Material Model For URM With A Application On The Seismic

Assessment Of A Hospital In Tyrol, Austria

Suikai Lu1, Rudolf Heuer2, Marian Ralbovsk3, Rainer Flesch4
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, NORM 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.

Figure 1 Brick Element

The considered forces and cross sections are defined as follows:

Fx = Fx ,1 + Fx , 2

(1)

Fx stands for the normal force, and Fx ,1 , Fx , 2 act upon Ax , Axy , respectively.

Fy = Fy ,1 + Fy , 2

(2)

Fy stands for the horizontal force, and Fy ,1 , Fy , 2 act upon Ax , Axy , respectively.
Fxy = Fxy ,1 + Fxy , 2

(3)

Fxy stands for the shear force, and Fxy ,1 , Fxy , 2 act upon Ax , Axy respectively. The total cross
sectional area reads

A = Ax + Axy + A0

(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 = xy2 x y 0

tension failure in brick

(5)

f 2 = xy2 ( x + f cx )( y + f cy ) 0

compression failure in brick

(6)

f 3 = xy2 + y ( y + f cy ) 0

shear failure in brick

(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-Coulombs law,

f 4 = xy2 (c x tan( )) 2 0

sliding along the horizontal joints

(8)

Finally, a tension cut-off for the Mohr Coulombs friction law is formulated,

f 5 = xy2 + x x + 2c tan( + ) 0
4 2

tension failure in the horizontal joints

(9)

(Eq 5 to Eq 9) describe the law for URM according to Ganz considering the components of
compressive strength f cx , f cy , respectively.
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:

t Ax Fx ,1 c Ax

(10)

Fy ,1 F xy ,1 0

(11)

where

c , t

denote compression strength and tension strength of brick, respectively.

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

t Axy F1, 2 =

( Fx , 2 + Fy , 2 )
2

Fx , 2 Fy , 2
+ Fxy2 , 2 c Axy

2

(12)

Combining (Eq 10 to Eq 12), and by substitution of

t (

Axy + Ax
A

) = f tx ,

Axy
A

= f ty

(13)

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

f 1 = xy2 ( x f tx )( y f ty ) 0

(14)

f 3 = xy2 + y ( f cy f ty + y ) f cy f ty 0

(15)

The surface function f 2 (Eq 6) remains unchanged.

To enclose tension in joints, criteria f 4 (Eq 8) can be remained unchanged too, but the equation for
tension cut-off

f 5 (Eq 9) has to be modified (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Tension cut-off

Finally,

f 5 can be written in terms of

f 5 = xy2 + x + 2
2

c cos sin f tx
2
( x f tx ) 2 x f tx + f tx 0
1 sin

(16)

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

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

f cx = K c

0.75

f mc

0.25

(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]: f cy
URM consisting of solid brick:

f cy = 0.75 f cx

(18)

URM consisting of perforated brick:

f cy = 0.5 f cx

(19)

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

The tension strength of URM depends only on the tension strength of the used mortar f mt and can be
written as:

f tx =

2
f mt
3

(20)

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

In case of tension strength parallel to the horizontal joints, two different crack types should be treated
separately.
Crack Type A (Figure 4) occurs, if bricks are made of low quality materials and if large portions of
normal stresses x are exposed to masonry members.

Figure 4 Crack Type A, taken from [5]

f ty , BT _ A =

hb f bt ,horiz

(21)

2(hb + hm )

where f bt , horiz denotes the horizontal tension strength of used brick

Crack Type B (Figure 5) is typical for high strength bricks in combination with low quality mortar and/or
if the exposing normal stress x is very small.

Figure 5 Crack Type B, taken from [5]

f ty , BT _ B =
where

lb u
2(hb + hm )

(22)

stands for shear strength.

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

E x = 1000 f cx

(23)

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

EX
1 + 2 f
h
where f b .
4 lb
EY =

(24)

-) Friction angle: ; and shear strength under no compressive stress: c

The Friction angle 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

u = c + tan( )( x )

(25)

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

denotes

the normal stress.

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

(26)

If this condition is not maintained, f tx has to be set equal to

c
, before continuing the analysis.
tan

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.

Figure 6 Positions of the analyzed stress state

f 5 / T 2 = c cos sin f tx f tx + x

0 then the result is 1

< 0 then the result is 0

(27)

Together with condition f 5 ,

f 5 = xy2 + x + 2
2

c cos sin f tx
2
( x f tx ) 2 x f tx + f tx
1 sin

0 then the result is 0

> 0 then the result is 1

,
(28)

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

P1: f 5 f 5 / T 2 = 0 1 = 0 ; P2: f 5 f 5 / T 2 = 0 0 = 0 ; P3: f 5 f 5 / T 2 = 1 0 = 0 ; P4 f 5 f 5 / T 2 = 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 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

density

[kg/m]
905
strengths
[N/mm]
7.6
f
cx

Cohesion
Friction angle

f cy

[N/mm]

2.7

f tx
f ty

[N/mm]

0.03

[N/mm]

0.00

[N/mm]
[]

0.06
39

In Figure 8, K3 of the test series is displayed graphically, to show the effectiveness of the
implementation.

