Open access - ORBi
Given that for the use of Structural Eurocodes it is therefore necessary for ....
Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1-1:General rules and ......
It does not concern national parameter, but correction of material error, .....
Concrete deck, reinforced concrete and prestressed reinforced concrete T = 15 °
C.
part of the document
FULL-SCALE SEISMIC TESTING OF MODERN UNREINFORCED THERMAL INSULATION CLAY BLOCK MASONRY HOUSES
MENDES, L.; CANDEIAS, P.; CORREIA, A.; COSTA, A.C.; COELHO, E.; JÄGER, A.; LU, S.; DEGÉE, H.; MORDANT, C.
ABSTRACT:
In the scope of the transnational access activities of the European research project SERIES, the Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC) has provided access to its 3-D shaking table to the international construction company Wienerberger AG and to a group of European experts, in order to perform full-scale seismic tests on an industrial solution for buildings using a modern unreinforced thermal insulation clay block masonry structure.
Such solution represents a very common construction method in Central Europe and, although there are cyclic shear test results available, its effective dynamic response under seismic events still requires experimental validation. For this purpose, two full-scale mock-ups with different geometries were tested on the 3-D shaking table using a series of seismic records with increasing intensity.
This paper focuses on the most relevant experimental results regarding the structural response of the specimens, e.g., the dynamic response evolution, the collapse mechanism identified and the maximum drift values measured. The paper closes with the main conclusions drawn and with proposals for future developments.
Keywords: Modern masonry, Full-scale testing, Shaking table
Introduction
The requirements of clay block masonry building constructions changed drastically during the last decades. Besides mechanical strength, also thermal insulation became more and more important in order to fulfil the increased legal requirements for heating/cooling energy demand. To ensure that monolithic clay wall constructions are able to fulfil these requirements still in the future, a new generation of high thermal insulating clay blocks has been developed and successfully launched by Wienerberger, the worlds largest brick producing company.
Monolithic clay wall constructions represent a very common construction method in Central Europe. In these regions, seismic hazard is qualified by current standards as being low-to-moderate and requires a specific consideration.
In the context of modern masonry, the available test results mainly concern cyclic shear behaviour of wallets in order to assess the hysteretic behaviour of single structural members [1-5] but less have been performed on full-scale specimens for including the global structural behaviour.
The aim of this study is to validate experimentally the effective three-dimensional seismic response of unreinforced masonry buildings by means of full-scale shaking table tests. For this purpose, two real scale mock-ups have been constructed and tested on LNECs 3-D shaking table with 6 degrees of freedom using a series of seismic records with increasing intensity. These mock-ups were designed as 2-storey structures with the main difference on the plan regularity: the first one was regular while the second included significant irregularities.
In this paper, the main results from the experimental campaign and the initial structural analysis are presented. The experimental setup, the dynamic behaviour assessed using impulse excitation and the preliminary test results are also addressed in some detail. In addition, the most probable collapse mechanisms are identified and behaviour factors (q-values) are estimated using the measured maximum acceleration on the storeys that reached a near collapse situation.
Nevertheless, further analysis is still needed, in particular using numerical models, to analyse and extend the results from the experimental campaign.
Experimental setup
Mock-up Idealization and Geometry
Two full-scale mock-ups were designed for testing in the LNEC 3D shaking table. These mock-ups had 2 storeys, plan dimensions of 3.70x4.20m2 at the ground floor and a height of 5.40m. They were built on specially designed steel foundations (see Figure 1b). The design was made to limit deflections at midspan to L/1000 during transportation on to the shaking table and to avoid damaging the mock-ups as much as possible.
(a)
(b)
General views: (a) Mock-up A and B in the test lab before testing; (b) Additional masses.
Mock-up A is regular in plan while Mock-up B includes significant irregularities. A plan view of both mock-ups is presented in Figure 2 and an elevation view is shown in Figure 4. The clear height of the walls is 2.50m and both storey slabs are 0.20m thick resulting in a total height of 5.40m. All door openings were conceived with a height of 1.90m and the window openings were 1.15m tall. The length of the individual shear walls ranges from only 0.80m to 2.10m. In addition, the walls are 20cm thick, which is a relatively low value for this type of structural solutions. As a comparison, according to EN 1998-1 - Table 9.2 [6], the minimum thickness of shear walls for unreinforced masonry is generally 24cm and this value can be reduced to 17cm only in low seismicity regions (low seismicity is defined as zones with gðI × agR × S £ð ð0,10 g).
The first and second storey slabs were prefabricated reinforced concrete slabs with a thickness of 20cm. The first floor slabs are rectangular with 3.70x4.20m2 in plan, whereas the ones used on the second floors are 4.40x4.90m2.
For considering a live load of 2kN/m2, four additional masses weighting 6kN each were fixed on top of the first floor slab. Their positions were chosen in order to have similar inertial properties of the corresponding distributed load (see Figure 1b). The total mass including walls, ceilings, steel foundation, and additional masses amounts to 31.7tonnes for each mock-up.
(a)
(b)
Plan view of the mock-ups: (a) Mock-up A Symmetrical; (b) Mock-up B Asymmetrical.
Construction
The construction of both mock-ups was executed in the following steps: First floor: 1) Laying of first course of clay blocks in U-shaped steel frames on the steel foundation on top of a conventional mortar; 2) Erecting the walls using thin-layer mortar up to the wall height of 2.50m. Above door and window openings, prefabricated lintels with a height of 6.5cm were used; 3) On top of the last course sanded bitumen sheeting was glued using thin layer mortar. On top of this bitumen sheeting the height was levelled out using conventional mortar. This represents an approved construction detail which ensures proper transmission of shear forces (see e.g. German national annex of Eurocode 6 [7]); and 4) Placing of prefabricated reinforced concrete slabs in wet (not hardened) mortar.
