7-Story Wooden Condo Survives 7.5 Magnitude Quake 146
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!)"
Lasts? (Score:5, Interesting)
the purpose is to survive not to last. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That would include my favourite, older buildings using stick-style construction with brick exteriors.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, check out the movie, if you've ever lived through an earthquake, it looks just like a real one feels, not sharp shaking back and forth, but gentle moving in seeming random direction
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, why would you make this kind of technology on such shaky grounds anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
I built this lighthouse in the swamp. People said I was daft to build a lighthouse in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em.
It sank into the swamp.
So I built another one. That one sank into the swamp. So I built a third lighthouse. That one burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad, the strongest lighthouse in this swamp.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
high building standards (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
A now very pale engineer answered "no". I guess they hadn't considered a tree falling on it in the rain, and we all know h
Re: (Score:2)
...we all know how much fun sodium is when it gets wet...
I suppose you make sure your table salt doesn't get wet either, eh? It's got the same chemical structure and behaves similarly to sodiumsulfide because they are both salts. Wet NaS is no more going to have a violent chemical reaction with water than NaCl (aka table salt) will.
Now, what might be a danger would be the incredibly massive transfer of thermal energy from the molten NaS to water, probably creating a super-heated steam almost instantly. I could see the area around a NaS battery becoming quite d
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How about a tornado, earthquake, and fire at the same time?
What, did you get bored playing Sim-City? ('cept you forgot the alien attack!?)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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) tur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about fire? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] which are traditional post and beam construction with infill, are very fire resistant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about fire? (Score:4, Informative)
Oddly enough (and assuming you meant to write "flammable" instead of "inflammable")...
Oddly enough, "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
What a country!
Re: (Score:2)
What a country!
My nick ain't "srussia" for nothin'!
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
"Inflammable" remains the better word. (Score:2)
"Inflammable" means "likely to burst into flame". Because this confused the illiterate
Confused the illiterate? Literally one meaning of the prefix "in-" is not [onelook.com] 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 [amazon.com]. In what other language does feet smell and noses run. Or look at the plural of tooth, "te
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet no one gets confused about the meaning "inflamation".
Maybe that's because an inflammation, with two "m"s is a swelling and is usually accompanied by heat.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
"inflammable" means that the substance in question can inflame. "inflame" is the verb which means "to begin to burn". It is *exactly* the same verb that's the source of the word "inflammation", which in medical terms refers to the heat that's given off by the extra blood flow to the affected area.
It's not a question of "in" being a prefix. In this word it's not a prefix. It's part of the root of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
in-flamable is just the english word every native english speaker should use for "not flamable", your logic only makes sense if you are not an native english speaker.
"in" is not only a synonym for "not" but also an emphasizing prefix. All over europe (and that is where modern english has its origin from):
spanish: inflameable -> inflamable, german: in-flame-able -> ent-flamm-bar, italian: inflameable -> accendibile / in-fiamm-abile.
"In" does not mean "un" in general in english. "In" means "empore".
A
Re: (Score:2)
in-flamable is just the english word every native english speaker should use for "not flamable", your logic only makes sense if you are not an native english speaker.
That's what I said, and I am a native English speaker.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, the "in-" prefix means both "not" and "lots" (both from latin roots, unlike most collisions like that). English, infamous for its ingenuity in incorporating informative infixes.
the "in-" prefix means both "not" and "lots" (Score:2)
I don't recall the "in-" prefix means "lots" so I checked my dictionaries, I have 4, as well as OneLook [onelook.com]. 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 [wiktionary.org] but not "lots". Can you give an example of it used that way?
I'll feel real stupid after you give one.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
The "in-" prefix is used as an intensifier ("towards" for verbs, but the stronger "has" or even "has lots" for adjectives). Each of the examples I gave above were different places along that spectrum. Ingenious as "has the generative nature", infamous as "overly famous" or "ill-famed" but not "non-famous". Incorporate as "create body" (but incorporeal as "without body"). "Inform" as "create form" (but also "without form" in older usage, amusingly). Even my accidental example, "intense" as "has lots of
Re: (Score:2)
They kinda mean the same thing though...
