development an d use of a new type of concrete … · old nbr 6136 since its initial publication in...
TRANSCRIPT
DEVELOPMENT ANCONCRETE
Massetto, Leonardo Tolaine1 MSc, Civil Engineer, [email protected]
2 Architect Carlos Alberto Tauil, [email protected] Comercial Manager, Glasser Pisos e Pré
In the early 1990`s a concrete blockThe main changes are the cellsreduction. Laboratory tests attestedproperties were consistent with Brazilianstructural masonry unit due to the At this time São Paulo Municipality replacement of “favelas” for multi storey buildings5 storey (Ground Floor + 4 Storeyseveral city regions totaling over 130.0003.000 apartments. To evaluate the new block technical Project, the company conducted grouted (reinforced) and hollow walls, compression tests on hollow walls. As complement, buildings made of structural masonry block and also on the new block, provistructural performance. The study's findings were sufficient to allow the new block use in São Paulo housing project and many other similar typology buildings. The product was and is being widely used until nowadays.This paper presents the new blocksummaries. During the period of Brazilian Standard NBR 6136/2006 revisioncomprehensiveness and strength blocks (Blocks "C" class).
Keywords: CMU manufacturer, innovation, masonry,
INTRODUCTION Structural masonry with concrete block1982 were published the first Brazilian concrete blocks standardsBrazilian buildings. The initial standards blocks for loadbearing masonry, and NBR 7173 nonloadbearing masonry. Under these standardstheir use, into two kinds of blocks: blocks withloadbearing function. NBR 6136 specified the acceptance conditions for
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF A NEW TYPE OF CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
Massetto, Leonardo Tolaine1; Tauil, Carlos Alberto3; Guimarães, Mário Sergio
MSc, Civil Engineer, [email protected]
Architect Carlos Alberto Tauil, [email protected]
Comercial Manager, Glasser Pisos e Pré-Moldados, [email protected]
concrete block industry developed a new type of concrete masonry unitcells geometry modification and the block walls thickness
attested that components mechanical strength and Brazilian Standards. But the block wasn’t able to
due to the reduction in block walls thickness. unicipality launched a wide urban redevelopment project and
multi storey buildings, named Cingapura Project. It was based on Storey) structural masonry buildings. It was implemented
ling over 130.000 m² (square meters) constructed area and
To evaluate the new block technical viability as structural masonry element for the Cingapura a large test program. Compression tests were performed on
and hollow walls, diagonal tension tests on hollow walls, and flexionhollow walls. As complement, site load tests were conducted on
buildings made of structural masonry block and also on the new block, providing satisfactory structural performance. The study's findings were sufficient to allow the new block use in São
o housing project and many other similar typology buildings. The product was and is being widely used until nowadays.
the new block development stages and presents the the period of Brazilian Standard NBR 6136/2006 revision
supported the development of a new class of concrete hollow
CMU manufacturer, innovation, masonry, special masonry unit
concrete blocks was used in Brazil began around the year 1968. In were published the first Brazilian concrete blocks standards with the growing use in
standards to specify blocks were: NBR 6136 - Simplemasonry, and NBR 7173 - Simple concrete blocks for noUnder these standards, concrete blocks were divided according to
kinds of blocks: blocks with loadbearing functional and blocks without function. NBR 6136 specified the acceptance conditions for loadbearing
; Guimarães, Mário Sergio4
type of concrete masonry unit. and the block walls thickness
and other block wasn’t able to be used as
launched a wide urban redevelopment project and the ra Project. It was based on
t was implemented in ) constructed area and around
bility as structural masonry element for the Cingapura a large test program. Compression tests were performed on
tests on hollow walls, and flexion-load tests were conducted on
ng satisfactory structural performance. The study's findings were sufficient to allow the new block use in São
o housing project and many other similar typology buildings. The product was a success
study results the period of Brazilian Standard NBR 6136/2006 revision, the study
concrete hollow
around the year 1968. In the growing use in
imple concrete concrete blocks for non
concrete blocks were divided according to blocks without
loadbearing concrete
blocks such as: definitions, dimensions, strength classes, water absorption, drying shrinkage, calculation methodology of the characteristic strength ( In early 1990s a large housing project construction to replace slums. Called Verticalização de Favelas (Slummonths half a million people, or 92and improvements to 62000 urban families, reaching a total of 243 PEREIRA, 2002). The Cingapura Project focused on building 43m(ground floor + 4 floors) withoutMasonry Building System. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of a comby Cingapura Project.