For the second floor: 1) Laying of first course of clay blocks on top of the RC slab using conventional mortar and 2) Following the same steps adopted for first floor.
Material parameters
Premium clay blocks from Wienerberger (Porotherm 20-40 W.i. Plan) with excellent mechanical and thermal performance were used for building the mock-ups (see Figure 3a). These special blocks are characterized by relatively large voids in which additional insulation material, either mineral wool or perlite, is placed. The mechanical and geometrical parameters of the blocks are given in Table 1.
The bed joints of these blocks have a high accuracy which is achieved by grinding, which allows assembling with thin-layer mortar with a thickness of approximately 1 mm compared to conventional mortar with 12mm thickness. Their mechanical parameters are listed in Table 2.
The mechanical properties of the masonry were assessed according to the relevant testing standards and the obtained material parameters are given in Table 3.
The lintels for doors and windows were executed using two prefabricated lintel beams (Wienerberger Porotherm Sturz 9 cm) as shown in Figure 3b. The dimensions of the beams were 9cm in width and 6.5cm in height. The length was adjusted to the window/door size as shown in Figure 4.
(a)
(b)
Materials: (a) High thermal insulation clay block, Wienerberger Porotherm 20-40 W.i. Plan; (b) prefabricated lintel, Wienerberger Porotherm Sturz 9cm.
Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 1. Clay block geometrical and mechanical characteristics (Wienerberger Porotherm 20-40 W.i. Plan).
Material characteristic
Value
Mean compressive strength QUOTE (EN 772-1) [N/mm²]
10.7
Normalized compressive strength fb (EN 772-1) [N/mm²]
13.4
Voids ratio (EN 772-3) [%]
48
Gross dry density (EN 772-3) [kg/m³]
755
Dimensions L x H x W (EN 772-16) [mm]
400 x 249 x 200
Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 2. Characteristics of thin layer mortar
Material characteristic
Value
Bending strength (EN 1015-11) [N/mm²]
3.1
Compressive strength (EN 1015-11) [N/mm²]
12.1
Density (EN 1015-6) [g/cm³]
1.39
Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 3. Masonry mechanical characteristics
Material characteristic
Value
Mean masonry strength fi (EN 1052-1) [N/mm²]
5.6
Characteristic masonry strength fk (EN 1052-1) [N/mm²]
5.3
Young modulus (EN 1052-1) [N/mm²]
4500
Characteristic shear strength fvk0 (EN 1052-3) [N/mm²]
0.32
Seismic input time-histories
The reference seismic signal was generated from the horizontal components of the Tolmezzo-Diga Ambiesta station records acquired during the Friuli earthquake that occurred in 1976 in the northeast of Italy. These records have 15s duration and were adapted to match the EC8 [6] elastic response spectrum, 5% damping, type 1 and ground type C (S=1.15; TB=0.2s; TC=0.6s; TD=2.0s).
The reference signals (REF) were obtained by scaling the N-S (E-W) component to a PGA of 0.36g (0.32g) and used in the shaking table transverse (longitudinal) direction (see Figure 2). These signals were scaled down to 12.5%, 25.0%, 37.5%, 50%, 62.5%, 75%, and 87.5%, resulting in a total of 8 seismic stages with PGA values listed in Table 4.
Instrumentation plan
The adopted instrumentation setup comprised the shaking table displacements and accelerations, 4 biaxial absolute displacements for the first and second storey slabs, 26 acceleration records (steel foundation, slabs and out-of-plane wall movements) and 18 relative displacements measured by LVDTs (rocking, sliding and diagonal relative displacements). A schematic representation of the sensor layout is presented in Figure 4 for Mock-up A (symmetric) and for Mock-up B (asymmetric). A high speed data acquisition system was used to register the tests and the data was stored in an appropriate data format.
Testing procedure
As mentioned before, eight seismic stages were generated including the REF signals. To enhance the comparison with numerical results, it was decided to adopt alternating uniaxial and biaxial test stages. Consequently, the odd test stages were divided into two tests for each horizontal direction acting separately. For the other stages, both horizontal components were used at the same time. The test sequence is presented in Table 4.
It is a well-known fact that shaking tables reproduce the target signals with a certain approximation due to several aspects of control engineering that are beyond the scope of this paper, e.g. table-specimen interaction, oil-column resonance. An adaptive technique is often used to minimize the differences between target and effective motions of the shaking table. This technique consists in progressively incrementing the shaking table drive motions and by minimizing in each step the error time series using the information available from the dynamic properties of the global system (mock-up and shaking table). On a typical test intensity increment, the correction factor was set to 50% of the error between target and measured motions from the previous test. This adaptive technique led to an increase of the total number of shakes experienced by the mock-ups, which are also listed in Table 4.
During the tests and as a safety measure in case of global collapse, both slabs were connected by cables to an overhead bridge crane. These cables were loose enough for typical testing displacements but would hold the slabs and part of the masonry walls if a collapse would have occurred.
Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 4. Measured peak accelerations for load sequences applied to Mock-up A and Mock-up B.
(a) Mock-up A (symmetric)
(b) Mock-up B (asymmetric)
Stage
NS (Long.)
EW (Trans.)
No. of shakes
Stage
NS (Long.)
EW (Trans.)
