Slashdot Mirror
7-Story Wooden Condo Survives 7.5 Magnitude Quake
Mike writes "Earthquake news abounds as of late — recently a team of researchers from five universities unveiled an seven-story earthquake-proof wooden building that is capable of withstanding severe earthquakes. Featuring a structurally efficient nail distribution and a 63 anchor tie down system, the wooden condominium survived a test using an E-Defense shake table, which simulated a 7.5 magnitude quake (check out the video!)"
The question is- does it last in such a way that you just keep living like nothing happened after the quake? or.. lasts, as in, doesn't kill everybody in and around the building, but you probably want a new one if it goes through an earthquake even once..
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Am I the only one that didn't find that earthquake video very impressive? I would hope any building would survive that. Looks like a very tame earthquake.
Also it was really light... no siding, no SHINGLES, no furniture, probably no plumbing. NOT impressed.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Simulations are nice and all, but it's a bit inaccurate to say it "survived a 7.5 magnitude quake" when it didn't actually.
Also, adding in 63 steel rods seems to defeat the purpose of calling it a "wooden building".
seven-story earthquake-proof wooden building
There! Are! Six! Floors!
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
How about a tornado, earthquake, and fire at the same time?
When 2012 comes will it protect me from the hordes of flesh eating locusts?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Good point. Would the Gas piping also survive? If not, the fire would probably kill it.
Also, Would it make sense to have the sprinkler system go off in the case of an earthquake? Or would that be just as likely destroyed as the natural Gase pipes?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Yea those cheaters, I bet they didn't use wooden nails either!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This is a good question, especially since fires and earthquakes tend to go hand-in-hand. I certainly hope they don't use gas in these buildings.
I don't know what they are trying to prove with this crap here but I am not at all impressed by that video -- I mean the building is completely empty and naked! Wouldn't the siding, roofing, walls, doors, windows, people, and furnishings make the building more heavy (and more likely to collapse)? Wouldn't the plumbing make the building more rigid and again, more likely to collapse? If I am incorrect please let me know, but it seems to me that this experiment proves precisely nothing.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Duh, haven't you ever heard of asbestos?
Believe it or not current structural code functions to provide surviveability for it's occupants. I'm an architect in southern california and prior to 1997 buildings were designed to basically allow occupants to escape, however due to the financial toll of northridge the structural code was revamped to prevent flexing which would result in the building not having sever cosmetic damage. This however resulted in drastically increased construction costs. The fact is you want a building that will flex as opposed to break. It always cracks me up because there is a war between wood mfgs and steel mfgs. Currently your typical stick framed building stops at three stories (in southern california) after this you need to switch to steel or concrete. Manufactureres like simpson strong tie are working hard to push the limit of wood to allow them a greater market share.
Can I be the first to make the "Would it survive Godzilla?" comment.
That's impressive and all, but good luck finding a contractor who will actually build the entire building totally to spec.
It could've been a rental, really.
It's called an APARTMENT BUILDING, not a "condo", you potato!
"The Yingzhou zhi records that there was a total of seven earthquakes between the years 1056 and 1103, yet the tower stood firm."
Pagoda of Fogong Temple
It doesn't make a difference, does it? I mean : your standard steel or concrete house will burn as well as a wooden one, unless it's completely empty of any inflammable materials (and even then, I'm not sure it would be structurally okay once the flames are out).
I'm living in a wooden house (although it's only 2 stories high), and we had an approximately 1minute long 7.4 earthquake slightly over a year ago (just two months after being visited by a hurricane actually). From what my sister in law who was in it at the time tells me, the house shook like hell. After the quake, it was structurally intact. All the concrete houses I saw afterward on the island, on the other hand, had extra aeration where the walls had split, most had internal water leakage (that's what you get for having the water conduits in the walls) and at least 2 had to be destroyed and rebuilt completely.
To be fair, I should note that our wooden house fared way worse than the concrete ones during the hurricane (mostly the roof that was swept away, as it was designed to)
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
I assumed they arrived at 7.5 by testing that, then testing 7.6 and the building collapsed. I was all excited to see a video of the building collapsing and what do I see? 3 seconds of shake and 40 seconds of nothing!
