See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223275169

Building houses with local materials: Means to drastically reduce the

environmental impact of construction

Article  in  Building and Environment · December 2001

DOI: 10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00054-8

CITATIONS READS

281 46,293

4 authors, including:

Jean-Claude Morel Mahmoud Ali Ali Mesbah

Coventry University Ecole Nationale des Travaux Publics de l'Etat
112 PUBLICATIONS   1,968 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   520 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pete Walker
University of Bath
151 PUBLICATIONS   2,157 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

INDAIRPOLLNET - Indoor Air Pollution Network View project

Inventory-Constrained Structural Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jean-Claude Morel on 07 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Building and Environment 36 (2001) 1119–1126
www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Building houses with local materials: means to drastically reduce

the environmental impact of construction
J.C. Morela;∗ , A. Mesbaha , M. Oggerob , P. Walkerc
a ENTPE-Department Genie Civil et Bâtiment (DGCB), Rue Maurice Audin, 69518 Vaux-en-Velin, Cedex, France
b SCI Terroir, Nice, France
c Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

Received 21 January 2000; received in revised form 21 January 2000; accepted 3 July 2000

Abstract

This paper describes the process of materials selection, design and construction used for a series of small residential buildings
in Southern France. Whenever possible, materials were resourced in situ in order to minimise the environmental impact of the new
buildings. In particular, the process of materials selection, stone masonry with stabilised in situ soil mortar, and the form of construction
are outlined. Guidance for a more generalised adoption of the design process is also provided. The energy consumed in the building
of one house is compared to a typical concrete house. By adopting local materials the amount of energy used in building decreased by
up to 215% and the impact of transportation by 453%. However, adoption of local materials in developed countries can be hindered
by the loss of traditional building crafts and a lack of appropriate building standards. These problems are also discussed in this paper.
c 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soil mortar; Stone masonry; Embodied energy; Local material; Environmental impact

1. Introduction alised building methods, based on a widespread use of

Throughout the world the building industry is responsi-
ble for high levels of pollution as a result of the energy
consumed during extraction, processing and transportation
of raw materials. For example, the energy used to manu-
facture and transport building materials represents nearly
8% (350 PJ per year) of all primary energy used in the
UK, whereas 50% of all energy consumed is attributable
to occupation of the dwellings [1]. This paper considers
the potential for reducing energy consumption during con-
struction by using building techniques suited to locally
resourced materials.
As universal population levels continue to rise, the hous-
ing shortage in many developing countries has reached
critical levels. However, industrialised building methods
are often not suitable for developing countries, where dif-
ferent social, cultural, economic and environmental factors
often favours alternative solutions. Furthermore, industri-
∗ Correspondence address. Department Genie Civil et Batiment,
ENTPE, Rue Maurice Audin, 69518, Vaux-en-Velin, Cedex, France.
Tel.: +33-4-72-04-70-67; fax: +33-4-72-04-71-56.
E-mail address: jeanclaude.morel@entpe.fr (J.C. Morel).
high-energy materials, such as aluminium, cement, con-
crete and steel, must comply with new directives for pro-
tection of the environment. Environmental issues to be
addressed include the need to reduce the levels of CO2
emissions, reduction in the authorisations of new quarries,
obligations to rehabilitate quarry workings, and the prohi-
bition of material extraction from river beds.
This paper outlines the process used for selection of
materials and the form of construction adopted during a
small housing project undertaken in Southern France, as
shown in Fig. 1a. One aim of the housing project was
to build using locally available materials, based on ratio-
nal selection processes using modern scientiHc methods
of testing. The procedure adopted in the project, which
is considered applicable for any building, followed three
main stages:
(A) establishing an inventory of building materials avail-
able in site;
(B) selection of building materials; and
(C) selection of the building form.
Clearly, other considerations may inIuence the sequence
of this process. For example, the pre-selection of building