No. of shakes
[m/s²]
[m/s²]
[-]
[m/s²]
[m/s²]
[-]
01T
0.096
0.433
6
01T
0.092
0.428
5
01L
0.491
0.110
5
01L
0.636
0.084
5
02
1.013
0.913
5
02
1.000
0.949
6
03T
0.280
1.388
5
03T
0.141
1.249
5
03L
1.419
0.616
5
03L
1.505
0.620
4
04
3.734
2.143
5
04
2.016
1.882
5
05T
0.486
2.857
5
05T
0.664
2.616
4
05L
2.526
0.844
6
05L
3.193
1.148
5
06
3.099
2.684
6
06
3.918
2.105
6
07T
0.646
3.068
7
07L
1.008
4.415
4
07L
3.541
0.830
5
07T
3.639
1.141
3
08
3.718
5.362
2
08
3.685
4.583
2
Total No. of shakes
62
Total No. of shakes
54
Mock-up B (asymmetric)(b) Mock-up A (symmetric)Instrumentation setup adopted for Mock-up A and Mock-up B.PRELIMINARy TEST RESULTS
Qualitative observations and collapse modes
This section summarizes the direct observations made during the tests or based on the analysis of pictures and movies from the experiments. It describes the structural global behaviour of the mock-ups and identifies the most probable collapse mechanisms. These preliminary observations will be later crossed with the outcomes of the measurement devices in order to validate and quantify some of the conclusions drawn.
Regarding Mock-up A, the collapse occurred on the second floor and Figure 5 illustrates the failure mode, in which the façades with door openings are the most cracked. The observed failure mechanisms are a combination of shear failure, sliding and local crushing.
Observed collapse modes of symmetric Mock-up A.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT Observed collapse modes of asymmetric Mock-up B.
The main damages observed on Mock-up B are concentrated in one of the façades with window openings. The main collapse mechanism identified is the shear failure of the central wall, although some localized crushing of units is also observed (see Figure 6). The total collapse of the mock-up was avoided thanks to the fact that the floor slab was initially supported on all four sides. Therefore, even after totally losing the load-bearing capacity of the front façade, the slab is still supported on three sides and the structure remains stable after the seismic tests.
Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 5. Results from dynamic characterization tests.
Mock-up A
Mock-up B
BEFORE
STAGE
ST-IMP-1
(Long.) [Hz]
ST-IMP-2 (Trans.) [Hz]
STAGE 1T
-
6.9
STAGE 1L
5.7
6.9
STAGE 2
5.5
6.7
STAGE 3T
5.5
6.7
STAGE 3L
5.2
6.3
STAGE 4
5.2
6.1
STAGE 5T
5.2
5.9
STAGE 5L
5.2
5.9
STAGE 6
5.2
6.0
STAGE 7T
5.0
5.5
STAGE 7L
5.1
5.2
STAGE 8
4.8
5.3
BEFORE
STAGE
ST-IMP-1
(Long.) [Hz]
ST-IMP-2
(Trans.) [Hz]
STAGE 1T
5.4
5.8
STAGE 1L
5.4
5.7
STAGE 2
5.4
5.8
STAGE 3T
5.3
5.8
STAGE 3L
5.3
5.8
STAGE 4
5.2
5.8
STAGE 5T
5.2
5.2
STAGE 5L
5.2
5.2
STAGE 6
5.2
5.2
STAGE 7T
5.1
4.3
STAGE 7L
5.0
4.1
STAGE 08
4.9
4.1
Dynamic characterization
Dynamic characterization tests were performed before, in-between and after the seismic stages. These tests were carried out to estimate the frequency evolution of the main vibration modes. This was achieved using impulse excitation introduced into the mock-ups by the shaking table using low amplitude square wave displacement time-histories. Both shaking table and mock-up accelerations were measured using high sensitivity piezoelectric accelerometers.
The results extracted for the two main structural vibration modes are listed in Table 5 and presented graphically in Figure 7. It should be noted that during these tests the mock-ups are placed on top of the shaking table, meaning that the mock-up vs. shaking table interaction must be taken into account. As a result, the apparent structural mode frequency values are known to be changed (often a decrease), due to coupling between specimen and shaking table dynamic characteristics (mass and stiffness) and even their relative order can be modified. Further analysis is required using a numerical model to analyse the absolute values of the measured mode frequencies and also their order of appearance (longitudinal vs. transverse direction). Nevertheless, the relative decrease of the main mode frequencies gives an idea of the dynamic characteristics evolution.
For what concerns the symmetric Mock-up A, the frequency values gradually decrease with the acceleration level increase, which is associated with the test stages. This behaviour is expected and such a frequency drop has been already observed in other test campaigns within the SERIES project [8] as in other projects [9]. In this case, the frequency decrease is more pronounced along the transverse direction (W-E), showing that a higher degradation occurred on the façades with door openings. These observations are in agreement with the qualitative observations presented before, where it was shown that collapse occurred in a transverse façade.
The same analysis for the asymmetric Mock-up B leads to similar observations and conclusions. A frequency decrease is also observed in both directions, however in this case it is more significant in the transverse, which is expected because the collapse mechanism occurred along this direction.
Seismic response
The main results duly processed so far concern the evolution of the maximum acceleration at the first and second floor level with respect to the measured maximum table acceleration (see Table 4) and the maximum measured inter-storey drift.
(a) Mock-up A
(b) Mock-up B
Results from dynamic characterization tests.
The first analysis allows identifying the damaging effects. The mock-up behaviour can be considered as elastic as long as the increase of the table acceleration leads to a proportional increase of the accelerations measured at the slabs levels. If this relation becomes non-proportional, this may be due to a loss of stiffness and, therefore, to lower natural frequencies and/or to an increase of the damping, leading hence to lower spectral accelerations. From the difference between accelerations for theoretically ideal elastic behaviour, extrapolated from low load intensities, and measured accelerations at failure, the behaviour factors q can be estimated (see, e.g. [11]).
In this work, only the graphs of the story where failure occurred are presented in Figure 8 for Mock-up A and in Figure 9 for Mock-up B. The graphs on the left show the transverse accelerations while those on the right show the longitudinal accelerations. In the upper graphs, the accelerations measured by two accelerometers on the slabs are plotted, in the bottom graphs, the mean values and the corresponding idealized elastic behaviour are plotted. As mentioned above, the idealized elastic behaviour is estimated as a linear fit to the low intensity loading stages with linear relation between shaking table acceleration and measured slab acceleration.
