Academic literature on the topic 'Masonry cutting tools'

Waste generation is one of the most relevant environmental aspects of the construction industry. About 47 million tons of construction and demolition waste are collected annually by Brazilian municipalities. One of the activities that generates waste is cutting chases on walls for installations. However, there are no waste generation indicators for this activity. Understanding waste generation processes enables managers to prevent them and promote their proper environmental management. This study assessed the generation of waste resulting from the cutting of clay bricks for electrical installations using three tools: milling cutter, marble saw, and cold chisel. The study included data collected from residential construction works and experimental data collected from the construction of real-scale walls. In a laboratory, five different wall configurations were built and the three tools mentioned were used to cut a chase on the walls. The results were statistically analyzed to define a waste generation index (WGI) by linear regression. The type of tool employed had no influence on the waste generation index, which was 26.5 ± 2.6 kg/m2. However, the tools used directly influenced the quality of the service, productivity, and the volume of waste generated. The waste from the milling cutter showed the smallest maximum aggregate size and the largest bulk density, followed by the waste resulting from the marble saw and the cold chisel. The marble saw and cold chisel waste samples had around 78% of their composition in the coarse aggregate grain size range. The milling cutter waste samples were the finest and had on average 60% of their composition in the fine aggregate grain size range. The width of the chases made with the milling cutter were smaller and more consistent than those made with the cold chisel, which showed irregularities and larger dimensions than necessary. From the waste generation indicators obtained in this study, construction managers will be able to choose more appropriate cutting tools and improve their planning and management systems to minimize associated environmental impacts.

Brick masonry does not exhibit much capacity to resist lateral loads and hence the masonry suffers heavy damage during earthquakes, which impart lateral loads to structures. In the Bhuj earthquake of Jan 26, 2001, that occurred in majority of masonry structures failed because they were built with un-reinforced brick masonry. The EBC code of practice for brick masonry, suggests the use of lintel band and roof band that introduce a rigid box-type behavior which will help the structure to improve its performance against seismic loads. But there are no Codal provisions for use of Rat-Trap bond masonry which has been found to possess good seismic resistance characteristics. Rat-Trap bond system consists of an array of headers and stretchers with bricks laid vertically on the edge to form a cavity within a set of two headers and two stretchers. In this investigation, an attempt has been made to study the behavior of un-reinforced Rat-Trap bond masonry of two categories viz., (i) with roof slab, and (ii) without roof slab. Shock-table tests on one-third scale masonry building models ( with and without roof slabs ) were carried out to study the behavior. The peak accelerations were recorded for each shock. The scaled bricks were obtained by cutting locally available bricks using special tools. The size of the masonry models was 2m x 1m x 1m. The amount of energy imparted during each shock was measured before total collapse both for Rat-Trap bond masonry models with and without roof slabs. The results of the tests revealed that the roof weight plays an important role in the design of Rat-Trap masonry systems subject to seismic loads.

