Report #: 35

Report Date:

Country: KYRGYZSTAN

Housing Type:

Housing Sub-Type:

Author(s): Ulugbek T. Begaliev , Svetlana Uranova

Last Updated:

Regions Where Found: Buildings of this construction type can be found in Kyrgyzstan, typically in the mountains. This type of housing construction is commonly found in rural areas.

Summary: This type of building is the national traditional dwelling of the Kyrgyz people. It is light movable construction. The bearing structure of a yurta is a special wood frame, consisting of wood poles. The wood frame is covered by felt tension cloth.. The floors are traditionally covered with felt rugs (koshma). Yurtas can be easily unassembled and moved to new places. They are warm in winter and cool in the summer. The buildings have only one door and one opening in the roof. Yurtas are circular in plan. The diameter is usually 4m-6m. This type of building is used at the present time by shepherds, particularly during the summer, and for celebrations and funerals, and as temporary buildings during extreme situations in Kyrgyzstan. The yurta is a very light structure, has a symmetrical plan and has good seismic resistance.

Length of time practiced: More than 200 years

Still Practiced: Yes

In practice as of:

Building Occupancy: Single dwelling

Typical number of stories: 1

Terrain-Flat: Never

Terrain-Sloped: Typically

Comments:

Plan Shape: Curved, solid (e.g. circular, elliptical, ovoid)

Additional comments on plan shape: The typical building shape for a yurta is a circle.

Typical plan length (meters): 6

Typical plan width (meters): 6

Typical story height (meters): 4

Type of Structural System: Other

Additional comments on structural system: Lateral load-resisting system: Lateral Load-Resisting System consists of the very stable, evenly spaced wooden poles that form the frame.

Gravity load-bearing system: Gravity Load-Bearing Structure consists of the frame formed by the wood poles.

Gravity load-bearing & lateral load-resisting systems: Wooden Space Frame: special frame of wooden poles, evenly spaced.

Typical wall densities in direction 1: 4-5%

Typical wall densities in direction 2: 4-5%

Additional comments on typical wall densities: Summary thickness of wall with wood pole is about 10cm. Wall density is on the order of 5%.

Wall Openings: House has no windows and has one door 1.9(h) m x 0.9m. There is also a circular opening in the roof.

Is it typical for buildings of this type to have common walls with adjacent buildings?: No

Modifications of buildings: Typically there are no modifications made to a yurta.

Type of Foundation: Other Foundation

Additional comments on foundation: No foundation.

Type of Floor System: Other floor system

Additional comments on floor system:

Type of Roof System: Roof system, other

Additional comments on roof system: Timber: Wooden pole

Additional comments section 2: Typical separation distance between buildings: minimum 10 meters as a rule

Who is involved with the design process?: None of the above

Roles of those involved in the design process: There is no special expertise associated with this building type.

Expertise of those involved in the design process:

Who typically builds this construction type?: Owner

Roles of those involved in the building process: Usually shepherds live in yurtas. They assemble the yurtas themselves. It can also be used as a temporary building by any person. This building type is erected without engineers and architects.

Expertise of those involved in building process: The yurta is erected by its inhabitants/owners without any special building expertise or knowledge of building techniques.

Construction process and phasing: This building is typically constructed incrementally and isn't designed for its final constructed size.

Construction issues

Is this construction type address by codes/standards?: 2

Applicable codes or standards: Yurtas were used before introduction of building codes

Process for building code enforcement:

Are building permits required?: No

Is this typically informal construction?: Yes

Is this construction typically authorized as per development control rules?: No

Additional comments on building permits and development control rules:

Typical problems associated with this type of construction: It is necessary to have experience assembling wood pole bearing system.

Who typically maintains buildings of this type?: Owner(s)

Additional comments on maintenance and building condition:

Unit construction cost: About 50-70$/m2.

Labor requirements: One day for 4 people.

Additional comments section 3:

Damage patterns observed in past earthquakes for this construction type: During the indicated earthquakes and many others, yurtas had no damages.

Additional comments on earthquake damage patterns: Yurtas have not been seriously damaged in earthquakes.

The main reference publication used in developing the statements used in this table is FEMA 310 Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings-A Pre-standard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 1998.

The total width of door and window openings in a wall is: For brick masonry construction in cement mortar : less than ½ of the distance between the adjacent cross walls; For adobe masonry, stone masonry and brick masonry in mud mortar: less than 1/3 of the distance between the adjacent cross walls; For precast concrete wall structures: less than 3/4 of the length of a perimeter wall.

Vertical irregularities typically found in this construction type: No irregularities

Horizontal irregularities typically found in this construction type: No irregularities

Earthquake-resilient features in walls: Light weight bearing structures

For information about how seismic vulnerability ratings were selected see the Seismic Vulnerability Guidelines

Has seismic strengthening described in the above table been performed?: N/A

Was the work done as a mitigation effort on an undamaged building or as a repair following earthquake damages?: N/A

Was the construction inspected in the same manner as new construction?: N/A

Who performed the construction: a contractor or owner/user? Was an architect or engineer involved?: N/A

What has been the performance of retrofitted buildings of this type in subsequent earthquakes?: N/A

Seismic Hazard and Buildings Vulnerability in Post-Soviet Central Asia Republics. Nato Series.Netherland.

Buildings and Constructions Desing in Seismic Regions. Handbook.Bishkek.1996.