Analysing the data for both mock-ups shows that the slope of the curves is progressively decreasing at higher load intensities, highlighting a medium ductile behaviour for this structural system. The start of the non-linear range fits well with the identified frequency decrease. For the Mock-up A case, the first damage in the transverse direction is visible after Stage 02 (see Figure 8). This fits again well to the small frequency drop visible at this stage in Figure 7. On the other hand, for Mock-up B the first severe damage occurred at Stage 04, indicated by a frequency drop (see Figure 7) and by the beginning of the non-linear global response, as shown in Figure 9.
The ratio between the elastic extrapolation and the actual measured maximum acceleration for the last point of the curves (Stage 08) gives an estimation of the behaviour factor q of this structural system. On the basis of the results related to the story where the failure occurred (2nd for Mock-up A and 1st for Mock-up B) in the transverse direction a q=3.3 is obtained for Mock-up A and a q=2.4 for Mock-up B. In the longitudinal direction, the q-values were determined as 2.5 for Mock-up A and 2.0 for Mock-up B.
Maximum acceleration measured on Mock-up A on the second floor slab: a) and b) measured values; c) and d) mean values and idealized elastic behaviour.
Maximum acceleration measured on Mock-up B on the second floor slab: a) and b) measured values; c) and d) mean values and idealized elastic behaviour.The second set of results consists in the acceleration-drift curves which are plotted in Figure 10 and Figure 11 for Mock-up A and Mock-up B, respectively. For what concerns Mock-up A, the maximum drift values are higher in the second storey (see Figure 10), which complies with the qualitative observations made and with the collapse mechanism observed. The near-collapse state was considered to happen during Stage 08 (the maximum drift of about 0.3% in Stage 07 and about 0.8% in Stage 08). With respect to the recommendations given by Eurocode 8-Part 3 [10], this corresponds to the range of maximum value suggested for walls failing due to shear (0.4%).
Regarding Mock-up B, the collapse occurred at the first storey and the corresponding drift values are given in Figure 11. The most significant damage is observed during Stage 05 and for the transverse direction, translating the loss of shear resistance of the middle wall of the North façade. At this stage, the maximum drift is about 0.4%, which is again in agreement with the values recommended by the standards. The overall limit state is reached during test Stage 08, for which the maximum drift increases from 0.5% to 1.5%. It is also relevant to note that, if the relative drift is calculated with respect to the height of the middle wall instead of the story height, it exceeds largely a value of 2%, corresponding to an advanced damage state.
Maximum inter-storey drift (2nd Storey) of Mock-up A as a function of the measured shaking table acceleration. Maximum inter-storey drift (1nd Storey) of Mock-up B as a function of the measured shaking table acceleration.Conclusions
This paper presents the first results of the seismic vulnerability assessment carried out on two 2-storey full-scale mock-ups built with modern unreinforced masonry made of highly thermal insulating clay blocks. The mock-ups were tested in the LNEC 3D shaking table and were loaded with a sequence of uniaxial and biaxial seismic excitation with increasing intensity. After each test, the natural frequencies were identified by dynamic characterization tests. The tests were continued until a near-collapse state was reached. During the tests all relevant displacement and accelerations were recorded by the test instrumentation. Based on these results the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn:
Evolution of natural frequencies: For each test stage, a continuous decrease in the main mode frequencies was observed for both mock-ups. For interpretation of the absolute values further analysis is however required to assess the interaction between the shaking table and the mock-up.
Type of failure: Both mock-ups reached a near-collapse state due to failure of the walls along the transverse direction. The highest frequency drop was also identified for the transverse direction. The observed failure mechanisms are a combination of shear failure, sliding and local crushing.
Behaviour factors: Both mock-ups show a significant amount of ductility. The behaviour factors (q-values) evaluated from the slab vs. shaking table accelerations ranged between 2.5 and 3.3 for Mock-up A and between 2.0 and 2.4 for Mock-up B.
Drift values: The observed drift values are equal or even higher than the ones defined in Eurocode 8-Part 3 [10].
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement n° 227887 [SERIES].
References
Magenes, G., Calvi, G. M.: In-Plane seismic response of Brick masonry walls, Earthq-Eng and Struct. Dynamics, Vol 26, pp 1091 1112 (1997).
Magenes, G.: Masonry Building Design in Seismic areas: Recent experiences and prospects from a European Standpoint, Proc. 13th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No K9 (2006).
Tomazevic, M., Klemenc. I.: The behaviour of horizontally reinforced masonry walls subjected to cyclic lateral in-plane load reversals, Proc. 8th European Conf. on Earthq. Eng. Vol. 4, pp 7.6/1-8 (1986).
Tomazevic, M., Lutman, M.: Seismic resistance of reinforced masonry walls, Proc. 9th World Conf. on Earthq. Eng. Vol. 6, pp VI/97-102 (1988).
Tomazevic, M.: Earthquake-Resistant design of masonry buildings, Imperial College Press (1999).
EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN - EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
DIN EN 1996-2/NA:2011-10 - National Annex Nationally determined parameters Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures Part 2/NA: Design considerations, selection of materials and execution of masonry
Mordant, C., Dietz, M. and Degée, H.: Seismic behaviour of thin-bed layered unrein-forced clay masonry shear walls including soundproofing elements. In: Alper Ilki and Michael N. Fardis (eds), Proc SERIES Workshop. Geotechnical, Geological and Earth-quake Engineering series (chapter 6) (2013).
Michel, C., Zapico, B., Lestuzzi, P., Molina, F. J., & Weber, F.: Quantification of fundamental frequency drop for unreinforced masonry buildings from dynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40(11), 1283-1296 (2011).