Figure 1: The Cingapura P At the same time, focusing on cost(up to 6 floors), a major concrete blocks new block type with thinner walls. With ththe standards), the new block attendal. 2008). In order to attest the possible use of the hired a renowned Brazilian research institute (IPT Paulo) to conduct an extensive research study. study of the new block model and another 1996).
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
blocks such as: definitions, dimensions, strength classes, water absorption, drying shrinkage, methodology of the characteristic strength (Fbk) and sampling.
a large housing project started in São Paulo and focused on buildingconstruction to replace slums. Called Project Cingapura or PROVER – Programa de
Slums Verticalization Program), intended to meet at the end of 72 months half a million people, or 92000 families through the construction of 30000
000 urban families, reaching a total of 243 slums clusters (
roject focused on building 43m² standard apartments in 5 floors ) without elevator. In the vast buildings majority was used Structural
Masonry Building System. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of a completely re-urbanized
Figure 1: The Cingapura Project (Construbase, 2011)
At the same time, focusing on costs optimization in structural masonry for low-concrete blocks manufacturer from São Paulo, Brazil,
with thinner walls. With the wall thickness exception (less than specified attended all other features specified in the standard
possible use of the new blocks in the housing projects, the manufacturer research institute (IPT - Technological Research Institute of São
Paulo) to conduct an extensive research study. Two programs were performedmodel and another concerning building load tests (IPT 1999, IPT,
blocks such as: definitions, dimensions, strength classes, water absorption, drying shrinkage,
and focused on building Programa de
to meet at the end of 72 000 apartments
clusters (ABIKO,
floors buildings majority was used Structural
urbanized slum
-rise buildings São Paulo, Brazil, developed a
(less than specified in dards (IURKY et
in the housing projects, the manufacturer Technological Research Institute of São
performed: one for the building load tests (IPT 1999, IPT,
OLD NBR 6136 Since its initial publication in 1982, the old NBR 6136 in 2006 this standard was completely resmain aspects. • Dimensions: The old NBR 6136 standard dimensions are listed in Table 1. The
manufacturing tolerances specified are ± 2length.
Table 1:
• Minimum blocks wall thickness:
dimensions, the longitudinal blocks with 20 cm modular mm and for transverse walls is
Table 2: Blocks
Designation Longitudinal walls
(mm)
M-15 25
M-20 32 (A) Average measure of the three walls taken at the (B) Sum of thicknesses of all transverse walls to blocks (in mm), divided by block length (in meters).
• Minimum compressive strength
resistance classes in NBR 6136/1994 above and below grade. Class BEstrength was calculated according to equation 1 below:
Nominal dimensions (cm)
20 x 20 x 40
20 x 20 x 20
15 x 20 x 40
15 x 20 x 20
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
Since its initial publication in 1982, the old NBR 6136 passed through minor revisions, only completely restructured. It is shown below old standard NBR 6136
The old NBR 6136 standard dimensions are listed in Table 1. The manufacturing tolerances specified are ± 2 mm for width and ± 3 mm for
Table 1: Block dimensions (old NBR 6136)
Minimum blocks wall thickness: as shown in Table 2, for blocks with 15longitudinal and transverse walls minimum thickness is
cm modular dimensions, minimum thickness for longitudinalwalls is 25 mm.