With Chisel or Pick HammerHow were Runes carved? In 1980, Vitus Nielsen and Erik Moltke published the essay “Pikhammeren – kan man også skrive med den?« (The Pick Hammer – can it be used for writing as well?). Nielsen summed up the historical background of the pick hammer, while Moltke postulated that in the Viking Age this tool was used for carving runes and ornaments on rune stones (Fig. 1). This essay postulates the opposite: that runes were carved with a chisel and a hammer/mallet. Moltke’s hypothesis has been briefly questioned before, but has not been thoroughly discussed. This essay is primarily based on the professional experience gathered by Erik Sandquist, the stonemason, from the carving of modern rune stones.Moltke’s most important argument is the existence of small conical marks made by a pointed tool in a number of rune grooves. This phenomenon can be observed on e.g. rune stone no. 5 from Århus (c.1000 AD) and the Swedish rune stones from Himmelstadlund in Östergötland (400-550 AD) (Fig. 2).Erik Sandquist has been carving rune stones since 1995. His stone no. 44 was erected in the summer of 2004 next to the museum in Jelling (Figs. 3-4). From this work, Sandquist has gained exhaustive experience using a broad chisel and a pick chisel in combination with a hammer or mallet, whereas most modern stonemasons prefer to use pneumatic tools and sandblasting. It is important to note that Sandquist does not consider his work to be experimental archaeology; his results are not systematically documented. Nevertheless, this craftsman’s experience might provide the basis for a few conclusions that would contribute to the archaeological discussion. Sandquist uses the following method for carving a rune stone: when an appropriate stone has been selected and transported to its future location, he sketches a design of runes and ornaments directly onto the stone surface, first using a soaked cloth (so that possible mistakes will easily disappear), then coal (which can be erased easily), and finally, for the ultimate design, chalk. Then he carves the lines using a chisel and a hammer or mallet. The grooves are often painted with a mixture of buttermilk, pigment (e.g. iron oxide), and powdered ammonia. Ideally, the stone should be carved and painted while resting in a horizontal position and not erected until completed. To prevent future confusion among archaeologists and philologists, Sandquist’s rune stones are recorded by the National Museum.Erik Moltke postulated that a pick hammer was more convenient than a chisel for carving runes and ornaments. He argued that if the rune carver was using a chisel and a hammer, his hand would be covering the area he was working on, whereas a pick hammer would allow him to see the work in progress at any time. However, the fact is that a pick hammer is far less precise when it comes to carving lines than the chisel and hammer: by holding the chisel near the stone surface, the rune carver can easily work precisely and furthermore adjust the power of the strokes. The pick hammer, on the other hand, is chisel and hammer all in one, and the direct percussion technique that it requires forces the stone mason to keep a distance from the stone surface, which causes imprecision as to percussion power and direction. The pick hammer is far more suitable for work on large surfaces, e.g. on ashlars, where the power of the hammer stroke is more important than precision.Just one pick hammer is known from Viking Age Scandinavia. It was found in the ring fortress of Trelleborg (Fig. 5). In addition, a pick hammer of uncertain date is known from Lund in Sweden (Fig. 6). In a European perspective, the Romans used this tool around the beginning of the Christian era. Several pick hammers are known, for instance, from the quarries in Felzberg near Odenwald, south of Mainz. In medieval art, pick hammers are often depicted as a tool for cutting ashlars (Figs. 7-8), and they were used until the Second World War.A number of chisels are known from Viking Age Scandinavia (Fig. 9), but the shape of the individual chisels does not reveal whether it was made for iron or stone working. However, the chisels may have a different degree of hardness, since ideally a chisel for stone carving would be less hard than one designed for iron working. The reason is that if the steel in the stonemason’s chisel is too hard, the chisel will crack easily, and if on the other hand the steel is too soft, the chisel will need sharpening too often. This is why modern standard chisels are very poor for rune carving. Oxidation and recycling has probably been the fate of many prehistoric chisels. Wooden mallets, which may have been used for stone carving, are known from Viking Age Sigtuna. In pictures from the Middle Ages, chisels and mallets are depicted as tools for carving inscriptions (Fig. 10).The weathering of the rune stones has made it very difficult to find traces from the rune carvers’ tools. Still, faint chisel marks can be observed on a few Swedish rune stones and on the large Jelling stone (Fig. 11). Erik Moltke interpreted small conical depressions which he observed in a number of rune grooves as marks from a pick hammer. The same phenomenon can be observed on the Vester Tørslev stone (Fig. 12). However, these marks only prove that a pointed tool was used – and that may well have been a pointed chisel.Ole Thirup Kastholm HansenInstitut for Arkæologi og EtnologiKøbenhavns UniversitetErik SandquistFøvling

Equitable access to deeper learning1 is essential to the discipline of architecture. But what happens when opportunities are stifled in an evolving architectural education? This qualitative research reviews the role a theoretical process plays in empowering upper-division Historically Black College and University (HBCU) architecture students to engage in mate-rial-based architectural learning to help reduce impostor syndrome in a post-pandemic digital culture. HBCU students, like 84 percent of university students across the United States2, were part of the ‘Covid-19 remote learning’ generation. During and post completely remote learning, several students – approximately 50 percent surveyed during this course3 – missed their opportunity to access the experiences and knowledge that come with hands-on material exploration. By bypassing their opportunities to engage with analog materials, many students lacked the confidence to discuss architectural materiality, which could ultimately lead them to prolonged intellectual insecurities. So, as educators and practitioners, how can our pedagogies provide better access to knowledge and overcome the root causes of impostor syndrome? Through using inclusive theories and equitable experiences in a transformative way, I believe we can better adapt academic tools to reinforce a sense of belonging while continuing to promote diversity in our communities and environments. To empower through access and opportunities, the process below describes how a group of eleven students gained direct experience through a series of prompts used to transform their knowledge into over 150 unique physical objects. The required course began with presentations and group conversations reviewing Donald Judd and Michael Benedikt’s theories and exploring the psychological significance embedded in tangible objects. Written commentaries and in-class dialogue became a venue to critically analyze and validate the connections between architectural space and materiality through the lens of time, value, and reality. To further instill self-assurance, the students engaged in the physical material exploration of new and found building materials. Each student used their experiences to create individually unique wood, cast masonry, metal, and composite ‘Objects’ (2.5”x2.5”x10”) that emphasize their design process. A ‘process,’ as described by Gail Peter Borden4, provided a physical outlet for personal growth. Several students went from only using materials in a digital environment3 to demonstrating fabrication skills beyond basic cutting, carving, casting, and welding. During the exploration process, many students expressed their greater appreciation for the mental and physical difficulty of material manipulation.3 And, similar to Enzo Mari’s thoughts on ‘understanding,’5 this deeper learning empowered the students to develop transferable knowledge6 and confidently convey their design intentions at the intersections between critical analysis and the physical manifestations of their ideas. Ultimately, over 85 percent of the students surveyed expressed that using physical material expanded their self- assurance, and they foresee using their expanded observation and making skills in the academic and professional architecture environment.7 At the completion of the course, the students understood that access to opportunity and essential knowledge facilitates our ability to communicate and emphasize architectural experiences. And, through the process of discovering the transferable knowledge inherent in analog material implementation, we are empowered to reflect ourselves into equitable built environments.