EN 1998-3: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. CEN - EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
Degée, H., Denoël, V., Candeias, P., Campos Costa, A., & Coelho, E.: Experimental investigation on the seismic behaviour of north European masonry houses. In Proceedings of SISMICA 07, Congresso de Sismologia e engenharia Sísmica (2007).
Postdoctoral Researcher, LNEC, Structures Department & ICIST, luis.marcos.mendes@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
Postdoctoral Researcher, LNEC, Structures Department, pcandeias@lnec.pt
Postdoctoral Researcher, LNEC, Structures Department, aacorreia@lnec.pt
Principal Researcher, LNEC, Structures Department, alf@lnec.pt
Principal Researcher, LNEC, Structures Department, ema.coelho@lnec.pt
R&D Manager, Wienerberger AG, Product Management Wall Solutions International, Andreas.jaeger@wienerberger.com
Consulting Engineer, suikai.lu@gmail.com
Professor, University of Liège Hasselt University, Construction Engineering Research Unit, herve.degee@uhasselt.be
PhD Student, University of Liège, Structural Engineering Division, cmordant@ulg.ac.be
MENDES, L.; CANDEIAS, P.; CORREIA, A.; et al.
TESTING OF MODERN UNREINFORCED THERMAL INSULATION CLAY BLOCK MASONRY HOUSES
PAGE 12
9th International Masonry Conference, Guimarães 2014
PAGE 11
9th International Masonry Conference, Guimarães 2014
9th International Masonry Conference 2014 in Guimarães
9th International Masonry Conference,
`abcmno|}~¥¦§±²³º»¼½ÆÇÈÔÕÖ×ØßàáõêßêÔêÉõß¼©¼©¼©¼©¼©¼©¼©ß¼©¼©É|rhßQh©vK5; hßQh©vK hßQhÌE hßQh~fûhßQhÍwmH sH hßQhç
CJmH sH %jhßQhF
?0JCJUmH sH hßQhF
?CJmH sH hßQh©vKmH sH hßQhp mH sH hßQhF
?mH sH hßQhr|mH sH hßQh+8mH sH *abcÖ×â
, i
¦
´
Ú¿àÜt©Núúúîîîß×ÒÒÒÍÈÃÃÃÃÃÃȾà gdÛgâgd»
gdÛgâgd»]ö)gdÒ'$a$gdµT6$ûÿdð`ûÿa$gd+8 $
Æa$gdÎ (gdÎ áâh
i
r
s
t
¥
¦
´
j,44ef
015öëàÙÒËÄ˽®®®®r®c®c®S®c®c® hßQhH=Z6mH nHsH tH hßQh9*[mH nHsH tH hßQhtLqmH nHsH tH hßQhBìmH nHsH tH hßQh¥- mH nHsH tH hßQh¶/RmH nHsH tH hßQhH=ZmH nHsH tH hßQh2? hßQh¬* hßQhL(î hßQh©vK hßQh~fûhßQhÍwmH sH hßQhÒ'mH sH hßQh~fû5; 5?
t ö6öÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4Ö4Ö
laöpÖÿÿÿÿyt!v$$üÿôÿ&@#$/Ifa$gd!vK$$$üÿôÿ&@#$/Ifa$gd!vTU]^_`º»½¾¿ADLMlqâã
ñæñæñßØÔßñÉ¾É³É¾É«É«É«É«É«É Éyh hßQhH=Z^JmH nH sH tH #hßQhH=ZH*^JmH nH sH tH (hßQhH=ZOJQJ^JmH nH sH tH hßQhïWÓmH sH hCdmH sH hßQhç
mH sH hßQhµ1#mH sH hßQhH=ZmH sH hßõ hßQhÐ@¥ hßQhç
hßQhç
nH tH hßQhç
mH nH sH tH ]^_`º?
t ö6öÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4Ö4Ö
laöpÖÿÿÿÿyt!vº¾¿0 ú s u y } æ`` $¤x¤x$üÿüÿ&@#$/If`a$gdL¿K$$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdL¿gd»
Mkdî$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿôÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt!v
Æ üÖ ^ $üÿôÿ&@#$/Ifgdh©
( * . 0 b j l n ô ö ! " ð ó ô õ r s t u ìÚÉì´É{ooodYLChßQhL¿PJjQhßQhL¿PJUhßQhL¿mH sH hßQhµ1#mH sH hßQhH=ZH*mH sH hßQhÐ@¥mH sH hßQhç
mH sH hßQhH=ZmH sH .hßQhH=Z6OJQJ]^JmH nH sH tH (hßQhH=ZOJQJ^JmH nH sH tH hßQhH=Z^JmH nH sH tH #hßQhH=ZH*^JmH nH sH tH &hßQhH=Z6]^JmH nH sH tH u } ~ × Ø å + , 8 ; < { ³ · þ ÿ Y!]!p"t""¦"ò"ö"÷"# ##F#m####³#S$V$W$X$Y$>%ñàÕƿƸ¢¢x¸mhßQhtY(mH sH hßQhH=Z6mH sH hCdmH sH hßQhïWÓmH sH hßQhæVTmH sH hßQhç
mH sH hßQhH=ZmH sH hßQhH=Z hßQhL¿ hßQhL¿mH nH sH tH hßQhL¿nH tH hßQhL¿CJPJaJmH sH hßQhL¿PJaJmH sH *} ~ Ö
8&#$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdL¿Mkd^^$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
UaöytL¿$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdL¿ekdþ]$IfK$L$TlÖ0í Úí í
t ö6öÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4Ö4Ö
laöpÖÿÿÿÿytL¿TÖ × Ø å ÷"#³#?%P&î&(( ( (
(í zz$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gd!vK$gdæVTgd»
gdH=ZMkdÁ^$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
UaöytL¿$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdL¿>%?%
&&~&&²&¸&ñ'ù'(( (
( ( (
((((((s(t(¯(°(±(·(¸(Í(Î(õêßêßê×êßêÌê·¬¬¬¬zsdQdQ%jhßQhË4CJUaJmH sH hßQhË4CJaJmH sH hßQhL¿ hßQhïI» hßQhÕÓ hßQhL¿mH nH sH tH (jD_hßQhæVTPJUmHnHtH uhßQhL¿nH tH (j$_hßQhæVTPJUmHnHtH uhßQhtY(mH sH hßQmH sH hßQhïI»mH sH hßQhæVTmH sH hßQhL¿mH sH
(((((&akdñ$IfK$L$lÖ0>}&>?