s walls minimum thickness (old NBR 6136)
Longitudinal walls(A) (mm)
Transverse walls
Walls(A) (mm)
Equivalent thickness(mm/m)
25 25 188
32 25 188
Average measure of the three walls taken at the narrowest point. Sum of thicknesses of all transverse walls to blocks (in mm), divided by
compressive strength requirements: according to Table 3, there aNBR 6136/1994 according to the blocks uses: Class AE,
. Class BE, for limited use above the ground. The was calculated according to equation 1 below:
Designation Standardized dimensions (mm)
Width Height Length
M-20 190 190
190 190
M-15 140 190
140 190
minor revisions, only old standard NBR 6136
The old NBR 6136 standard dimensions are listed in Table 1. The for height and
blocks with 15 cm modular 25 mm. For
longitudinal walls is 32
Equivalent thickness(B) (mm/m)
Sum of thicknesses of all transverse walls to blocks (in mm), divided by the nominal
there are two : Class AE, for use
limited use above the ground. The compressive
(1)
dimensions (mm)
Length
390
190
390
190
Table 3: Minimum
Compressive strength4,5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
• Absorption: the standard minimum absorption • Drying shrinkage: should be
THE NEW BLOCK MODEL In order to offer a more competitive product (with more slender walls) and compressive strength sufficient for low-rise buildings a block for nonloadbearing masonry(Iurky et al. 2008). The new model produced with special cement (ARI and steam-cured. The major development was configurations were tried and after many testsThere was also the need to adapt the Figure 2 illustrates the geometriproduced according to old NBR 6136 and the new model developed
Figure 2: Geometric differences between the two types of
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
Minimum compressive strength fbk (NBR 6136 / 1994)
fbk (MPa) minimum values
Compressive strength class Classe AE Classe BE −(A) 4,5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9
10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16
minimum absorption required is 10%. should be less than or equal to 0,065%.
In order to offer a more competitive product (with more slender walls) and compressive
rise buildings construction, the new model was developed masonry wall, produced exclusively for a São Paulo
new model development took advantage of the high quality blocks ARI CP-V type) in Besser machines model Vibrapac v3.12
in refining the block geometry. Numerous geometric tried and after many tests the “four corbels” geometry have been selected
need to adapt the mixing ratio.
geometric block differences in structural (loadbearing) NBR 6136 and the new model developed.
Loadbearing concrete block, standardized by old NBR 6136: walls thickness of 25 mm (15 cm) or 32mm (20cm) with corbel.
New loadbearing block developedgeometry with thinner walls and corbels
Geometric differences between the two types of blocks
36 / 1994)
In order to offer a more competitive product (with more slender walls) and compressive , the new model was developed based on
major builder development took advantage of the high quality blocks
Vibrapac v3.12
. Numerous geometric have been selected.
bearing) blocks
concrete block, standardized walls minimum cm) or 32mm (20
bearing block developed: new geometry with thinner walls and corbels.
blocks
In 1996, to facilitate building constructionconstruction company conductedTecnológicas”) a comparative study in performance by performing a load test in real use studied design typology, no signif This was the first step toward legitimlow-rise buildings. However, besides the Brazilian standard then in effect does not regulate the new model use, there was little knowledge about the properties and between units, prisms and walls. It was nexploring the main resistant characteristicsstudies and their main conclusions are summarized below. COMPARATIVE STUDY 1
TESTS Below are the main aspects and conclusions of laboratory experiments with the new block model contained in the IPT Technical Report (1999). Besides the new block model conducted with structural (loadbearing)the time, with 25mm walls). For a comparative study only one structure block and three classes lower and higher than medium. Were also laying mortar and grout with three than medium. Were conducted the following • Characterization tests on applied materials
- Block, prism, mortar and grout - Determination of moisture, water absorption,
of concrete blocks. • Structural tests:
- Simple compression of filled wallspoor, medium and rich grout
- Simple compression of hollowlaying mortar.
- Hollow walls flexure-compression, with standardized laying mortar and three eccentricity load values.
- Hollow walls diagonal tensioncement/sand ratio), medium cement/sand ratio)
- Impact of soft-bodied in hollow walls with medium mortar.
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
building construction solutions for Cingapura Project, a large Brazilian conducted (in partnership with IPT – “Instituto de Pesquisas
) a comparative study in the building site to verify the new model block performance by performing a load test in real use conditions. The results showed that
no significant parameter differences were found.
This was the first step toward legitimizing the use of the new block for loadbearing walls rise buildings. However, besides the Brazilian standard then in effect does not regulate
use, there was little knowledge about the properties and strength and walls. It was necessary an extensive study, conducted in 1999,
resistant characteristics of loadbearing walls using the new block. Both studies and their main conclusions are summarized below.
