Photos from low-rise un-engineered construction

February 21, 2018

Photos by Anna Lang.



Fig. 1. Note slabs and lightweight roofs in typical residential construction (1-2 story, 3-story less common). Fig. 2. Confined masonry: formwork present after construction of walls. Note lack of columns on right side.

Fig. 3. Interlocking masonry walls at corners (this tended to perform well). Lack of load bearing on walls evident from added blocks. Confined and infill masonry techniques employed, preparation for additional levels. Fig. 4. Typical 1-story residence in background: Note blocks added at top of wall (non-load bearing wall). Construction of new wall in foreground demonstrating interlocking of wall and column.

Fig. 5. Confined masonry technique at bottom two levels. Use of glass blocks prevent load bearing and shear transfer and infill technique at top level. Fig. 6. Typical infill masonry construction and damage. Separation of masonry panel from column.

Fig. 7. Pouring the columns after the walls (ie, confined masonry technique) did not guarantee better performance. A lack of staggering of the blocks resulted in performance similar to infill masonry (ie, separation of the panel and column). Fig. 8. Wall formation is complete in this image. Block and stone rubble will be later added to fill in the gap above the wall. Note columns formed after walls.

Fig. 9. No substantial difference in construction technique. Ground effects were substantial. Fig. 10. Separation of the masonry from the column with infill construction technique.

Fig. 11. Typical failure to infill masonry. In-plane damage resulting in out of plane failure. Fig. 12. No substantial difference in construction technique. Ground effects were substancial.

Fig. 13. Damage to a residence likely constructed with confined masonry technique. Poor connection between the masonry and the column resulted in panel separation.


	Fig. 1. Note slabs and lightweight roofs in typical residential construction (1-2 story, 3-story less common).		Fig. 2. Confined masonry: formwork present after construction of walls. Note lack of columns on right side.



	Fig. 3. Interlocking masonry walls at corners (this tended to perform well). Lack of load bearing on walls evident from added blocks. Confined and infill masonry techniques employed, preparation for additional levels.		Fig. 4. Typical 1-story residence in background: Note blocks added at top of wall (non-load bearing wall). Construction of new wall in foreground demonstrating interlocking of wall and column.



	Fig. 5. Confined masonry technique at bottom two levels. Use of glass blocks prevent load bearing and shear transfer and infill technique at top level.		Fig. 6. Typical infill masonry construction and damage. Separation of masonry panel from column.



	Fig. 7. Pouring the columns after the walls (ie, confined masonry technique) did not guarantee better performance. A lack of staggering of the blocks resulted in performance similar to infill masonry (ie, separation of the panel and column).		Fig. 8. Wall formation is complete in this image. Block and stone rubble will be later added to fill in the gap above the wall. Note columns formed after walls.



	Fig. 9. No substantial difference in construction technique. Ground effects were substantial.		Fig. 10. Separation of the masonry from the column with infill construction technique.



	Fig. 11. Typical failure to infill masonry. In-plane damage resulting in out of plane failure.		Fig. 12. No substantial difference in construction technique. Ground effects were substancial.


	Fig. 13. Damage to a residence likely constructed with confined masonry technique. Poor connection between the masonry and the column resulted in panel separation.