t ö6öÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4Ö4Ö
laöpÖÿÿÿÿyt!v$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gd!vK$akd$IfK$L$lÖ0>}&>?
t ö6öÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4Ö4Ö
laöpÖÿÿÿÿyt!v(((°(±(3)K)êydP7$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdæVTK$6$üÿüÿ&@/If`gdæVT$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdæVT#$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdæVTMkd[$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
UaöytæVT$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdæVTÎ(Ï(Ð(Ò(ê())2)3)Q)R)l)m)t)u)v)w)ðÝξ®®Îz_B_9j}hßQhË4CJEHûÿOJPJQJU^JaJmH sH 5jhßQhË4CJOJPJQJU^JaJmH sH hßQhË4aJmH sH ,hßQhË4CJOJPJQJ^JaJmH sH hßQhtLq5CJaJmH sH hßQhË45CJaJmH sH hßQhïI»5CJaJmH sH hßQhË4CJaJmH sH %jhßQhË4CJUaJmH sH hßõCJaJmHnHsH uK)Q)R)))è^Jè7$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdæVTK$kd¾$IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖ0Ë 2
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿöË 6ööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Ö Öÿÿ4ÖaöpÖÿÿÿÿytË4T7$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdæVTK$w)x)y)))´)µ)Î)Ï)í)î)**N*O*P*V*W*l*m*n*o*q***´*âÇ°£°°£°£°£°£ububSbuCu° hßQhË45CJaJmH sH hßõCJaJmHnHsH u%jhßQhË4CJUaJmH sH hßQhË4CJaJmH sH hßQhË4/hßQhË4CJH*OJPJQJ^JaJmH sH hßQhË4aJmH sH ,hßQhË4CJOJPJQJ^JaJmH sH 5jhßQhË4CJOJPJQJU^JaJmH sH 9jR3hßQhµ1#CJEHûÿOJPJQJU^JaJmH sH ))É)Î)uaJ7$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdæVTK$7$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdæVTK$kd'L$IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ%Ö0Ë 2
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿöË 6ööÖÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4ÖaöpÖÿÿÿÿytË4TÎ)Ï)ê)í)wcL7$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdæVTK$7$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdæVTK$kdæL$IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖ0Ë 2
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿöË 6ööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4ÖaöpÖÿÿÿÿytË4Tí)î)**wcL7$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdæVTK$7$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdæVTK$kdM$IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖ0Ë 2
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿöË 6ööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4ÖaöpÖÿÿÿÿytË4T**>*N*wcL7$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdæVTK$7$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdæVTK$kd@N$IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖ0Ë 2
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿöË 6ööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4ÖaöpÖÿÿÿÿytË4TN*O*P**®*weP>>Ë>Ì>Î>Ï>ðéâéÛÐâÁ¶âéÛ¢ÁéâÁ{p{p{e^O hßQh*dmH nH sH tH hßQh*dhßQh*dmH sH hßQhtY(mH sH hßQh»
mH sH hßQhH=Z hßQh»
hßQhMZw hßQhI¸hßQhÔ"âOJQJhßQhìS»PJjG@hßQhµ1#U hßQhÔ"âmH nH sH tH hßQhìS»PJ^J hßQhìS» hßQhÔ"â hßQhµ1# jòhßQhµ1#OJQJU ;;; ;¡f"#$
& Fqßûdð¤¤$If]q^ß`ûa$gdµ1##$
& Fnû$If^n`ûa$gdµ1#^kdØ?$$IfTU4nÖ0«ÿ2%'% æ
tàöm'ööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4Ö4Ö
Uaöf4ytµ1#T ;¡;Ü;Ý;ö;"¡RMHCCgd»
gd!vgdMZwFkdgä $$IfTUÖ«ÿ'm'
tàöm'ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ4Ö4Ö
Uaöytµ1#T #$Ifgdµ1#^kdøã $$IfTU4nÖ0«ÿ2%'% æ
tàöm'ööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4Ö4Ö
Uaöf4ytµ1#TÌ>Í>Î>Ï>Û>Ü> ?êêêP>#$üÿôÿ&@#$/Ifgd!vMkda¿
$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿôÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt!vMkd¸ä $$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿôÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt!v$$üÿôÿ&@#$/Ifa$gd!vÏ>Ð>Ñ>Ò>Ô>Õ>×>Ø>Ù>Ú>Û>Ü>
?????(?*?+?,?-?.?/?0?1?2?a?b?c?d?e?f?ôíæíÛíæíÐǸí¸íufí¸íbí[í¸ hßQhtY(hCd j§ hßQh*dOJQJU jV hßQh*dOJQJU jqU hßQh*dOJQJUhßQh*dOJQJ jhßQh*dOJQJUj'À
hßQh*dU hßQh*dmH nH sH tH hßQh*dPJjrq
hßQh*dUjò)
hßQh*dU hßQh×D2 hßQh*djå hßQh*dU ?
