Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

7-Story Wooden Condo Survives 7.5 Magnitude Quake

Posted by timothy on from the this-is-awesome dept.

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!)"

10 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Sensationalist headline by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

    1. Re:Sensationalist headline by Brigadier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the whole purpose of something like this is to justify wood as a acceptable material for 3 or more stories (well in california) by doing this they increase the market share of wood. See simpson strong tie.... truth is this was an empty home with no realistic live loads. ie file cabinets couches TV etc. You also have to add dead loads like windows, doors finishes etc.

  2. Unimpressive... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Unimpressive... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please. How much exactly do you think is known about keeping buildings together in an earthquake? The body of knowledge is improving, but there is still a lot we don't know. These guys have developed a way that will keep buildings together better than what we had previously. Even if no one ever actually builds a seven story condo, this is knowledge that will help in any kind of wood construction.

      Besides, if you are not impressed then you missed the coolest part of the video. They have a platform there that can move a million pound structure around in simulation of a real earthquake. If that's not cool technology, I don't know what is.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Unimpressive... by tool462 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be interesting to see how a traditionally constructed wooden building fares in that test. If, built out to the same level, a traditional structure collapses like it's made of toothpicks, then this proves something quite significant.

  3. Re:Lasts? by mpapet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The general idea is to have the building _not_ collapse on top of you.

    As a lifetime resident of Los Angeles that's experienced all of the big quakes back to the 1970's, I've been in stick construction houses for all of the quakes and didn't even experience a broken window. They shake like crazy and it's loud as hell in the big ones, but the stick design is very flexible.

    The older homes here 1930's have foundation problems more than anything else in the big ones. They tend to be lathe/plaster walls, but still stick-style construction. I don't know what's different about those. There are *very* few if any of the really old adobe-style houses left. Not because of earthquakes though.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  4. Re:uh, wow? by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Also it was really light... no siding, no SHINGLES, no furniture, probably no plumbing. NOT impressed."

    You want impressive? Try this video. Skip to 4:35 if you wanna see the dining room.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  5. Re:uh, wow? by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's another link of a dining room, but this time it's for the wooden building in the article. Last post was a link for a different building test.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  6. Re:uh, wow? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also it was really light... no siding, no SHINGLES, no furniture, probably no plumbing. NOT impressed.

    Yeah, they could have made it much cooler with computer generated graphics, instead they probably blew their whole production budget on the world's largest shake table, a million pounds of wood, and a huge team of highly trained Japanese scientists and engineers. If nothing else, it needs more fire, and way more Godzilla. Two thumbs down!

    (I love slashdot).

  7. Re:"Inflammable" remains the better word. by adonoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And yet no one gets confused about the meaning "inflamation". If "flammable" was never used, there'd be no confusion about "inflammable".