Just need Bill Cosby now to do a wooden Jell-o Commercial!
Termites and mold may have a field day with this structure.
your standard steel or concrete house will burn as well as a wooden one, unless it's completely empty of any inflammable materials
Oddly enough (and assuming you meant to write "flammable" instead of "inflammable"), straw houses which are traditional post and beam construction with infill, are very fire resistant.
yes. sorry. that's what I meant :)
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
Disclaimer: IAAAS/IANYAA (I am an architecture student/I am not yet an architect).
Good for them, but it doesn't really surprise me that you can make a building of that type/size earthquake-resistant. While the building is technically "wood", they are using a lot of engineered lumber (lumber that is made from particles/chips of wood held together with a binder). Looking at the pictures in the article, the building is sheathed in OSB (oriented strand board), which acts as a very good shear panel. The floors are supported using TJIs (Truss Joist I-Beams), where the top and bottom of the TJI is made of laminated wood and OSB is used as the webbing of the truss. These things are very strong, and they are anchored on the ends with galvanized steel hangars, which are very secure. The weak point in wood structures is frequently in how the pieces are joined together, and the hangars largely address that. Engineered lumber is increasingly popular in US wood construction, not for earthquake reasons, but because it is very consistent - it comes in the exact size you order, doesn't warp/twist/bow, etc., and it doesn't have knotholes. Where this building uses regular milled lumber they often stack it 6-7 deep to make columns.
They are still using steel - in the foundation and in the tiedown system, to do critical structural work. Nothing wrong with that, it's the smart thing to do. Steel has awesome tensile strength.
My guess is that a mid-rise made using this method would be significantly cheaper than reinforced concrete, and somewhat cheaper than steel. The difference is that a steel framed building will be put together by skilled welders, while the framers putting this building up will tend to be of a lower skill level - one reason this building would be cheaper - and you'll have to keep a closer eye on the construction. Given the need for engineered lumber, selective use of steel, and close attention to how the building is put together, I don't see this as a panacea for earthquake-resistant housing in the third-world. I'm sure they would love it in California, though. The big challenge is ensuring consistent construction and getting the changes in the building code (particularly in CA, which is more earthquake conscious than other states). Beyond that, it's just a question of cost.
There's no technical problem making a wood building that strong. It's the enforcement that's the problem. Wood has good tensile strength, but the joints usually used in wood construction don't.
A few years ago, after some hurricanes, many Florida builders were discovered not to be building to code. Hurricane-proofing for small wood structures mostly consists of putting in metal brackets at joints to give wood-to-wood joints tensile strength. Not only do the brackets have to be put in, nails have to be hammered into all the holes in the brackets. Many contractors were sloppy about that, resulting in a big loss of tensile strength and major damage (like roofs ripped off) during hurricanes.
A big problem in the Third World is bad concrete mixes. Much concrete construction goes up without enough cement in the mix, and that results in building collapses.
Here's a good project for someone - develop a low-cost hand held device for concrete testing. The existing techniques are slow, labor-intensive, and a pain to use. Tests for hardened concrete usually involve cutting out a plug and sending it to a lab elsewhere. Small portable devices would be a big help here.
Oddly enough (and assuming you meant to write "flammable" instead of "inflammable")...
Oddly enough, "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Yeah, but he meant to say flammable instead of inflammable.
maybe "he" is not a native english speaker and just used the french word, which incidentally exists in english too?
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
Wood is inflammable!
What about the big bad wolf?
In earthquake prone areas, all buildings are fitted with automatic shut-off valves which cut the gas supply outside the building in case of shaking. The procedure is to then inspect the building before resetting this safety valve.
Generally speaking, a properly impregnated wooden house will last longer than a concrete one. An even the ones which were not impregnated will still have the large beam structure standing after burning down. That is because the outer wood burns, becomes coal and does not let enough oxygen to the wood so it can continue to burn.
I'm not convinced that this structure could withstand a Blendtec assault...
