DEVELOPMENT ANCONCRETE

Massetto, Leonardo Tolaine1 MSc, Civil Engineer, leonardo@glasser.com.br

2 Architect Carlos Alberto Tauil, carlosalberto.tauil@gmail.com3 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, leonardo@glasser.com.br

Architect Carlos Alberto Tauil, carlosalberto.tauil@gmail.com

Comercial Manager, Glasser Pisos e Pré-Moldados, mario@glasser.com.br

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