Slashdot Mirror
Japan Creates Earthquake-Proof Levitating House System
An anonymous reader writes "Japanese company Air Danshin Systems Inc. has developed an innovative system that levitates houses in the in the event of an earthquake to protect them from structural damage. When an earthquake hits, a sensor responds within one second by activating a compressor, which forces an incredible amount of air under the home, pushing the structure up and apart from its foundation. The air pressure can keep the home levitating up to 3cm from the shaking foundation below. In the wake of last year's Fukushima disaster the company is set to install the levitation system in 88 houses across Japan."
*Balloons*
The house is not firmly attached to the foundations except by this glorified airbag.
Don't they also get typhoons there?
I eagerly await the Japanese sequel to the Wizard of Oz.......
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I don't see how this system is going to protect a home against the effects of serious earthquakes (landslides, liquefaction etc.), and it seems decidedly less robust than existing passive earthquake defences in the light of the more common, moderate (M3~5.5) earthquakes which plague Japan.
I've heard some stupid ideas in my time, but this takes the cake.
Seriously, man. Don't you think there could be a problem with a house that is not actually attached to its foundations?
What's the deal with compressed air levitation. Is it good or is it whack?
In other bews, 88 Japanese people just got scammed for a lot of money.
Add up the weight, washer, dryer, fridge, stove, counter tops, toilet, sink, water heater, computer, bed, my fat ass, a couple of dogs, , wife, some fat kids - what's going to lift all that plus a few tons of house?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
That doesn't seem like much. Am I wrong?
By the way, wouldn't underground houses be better for earthquakes than something sitting on top of the soil?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NubZJA4c_Rw
Seems like it would require an awful lot of force just to float a small house. An interesting idea that might be useful in other areas. But I don't see how this could catch on long term for things like apartment buildings or skyscrapers.
And let's not forget that it wasn't so much the earthquake that devastated Japan. But it was the wall of water that mowed down everything in its path.
Depends... housing ain't cheap in Japan, and getting a new one may be hellishly expensive when compared to keeping your old one from coming apart.
Also, what's easier, saving the house (and everything in it), or rebuilding from scratch? It's not just the cost of the house you have to keep in mind, but the cost of all the stuff in it, and the expense + time spent living out of a hotel room (or with relatives) until your house gets rebuilt.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NubZJA4c_Rw
watching this video makes me LOL.
in japan, you have three types of earthquakes.
the horizontal type depicted in this video.
there is also the vertical type.
then you have the worst of all three, where both are happening at the same time.
3cm of buffer space? maybe only in a horizontal shifting quake.
the other two? forget about it. its pretty sad that people are going to get scammed by this.
Real useful when there's no power...
As a bonus, this system works great during tsunamis too.
so what happens while the house is levitating the foundation moves and is now 5cm to the left when the house comes down?
film making. Imagine.... ground shaking ... startled cries.... LOOK! Run! It's House-Ra and its coming this way! Oh No! Out-House-Zilla is with him, and now he flies!! Aieeee! Flea! Flea for your lives ... ewwww!
And with the added benefit of not being crushed to death by rubble in the process!
Isn't that a long time to wait?
I'm sure they've thought of this, but in a house, that's a lot of mass that's been tossed around starting from the 0 mark. It seems at the one sec mark, the structure would already be unstable and that's when you're going to lift it up in the air?
and generating the amount of air pressure to lift a house + all its belongings + its occupants takes how long? what if the power is knocked out in 500ms or less? why not make those rubber bushing systems more affordable instead of involving computer controlled "systems"
And I hear Fukushima has a flood wall to stop tsunamis.
For planes and airships there's that whole "Oh no we're losing altitude, let's push the fat guy out" trope.
I wonder what's the weight limit for this little gizmo.
...the Marilyn Monroe effect.
Their they're doing there hair.
Base isolation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_isolation] would be a better idea that doesn't require a ups or continuous power supply for the compressor.
And let's not forget that it wasn't so much the earthquake that devastated Japan. But it was the wall of water that mowed down everything in its path.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but earthquakes are much more common in Japan than tsunami are. Remember Kobe? There's a list of major earthquakes in Japan that might put things in perspective. Saving houses from substantial earthquake damage would be a major gain for the country.