0360-1323/01/$ - see front matter
c 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 6 0 - 1 3 2 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 5 4 - 8
1120 J.C. Morel et al. / Building and Environment 36 (2001) 1119–1126
Fig. 1. (a) Map of France with location of the building site and area of dry stone masonry buildings [2], (b) Cross section of the in site soil, (c)
Amount of soil from the foundations used to make the mortar.
form (stage C) will clearly inIuence the choice of building
materials. In the case study, the sequence of material and
building form selection was as follows:
(A) An inventory of suitable in situ materials included
a 2 m deep layer of stones and subsoil beneath an
organic topsoil layer and above bedrock (Fig. 1b);
(B) Soil analysis showed the presence of kaolinite clay,
allowing cement stabilisation of the mortar.
(C) Selection of stone masonry, in keeping with tradi-
tional houses found in the village, built with a sta-
bilised soil mortar.
In this study, the external load-bearing structure will be
considered. Other aspects, such as the rooHng or interior
may follow traditional forms or follow the same concepts
of using local materials. The project comprises the exten-
sion of the village in two stages. Completion of the Hrst
phase to date comprised the construction of three stone
masonry houses, see Fig. 2. The environmental impact of
building one typical house is quantiHed later in this paper.
The second phase will comprise construction of a further
nine similar houses; though three will have rammed earth,
rather than stone masonry, walls. The rammed earth walls
will use in situ soil material.
Savings in material and reduction in transportation im-
pact are described below. Quantitative assessment of pol-
lutant levels (dust, CO2 , CO, NO2 ) is not presented, as
quantiHcation is highly variable and highly dependent on
the building site location [3,4]. However, pollutants can
be quantiHed using the data given below. Quantifying the
environmental beneHts, expressed as a percentage of saved
materials (or services), maintains a level of objectivity and
encourages a better understanding of the results. Though
the assessment of environmental impact is relative, a com-
parative approach allows a number of simplifying assump-
tions to be made. Other environmental beneHts, such as
 J.C. Morel et al. / Building and Environment 36 (2001) 1119–1126
Fig. 2. The Hrst three soil stone masonry houses already built, only the
second is taken into account in this article.
aesthetics, are more subjective and have generally not been
considered. The environmental impact of the second stone
masonry house (Fig. 2) is compared to an equivalent, yet
Hctitious, house built using concrete, a common form of
construction in the study area. In comparing these two
diLerent forms of wall construction, necessary allowances
have been made for variation in other elements, such as
foundation details for example.
2. Assumptions
The energy considered in this comparative study con-
cerns only that associated with construction and not what
is consumed during occupation of the dwellings. In partic-
ular, the following issues have not been considered in the
analysis, consequently underestimating the environmental
beneHts of the project (compared to typical concrete build-
ings for example):
• Recycling of materials on demolition: The project
houses have been built to last as much as their tradi-
tional equivalents, typically more than 200 years, whereas
the lifetime of concrete houses is expected to be less
than 100 years old;
• E<ects of building materials on the health of the oc-
cupants [3];
• Social and economic impacts: For example, a greater
proportion of the total cost of the stone masonry house
1121
Fig. 3. Soil geotechnical characteristics.
is paid in local wages as opposed to paying for the
industrially processed materials;
• Impact on the landscape: In areas close to the project
site all buildings must have a stone masonry facing,
consequently requiring an additional cladding for the
concrete houses.
3. Building materials
3.1. Soil mortar
Around 90% of the mortar used for the stone masonry
was comprised of an inorganic subsoil layer extracted on
or very near the site, see Fig. 1. The soil was a sand–
gravel mixture in a clayey matrix, found under an organic
topsoil layer of varying depth. Characteristics of the soil
are given in Fig. 3.
In contrast to most other building materials (concrete,
steel, timber and their derivatives), general suitability of
soil composition for construction is not readily standard-
ised because of its inherent natural variability. Undoubt-
edly this natural variability has contributed to the general
decline of soil (earthen) construction in Europe since the
beginning of the 20th century. However, research carried
out during the last 20 years [5,6] has adapted modern
technologies to soil building. It is now possible to pro-
ceed towards:
• an optimisation of the soil as a building material;
• quality control assessment of strength, durability and
stability.
The assessment procedure takes account of the natural
diversity of soil composition and allows rational selec-
tion from diLerent building techniques for a given soil
[7].
3.2. Stone
In addition to the in situ bedrock material, stone
(dolomite limestone) for the masonry work obtained from
a local quarry, ensuring that the same material was used
1122 J.C. Morel et al. / Building and Environment 36 (2001) 1119–1126

throughout. The average compressive strength and

dry density of the dolomite limestone were 96 MPa and
2720 kg=m3 respectively. Using the local stone material
drastically reduced the amount of transport required and
consequently its impact on the environment. Unfortunately,
the aggregates used by the local ready-mixed concrete sup-
plier were not resourced from the same quarry.