"Flammable" is a silly word (although I'm sure it's crept into dictionaries by now). "Inflammable" means "likely to burst into flame". Because this confused the illiterate, people wisely started using "flammable" on warning signs, and now it's as common as "ain't". "Inflammable" remains the better word.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
NZ just had a 7.8 quake that barely woke up the sheep! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10584761 Seriously though, bugger all people live down there so the biggest report of damage I heard of was some traffic lights falling over. :-)
They kinda mean the same thing though...
Dr. Nick: What a country!
Rigged and working, more or less same wooden strucuture as the one in the article... plus some inside weights and plumbings/electric rig.. italian engineering on japanese test lab... too bad they didn't use these when earthquake struck... (www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4q_ytmwyzY )
I have to admit that I'm a little underwhelmed by the video. I watched it, and about halfway through was thinking: They must ramp it right up at the end.
*That* was 7.5? It looked very tame.
I do live in the notoriously un-earthquakey British Isles though, so perhaps I'm lacking perspective.
Get your own free personal location tracker
What a country!
What a country!
My nick ain't "srussia" for nothin'!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Then why are there still fires associated with Earthquakes? Or was the regulation put into place after the Nothridge earthquake?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Let's say that you and your MOTAS are having a romantic candlelight dinner when the earthquake hits. All it takes is one of the candles falling on the right spot and you've got an earthquake-caused fire even if it's an all-electric home. Or, if you prefer, you're making fish and chips and the quake spills the grease from the fryer onto a hot burner. There are lots of ways to start a fire during an earthquake even if the gas (if you have it) turns off. And, of course, there's always the gas inside the pipes that can get out even after the shutoff valve activates.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Why? Inflammable means easily set on fire, not fireproof. "Flammable" is a neologism created by people who clearly made the same wrong (but reasonable) assumption that you just did.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"Inflammable" means "likely to burst into flame". Because this confused the illiterate
Confused the illiterate? Literally one meaning of the prefix "in-" is not as in "insane", not sane. Or "inseparable", not separable. Following the rule "inflammable" would mean "not flammable", so "flammable" is the better word for easy to burn. What is confusing is changing the rules.
But then again, English is a Crazy Language. In what other language does feet smell and noses run. Or look at the plural of tooth, "teeth". Why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
let me put up a light, and see how quickly it is burned to the ground.
Where is it? I didn't see a link to a video of it inside. Not labeled as such that is.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This straw bale construction thing very interesting.
Why are they very fire resistant? Uninformed intuition on my part has me thinking exactly the opposite.
What are the costs involved and is this a California only thing?
I wouldn't mind learning the the construction techniques for building them but I don't know if I could ever live in one. I'd never hear the end of the huff and puff jokes.
Maybe not, but it's interesting anyway.
I read an article along this line earlier this year. Wooden buildings have a better survival rate on the Indian subcontinent, in India and Pakistan than stone buildings. Whereas wood ones can last centuries stone ones don't last as long.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I see your house is made of WOOD! I will HUFF and PUFF aaaaaannnnddd.... Oh .. wait.. HAX0RZ!!!
But how well will this same building design do when built by the lowest bidder? You know, a realistic scenario?
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Oddly enough (and assuming you meant to write "flammable" instead of "inflammable")...
Oddly enough, "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.
Yeah, that was a painful lesson!
John
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/31546/0/
Just recalling incidents from 89 where I remember there being fires caused by ruptured gas lines. Could be wrong.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
So the entire video was 45 seconds long, of which about 10-15 seconds seemed to be the actual earthquake. Isn't "the Big One" (in my state of California) supposed to be somewhere about 5-7 minutes?
Also, did their model include refrigerators, washers, dryers, dishwashers, and all the other stuff that would be loaded into such a building? Or did they build an empty box and call it a "condo".
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
One of the weirdest bits of labeling I have ever seen was a caution that the contests of a bottle were "not non-inflammable".
I don't recall the "in-" prefix means "lots" so I checked my dictionaries, I have 4, as well as OneLook. With OneLook I checked the first 10 links to the definition and not one gave "lots" as a definition. Now "in" as in into and "towards" was given as well as other definitions but not "lots". Can you give an example of it used that way?
I'll feel real stupid after you give one.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
did you ever wonder if the poster was making a joke?