(Mind, I'm not saying that tsunami aren't an issue -- just that earthquakes are also an issue, and a different problem set.)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
It seems like it would make more sense to build all single-family type houses on "stilts" that can flex and should a tsunami come in, the house just floats on top (but is still anchored in place so it doesn't float away.) As far as I can tell it would be like building a "boat" on stilts, if an earthquake hits, the house stilts just flex (eg 8 stilts) and you can replace them if they are compromised. If a tsunami hits, well you may have to reconnect your utility lines (which should have auto-shutoff valves) but that's better than being crushed by the house coming apart or drowning after it's inundated. Save the area under the house for the car.
It's funny really, there are actually many houses that are built in North America that won't last in an earthquake, because building codes are only heavily enforced for large buildings. Anything built before the 1989 Loma Prieta (San Francisco) earthquake, is likely not up to code. That's just 22 years ago. If you live in the Pacific area, you're sitting on a timebomb that can go any day now. I'm taking my chances in this 1960's apartment. I don't think the building would survive a Tohoku style earthquake, but I'm nowhere near any liquefaction area, so the worst that would happen is the damn building collapses on me. Luck would probably have it happen while I'm awake and could dive under my desk, but if it happens while I'm asleep, fucked.
I just want a levitating house! Anyone for house air hockey?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Housing ain't cheap, but most of the price goes into the land, and houses are viewed as somewhat disposable, most people expect a house to last about the lifetime of a generation. There are some companies that run commercials about a "100 year houses", implying this is a long-life structure, so that should tell you what the general expectations are.
Also, I don't believe the "being crushed" argument will be really critical, except in marketing. Most people seem to die from the fires that inevitably follow the earthquakes, not under the collapsed structures.
Housing ain't cheap, but most of the price goes into the land, and houses are viewed as somewhat disposable, most people expect a house to last about the lifetime of a generation. There are some companies that run commercials about a "100 year houses", implying this is a long-life structure, so that should tell you what the general expectations are.
Also, I don't believe the "being crushed" argument will be really critical, except in marketing. Most people seem to die from the fires that inevitably follow the earthquakes, not under the collapsed structures.
I'm living in a house that's nearly 100 years old now, and I'm pretty sure the landlord doesn't plan on tearing it down and rebuilding it any time soon. And this house has been through a number of San Francisco earthquakes since it was built in 1917.
Perfect, provided it doesn't knock out power to the ("generators") compressors.
No, wait...
- Dan
The quakes in Japan, Haiti and California usually goes along with tremendous lateral displacements, so how will this help?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Brings to mind the Ben Bova novel where skyscrapers were actually huge rocket boosters. At the slightest hint of an earthquake they flew out into the ocean for a safe splashdown.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I would think that a weeble house would fare better-and be more entertaining.
How much is an "incredible amount" of air? Can someone possibly explain this "air floating" concept in terminology of cars? Thanks.
Take off every 'sig' !!
The earthquake and tsunami was the disaster, not the accident at Fukushima. There were dead people from the nuclear accident and 50,000 evacuated (not counting those in the evacuation zone whose houses have been destroyed by the tsunami) is a lot less worse than the earthquake's and tsunami's 20.000 dead + 500,000 evacuated.
... and the unwillingness of the Japanese to raise tsunami protection of cities, which reasonably enough was the same height for cities as for nuclear power plants, from 6m to 16m. Strangely enough, there was no finger pointing and no complaints about lacking tsunami protection of cities, where ... well, you know, people live (and died) and didn't get an advance warning of 2 days to evacuate before the tsunami hit.
Half a million were evacuated from utterly destroyed houses in an area now prohibited from permanent human habitation because of the tsunami hazard
So what does the shantytown version look like?
...that house in the Simpsons that sprouts legs and attempts to run away, before keeling over and bursting into flames.
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was screwed because most of the power generators were installed in a basement that was subsequently flooded and therefore useless to keep the pumps going to pump fresh seawater in to cool the cores, causing ongoing level 7 meltdowns at three reactors.
From the wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant ):
"The reactor's emergency diesel generators and DC batteries, crucial components in helping keep the reactors cool in the event of a power loss, were located in the basements of the reactor turbine buildings. The reactor design plans provided by General Electric specified placing the generators and batteries in that location, but mid-level engineers working on the construction of the plant were concerned that this made the back up power systems vulnerable to flooding. TEPCO elected to strictly follow General Electric's design in the construction of the reactors."
The design basis for [the plant] for tsunamis was 5.7 meters. The earthquake triggered powerful tsunami waves that reached heights of up to 40.5 metres.