– BLOCKS, WALLS AND PRISMS LABORATORY
are the main aspects and conclusions of laboratory experiments with the new block model contained in the IPT Technical Report (1999).
new block model characterization tests, for comparison, studies were also bearing) blocks (with geometry as the NBR-6136
For a comparative study only one compressive strength class was used to the standard of compressive strength for testing the new model: . Were also used in the walls and prisms construc
mortar and grout with three compressive strength levels: medium, lower and higher conducted the following tests:
applied materials:
Block, prism, mortar and grout compression samples, hollow and fulfilled with grout. moisture, water absorption, drying shrinkage and net and gross areas
filled walls, with medium blocks, average laying mortar and grout fill.
of hollow walls, with poor, medium and rich blocks and
compression, with standardized medium blocks study, laying mortar and three eccentricity load values.
diagonal tension, with standard medium block study, and poormedium (medium cement/sand ratio) and rich mor
bodied in hollow walls with standardized medium blocks
Project, a large Brazilian “Instituto de Pesquisas
the new model block . The results showed that, for the
bearing walls in rise buildings. However, besides the Brazilian standard then in effect does not regulate
strength correlations conducted in 1999,
the new block. Both
BLOCKS, WALLS AND PRISMS LABORATORY
are the main aspects and conclusions of laboratory experiments with the new block
studies were also 6136 prevailing at
used to the standard testing the new model: medium,
in the walls and prisms construction, bed , lower and higher
, hollow and fulfilled with grout. and net and gross areas
, average laying mortar and
blocks and medium
blocks study, medium
and poor (low mortars (high
blocks study and
Figure 3 illustrates some tests situations
Figure 3
a) Simple compression b) flex The main conclusions for the studied
• Physical blocks characteristics:
satisfactory moisture, water absorption and drying shrinkage NBR6136.
• Block compressive strength:
- The ranges variation of superimposed - equal to 6.9, 7,respectively.
- The resistance ranges variation average net area equal to 10,3,rich block and medium mortar
- Hollow prisms resistance MPa), and considering the relatively close to the hollow prisms blocks (9.6 MPa). Therefore, results from tests of walls built with these blocks.
- The resistances relationshiphollow and grouted walls showed for the standard loadbearingproject norm - equal to 0,
- The forecast for the longitudinal studied blocks (E = 1.000 x hollow wall compression presented to be valid showing experimentally determined.
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
situations.
Figure 3: Walls resistance tests (IPT, 1999)
a) Simple compression b) flexure-compression c) diagonal tension
studied topics are:
Physical blocks characteristics: the standard blocks and new blocks studied had satisfactory moisture, water absorption and drying shrinkage results
ranges variation of blocks resistance (average in gross area) analyzed were equal to 6.9, 7,4 and 8,0 MPa for the poor, medium and rich
variation of hollow prisms analyzed also were superaverage net area equal to 10,3, 10,1 and 12,5 MPa respectively, for poor, medium and
mortar (9,6 MPa). resistance with the new studied blocks - for the medium mix
MPa), and considering the poor, medium and rich mix ratio (11,0 MPa) hollow prisms resistance with medium standard
blocks (9.6 MPa). Therefore, it is reasonable to comparatively analyzeests of walls built with these blocks.
relationships (wall / prism / block) experimentally determined for walls showed compatible behavior for the new studied blocks and
loadbearing blocks (also compatible with the predicted value by the equal to 0,70 ).
The forecast for the longitudinal elastic modulus, related to hollow walls with new 000 x hollow wall compression resistance in the netshowing difference of about 7% compared to the values
determined.
diagonal tension
the standard blocks and new blocks studied had results according to
in gross area) analyzed were and rich mix ratio,
ed also were superposed - poor, medium and
mix ratio (10,1 0 MPa) - were
standard structural it is reasonable to comparatively analyze the average
(wall / prism / block) experimentally determined for behavior for the new studied blocks and
blocks (also compatible with the predicted value by the
modulus, related to hollow walls with new in the net area)
difference of about 7% compared to the values
• Hollow walls flexure-compression tests:
- The developed break tensionloadbearing blocks and new studied medium blocks, considering the eccentricities imposed, were close to each other.