3.3. Timber

A local Hr tree was used as the source of all timber

used for the horizontal frame and roof. The minimum
compressive strength (measured parallel to the grain) was
10.5 MPa, and the shear (transverse to the grain) was
1.2 MPa. A recent study undertaken in the UK has shown Fig. 4. Mortar compression strength, dry and water saturated.
that using local timber can reduce the embodied energy
levels by at least 70 times compared to imported tropical
wood [8].

4. Structural details

Primary structural details of the three stone masonry

houses built to date are outlined below. Details on thermal
insulation measures are also included.

4.1. Bases and vaults

The base of each building was built directly onto the

subsoil, which had a variable inclined depth of between
2.0 and 2.5 m. The compacted subsoil has suNcient
strength to resist the bearing pressures imposed by the
masonry. First Ioor of each house is completely buried
and comprised of a charged vault, as shown in Fig. 2.
Vaulting provided a stable base for the masonry walls, re-
placing the equivalent reinforced concrete frame, and also
created a useful cellar. Found in many historic masonry
structures, vaulting is a form of construction ideally suited
to a material with comparatively high compressive resis-
tance but little tensile strength.
For all masonry construction the soil was stabilised with
15% cement by dry mass, signiHcantly improving the
mortars wet strength (Fig. 4) durability and dimensional
stability compared to the plain soil. Immersion in water
decreased the compressive strength of one mortar sam-
ple by 30%, though generally there was little deterioration
with the other samples tested. Whilst in practice, mortar is
very unlikely to be fully immersed, water is likely to en-
ter the mortar through capillary action, however laboratory
testing mortar after immersion was used for convenience.
Although measured compressive strength of the soil mor-
tar is comparatively low (around 3 MPa), compressive
strength of the stone masonry is estimated at 20 –30 MPa
[9], and therefore considerably higher than that required
to resist any combined self-weight and imposed actions
[10].
Fig. 5. Load bearing vertical walls: the force equilibrium.
4.2. Vertical walls
Because of the material’s low tensile strength, stability
of each load-bearing masonry wall, against lateral forces
(F), such as seismic action or wind loading, is provided
primarily by its own self-weight and other available verti-
cal pre-compression (W ) (Fig. 5). The site is situated in a
low seismic zone and so the buildings have been designed
accordingly [11], see also Section 4.3.
In the future, three houses will be built using rammed
earth walls. The earth walls will have the same dimensions
as the stone masonry walls and will also be built on the
masonry vault base as described above. The rammed earth
walls at the second Ioor level will be stabilised with 6%
cement, whereas soil in the walls of the third and top Ioor
will not be stabilised.
4.3. Horizontal timber frame and Aoor
The horizontal timber frame between Ioor levels is con-
nected to the masonry walls as shown in Fig. 6. Each
 J.C. Morel et al. / Building and Environment 36 (2001) 1119–1126 1123

Table 1
Energy cost for a range of building materials according to four references

Materials Energy (MJ=kg) according to

Steiger [4] Kreijger [12] ERGa [13] Harris [8]

Timber (GJ=m3 ) 5.1–18 2.6 3.4 0.40

Stone no data no data
Concrete 0.1–12 2.7 1.6 –3.6 1.15
Agregates 0.173 0.40
Cement 5.6 5.15
Steel 9 –312 28 44.7 47.5
Baked bricks 1.5 –8.8 0.60
Lime 7.3 no data
Mineral wool (GJ=m3 ) no data 0.83
a Environmental Resource Guide.