Around 4.4 million households in northeastern Japan were left without electricity and 1.5 million without water.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami
So say right that the power to the Air Danshin Systems Inc installation is taken out by an earthquake and there is no 'levitating' to be had? Aftershocks?
I doubt each installation would have its own generator and even if it did it would have to be left running in order to be able to kick in if power was lost.
Lessons learned, maybe not.
I don't care if it's practical or not - it's damn cool!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzSuuk4um44
How about creating a scandal proof safety compliance system, for maybe I dunno nuclear reactors?
1. House goes up on air cushion.
2. Ground below shifts sideways several meters.
3. House goes down off its foundation.
But on the other hand, houses in San Francisco don't tend to substitute shoji screens for walls.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It is 1st March, not 1st April. I'm still not convinced, maybe someone got the month wrong.
An awful lot of people died from being crushed to death in collapsed freeways in San Francisco in the large earth quake in the late 80's. Not so much from fires if I recall correctly.
I can understand how this gizmo might protect a house from the side-to-side waves ( P-waves?) that earthquakes create. But not so sure it's going to do much to protect a house from the up-and-down type waves (S- and L- waves)...
I just think that rubber vibration mounts would be so much simpler.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
. . . when their basement lairs are filled with compressed air!
. . . um, maybe it's time to think about moving into the attic . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
One would assume that there would be some interesting flex connectors on things like water/ sewage/electrics etc. I did not notice anything in TFA (well, I only glanced OK). On the other hand, I suppose 3cm is not THAT much movement to deal with....
> housing ain't cheap in Japan
Housing is very cheap in Japan (cheaply bought and cheaply built).
Land is expensive. Not housing.
The point here is not really to save the house, but saving the people inside.
... and some big rubber bands ... in 2 directions.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Sure that might save your house from the P-waves , but what happen when the S and L waves come and your house goes up and down. Pop goes the House!
...the ground moves more than 3cm (in any direction)? It happens in major quakes; the 2006 tsunami was the result of the sea floor dropping over 2m. I've been through a 5-pointer, and the ground certainly moved more than 3cm, although it did move back as rapidly as it shifted. That one moved my entire house probably four inches and back, causing major structural damage (buckled window and doorframes, two cracks from foundation to roof) which is still being repaired after four years.. almost to the day, in fact(!).
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
most people expect a house to last about the lifetime of a generation
You're building them wrong. Most people here expect their house to survive hundreds of years.
The Fukushima disaster was a lot more than an earthquake. It was a tsunami!! Levitate your house off its foundation? Just makes it easier to wash away! You've got a house-boat and surf-board now.
There are several flaws with the design:
- it requires components which require maintanance. This is likely not to be done, and even when it is done, it is not guaranteed to work (backup generators in power plants fail frequently, despite being maintained. Thats why there are several backup generators).
- the compressor is probably powered by electricity. During earthquakes nuclear power plants automatically shut down. The earthquake could damage the power lines. An power outage is normal during a major earthquake. A solution would be a generator on site, but that would require more maintanance, and since it doesn't start within a second, it would require a large number of backup batteries (also maintanance).
- an earhquake doesn't come alone. There are usually a large number of aftershocks. All those active components would have to whether a large number of aftershocks - even if there is no electricity.
A passive approach to securing a building against earthquakes seems much more reasonable and likely to work.
How much energy would be needed to lift a house for a short period of time using magnetic levitation?
At what cost could the electro magnets and the necessary batteries be installed. Would it be even feasible to store the needed energy in affordable batteries (to make it work in case of a power failure)?
Just a thought...
His Bouncy Castle
But on the other hand, houses in San Francisco don't tend to substitute shoji screens for walls.
On the other hand being crushed by a paper wall is far less likely than by one made of bricks.
Nice to know, especially when an earthquake starts and every hous in Japan starts to draw power at the same time to run their compressors. Combine maximum demand with the period of maximum likelyhood of power failure and what do you get? Something that sounds really neat on paper with the only practical use of chasing dumb people with VC dollars. Japan would benefit much more in making their houses say, waterproof...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
... to just rebuild every single houses foundations as a shock absorber?
Vibrations are what destroy things. Simply by making a foundation to absorb most of it should be much better, no?
Hell, make houses float in a huge container of water, a few chains or ropes to hold it in place and prevent it from touching walls, bridge, best house right there.