??1?2?í 2Mkd$é $$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿôÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt!v #$
& Fnû$üÿôÿ&@#$/If^n`ûa$gd!vMkdÄ¿
$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿôÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt!v$üÿôÿ&@#$/Ifgd!v2?c?d?e?f?A A¡AïAíÛÉ|wcZK6¤x$If`gd!v $Ifgd*d$ôÿ#$/µIf`b$gd!vgdZïMkdé $$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿôÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt!v$üÿôÿ&@#$/Ifgd*d$üÿôÿ&@#$/IfgdtY(#$üÿôÿ&@#$/Ifgd!vf?@@^@a@b@c@Ò@ä@2A8AA A¡A§A¨A½A¾A¿AÀAÂAîAïABB>BõêõêõêõßõßõÔ;«¾««¾¾{fO,hßQh*dCJOJPJQJ^JaJmH sH (hßQh*dCJOJPJQJaJmH sH hßQh*dPJ^JaJmH sH hßQh*d5CJaJmH sH hßõCJaJmHnHsH u%jhßQh*dCJUaJmH sH hßQh*dCJaJmH sH hßQh*dhßQh*dmH sH hßQhÖo¬mH sH hßQhtY(mH sH hßQh»
mH sH ïAùABB BBBÖÖueS@7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*d7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dakdêé $IfK$L$TÖ0¸p#¸¸
t ö6ööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4ÖaöpÖÿÿÿÿyt!vT)$
& F Êþ¤CLCMCì×ì×9kd(ó $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vT7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dMCVCZC^C_ChClCíØØ:íØkdÝó $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vT7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$lCpCqCyC}CCêL:êê7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kdô $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vT7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$CCCCCaO::7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kd9õ $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vTCCC¡C¥CaO::7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kdàõ $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vT¥C¦C®C²C¶CaO::7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kdö $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vT¶C·CÀCÄCÈCaO::7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kd.÷ $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vTÈCÉCÒCÖCÚCaO::7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kdÕ÷ $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vTÚCÛCãCçCëCaO::7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kd|ø $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vTëCìCõCùCýCaO::7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kd#ù $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vTýCþCD DDaO::7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kdÊù $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vTDDD D!DaO::7$$ôÿ#$/µIfa$b$gd*dK$7$ôÿ#$/µIfb$gd*dK$kdqú $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vT!D"D#DaH$$ôÿ#$/µIf`a$b$gd*dK$kdû $IfK$L$TÖ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÖF £
t Ö0 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿö6öÖ ÿÿÿÖ ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ Ö ÿÿÿ4ÖaöpÖ ÿÿÿÿÿÿyt!vT#D$D&D'D(DAD;6 gd»
Okd%ü $$IflÖÿ/''
t ôÿµö6öÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ µ4Ö4Ö
laöe4pÖ
ÿÿyt!v$ôÿ#$/µIf`b$gd!vakd¿û $IfK$L$TÖ0¸p#¸¸
t ö6ööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4ÖaöpÖÿÿÿÿyt!vT(D@DAD±D½DEEFFF
FhHoHãHäHîJùJ}&>?
t öööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4Ö4Ö
laöpÖÿÿÿÿyt!v$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdìS»K$$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdZï gdZïgd*dgd»
N N N!N$N.N2NNiNjNmNnNÏNÑNPPæPçP
QQQQlQqQvQ}QQQQQ¿QòçØçÍçÍçØÆ»¬¡¡¡¡¡tit^tit^thßQh'ÞmH sH hßQhtY(mH sH hßQh*dmH sH hßQhWL\mH sH hßQh»
6mH sH hßQhtLqmH sH hßQh»
mH sH hßQhÒÝmH nH sH tH hßQhÒÝhCd hßQh¬!hßQhK;,nH tH hßQh¬!mH nH sH tH hßQh¬!nH tH j0F hßQhZïPJU !N/N=N>NkNlNmNääp^^$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifgd*d#$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifgd*dbkdùm $IfK$L$lÖ0>}&>?
t öööÖÿÿÖÿÿ Öÿÿ Öÿÿ4Ö4Ö
laöpÖÿÿÿÿyt!v$¤x¤x$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdìS»K$mNnNQ¨SMVSXUXVX³®®©©GMkd Ë$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt*d$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gd*dgd*dgd»
Kkden $$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt*d¿QÊQ}RR S S¨S±SðSóS5T=T>TMTNTPTTTTTÄTÈTðTûTUU U$U,U8U>UyUUõUýUCVKVMViWkWlWWWWWWW£W¯W°WõêõêßêÔêõêÉßê¾êÉêßê³êõêõ¨êêßêêêêõõ¾õzhßQhw 6mH sH hßQhw H*mH sH hßQhw mH sH hßQhtY(mH sH hßQhp mH sH hßQhìS»mH sH hßQhtLqmH sH hßQhNeÄmH sH hßQh7mH sH hßQhI¸mH sH hßQh*dmH sH hßQhK;,mH sH 0°WÓWÕWÖWãWçWRXSXTXUXVXéXêXîXïXðXñXòXóXYYYYçYíYõYüYZZ \ \\\Ü\ç\õêÞõÓõȽ²££²Èx£mbmbmbmõmbmWhßQhimH sH hßQhF\mH sH hßQh»
mH sH hßQh'Þ jæËhßQh*dUnH tH hßQhw hßQhZï hßQh*d hßQh*dmH nH sH tH hßQh*dnH tH jÅn hßQh*dUhßQh*dmH sH hßQhtLqmH sH hßQhw 6mH sH hßQhK;,mH sH hßQhw mH sH "VXíXîXïXðXòXíÛÛy$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gd*dMkdË$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt*d$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifgd*d#$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifgd*dòXóXYY \
__² SNN9$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdF\gd»
MkdÏ$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt*d#$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifgd*dMkdl$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
Uaöyt!vç\:^C^ _
______/_1_J_L______
___¤_¦_¿_Á_õ_ö_÷_`Ö`×`ó`ý`ibõêõßÔÍ·¨Í ÍͨÍ|·¨Í Íͨuõjõ_õhßQhimH sH hßQhw mH sH hßQh»
j |hßQhw UjchßQhw U hßQhw hßQhK;,hßQh¥2H* hßQh¥2mH nH sH tH hßQh¥2nH tH j6hßQhw U hßQh¥2j2hßQhw UhßQh¥2mH sH hßQhNeÄmH sH hßQh»
mH sH "_____² S>$$üÿüÿ&@#$/Ifa$gdF\Mkd$c$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
UaöytF\#$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdF\MkdÁb$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
UaöytF\__ö_÷_`Åbãc² SNI5
& F!