• Impact tests: - The impact tests (soft-body)
loadbearing blocks, and new wall`s rupture criteria, were considered similar
• Hollow walls diagonal tension
- Walls constructed with standard with medium mortar, showed together (0,89 MPa and 0
- The walls with new studied resistance with the mortar (0,82 MPa, 0.91 MPa, 0,96 MPa, respectively).
- Transverse elastic modulus medium loadbearing blocks, with with difference of about 12%.
- The diagonal tension rupture modes were basically similar for all walls tested with standard loadbearing blocks and new studied blocks, icompressed diagonal (Figure 4 c
In short, the IPT work (1999) concludes that the results (standard loadbearing blocks and new studied blocks) indicate behaviors consistent and compatible. It wasn`t observed in any of the tests resultsaltered behavior. COMPARATIVE STUDY 2 – BUILDINGBelow its related aspects and conclusions of load tests carried out in buildings with the new model blocks included The objective of the study is to make a comparative experimentaof the one of the most demandedloading resulting from residential Cingapura Housing Project of São Paulo The two buildings were identicalfloor) stories, with structure made blocks. One building was fully constructed25mm thicknesses, according to Brazilian standard) and the other with the new developed blocks (walls with thicknesses less than 25mm). The living room floors were made width and supported toward the room’s lower upper floors were loaded, corresponding to
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
compression tests:
tension states, obtained for walls constructed with standard blocks and new studied medium blocks, considering the eccentricities
were close to each other.
body) results, for walls with medium mortar and new studied medium blocks, despite the difficulty of defining
were considered similar among themselves. diagonal tension tests:
Walls constructed with standard loadbearing blocks and new studied medium blocks, with medium mortar, showed diagonal tension resistances (NBR-14321/99)
89 MPa and 0,91 MPa, respectively). studied medium block showed increasing diagonal tension
mortar strength, considered with poor, medium and rich 96 MPa, respectively).
modulus values to walls with new studied blocks and the standardblocks, with medium mortar, were relatively close to each other,
with difference of about 12%. rupture modes were basically similar for all walls tested with blocks and new studied blocks, i.e., wall cut following
onal (Figure 4 c).
In short, the IPT work (1999) concludes that the results series for the twoblocks and new studied blocks) indicate behaviors consistent and
in any of the tests results, for both blocks types, indications of
BUILDING LOAD TESTS aspects and conclusions of load tests carried out in buildings
included in the IPT Technical Report (IPT, 1996).
to make a comparative experimental evaluation through load test manded structural wall performance in a building, considering the
loading resulting from residential typology. Tests were conducted in October 1996 in two of São Paulo City Hall, located in Vila Nilo, São Paulo
The two buildings were identical, consisting of 5 floors, with a ground floor and 4 (1st to 4th , with structure made of masonry loadbearing walls with 15cm nominal width
constructed with structural concrete blocks (internal walls with , according to Brazilian standard) and the other with the new developed
(walls with thicknesses less than 25mm).
were made of prefabricated prestressed concrete panelssupported toward the room’s lower interspace. All floors panels from the fourth
corresponding to the living room floor of the next apartments.
walls constructed with standard blocks and new studied medium blocks, considering the eccentricities
mortar and standard e the difficulty of defining
medium blocks, 14321/99) very close
diagonal tension and rich mix ratios
to walls with new studied blocks and the standard mortar, were relatively close to each other,
rupture modes were basically similar for all walls tested with following the
for the two block types blocks and new studied blocks) indicate behaviors consistent and
, indications of
aspects and conclusions of load tests carried out in buildings constructed
through load test , considering the
ests were conducted in October 1996 in two São Paulo-SP.
floor and 4 (1st to 4th with 15cm nominal width
with structural concrete blocks (internal walls with , according to Brazilian standard) and the other with the new developed
panels, with 1,0m from the fourth
apartments.
The loading was applied with water, setting up 0,55 m height. As maximum load was considered incidental (forseen in the Brazilian standard of 150 210 Kgf/cm² ). This load, applied in four steps was floor and unloading was appliedthe floor plan showing the tested As main conclusions the IPT study
• In the visual inspection performed after the load tests
resulting from applied loads were found,• In the visual inspection, t
constructed with modular concrete blocks ofand transverse walls, showed buildings, for the loading levels achieved.