Build in some wave-cancelling that spawned from metamaterial research (easy to do at this scale) and there should be very little vibrations despite the liquid.
Japan has plenty of water around it, it doesn't need to be pure water since it is merely a container.
This would even likely be cheaper and not break down, which the levitating house is very likely to do, not to mention the risk of explosive accidents due to broken valves or even more things that could go wrong.
Plus, now your house doubles as a boat if a tsunami decides to come your way. Not a very good boat, but still a boat that won't (if designed right) get you drowned.
This would also work with vertical waves as well to a slightly lesser extent, but still better than the summary house.
If the resonant frequency of the house moving backward and forward on the cushion is within the frequency of earth oscillations then this could make things worse rather than better!
It's the 21st century here in Japan. Any shoji screens still in houses are usually decorative or a just to give a little visual privacy.
We use real walls.
"...I can install this little blue button to get you down."
So the superaffluent will have their hovercrafted homes turned over and smashed against something in the hurricane accompanying the earthquake or will crash into some poor (pun intended) man's home that's not floating away in the flood accompanying the earthquake. Since the rich neighborhoods have surely CCTV coverage, it will be hilarious.
This invention needs more air/seaworthiness. After that, what could go wrong?
Considering Japan was the nation that was pioneering 100+ year mortgages back in the 90s, I don't think those people are expecting a house to last only about the lifetime of a generation.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The kids will have oh so much more fun with this... Picture this: A kid casually strolls up to your house, kicks a sensor a few times, and runs like h*ll while your house floats up off of it's foundation, and you wonder where the earthquake is.. That is pure childish fun there.. On a more serious note: The rigidity that this house will have to have in order to not break apart while floating, shaking with a real earthquake, and setting down, will make it very heavy and expensive to build. It is not a likely idea for the masses. I would also like to know what happens when the power line feeding such a generator fails, or are you also expected to buy a monster sized generator of your own, and possibly a battery bank, just in case the generator fails to start?
Most people seem to die from the fires that inevitably follow the earthquakes, not under the collapsed structures.
This. I was in Tokyo when the earthquake hit and nothing collapsed. Some loose tiles and a lot of small items fell over, over there were no buildings falling down, ceilings caving in, vending machines tipping over anything like that. Japan is built to be earthquake-proof because anything that isn't won't last long. They must average a magnitude 5+ a month, and when it happens the trains stop for a few minutes and most people barely react.
Floating houses are not a new idea in Japan. Years back someone developed a system where the house was buoyant and would float if the area was flooded. It had foundations that could slide up and down (metal runners) so it wouldn't just drift away.
I'm not entirely sure what the point of this system is. Saving ancient historic buildings perhaps?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
We use real walls.
Not according to wikipedia, which says timber frames are popular.
It would probably be cheaper to move Japan 100 miles west than it would be to install compressed air systems on the homes/offices/schools/ and workplaces of 130 million people.
Attach ropes to Japan and give them to people in South Korea and pay them to pull real hard.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Passive solutions already exist that can handle this. Basically the house is built on a platform that has domed feet (or roller-balls) that rest in metal bowls embedded in a traditional foundation. When the earthquake hits, the massive inertia of the house easily overcomes the high friction at these movement points, and the house nearly stays still while the ground moves underneath it. The bowls allow plenty of travel and have vertical sides to minimize the chance of the house skipping off the lower foundation entirely.
Inertia is a powerful thing, as an example one time I had to get my dad to give my little Samurai a tow to the shop. I tried to explain about carefully taking up the slack on the tow strap before moving, but as usual he couldn't be bothered with all my "nerdy overanalysis" and he just took off with a good 4-6 feet of slack in the strap. His crossover bounced back like it was tied to a tree (lucky the strap didn't snap), and he said that's what it felt like, and asked it I was holding the brakes down. Nope, that's little more than just the inertia of a 2300lb object.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
We use real walls.
Not according to wikipedia, which says timber frames are popular.
At least in the West, "timber frame" means that the load bearing structures are wooden beams connected by joinery. This is supposedly a much stronger structure than the stud-truss that supports most residential housing. The walls inside are still made of studs and drywall or studs, lath and plaster. Sometimes, "wood frame" is used to distinguish from "steel frame," meaning that the studs that hold up the drywall are made of wood rather than steel. In any case "timber frame" in no way connotes paper walls, let alone fusuma.
