Seismic behavior of capacity designed masonry walls in low seismicity regions

Eurocode 8 representing a new generation of structural design codes in Europe defines ‎requirements for the design of buildings against earthquake action. In Central and ‎Western Europe, the newly defined earthquake zones and corresponding design ground ‎acceleration values, will lead in many cases to earthquake actions which are remarkably ‎higher than those defined so far by the design codes used until now in Central Europe. ‎ In many cases, the weak points of masonry structures during an earthquake are the corner ‎regions of the walls. Loading of masonry walls by earthquake action leads in most cases ‎to high shear forces. The corresponding bending moment in such a wall typically causes a ‎significant increase of the eccentricity of the normal force in the critical wall cross ‎section. This in turn leads ultimately to a reduction of the size of the compression zone in ‎unreinforced walls and a high concentration of normal stresses and shear stresses in the ‎corner regions. ‎ Corner-Gap-Elements, consisting of a bearing beam located underneath the wall and ‎made of a sufficiently strong material (such as reinforced concrete), reduce the effect of ‎the eccentricity of the normal force and thus restricts the pinching effect of the ‎compression zone. In fact, the deformation can be concentrated in the joint below the ‎bearing beam. According to the principles of the Capacity Design philosophy, the ‎masonry itself is protected from high stresses as a potential cause of brittle failure. ‎ Shaking table tests at the NTU Athens Earthquake Engineering Laboratory have proven ‎the effectiveness of the Corner-Gap-Element. The following presentation will cover the ‎evaluation of various experimental results as well as a numerical modeling of the ‎observed phenomena.‎

Does interpersonal behavior of psychotherapy trainees differ in private and professional relationships?

• Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of trainees’ interpersonal behavior on work involvement (WI) and compared their social behavior within professional and private relationships as well as between different psychotherapeutic orientations. • Methods: The interpersonal scales of the Intrex short-form questionnaire and the Work Involvement Scale (WIS) were used to evaluate two samples of German psychotherapy trainees in psychoanalytic, psychodynamic, and cognitive behavioral therapy training. Trainees from Sample 1 (N = 184) were asked to describe their interpersonal behavior in relation to their patients when filling out the Intrex, whereas trainees from Sample 2 (N = 135) were asked to describe the private relationship with a significant other. • Results: Interpersonal affiliation in professional relationships significantly predicted the level of healing involvement, while stress involvement was predicted by interpersonal affiliation and interdependence in trainees’ relationships with their patients. Social behavior within professional relationships provided higher correlations with WI than private interpersonal behavior. Significant differences were found between private and professional relation settings in trainees’ interpersonal behavior with higher levels of affiliation and interdependence with significant others. Differences between therapeutic orientation and social behavior could only be found when comparing trainees’ level of interdependence with the particular relationship setting. • Conclusion: Trainees’ interpersonal level of affiliation in professional relationships is a predictor for a successful psychotherapeutic development. Vice versa, controlling behavior in professional settings can be understood as a risk factor against psychotherapeutic growth. Both results strengthen an evidence-based approach for competence development during psychotherapy training.