Seeking Low-Cost Seismic Protection for Urban Masonry in an Unstable Terrain

19
energy, and no cracks were observed in their trial structure. [28] This is another example
of a base isolation system providing seismic protection with an added benefit of
sustainability.
Recognizing the financial inaccessibility of traditional base isolation systems, other
projects have explicitly focused on the cost reduction. Some of these include costeffective
replacements for steel shims often used in rubber bearings. Tan, et al.
suggested an “unsaturated polyester fiber reinforcement.” [24] Other studies proposed a
variety of fibers as steel substitutes, including fiberglass, woven fabric, polyester, and
nylon. Tsiavos et al. did a study using a sand-rubber layer in base isolation. [29] The project
emphasized the importance of local sourcing of materials, noting that fine sand and
recycled tires can be locally acquired. [29] Minimizing shipping costs of materials is another
mechanism to decrease costs associated with the final product. Their experiment was
conducted in association with the SAFER Schools for Nepal project. Another project,
conducted by Nanda, Shrikhande, and Agarwal, proposed marble-marble and marblegeosynthetic
interfaces to improve seismic response of masonry buildings in the
Himalayan regions of India. [30]
While little information exists on the potential implementation of these strategies,
one example is the SAFER project for seismic safety of school buildings in Nepal. This
project recognized the widespread destruction caused by the 2015 Nepal earthquake and
set out to prevent similar effects from future earthquakes. They noted that base isolation
is “prohibitively expensive for many regions,” and they therefore decided to “investigate
low-cost, culturally acceptable, locally-sourced ways of co-producing a similar system.” [31]
The SAFER initiative proposed technology like a 3D topographic mapping system and a
MARKET ANALYSIS OF LOW-COST SEISMIC PROTECTION
BORTON, SAM