That has nothing to do with structures. You're correcting something he didn't say, and that honestly doesn't have much to do with whether or not one should bother levitating the house.
How else would you frame up a house if not using timber?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
I would agree, my wife's uncle's house is about a decade old. From the inside, it's basically indistinguishable from what you'd find in a new American home, except for the tatami flooring in a few rooms.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Steel isn't unheard of.
It's the 21st century here in Japan. Any shoji screens still in houses are usually decorative or a just to give a little visual privacy. We use real walls.We use real walls.
Not according to wikipedia, which says timber frames are popular.
Only on /. would someone, in a different country, try to use Wikipedia to disagree with the reality of someone who actually lives in the country in question. Also, "timber frame" does not mean what you apparently think it does. The majority of homes in the US (and many other countries) are also timber frame.
From TFA:
As fantastical as a home levitation system may seem, Air Danshin claims that the technology is not only effective, but also 1/3 cheaper than many other earthquake-proofing systems out there – and it requires little maintenance.
And this seems like it would be more independent of the type of building you have, allowing you to have, say, brick buildings that are still earthquake safe. Or jenga building.s
So I can no become a Foundation Air Reaction Technician?
My Mom would be so proud.
No brain, no pain.
How else would you frame up a house if not using timber?
Around here "real walls" are clay brick. Preferably double-brick with cavity between. So I took "real wall" to mean a solid wall.
Stone or concrete are acceptable alternatives, but more expensive.
I take it houses are made of wood-frame where you live?
I find that completely unbelievable. Beyond credibility, even.
And, when you need it most (after a major disaster) construction materials and labor are at a high premium, as are habitable structures.
Avoiding destruction in a wide scale disaster is a very high value-add.
I need to use more smileys :-( . Just sayin', walls built of sticks or straw are not real walls as the GGP claims.
Japanese houses, like American houses, are not built to last. But I understand that Japanese and Californians have good reason not to build solid walls.
Most of the places I've been to in the US use wood frames for houses with maybe a few steel support beams for long open spans
1. Even if you needed individual seismographs on each house, there's no reason it needs to be exposed or even outdoors.
2. The point is that the house WON'T be shaking. How would you shake a floating house without touching it?
3. Based on how wind tunnels work, it's probably a better idea to just store the compressed air somewhere than to try to suddenly generate that much power. I can't imagine it would be cost effective to have that powerful a pump sitting around that it could work without an air reservoir.
You're unfortunately right about the expected lifespan of houses.
It doesn't have to be that way, though. Right now I'm renting a house that's 87 years old, and it would be nicer than any modern house if the landlord gave a crap. It's still structurally sound, the exterior is beautifully designed (if in need of a little TLC), and despite its exceedingly odd by modern standards floor plan, it's far more usable for actually living like a human being than most modern houses. Also, the fact that it's relatively small for the neighborhood means that we've got a much bigger yard for our dogs and garden than most of the rest of our street.
And this house is just a timber-frame with lathe and plaster on the inside and wood siding on the outside. I grew up in an old adobe house in rural New Mexico. It would be tough to say how old *that* house was, but I'd have to guess it was well over 100 years 20 years ago when I was a kid. I drove by it recently and it's been replastered and it has a new roof. It looks practically new. In England there are cob dwellings that are hundreds of years old. In Africa there are multi-story wattle and daub structures on rubble trench foundations that have been standing and occupied for thousands of years.
My childhood home was also much easier to work with than a lot of modern homes. All the plumbing and wiring was reasonably easy to access, and ran through conduits that went around the house on the exterior or pipes trenched around the outside of the foundation. My dad replumbed it and rewired the parts of it that weren't already to modern standards when my parents bought it. It cost him a few hundred dollars.
Meanwhile, one of my coworkers owns a house that's only about 20 years old in a big housing development, but she's already had to hire a whole crew to dig through the giant concrete slab that is under her living room to fix a leaky pipe, and she'll probably have to again. Some genius ran all the plumbing straight under the slab foundation when it was built, probably to save the $100 of extra pipe it would have taken to route it all around the house instead -- or to save the slight measure of fucking foresight it would have taken to just put the wet wall near the water and sewer hookups instead of on the opposite end of the house.
But when you're building houses and your goal is to build as many as you can as quickly as you can for as cheaply as you can, there's just no room for things like foresight, or spending a little extra to do it right, or even taking the slightest care when it comes to placing the house sanely on the plot of land.