Fig. 6. (a) the Hrst horizontal timber frame, (b) Connection between the
timber frame and the stone masonry.
connector is embedded between two stones (Fig. 6b). The
Ioors, which are directly embedded onto the timber frame,
links all of the structure and so enhance its stability.
Embedded steel ties enhances the connection to the walls.
5. Assessing the environmental benets
The aim of the environmental assessment is to compare
the energy expenditure for the materials of the stone ma-
sonry houses with that of a typical concrete house and the
proposed rammed earth houses. Many studies have been
undertaken in the past to quantify the environmental cost
of building products [4,8,12,13]. However, as there are
many complex ways in which industrial processes impact
on the environment, it is not yet possible to accurately
quantify all of the potentially harmful eLects involved.
Environmental importance of diLerent parameters, such as
dust emission or water consumption, varies signiHcantly
depending on site location.
Given the diNculties assessing the impact of construc-
tion, only two main parameters have been selected for this
study: the energy consumed to manufacture the walls and
Ioors, and the corresponding amount of building material
transported to the building site. According to Harris’ [8]
data, these two factors represent approximately 50% of
the total embodied energy of a typical house.
5.1. Embodied energy of the building materials
Table 1 presents energy consumption (also called em-
bodied energy), expressed in MJ per kg of produced build-
ing material, according to various studies [4,8,12,13]. The
diLerences in consumed embodied energy depends not only
on the mode of calculation, but also on the economic and
ecological conditions, as stated previously.
For the project under consideration the quantity of mate-
rial, together with the published data for energy consump-
tion, was used to calculate total embodied energy levels.
The UK-based data of Harris [8] were selected as they
are from a country with a similar level of development to
France. However, using the ERG data [13] a similar re-
sult is achieved. The embodied energy of stone masonry
blocks is not given by Harris [8], so values quoted for
aggregates were used instead, although stone values may
be less.
Table 2 summarises the results of the embodied energy
analysis. For one concrete house, the energy consumption
is 239 GJ. It appears that the typical concrete house con-
sumes 246% more energy (239 GJ instead of 97) than
the house made with stone masonry, and 240% more en-
ergy required for the rammed soil house (239 GJ instead
of 70). Using the ERG [12] data, the gain is 248 and
270% for the stone masonry and rammed earth houses,
respectively.
5.2. Transport
The transport necessary to bring the materials to the
building site was also calculated; the embodied energy of
materials being calculated at the factory exit. As expected
the transport impact on the environment is signiHcantly
less for the stone masonry building (480% lower) and the
rammed soil building (640%).
As transportation expends energy this amount could be
added to the embodied energy calculated in the previous
section (as done in the ERG [12]). But as stated previ-
ously transport impact has been considered separately to
allow clear consideration of other detrimental eLects, such
as number of car accidents for example.
1124 J.C. Morel et al. / Building and Environment 36 (2001) 1119–1126

Table 2
Energy cost and transport for one house of 3 types

Stone masonry with Base: stone masonry with Concrete

soil mortar soil mortar and rammed soil

Earthworks Excavated volume (m3 ) 100 100 65

Stone 16 16
Soil 40 40
Organic soil 44 44 10
Transport (t.km) 0 0 (65 − 10) × 5 × 1:5a = 413

Vertical Cement (t) 7 8 20

masonry Energy (GJ) 36 41 103
and Transport (t.km) 7 × 51b+e = 357 8 × 51b+e = 408 20 × 72d 1440

timber frame Aggregates (t) 0 0 66

Energy (GJ) 0 0 27
or concrete Transport (t.km) 0 0 66 × 72d = 4752

Stone (t) 120 40 0

Energy (GJ) 48 16 0
Transport (t.km) 120 × 5c = 600 20 × 5c = 200 0

Timber (m3 ) 7.5 7.5 0

Energy (GJ) 3 3 0
Transport (t.km) 0:5 × 7:5 × 115f = 431 0:5 × 7:5 × 115f = 431 0

Steel (t) 0.21 0.21 2.0

Energy (GJ) 10 10 95
Transport (t.km) 6 × 0:21b = 1 6 × 0:21b = 1 6 × 2b = 12

Thermal Mineral wool (m3 ) 0 0 10

insulation Energy (GJ) 0 0 8
Transport (t.km) 0 0 10 × 0:5 × 6b = 30

Baked bricks (t) 0 0 10

Energy (GJ) 0 0 6
Transport (t.km) 0 0 10 × 6b = 60

Total Energy (GJ) 97 70 239

Transport (t.km) 1390 1041 6707
a Distance from the building site to dump 5 km.
b Distance from the building site to the material seller 6 km.
c Distance from the building site to the stone quarry 5 km.
d Distance from the agregate quarry to building site 72 km.
e Distance from the cement quarry to the material seller 45 km.
f Distance from the forest to the building site 115 km.