Figure 4: Wall loading
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
with water, setting up in each room a pool with 1,64mload was considered incidental load to residential buildings
e Brazilian standard of 150 Kgf/cm² plus a coefficient of 1,4, i, applied in four steps was implemented in order, from 1st to 4th applied by following the loading reverse steps. Figure tested wall and pools location in the apartments.
conclusions the IPT study highlights:
In the visual inspection performed after the load tests, none structural abnormalitiresulting from applied loads were found,
the visual inspection, the results of the two load tests carried out in two with modular concrete blocks of different thicknesses on the
and transverse walls, showed satisfactory structural performance, tested in the two buildings, for the loading levels achieved.
Wall loading in load test scheme (IPT, 1996)
m x 3,24m and to residential buildings
4, i.e. equal to from 1st to 4th
reverse steps. Figure 4 illustrates
structural abnormalities
he results of the two load tests carried out in two buildings, the longitudinal
tested in the two
NEW NBR 6136 DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLICATIONWith the relusts of these investigations, results and the new block model began to be used Around 2002, a commission was established to review and update the technical standards related to concrete blocks. Among the reviewedblock model formalization, based on published the new NBR 6136 - H For this paper purposes, one of the most important changes was the unification of the two standards (of loadbearing blocks and blocks into four resistance classes (Table 4):
- Class "A": use in loadbearing MPa characteristic strength
- Class "B": use in loadbearing minimum of 4 MPa characteristic
- Class "D": use only as a MPa characteristic strength;
- Class "C": new resistance class refine and use of the new block model in addition to the performed studies and researches (briefly described here)
Table 4: Summary Table
Class Compressive
strength (fbk) Module (cm)
A ≥ 6 MPa M 15 / 20
B ≥ 4 MPa M 15 / 20
C ≥ 3 MPa M 10 / 12,5 /
15 / 20
D ≥ 2 MPa M 7,5 / 10 /
12,5 / 15 / 20• Dimensional tolerance: ± 2 mm to thickness and ± 2 mm to height and length;
• Absorption: ≤ 10%;
• Drying shrinkage: ≤ 0,065%. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThis paper presents technological development way to achieve sustainable competitive advantages. Often“push” the market and boost the technological level of a segment or sector. The work clearly demonstrates the industry mobilization (manufacturers, consumers, research entities) of an innovation launched by a manufacturer (recognized).
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
NEW NBR 6136 DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLICATION relusts of these investigations, builders and designers began to be aware of the
and the new block model began to be used.
a commission was established to review and update the technical standards related to concrete blocks. Among the reviewed issues was placed on the agenda
, based on conducted studies. In 2006, after a lot ofHollow elements for masonry.
purposes, one of the most important changes was the unification of the two blocks and nonloadbearing blocks) in a single standard
into four resistance classes (Table 4): bearing walls, above and below ground level, with
MPa characteristic strength (formerly Class AE); bearing walls, limited use above the ground level, with
um of 4 MPa characteristic strength (formerly Class BE); Class "D": use only as a partition or facade nonloadbearing element, with at least 2
characteristic strength; new resistance class creation, incorporating the acquired knowledge by
ine and use of the new block model in addition to the performed studies and researches (briefly described here)
Table 4: Summary Table – Concrete blocks specification (NBR 6136 / 2006)
Module (cm) Wall thicknesses
(mm) Use
M 15 / 20 25 / 32 Loadbearing: below and above ground level
M 15 / 20 25 / 32 Loadbearing: above ground level
M 10 / 12,5 / 15 / 20
18 Loadbearing: 10 (storey house), 12,5 (2 floors house), 15 and 20 cm (higher buildings)
M 7,5 / 10 / 12,5 / 15 / 20
15 Nonloadbearing: “Apparent” or “to be coated”
Dimensional tolerance: ± 2 mm to thickness and ± 2 mm to height and length;
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS technological development conducted by construction companies as a
way to achieve sustainable competitive advantages. Often, it is the innovation that should “push” the market and boost the technological level of a segment or sector. The work clearly
mobilization (manufacturers, consumers, research entities) an innovation launched by a manufacturer (until be nationally standardized and
began to be aware of the
a commission was established to review and update the technical standards agenda the new