I HATE modern tract-housing cheap-ass developer built "homes." They're sterile, they're shoddily constructed, and they seem to be designed by people who don't have a very firm grasp on the experience of actually...you know...living in houses like people.
There is no fucking reason to waste energy and resources to build a house that won't last at least a hundred years, unless you're a housing developer cutting corners on construction to rake in a little extra cash.
Porquoi?
Meet George Jet-san.
Well if Wikipedia says timber frames are popular then you must tear down your 'real walls' and replace them!
Unreinforced masonry sucks in a quake. Buildings constructed that way often have small warning signs affixed here in the San Francisco Bay Area. New commercial construction uses cinderblock with steel rebar going up through the blocks. There is either a wood or steel frame under the block walls.
In the event of a quake, I suspect that the cinderblocks would crack but be held in place by the rebar. If the attachments to the frame failed catastrophicly it seems likely such a wall would hold together and fall outward from the frame. That's why you want to stay inside and go under your desk or a table. Odds are you'll just crawl out from under a desk covered with little bits of rock and dust.
For a residential home?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Now they just have to find a way to levitate the compressor.
I need to use more smileys :-( . Just sayin', walls built of sticks or straw are not real walls as the GGP claims.
Japanese houses, like American houses, are not built to last. But I understand that Japanese and Californians have good reason not to build solid walls.
That's actually pretty funny in context. It's a shame how poorly sarcasm translates in text. Particularly with the abundance of it on /. ;-)
This assume the foundation will be in the "exact" same location as before the earthquake and there is no upwards shift in the ground.
Not to mention that if you don't mount the air compressor and backup generator high enough, the tsunami will take out your fail safe.
Have you not learned anything Japan?
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Steel? Masonry? Stone? Cement? Transparent aluminum? There are more building materials than just wood, you know....
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
As someone with 12 years of structural experience, currently studying for their Structural Engineering exam: You're full of it.
A "stick built" home - that is, one built with sawn lumber and plywood - is generally better than a steel or concrete structure. A properly designed wood structure is much harder to permanently damage during a seismic or wind event than a concrete structure, and is generally easier to repair than a steel structure. The problem comes in that our older homes and buildings are *not* designed properly.
Speaking personally - If I'm in an earthquake, I would rather be in a stick-built structure built in the last twenty years than in a Concrete building built within the last five.
This isn't to say that there is *no* damage - there is - it's just that it's primarily cosmetic.
-If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
I thought the guy was making a dig at how temporary houses made of "sticks" are. Generally they are the guys who want cinderblock walls all through the house, forgetting that big heavy stone construction materials like that are often more dangerous in earthquake prone areas than more traditional 2x4s.
I read the internet for the articles.
That has nothing to do with structures.
A double decker freeway is not a structure?
You're correcting something he didn't say
He said collapsed structures were not as responsible for deaths as the resultant fires were. Most deaths I have ever heard about were about collapsed structures crushing and trapping people. San Francisco is a really good example of that.
and that honestly doesn't have much to do with whether or not one should bother levitating the house.
Really? Levitating the house is done so that it does not collapse, or otherwise get destroyed.....which would result in people dying.
For a residential home?
This is unheard of in the US, but quite common elsewhere.
Yes. I've done steel stud construction design for a handful of homes. Insulated Concrete Forms are also popular for exterior walls - they're set up like Legos, and then concrete is poured in them. Still, the use of wood outweighs concrete or steel by far more than 9:1 for home construction.
-If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
It levitates:
MEEEE!!!
It's an earthquake...
Quick! Jettison the house!
Unless you quote the person who, in your opinion, is "full of it", it's difficult to determine whom you think is full. You seem to be disputing someone who advocated steel and concrete construction, and you hypothetically put your own life on the line to attest.
Really, regarding the ability of a structure to endure an earthquake, to make a judgement, much more information is needed beyond the type of construction employed. One steel structure is weaker than another, for example. And, in construction, there is a size division between single-family and multi-family dwellings that must be considered. But anyway...
I'll clarify some terms.
Most houses today (post WWII) are built using a wood construction system called "platform framing". Colloquially, this is called "stick built". However, stick build is a more general term just meaning using 2x4s and can include systems that are not platform framing.
In platform framing, one story is built after another. This is opposed to obsolete balloon framing which uses structural members that span more than one story. Platform framing uses the familiar stud and plate (top or bottom horizontal member) wall arrangement.