5.3. Construction time 5.4. Energy spent during the occupation of the dwellings

The construction time considered for this study is the
duration taken to build the load bearing structure, the
Ioors, the roof, the windows and provide the external Hn-
ishes (e.g. plaster). The time taken to build the two stone
masonry houses of 110 m2 and three Ioors, (the second
and third of Fig. 2) is four months. For only one house the
construction time should be 10 weeks, and for a 150 m2
house construction time will be 12 weeks.
For a concrete house the construction time is very sim-
ilar; building with local materials takes no longer than
building with concrete. Plant used during construction com-
prised a small electric crane and mixer, similar to those
used to build the concrete houses.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider in detail
the energy consumed during occupation of the dwellings.
However, as energy consumption during use accounts for
some 50% of total energy usage, compared to 8% for con-
struction, then savings during construction should clearly
be not to the detriment of the on-going energy
demands.
The houses are situated in a Mediterranean climate
(Fig. 1a). Thermal insulation of the house is naturally ob-
tained by the thickness of the walls (400 – 600 mm). As
well as providing a physical barrier against heat loss, ther-
mal mass of these thick walls warm the house during the
winter evenings as they release the heat absorbed during
 J.C. Morel et al. / Building and Environment 36 (2001) 1119–1126
Fig. 7. Location of the soil suitable for building [7].
the day. In summary they also keep the cool air inside the
house. Consequently for this Mediterranean climate these
stone-walled dwellings generally do not require additional
insulation such as mineral wool.
At present, it is not possible to reliably assess the en-
ergy performance of the houses without insulation, how-
ever, it is intended to monitor these over a continuous 12
month period of occupation. Where thermal performance
is impaired it is possible to provide additional insulation.
The energy gain during building to do this will be less
(215% instead of 246% for the stone masonry house, and
285% instead of 340% for the rammed soil house). For
transport the Hgures are almost the same: 453% instead of
480% for the stone masonry house and 593% instead of
640% for the rammed soil house.
6. Generalisation of the concept
Soil suitable for earth building is found in great quan-
tity throughout most areas of Europe. Though some soils
may not have suNcient clay content, an additional binder,
such as cement or lime, may be used instead. Indeed ce-
ment stabilisation of soil for wall construction is popular
in parts of Australia, India and United States. Houben [7]
has provided an outline for the extent of soil use in build-
ing (Fig. 7).
Soil in building can often be used in association with
other local materials that may be resourced close to a site.
These include stone, organic Hbres (straw, sisal, hemp),
timber and water. A comprehensive survey of these numer-
ous resources is not available. However, an important in-
dicator of material suitability is often found by observing
local vernacular architecture. For example, outline of the
stone suitable for masonry information may be taken from
studies on dry-stone structures; Fig. 1a is a non-exhaustive
overview for France [2].
Most major building projects using local materials, such
as earth building, are to be found in developing coun-
tries. Low cost and easy availability of such materials is
the most obvious explanation for this trend. Clearly it is
preferable to build with soil using local labour than to im-
port or produce modern building materials. On the other
1125
hand, in the United States and Australia where labour is
relatively expensive, industrialisation of earth block man-
ufacture has made the material competitive. Many indi-
vidual initiatives using environmentally sensitive materials
and techniques are found throughout the world.
In Europe, an experimental building of 72 residences,
“Domaine de la terre”, in France was initiated in 1982.
Various techniques were used including rammed soil,
“soil-straw”, and compressed earth blocks. During this
project the developers confronted many unexpected tech-
nological problems, which initiated an on-going programme
of research on this topic in France.
7. Contractual arrangements and procurement methods
In general, contractual arrangements of the work com-
plied with normal practice for such projects, although ad-
ditional requirements were included to ensure that best
environmental practices were followed. These conditions
ensure that the method is used appropriately which are
enforced through rigorous site controls. The approach of
building with local materials must be clearly explained to
all site personnel in order to ensure a suitable level of
quality control for both best construction and least en-
vironmental impact. Both professionals and artisans (ma-
sons) unfamiliar with the technology, such as earth con-
struction, must be appropriately informed. In particular,
the following points must be clearly deHned:
• deHnition of the material quality and its utilisation (lab-