a lot of debates, was
purposes, one of the most important changes was the unification of the two standard, dividing the
walls, above and below ground level, with at least 6
walls, limited use above the ground level, with
element, with at least 2
, incorporating the acquired knowledge by ine and use of the new block model in addition to the performed studies and
Concrete blocks specification (NBR 6136 / 2006)
Loadbearing: below and above
above ground
10 (storey house), 12,5 (2 floors house), 15 and 20 cm (higher buildings)
“Apparent” or
Dimensional tolerance: ± 2 mm to thickness and ± 2 mm to height and length;
companies as a it is the innovation that should
“push” the market and boost the technological level of a segment or sector. The work clearly mobilization (manufacturers, consumers, research entities) in face
standardized and
The work also demonstrates that great responsibility and, in most casesreturn in the short time. Investment in the development of new products requireintellectual effort. Also during the new block developmentperformance with clear criteria and requirements the market by the lack of compastandard to be published in March 2012. Nowadays, the new block is sold as "product line" and company, who is constantly seeking market as the leader. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IPT – Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas de SEngº Carlos Eduardo de Siqueira Tango REFERENCES ABIKO, A.K., PEREIRA, P. M. Cingapura”, In: NUTAU 2002, Sustentabilidad Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT) “NBR 6136 simples para alvenaria – Requisitos CONSTRUBASE - Áreas de atuação: construções sociais <com.br/areas-de-atuacao/construcoes/cingapura.php IPT – Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas “Avaliação de Blocos Não Normalizados de fabricação da Glasser Pisos e Pré1999. IPT – Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas “Avaliação Experimental de Desmpenho Estrutural de Dois Edifícios do Projeto Cingapura”. Relatório Técnico nº 34.791. São Paulo, 1996. YURKI, et al. “O Ciclo de Vida de Uma Empresa FamiliarGlasser Pisos e Pré-Moldados Ltda”. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso. Universidade Mogi das Cruzes. São Paulo. 2008.
15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference
Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012
The work also demonstrates that a new product launch to the market should be donin most cases, requires high initial investments that may not
short time. Investment in the development of new products require
development the absence of a standard based and requirements complicated the new product
the market by the lack of comparative parameters. Today there`s a buildingin March 2012.
new block is sold as "product line" and it´s a great commercial success of the king in innovation to be a national reference and stay in the
Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas de São Paulo – Engº Roberto Katumi Nakaguma, Engº Carlos Eduardo de Siqueira Tango
P. M. S. “Conjuntos Habitacionais em São Paulo: O projeto
NUTAU 2002, Sustentabilidade, Arquitetura e Desenho Urbano. São Paulo, 2002
Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT) “NBR 6136 Blocos vazados de concreto Requisitos”. Rio de Janeiro. 2007.
Áreas de atuação: construções sociais < http://www.construbase.atuacao/construcoes/cingapura.php> acessado em 19/07/2011
Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas “Avaliação de Blocos Não Normalizados de fabricação da Glasser Pisos e Pré-Moldados Ltda.”. Relatório Técnico nº 39.019. São Paulo,
Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas “Avaliação Experimental de Desmpenho Estrutural de Dois Edifícios do Projeto Cingapura”. Relatório Técnico nº 34.791. São Paulo, 1996.
, et al. “O Ciclo de Vida de Uma Empresa Familiar: O Estudo de Caso da Empresa Moldados Ltda”. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso. Universidade Mogi
ld be done with requires high initial investments that may not have a
short time. Investment in the development of new products required great
the absence of a standard based on building new product acceptance in
building performance
a great commercial success of the and stay in the
Engº Roberto Katumi Nakaguma,
S. “Conjuntos Habitacionais em São Paulo: O projeto
2002.
Blocos vazados de concreto
http://www.construbase.
Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas “Avaliação de Blocos Não Normalizados de .019. São Paulo,
Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas “Avaliação Experimental de Desmpenho Estrutural de Dois Edifícios do Projeto Cingapura”. Relatório Técnico nº 34.791. São Paulo, 1996.
: O Estudo de Caso da Empresa Moldados Ltda”. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso. Universidade Mogi