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
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
Yea those cheaters, I bet they didn't use wooden nails either!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
"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
"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
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
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).
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
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"!
Wood is inflammable!
Two houses. One reinforced. Shaken at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc652Zp5qWk
And yet no one gets confused about the meaning "inflamation". If "flammable" was never used, there'd be no confusion about "inflammable".