Search

Full base shear seismic demand analyses with calculated examples for heavy stone masonry buildings are not present in the literature. To address this shortcoming, analyses and calculations are performed on nominally reinforced rubble stone masonry house and school designs, as typically built in Nepal. The seismic codes are literally applied for countries where the technique is still allowed (Nepal, India, China, Tajikistan, Iran, Croatia), or should be reintroduced based on current practices (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey). First, this paper compares the base shear formulas and the inertia forces distributions of these codes, as well as material densities, seismic weights, seismic zoning, natural periods of vibration, response spectra, importance factors and seismic load combinations. Large differences between approaches and coefficients are observed. Then, by following Equivalent Lateral Force-principles for Ultimate Limit State verifications (10%PE50y), the base shear and story shears are calculated for a design peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g, as well as the effects of critical load combinations on the forces and moments acting on the lateral-resisting elements. It is concluded that Pakistan has the most tolerant code, Nepal represents an average value, whereas India and China are most conservative toward the case study buildings. Overall, it is observed that heavy-masonry-light-floor systems with negligible diaphragm action behave different under seismic motion than most other building typologies. Given the observations in this paper, the applicability of conventional ELF, S-ELF and S-Modal methods for heavy masonry buildings is questionable. The codes however do not introduce modified approaches that address these differences. Possible implications of the exclusion of plinth masonry and large portions of seismic weight need further assessment and validation, for which different (possibly more sophisticated) concepts must be considered, such as the equivalent frame method or distributed mass system. Since Nepal allows stone masonry in areas with higher seismic hazard levels >0.40 g (opposed to India

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.

After the 2005 M7.6 Kashmir earthquake (Pakistan), field observations reported that several buildings manufactured with local traditional techniques resisted well to that strong seismic event. In this paper the attention is focused on a typical vernacular construction technique commonly named as “Bhatar”, still practiced in the Himalayan regions of India and Pakistan. It is grounded upon the "timber lacing" or "timber reinforcement masonry" concept, i.e. the combination of dry-stacked loose stones with timber beams to increase the wall confinement. Despite its good seismic performances, it has still not been deeply studied from a structural engineering point of view. This paper represents a first attempt to fill this gap. It presents a full analytical study on the structural behaviour of a simple one-storey building unit characterized by a 3.6 m x 3.6 m square plan covered by an heavy wooden roof with 20 cm thick earth coverage, in order to investigate its response under gravity and seismic inertial loadings. Materials properties, static analysis and seismic analysis are discussed. In detail, Shorea Robusta wood and limestone rocks are identified as the most used construction materials for the Bhatar buildings. The Barton's model is applied to characterise the shear strength of the rubble stone layers in the wall. Static analysis reveals that normal stresses at the ground level are around 92 kPa, which can be considered acceptable for common soils. With respect to earthquake, the Bhatar technique can absorb wall cracking and distortion mechanisms, and can dissipate energy through friction between stones. Under the assumption of no vertical ground motion, the acceleration which activates in-plane sliding mechanisms is found to be around 0.5 g, being dependent on the interface friction between adjacent layers. Some preliminary considerations about the out-of-plane seismic behaviour are also provided concerning overturning and bending failure mechanisms. The results are based on assumptions taken by several authors and have not been verified with experimental tests. Nevertheless, some practical suggestions can be derived to improve the seismic shear strength and to ensure friction also in the case of significant vertical component of earthquake ground motions.

This paper analyzes the cost breakdown of earthquake resistant schools in Kaski District of Nepal, as built by Smart Shelter Foundation (SSF). Three types of designs are compared, which are rubble stone masonry with a wooden roof structure, and concrete block masonry with either a wooden roof or with a steel trussed roof. An in-depth cost analysis and cost comparison was carried out, based on a unique collection of local building prices from 19 different villages, as well as generally applicable District Rates, all spanning a period of 10 years between 2007 and 2017. Master Estimates were divided into the 5 main building phases of foundation, walls, roof, floor and finishing, and then further broken down into local costs for materials, labor, and transportation. These cost comparisons give a detailed insight in the distribution of the costs, the pricing of individual materials and construction elements, the effect of price fluctuation on the total costs, and the cost implications of different solutions for seismic measures. It is concluded that the market prices, especially of locally sourced materials, fluctuate too much, making it impossible to detect useful patterns for general application or future predictions. Also, no similarities were found between the local village rates vs. the general District Rates, which insufficiently reflect variations at the micro level, such as availability of materials, site accessibility, or local preferences. To address these issues, the paper introduces a helpful tool for rapid cost estimation of different school designs. The last chapter analyzes the price implications of adding or removing certain seismic features. It concludes that improving masonry with cement mortar has the highest cost impact, but that inclusion of important seismic features such as horizontal bands, buttresses, and steel bars is not that expensive, meaning there is basically no financial obstacle to incorporate these in new constructions of schools and houses. However, all interventions require in-depth technical and scientific validation, for which the authors have started an initiative named SMARTnet. The paper ends with an appeal to experts and academics worldwide, to exchange their knowledge and to support the project with their time and expertise.

The use of “ductile seismic frames”, whose proper seismic behavior largely depend upon construction details and specific design rules, may do not always lead to effective seismic resistant structures, as dramatically denounced by the famous Chinese artist Ai Weiwei in his artwork Straight. The artwork (96 tons of undulating metal bars that were salvaged from schools destroyed by the 2008 Sichuan, China earthquake, where over 5,000 students were killed) is a clear denounce against the corruption yielding to shoddy construction methods. The issue of safe constructions against natural hazards appears even more important in developing countries where, in most cases, building structures are realized by non-expert workers, or even by simple “people from the street”, who does not have any technical knowledge on construction techniques and seismic engineering. In the present paper, a brief history from the first frame structures to the more efficient wall-based structures is provided within earthquake engineering perspectives. The superior structural properties of box-type wall structures with respect to conventional frame structures envisage a change of paradigm from actual “ductility-based” Earthquake Engineering (centered on frame structures) towards 100% safe buildings through a “strength-based” design exploiting the use of box-type wall based structures.