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!)"
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?
No, things like siding would just have to be torn off, to make sure the inside structure was still sound. You don't want to cover up the core structure for cosmetic reasons.. Also, that stuff does not really add much weight, and would be more likely to suffer damage, (ie, windows cracking, siding torn, Kitchen cabinets damaged, etc) that would not damage the integrity of the building, IE, they don't care if they have to replace the windows, the key is that the building doesn't collapse.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
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
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"!
Uh, concrete testing is done via filling multiple plastic cylinders with concrete as it comes off of each truck to cure for 21-28 days prior to being test for strength, atleast here in CT.
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.
You're just arguing semantics. The forces applied by these shake tables are close enough to the real thing to give us a good idea of what the building can survive. Yes, you can argue "it's not a real quake," but that's pointless. Are they supposed to wait for a real quake for their test?
Also, adding in 63 steel rods seems to defeat the purpose of calling it a "wooden building".
As others have said, they're just trying to provide evidence that wood is a viable building material for larger buildings.
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
Actually the building had steel plates on each floor to represent the real weight of the finishing materials and furnishings. There were a few dummy rooms with furnishing etc. Earthquakes don't look that bad from a distance. The shaking is strong though and the building has to stand up to it. Some of the forces exerted are stronger than gravity (the Northridge quake apparently exceeded 1.0 g -- up to 1.8 I think). In this case they are testing a new construction design and want to see if the real building matches their (computer) models.
Not plumbing. Neither copper nor plastic (and I doubt they'll be using cast iron in new construction) has enough rigidity to make the building more rigid, particularly since it isn't even tied into the structure (it's just on sheet-metal hangars, unless that's different in earthquake areas).