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.
Test

K1
K3
K4
K6
K7
K8
K10
K11
K12

Table 2 Comparison between test results and numerically analyzed results

Ratio
Angle of
Measured crack at laboratory
Numerically analyzed
FH / FV
horiz.
(taken
from
[8])
joints
[]
22.5
0.0
90.0
45.0
22.5
67.5
0.0
22.5
45.0

[]
1 / -10.9
0 / -1
0 / -1
0 / -1
0 / -1
0 / -1
-1 / -3.2
-1 / -3.1
-1 / -3.2

crack

XY

XY

[N/m]
-8.00 e4
0
-1.83 e6
-3.20 e5
-3.90 e5
-2.20 e5
-2.11 e6
-2.04 e6
-2.03 e6

[N/m]
-9.20 e5
-7.63 e6
0
-3.20 e5
-2.25 e6
-4.00 e4
-6.44 e6
-4.49 e6
-2.03 e6

[N/m]
4.20 e5
0
0
3.20 e5
9.30 e5
9.00 e4
0
1.23 e6
1.08 e6

[N/m]
-7,89e4
0
-2.70e6
-3.19e5
-3.99e5
-2.28e5
-2.40e6
-2.07e6
-2.05e6

[N/m]
-9,10e5
7.61e6
0
-3.19e5
-2.33e6
-3.91e4
-7.3e6
-4.36e6
-2.05e6

[N/m]
4,14e5
0
0
3.19e5
9.64e5
9.43e4
0
-1.13e6
-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.
Innsbrucks 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, NORM B 4015
[9], is 1.54 m/s. However, the strongest earthquake was in 1572, and its PGA has been assessed to
1.48m/s 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 fr Meteorologie und Geodynamik, the Austrian Central
Institute of Meteorology and Geodynamics). I.e., structural designing according to the current Austrian
code NORM B 4015 leads to mechanically conservative results.

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.

Figure 10 Sensor position at the fourth upper floor

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 comparisons 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.

Figure 11 Finite Element model of LKH Innsbruck

Dynamic behavior: (mode shapes and natural frequencies)

Experimentally evaluated by In Situ Measurements
f1=2.423 Hz

Numerically analyzed by Finite Element

Software, ANSYS
f1=2.3443 Hz

f2=2.580 Hz

=-3%
f2=2.5874 Hz

f3=2.945 Hz

=0%
f3=3.1026 Hz

f4=3.265 Hz

=+5%
f4=4.1136 Hz

=+20%

f5=3.855 Hz

f5=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].

Figure 13 Test Specimen of the real structure

Figure 14 Axial compression test

The evaluated axial compression strength oriented orthogonal to the horizontal joints is f cx =1.68
N/mm.
The parameters according to Eq (17) - Eq (25) are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 URM Parameters

Parameter

Floor

MinValue
[N/mm]

MaxValue
[N/mm]

0.92

1.18

4th floor
3rd floor
2nd floor
1st floor
Ground floor

0.25
0.35
0.40
0.49
0.52

0.30
0.45
0.54
0.68
0.72

4th floor
3rd floor
2nd floor
1st floor
Ground floor

0.14
0.20
0.23
0.28
0.29

0.17
0.25
0.30
0.38
0.41

2000

2500

1500

1850

850

1000

[N/mm]
Compression
strength
Orthogonal to the
horizontal joints
Parallel to the
horizontal joints
Tension
strength

1.68

Orthogonal to the
horizontal joints *
4th floor
3rd floor
2nd floor
1st floor
Ground floor

0.08
0.19
0.25
0.35
0.38

Parallel to the
horizontal joints

Shear
strength

Youngs
Modulus
Orthogonal to the
horizontal joints *
Parallel to the
horizontal joints
Shear
Modulus

After determination of the mode shapes and natural frequencies, a response spectrum analysis was
performed considering the code spectra of NORM 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

Figure 16 Crack pattern of ground floor

1st upper floor

nd

rd

Figure 17 Crack pattern of 1st upper floor

upper floor

Figure 18 Crack pattern of 2nd upper floor

3 upper floor

Figure 19 Crack pattern of 3rd upper floor

4th upper floor

Figure 20 Crack pattern of 4th upper floor

Attic floor

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]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

Ganz, H. R., Mauerwerksscheiben unter Normalkraft und Schub. Institut fr Baustatik und
Konstruktion, ETH Zurich, report no. 148, 1985.
Code, EN 1996-1-1, Design of Masonry Structures, part 1-1 common rules for reinforced and
unreinforced masonry structures.
Glitzka, H., Druckbeanspruchung parallel zur Lagerfuge. Mauerwerkskalender 1988, pp 489
496, Ernst & Sohn, 1988.
Tassios , , , .
, 1986.
Vratsanou, V., Das nichtlineare Verhalten unbewehrter Mauerwerksscheiben unter
Erdbebenbeanspruchung. Ph. D. Thesis, Institut fr Massivbau und Baustofftechnologie,
Universitt Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe TH, 1992.
Graubner, C. A., Glock, C., Meyer, G., Abschtzung der Knicklnge mehrseitig gehaltener
Wnde aus groformatigen Mauersteinen. Bauingenieur, Juni 2004, pp 300-305, Springer,
2004.
Gross, D., Seelig, T., Bruchmechanik mit einer Einfhrung in die Mikromechanik. 3. edt,
Springer, 2001.
Ganz, H. R., Thrlimann, B., Versuche ber die Festigkeit von zweiachsig beanspruchtem
Mauerwerk. Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zurich, report no. 7502-3, 1982.
Code, NORM B4015 (2002), Belastungsannahmen im BauwesenAuergewhnliche
Einwirkungen-Erdbebeneinwirkungen, Grundlage und Berechnungsverfahren

Paper should be fully refereed, please