Timber framing usually means post & beam construction, which is also called post-frame construction. Large pieces of wood spaced a few feet (a couple meters) apart form the structure. In this thread, some seem to be using "timber" to simply mean wooden.
Steel-reinforced concrete is a very strong method of construction. The Japanese buildings using this method did well in the recent earthquake. And we must remember, earthquakes aren't the only possible hazards. Nowadays, a larger building should also be able to withstand small bombs, high winds, and vehicle impacts.
Another method of single-family dwelling construction is SIP (Structural Insulated Panel). The walls are made with SIPs, which are composed of thin plywood exteriors encasing thick polystyrene foam in-between.
Sure, wood platform framing is economical and sufficient for small structures, like single-family dwellings, but it's not suitable for larger structures.
And in terms of a single-family dwelling contest for ability of withstand to withstand an earthquake, a mobile home on beam (rather than discrete "jacks") supports wins.
(||) Nehmo (||)
plus everyone else close by powering up pumps as well. And getting reliable power in a quake,
Has to be compressed in advance
Transparent aluminum [residential house]
Pics or it didn't happen!
You can pick apart individual sentences and words, but since you're taking them out of the context of the posts, you're misrepresenting what people are actually saying, so that doesn't mean you're addressing anything anyone is talking about.
In case it's still not clear: He is talking about housing. Nobody is talking about levitating freeways. Whether or not the majority of deaths in an earthquake happen because of crushing doesn't matter if your statistic also shows that the majority of deaths are completely unaffected by modifications to HOUSES.
What I'M saying is that, yes, the people crushed on the highways in OAKLAND, not SF, didn't die of fire. However, his point was that protecting your HOME from collapsing and killing you during an earthquake is a marketing ploy, so bringing up highways is completely irrelevant as far as whether or not earthquake-proofing a house is a waste of money. I obviously realize that levitating the house is so it doesn't collapse.
I don't think I took anything out of context, and I think you are being a little pedantic.
However, his point was that protecting your HOME from collapsing and killing you during an earthquake is a marketing ploy, so bringing up highways is completely irrelevant as far as whether or not earthquake-proofing a house is a waste of money
Both are structures. To say "completely irrelevant" is quite a stretch. The reason why you earthquake-proof any structure is to prevent collapse. That is where you get the majority of the damage to the structure, and where fatalities start to rise considerably. Falling objects inside the structure are far less dangerous.
To say fire is the leading cause of death is just strange when common sense and news reports over the last 50 years say otherwise.
yes, the people crushed on the highways in OAKLAND, not SF
You're wrong. It was SF.
I know. I was there and saw bodies being carried out.
How much energy would be needed to lift a house for a short period of time using magnetic levitation?
This is impossible to estimate because nobody knows how f*ing magnets actually work.
Meanwhile, the tides come in, the tides go out, and tsunami's are the problem.
pick apart individual sentences and words
Ok!
earthquake-proofing a house is a waste of money
I disagree, preserving life will always be more important than money, after all you can always make more money if you are alive.
Greetings and Salutations.
I suspect you would be comfortable in my ICF Octagon then. It is 6" of extra strength concrete, re-enforced with #4 rebar in vertical sticks, and three, complete circles horizontally. The roofing system is engineered I-beams, bolted to 1/4" steel brackets that are bolted to the walls with 8" concrete screws. The guys building it with me rapidly started calling it "the bunker", amusingly enough.
pleasant dreams
dave mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
You might be in an earthquake zone, but termites and bush-fires are a far bigger problem in these parts.
Termites may not be spectacular, but can do massive damage before you notice them. And every house gets them eventually.
6" ICF definitely counts as a _real_ wall, especially if you assembled them yourself so getting extra real man points.
Definitely beats straw-bale, which I suspect is used mostly by quiche-eaters. No matter how strong, well insulated and vermi-proofed, you still have a house of straw, which is worse than sticks, as we all learned in childhood.
It would be easier to lower a supporting base than it would be to raise the whole house. You know, that whole less work and less inertia thing.
And since they're not designing for up-and-down, a hydraulic coupling would be better, which could be engaged by a passive, purely mechanical movement-triggered fluid transfer.
Steel frame and double brick are common in Australia. I suspect the latter would not be very good in an earthquake!
"They must average a magnitude 5+ a month"
Very much depends on where you are. In Tokyo, perhaps, but here in Kansai (the second most populous area, including Osaka, Kyoto, and Kobe) I haven't seen a quake that strong in the past year (going by either the JMA classification or the modified Richter scale).
