Abstract

Nearly 325 seismic and masonry codes from all over the world have been analyzed, of countries where stone masonry was, or still is, abundantly practiced. This paper compares and summarizes design specifications and construction requirements, with a specific focus on “nominally reinforced rubble stone masonry (NRM) with cement mortar and wooden diaphragms in seismic areas”. Currently, the technique is only allowed and described in some detail in the codes of Nepal, India, China, Tajikistan, Georgia, Iran and Croatia. It is concluded that the design specifications vary greatly without any consensus on the main sizes, dimensions or details. This raises questions about the completeness and correctness, as well as the reliability and actual value of the knowledge in this field. It is further observed that types of stone masonry and stone properties are seldom clearly described in the codes. It is also noted that several countries where stone masonry is still broadly practiced, are currently not allowing the technique (or have no codes in place), such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bhutan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen and Albania. This, however, does not serve the current engineering practices and construction needs in these countries. To address all shortcomings, the paper recommends clear descriptions and terminology; the international adaption of NRM as a fourth masonry category; and the development of a stand-alone code specifically for this technique. Therefore, the authors propose a full assessment, validation, optimization and complementation of the existing knowledge, by means of the current state-of-the-art for calculating, testing and modeling. This envisions a structured research approach with focus on vernacular and traditional construction techniques, called “Non-Engineered 2.0”, for which a research initiative is started under the name “SMARTnet”, meaning “Seismic Methodologies for Applied Research and Testing of non-engineered techniques”. The findings of this paper will serve as the starting point for the upcoming follow-up paper, which will complement the seismic demand with hand-made base shear calculations for countries that still allow the technique. The paper ends with an appeal to experts, academics and final-year students worldwide, to exchange their knowledge and to support the project with their time and expertise.

Highlights

  • The current state-of-the-art for new rubble stone masonry buildings in seismic areas was reviewed for 57 countries in total, of which 31 in more detail

  • It is proposed to internationally adopt “nominally reinforced rubble stone masonry (NRM),” which stands for Nominally Reinforced Masonry, as an additional masonry category

  • – The permitted use of rubble stone masonry, as well as the specifications for stone units are seldom clearly described in the codes

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Between 2007 and 2012 the Dutch NGO Smart Shelter Foundation (SSF) built earthquake-resistant schools in rubble stone masonry in Nepal, and these buildings have survived the 2015 Gorkha earthquakes without any significant damage. Unreinforced masonry (or in this case URM but nominally reinforced) with cement mortar and a wooden roof is described in the Iranian masonry code NBRI-8 (2013) It allows rubble stone but only in the lowest seismic zone (PGA ≤ 0.20g), for buildings of maximum one floor above ground level with 3.5 m height. It describes a minimum required thickness of 350 mm for URM shear walls with natural stone units, but only for moderate seismicity zones with an acceleration value ag,urm ≤ 0.20g, and with the addition of horizontal and vertical reinforcements (making it NRM) It refers to the masonry code Eurocode 6 (EN 1996-1-1, 2005) for specifications of the masonry units, which dictates that only dimensioned stones are acceptable, as further specified in EN 771-6:2011+A1 (2015) for “Natural Stone Masonry Units.”. It further highlights some overall observations of the national seismic and masonry codes that may need attention, for which suggestions and recommendations for improvement are given

Summary of Design Specifications
Findings
CONCLUSION

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.