / F V

Measured

σ

at laboratory

Numerically analyzed

σ

horiz.

joints

 

crack

(taken from [8])

crack

     

σ

X

 

σ

Y

τ

XY

σ

X

σ

Y

τ

XY

[°]

 

[ ]

[N/m²]

[N/m²]

[N/m²]

[N/m²]

[N/m²]

[N/m²]

K1

22.5

1 / -10.9

-8.00 e4

-9.20 e5

4.20

e5

-7,89e4

-9,10e5

4,14e5

K3

0.0

0

/ -1

0

-7.63 e6

0

0

7.61e6

 

0

K4

90.0

0

/ -1

-1.83 e6

 

0

0

-2.70e6

0

 

0

K6

45.0

0

/ -1

-3.20 e5

-3.20 e5

3.20

e5

-3.19e5

-3.19e5

3.19e5

K7

22.5

0

/ -1

-3.90 e5

-2.25 e6

9.30

e5

-3.99e5

-2.33e6

9.64e5

K8

67.5

0

/ -1

-2.20 e5

-4.00 e4

9.00

e4

-2.28e5

-3.91e4

9.43e4

K10

0.0

-1 / -3.2

-2.11 e6

-6.44 e6

0

-2.40e6

-7.3e6

 

0

K11

22.5

-1 / -3.1

-2.04 e6

-4.49 e6

1.23

e6

-2.07e6

-4.36e6

-1.13e6

K12

45.0

-1 / -3.2

-2.03 e6

-2.03 e6

1.08

e6

-2.05e6

-2.05e6

-1.05e6

8) Seismic application of the material model to the Hospital LKH Innsbruck, Tyrol, Austria

This hospital (Figure 9) was built approximately in 1945 where the structure consists of unreinforced masonry (URM) with “Ast-Molin” (reinforced ribbed arch concrete) slabs and flat reinforced concrete slabs at the aisles. It exhibits a basement, a ground floor and five upper floors including one attic floor. Innsbruck´s geographically position is: 11.390 longitudes and 47.263 latitudes. The soil under this building is composed of middle dense to dense sandy and stony flint. The maximum PGA in accordance to Austrian national code for designing of buildings with seismic actions, ÖNORM B 4015 [9], is 1.54 m/s². However, the strongest earthquake was in 1572, and its PGA has been assessed to 1.48m/s² with a main duration of 3.4 sec and a dominant frequency of 2.7 Hz according to the Austrian earthquake catalogue of ZAMG (Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik, the Austrian Central Institute of Meteorology and Geodynamics). I.e., structural designing according to the current Austrian code ÖNORM B 4015 leads to mechanically conservative results.

ÖNORM B 4015 leads to mechanically conservative results. Figure 9 – Photograph of LKH-Innsbruck In a

Figure 9 – Photograph of LKH-Innsbruck

In a first step, the natural frequencies of the structure were measured by ambient vibration excitations as wind, humans in the structure, traffic and earth micro tremors. The advantage of this method is that no extra artificial exciter is needed. Therefore, the structure was instrumented by 25 sensor positions (partly triaxial) very sensitive seismic accelerometers (Wilcoxon Research 731A-P31), positioned as shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

731A-P31), positioned as shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Figure 10 – Sensor position at

Figure 10 – Sensor position at the fourth upper floor

Figure 10 – Sensor position in the staircases The results of the measured data were

Figure 10 – Sensor position in the staircases

The results of the measured data were analyzed by the software MACEC, to get the natural frequencies and corresponding mode shapes. For comparison’s sake a finite element model (Figure 11) was built and modal analysis was performed by means of the software ANSYS, where mainly shell (shell 63) and line (line 188) elements were used. In this model, the total number of elements was approximately 80,000. In Figure 12, the numerical results are compared to the experimentally evaluated parameters.

results are compared to the experimentally evaluated parameters. Figure 11 – Finite Element model of LKH

Figure 11 – Finite Element model of LKH Innsbruck

Dynamic behavior: (mode shapes and natural frequencies)