Worse than stick built? Yeah. Doesn't mean you can't get enough load resistance out of it to survive a quake. There's a paper on straw bale construction that I read that provides vertical & lateral failure information.
-If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Actually, I suspect I'd feel less than secure there. While it sounds horribly overdesigned, that's more of a problem than you might think: Your octagon won't bend, it will shatter. That's why they design weak points in steel and concrete buildings: A bent beam can still hold up a floor, while a broken connection is useless. Sure, it'll take one hell of a jolt to do it, but once it's failed it's gone.
-If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Unless you quote the person who, in your opinion, is "full of it", it's difficult to determine whom you think is full. You seem to be disputing someone who advocated steel and concrete construction, and you hypothetically put your own life on the line to attest. Really, regarding the ability of a structure to endure an earthquake, to make a judgement, much more information is needed beyond the type of construction employed. One steel structure is weaker than another, for example. And, in construction, there is a size division between single-family and multi-family dwellings that must be considered. But anyway... I'll clarify some terms. Most houses today (post WWII) are built using a wood construction system called "platform framing". Colloquially, this is called "stick built". However, stick build is a more general term just meaning using 2x4s and can include systems that are not platform framing. In platform framing, one story is built after another. This is opposed to obsolete balloon framing which uses structural members that span more than one story. Platform framing uses the familiar stud and plate (top or bottom horizontal member) wall arrangement. Timber framing usually means post & beam construction, which is also called post-frame construction. Large pieces of wood spaced a few feet (a couple meters) apart form the structure. In this thread, some seem to be using "timber" to simply mean wooden. Steel-reinforced concrete is a very strong method of construction. The Japanese buildings using this method did well in the recent earthquake. And we must remember, earthquakes aren't the only possible hazards. Nowadays, a larger building should also be able to withstand small bombs, high winds, and vehicle impacts. Another method of single-family dwelling construction is SIP (Structural Insulated Panel). The walls are made with SIPs, which are composed of thin plywood exteriors encasing thick polystyrene foam in-between. Sure, wood platform framing is economical and sufficient for small structures, like single-family dwellings, but it's not suitable for larger structures. And in terms of a single-family dwelling contest for ability of withstand to withstand an earthquake, a mobile home on beam (rather than discrete "jacks") supports wins.
Bah, I was replying to the person that said: :-( . Just sayin', walls built of sticks or straw are not real walls as the GGP claims.
Japanese houses, like American houses, are not built to last. But I understand that Japanese and Californians have good reason not to build solid walls.
I need to use more smileys
Steel and concrete construction is perfectly fine, but so is wood - and, assuming I'm in a small building, I prefer wood construction over steel or concrete.
A few years ago, my area had a worst-case windstorm. We had a brief boom in business - mostly dealing with houses and other buildings with cosmetic or tree damage. Despite the fact that windspeed exceeded the design value by 20%, there was minimal permanent damage. This is despite the fact that 90% of construction in my area - logging country - is wood, and that a large percentage of it is at least thirty years old.
As for the manufactured home, maybe. Depends on if it's properly braced - a lot of them aren't. And they're really not good when it comes to wind loads.
-If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
"It's , like, all magnets, Carter"..That's what I thought they were referring to, a kind of mag-lev solution.. I suppose keeping the house from sliding off would be a problem.. but so would power generation, as in the case of blowing air under the house.. Wouldn't building a house on a humungous set of shocks instead, be better? I believe they already do that too..
if i could afford it i'd get it just to keep my pets safe ... or children, in the case of normal people i guess, least of all not to mention the emotional damage of seeing your cage turning into rubble
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Speak for yourself and the society you're posting to (did you perhaps mean to log into slashdot.org.us instead of slashdot.org?). I'm typing in a house that is [calculates] 73 years old ; I grew up in a house that is (currently) 140-odd years old. I think the newest house I've ever lived in is now 46 years old.
Depending on who you ask, a generation is typically considered to be somewhere betwen 20 and 25 years (pushing 30 years in some societies, and generally rising).
A house that only lasted a generation would probably be described as defective (here), and may not have outlived of it's builder's warranty. Cue lawyers.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You sound angry, but you're wrong -- I did not eat your breakfast.
You're right - I'm not the one who shat in your porridge. Look closer to home.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"