oratory tests of Section 3);
• building methods;
• protection of the structure against erosion (soil mortars);
• quality control (laboratory tests of Section 3).
Not surprisingly, the most diNcult part of the work was
to obtain agreement from the French State building min-
istry. As the houses described are going to be sold on by a
developer after completion, it is necessary to have appro-
priate insurance. However, as the houses do not follow any
French standards, and since they are not traditional either,
it was necessary to obtain a special agreement from the
state; cost US$10,000. The state agreement must be scien-
tiHcally justiHed by testing the strength and durability of
the soil mortars, as well assessing overall structural stabil-
ity under seismic action [11]. Agreement was reached for
the 12 houses proposed (three built to date). At present, a
new agreement will be required for any further develop-
ment, though in future it is hoped to obtain a more general
state agreement covering projects of this type.
8. Conclusion
The project described in this paper will end with the
completion of all 12 houses built using techniques with
1126 J.C. Morel et al. / Building and Environment 36 (2001) 1119–1126
local materials such as soil, stone and timber. Local ma-
terials were resourced in a systematic matter to minimise
the environmental impact of the project. For example, the
use of rammed soil will signiHcantly further decrease the
environmental impact; in particular, by removing the use
of quarried stones.
The use of thermal insulation may prove unnecessary
because of the large wall thicknesses and the mild Mediter-
ranean climate. A decision will be made after an initial
period during which the thermal behaviour of the houses
will be measured. When thermal insulation is used, build-
ing with local material reduces the embodied energy of the
building materials by 215% for the stone masonry and by
285% for the rammed earth walls. However, if the ther-
mal insulation proves unnecessary the embodied energy of
the houses will be further reduced. Importantly, by using
local materials the amount of transported materials used
in the project has been decreased substantially.
Though both rammed earth and stone masonry build-
ings have a long proven durability, it was necessary to
undertake a detailed structural analysis to obtain insurance
from the state. Completion of the Hrst three stone masonry
houses will facilitate and encourage further projects else-
where in France and overseas, using local materials. For
projects of this type, it should be possible to follow the
same procedure. In many regions there are both suitable
soil and stones in suNcient quantity, in which case it is
possible to reproduce many of the points highlighted in
this project.
Each new project will have to take account of speci-
Hcity of local materials through a particular analysis of
the available materials. For example, a civil engineering
laboratory can easily undertake the necessary soil analy-
sis, though simple Held tests can often provide reliable
indicators of suitability as well [6,7]. Building profes-
sionals, architects and engineers, and artisans need to be
trained and encouraged to use local materials wherever
possible.
View publication stats
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their appreciation to ANVAR
(France) for their Hnancial support.
References
[1] Adalberth K. Energy demand during the life cycle of a building.
CIB Symposium Energy Mass and Flow in the life Cycle of
building, Vienna, 1996.
[2] Erik FanniSere. Parc Naturel RTegional du Luberon, Bories, Luberon
images et signes, Edisud, 1994.
[3] Dupuy G. L’Tecologie et la santTe dans l’habitation. M.Sc.A.
UniversitTe de MontrTeal, FacultTe de l’amTenagement, Canada,
1996.
[4] Steiger P. Hochbaukonstruktionen nach oU kologishen Gesichts-
punkten. SociTetTe suisse des ingTenieurs et des architectes SIA.
Dokumentation D 0123, Zurich, 1995.
[5] Olivier M, Mesbah A. InIuence of diLerent parameters on the
resistance of earth, used as a building material. International
Conference on Mud Architecture ICMA’87, Trivandrum, India,
1987, p. 10.
[6] Walker P. SpeciHcation for stabilised pressed earth blocks. Masonry
International 1996;10(1):1–6.
[7] Houben H, Guillaud H. Earth building: a comprehensive guide.
CRATone-EAG, Greenbelt, 1994.
[8] Harris DJ. A quantitative approach to assessment of the
environmental impact of building materials. Building and
Environment 1999;34:751–8.
[9] Venu Madhava Rao K, Venkatarama Reddy BV, Jagadish KS.
Strength characteristics of stone masonry. Materials and Structures
1997;30:233–7.
[10] Normalisation franWcaise, DTU 20.1 Ouvrages en maWconnerie de
petits eT lTements, AFNOR 1994.
[11] Ferrigni F. MTemoire sur la tenue des ouvrages aS l’ancienne vis aS vis
des actions sismiques. Document disponible au centre universitaire
europTeen pour les biens culturels, Villa rufolo, I 84010 Ravello,
Italy.
[12] Kreijger PC. Ecological properties of buildings materials. Materials
and Structures 1987;20:248–54.
[13] John Wiler (ed.) In Environmental Resource Guide. Building
materials, a quarterly publication of The American Institute of
Architect, 1997.