Æ äþ^ `äþgdF\gd»
gd»
Mkd$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
UaöytF\#$üÿüÿ&@#$/IfgdF\Mkd/$$IfUÖ«ÿá&6'
tà
6@üÿüÿö6'6ööÖÿÖÿ Öÿ Öÿ 4Ö4Ö
UaöytF\ibxbÅbÝbåbæbçbccãcòcFdQddd eeee eVe_e¾eÂeüef f
fVf^f_fnff2g3gRoooõêÞÒǼê±êÞê¦ê¦êÞê¼êê¦êÞê¼ê¦êyryrkr hßQhÇ^¥ hßQh0ChßQh0CnH tH hßQhp mH sH hßQh'ÞmH sH hßQh'Þ>*mH sH hßQhimH sH hßQhNeÄmH sH hßQhF\mH sH hßQhw mH sH hßQhw >*mH sH hßQh»
>*mH sH hßQh»
mH sH hßQhZïmH sH %ãc eüenff(g3gÁgheiôiUj kÙkmðmnoîo8ppÃp q|q§q rëëëæáæÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ××××××××gdF
? gd0Cgd0Cgd0C
& F!
Æ äþ^ `äþgdF\oooo¾oÈoíoîoïoôoõo8p9p>p?pppÃpÄp q q|q}q~qqqqq¦q§q¨q©q²qÇqÜqÞqêqëq÷qrr
rrr r r+rurvrwrxr{r|rrrrrrðçáçÛÒçðçáçðçáçðçðçðçðçÌÃÌÃÌçðç½ç½ç½´ç½ç½ç½çðç«¢jhUhh&=hF
?aJh1RwhF
?aJhAÅhãyãaJ
hãyãaJhAÅh%[aJ
h%[aJhwMhwMaJ
hwMaJ
hF
?aJhAÅhF
?aJ jhAÅhF
?0JUaJ9 rvrwryrzr{r}r~rrrrr
rrr¶r·rssssúøøøøøøøøøøøøøïøççλ
Æ ¸p#(¯þ]¯þ`gd»]ö$$d&dNÆÿPÆÿa$gd>E$$a$gd>E`gdcogdF
?rr¯rµr¶r·rsssssssssssssséÞÒÇüì¥ÃvcVÃK9#hßõh)V0J.CJH*aJmH sH hßõhhc×CJaJh)Vh)V0J.CJaJ$jh)Vh)V0J.CJUaJ* hV¯0J.CJaJmHnHu*hÐ@¥h)V0J.CJaJ!jh)Vh)V0J.CJUaJ h@¤h)V jh)VUmHnHsHu hr|hr|h)Vh)Vh)VCJaJhç
hç
6CJaJhç
hç
CJaJ+j *hr|h)VCJUaJmHnHussIsJsVsWsssssÌsÏsÐsÑsLLïÜÚÎÁ®ÚÚÚ
Æ ¸p#¾&`gd»]ö$a$gd)VgdÚÎ$
Æ Ã&a$gdhc×
Æ ¸p# ¯þ]¯þ`gdh© h]h`gdÕn *Ú& #$gd)V
Æ ¸p# ¯þ]¯þ`gdhcצ&& #$`gd)Vss8s9s:sCsGsHsIsJsKsQsRsTsUsVsWsXsZsssssïÞÐÞÂÞ·³© ©©vdSD³@hhc× hßõh)VCJaJmH sH hßõhÐ@¥0J.CJaJmH sH #hßõhÐ@¥0J.CJH*aJmH sH hßõhÐ@¥CJaJh)V0J.CJaJmH sH
h)V0J.hV¯0J.mHnHuhßõh)V0J.jh)V0J.Uh)Vh»]öh)VmH sH hhc×0J.CJaJmH sH h4²0J.CJaJmH sH h>Eh)V0J.CJaJmH sH hßõh)V0J.CJaJmH sH ssssssssss¾sÂsËsÌsÍsÎsÏsìèÝÌIJ©©}n;, h)Vh)VCJ aJ mH sH dhhc×hhc×0JB*CJOJQJRH_HaJehfH!hphqÊ
rÊsHtHwh jh)Vh)VCJ UaJ h)V5mH sH hÞ? 5mH sH h)Vh)V5mH sH h)Vh)V5H*mH sH hhc×5mH sH #jh)Vh)V5UmHnHuh)VmH sH hÚÎh)VCJ ^JaJ mH sH jC9h(03hhc×Uhhc×%jõhhc×hhc×CJ UaJ mH sH ÏsÐsÑsÒsÔsõsös÷sLLLLLLLLüîàν¯½îüx hßQh0Chh»]öh)VmH sH h)Vh)V0J.CJaJmH sH hhc×0J.CJaJmH sH Uh4²0J.CJaJmH sH h>Eh)V0J.CJaJmH sH #h>Eh)V0J.CJH*aJmH sH hÞ? 0J.CJaJmH sH h)V0J.CJaJmH sH h)VGuimarães 2014 1