Experimentally evaluated by In Situ Measurements

Numerically analyzed by Finite Element Software, ANSYS

f 1 =2.423 Hz

f 1 =2.3443 Hz

Software, ANSYS f 1 =2.423 Hz f 1 =2.3443 Hz ∆ =-3% f 2 =2.580 Hz
Software, ANSYS f 1 =2.423 Hz f 1 =2.3443 Hz ∆ =-3% f 2 =2.580 Hz

=-3%

f 2 =2.580 Hz

f 2 =2.5874 Hz

=2.3443 Hz ∆ =-3% f 2 =2.580 Hz f 2 =2.5874 Hz ∆ =0% f 3
=2.3443 Hz ∆ =-3% f 2 =2.580 Hz f 2 =2.5874 Hz ∆ =0% f 3

=0%

f 3 =2.945 Hz

f 3 =3.1026 Hz

2 =2.5874 Hz ∆ =0% f 3 =2.945 Hz f 3 =3.1026 Hz ∆ =+5% f
2 =2.5874 Hz ∆ =0% f 3 =2.945 Hz f 3 =3.1026 Hz ∆ =+5% f

=+5%

f 4 =3.265 Hz

f 4 =4.1136 Hz

2 =2.5874 Hz ∆ =0% f 3 =2.945 Hz f 3 =3.1026 Hz ∆ =+5% f
2 =2.5874 Hz ∆ =0% f 3 =2.945 Hz f 3 =3.1026 Hz ∆ =+5% f

=+20%

f 5 =3.855 Hz f 5 =4.1236 Hz ∆=+7%
f 5 =3.855 Hz
f 5 =4.1236 Hz
∆=+7%

Figure 12 – Comparison of Mode shapes and natural frequencies

The material parameters of the existing masonry were derived by a simple compression test on a test specimen taken from the original structure (see Figure 13 to Figure 14). The bricks are of the dimensions l/w/h = 250/100/60 [mm].

The bricks are of the dimensions l/w/h = 250/100/60 [mm]. Figure 13 – Test Specimen of

Figure 13 – Test Specimen of the real structure

[mm]. Figure 13 – Test Specimen of the real structure Figure 14 – Axial compression test

Figure 14 – Axial compression test

The evaluated axial compression strength oriented orthogonal to the horizontal joints is

N/mm². The parameters according to Eq (17) - Eq (25) are summarized in Table 3.

f

cx

=1.68

Table 3 – URM Parameters

Parameter

 

Floor

 

MinValue

MaxValue

     

[N/mm²]

[N/mm²]

[N/mm²]

Compression

         

strength

 

Orthogonal to the horizontal joints

 

1.68

   
 

Parallel to the horizontal joints

   

0.92

1.18

Tension

*

       

strength

 

Orthogonal to the horizontal joints *

       
   

4th floor

0.08

   
   

3rd floor

0.19

   
   

2nd floor

0.25

   
   

1st floor

0.35

   
   

Ground floor

0.38

   
 

Parallel to the horizontal joints

       
   

4th floor

 

0.25

0.30

   

3rd floor

 

0.35

0.45

   

2nd floor

 

0.40

0.54

   

1st floor

 

0.49

0.68

   

Ground floor

 

0.52

0.72

Shear

         

strength

   

4th floor

 

0.14

0.17

   

3rd floor

 

0.20

0.25

   

2nd floor

 

0.23

0.30

   

1st floor

 

0.28

0.38

   

Ground floor

 

0.29

0.41

Youngs

         

Modulus

 

Orthogonal to the horizontal joints *

   

2000

2500

 

Parallel to the horizontal joints

   

1500

1850

Shear

     

850

1000

Modulus

After determination of the mode shapes and natural frequencies, a response spectrum analysis was performed considering the code spectra of ÖNORM B4015 [9], where the assumed earthquake was acting in the weaker direction (east-west), see Figure 10. Finally, the material model described above was used to analyze the cracks occurred due to the earthquake. Figure 15 - Figure 21 show the effected cracks, and how many criteria are violated:

number 5 (red) stands for “no crack” and the number 0 (blue) indicates that all criteria are violated.

Basement: Figure 15 – Crack pattern of basement Ground Floor
Basement:
Figure 15 – Crack pattern of basement
Ground Floor
are violated. Basement: Figure 15 – Crack pattern of basement Ground Floor Figure 16 – Crack

Figure 16 – Crack pattern of ground floor

1 st upper floor

2 nd upper floor

3 rd upper floor

upper floor 2 n d upper floor 3 r d upper floor Figure 17 – Crack

Figure 17 – Crack pattern of 1 st upper floor

floor Figure 17 – Crack pattern of 1 s t upper floor Figure 18 – Crack

Figure 18 – Crack pattern of 2 nd upper floor

upper floor Figure 18 – Crack pattern of 2 n d upper floor Figure 19 –

Figure 19 – Crack pattern of 3 rd upper floor

4 th upper floor

Attic floor

4 t h upper floor Attic floor Figure 20 – Crack pattern of 4 t h

Figure 20 – Crack pattern of 4 th upper floor

floor Figure 20 – Crack pattern of 4 t h upper floor Figure 21 – Crack

Figure 21 – Crack pattern of attic floor

9) Conclusion

A

powerful and precise tool for analyzing the bearing capacity of URM has been developed. The result

of

this research work is a macro implementation into the Finite Element software ANSYS. The user,

e.g. a practical engineer, has only to enter the material parameters into the input mask, which are in most cases available (or, at least, can be estimated from the literature or specific building codes), and

so a precise analysis of URM becomes applicable. Although this procedure is a nonlinear approach, the implementation was elastic, which fulfils most of the practical demands of a practical engineer. As result of this application the computer shows the occurrence, localisation and even the failure mode of the cracks in specific URM members. The accuracy depends on the chosen element size of the finite elements.

10) Acknowledgements

The research work of this paper was funded by arsenal research (Fund No: 2.05.00187.4.0). The authors are grateful for this support and want to thank them. The research work on LKH-Innsbruck hospital was supported in part by TILAK, Tiroler Landeskrankenanstalten Ges.m.b.H. The authors want to also thank them.

References

[1]

Ganz, H. R., Mauerwerksscheiben unter Normalkraft und Schub. Institut für Baustatik und

2004.

[2]

Konstruktion, ETH Zurich, report no. 148, 1985. Code, EN 1996-1-1, Design of Masonry Structures, part 1-1 common rules for reinforced and

[3]

unreinforced masonry structures. Glitzka, H., Druckbeanspruchung parallel zur Lagerfuge. Mauerwerkskalender 1988, pp 489 –

[4]

496, Ernst & Sohn, 1988. TassiosΕργαστηριο Ωπλισµενον Σκνροδεµατοζ, Η Μηχανικη, τηζ, τοιχοποιιαζ.

[5]

Αθηνα, 1986. Vratsanou, V., Das nichtlineare Verhalten unbewehrter Mauerwerksscheiben unter

[6]

Erdbebenbeanspruchung. Ph. D. Thesis, Institut für Massivbau und Baustofftechnologie, Universität Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe TH, 1992. Graubner, C. A., Glock, C., Meyer, G., Abschätzung der Knicklänge mehrseitig gehaltener

Wände aus großformatigen Mauersteinen. Bauingenieur, Juni 2004, pp 300-305, Springer,

[7]

Gross, D., Seelig, T., Bruchmechanik mit einer Einführung in die Mikromechanik. 3. edt,

[8]

Springer, 2001. Ganz, H. R., Thürlimann, B., Versuche über die Festigkeit von zweiachsig beanspruchtem

[9]

Mauerwerk. Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zurich, report no. 7502-3, 1982. Code, ÖNORM B4015 (2002), Belastungsannahmen im Bauwesen–Außergewöhnliche Einwirkungen-Erdbebeneinwirkungen, Grundlage und Berechnungsverfahren

Paper should be fully refereed, please