Dr. Nick: What a country!
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Inflammable [reference.com] 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.
fire is no problem (Score:3, Funny)
Wood is inflammable!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
uh, wow? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You want impressive? Try this video [youtube.com]. Skip to 4:35 if you wanna see the dining room.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That video of the dining room was just realistic enough that I half expected a car alarm to go off. And then I thought I heard a siren, but instead, it was people cheering.
What a letdown.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It does look weak, but I have participated in quake testing and real earthquakes. You can really feel the motion on the roof. And that "unimpressive motion" is pretty dramatic when you are in the 4th floor of building and you have to sit there and wait to see what happens while everything gets shaken off your desk and wall.
But I agree that siding and shingles might change the loading a bit. But remember, this is research. They are just proving a concept.
Re:uh, wow? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
So a magnitude 7.5 [wikipedia.org] sounds like a tame earthquake to you? And you figure it should be simple to make a wood building that survives such an earthquake, especially without siding or furniture?
I'm not very impressed with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two houses. One reinforced. Shaken at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc652Zp5qWk [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the video from inside the building. The earthquake doesn't look that impressive in the outside video because of the scale, and our lack of our ability to sense that properly. However, after viewing the inside video, I can say there's no way I'd want to go through that kind of quake.
Watch the video from inside the building. (Score:2)
Where is it? I didn't see a link to a video of it inside. Not labeled as such that is.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4324941.html [popularmechanics.com]
Second video down.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4324941.html
Second video down.
Thanks, someone had posted a link above. While the outside video doesn't look like much, maybe because of scale, the one inside does.
What I find real amazing is that a big enough table was made that was capable of having a building that big built on it then have the table shaken like that. It reminds me of the aircraft catapults [wikipedia.org] on carriers.
Falcon
Sensationalist headline (Score:4, 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".
cheaters never prosper (Score:5, Funny)
Yea those cheaters, I bet they didn't use wooden nails either!
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere does anybody say that wood has to be the only material used. It doesn't have to be all one thing or the other. Also, it appears from the unfortunately sparse article that the steel only helps to keep the building from rocking excessively. It doesn't support the weight. A building like this would likely be a good bit cheaper than a similar steel building.
Will anything be built like this? Maybe not, but it's interesting anyway.
Will anything be built like this? (Score:2)
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
Orwellian (Score:4, Informative)
seven-story earthquake-proof wooden building
There! Are! Six! Floors!
Re:Orwellian (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... that's what I count too. Maybe they're using that new math, where the roof counts? Looks flat, you could probably put some tents on it and someone would rent it, especially in LA.
Re: (Score:2)
"There! Are! Six! Floors!"
Hmm... that's what I count too. Maybe they're using that new math, where the roof counts?
Maybe they're in China? [flickr.com] :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
My mistake... I looked at the picture more closely, and now see what I thought was a parking garage is actually the shake table.
Yes, only 6 floors, and as I recall from my days as an engineer (and in the Seismic class), although the roof load is calculated in the design, it IS NOT a separate floor.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just standard in many buildings due to superstitions. They don't count the 13th floor.
Re:Orwellian (Score:4, Funny)
They were including the story about it surviving the magnitude 7.5 quake.
Re: (Score:2)
seven-story earthquake-proof wooden building
There! Are! Six! Floors!
It's actually seven. Linked video from TFA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2XMfOXVOvo) shows where the shake table level is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the basement. You know, the place where cars park. 6 stories is a lot of people, so they need a whole floor for parking!
Unimpressive... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 buildi
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't RTFA or watch the video, but now I'm tempted. After all, what geek can possibly resist a video about anything that's naked, even a building? Pr0n!
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:4, Informative)
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).
But! (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
6-Story Wooden Pagoda Survived 7 Earthquakes (Score:5, Interesting)
Pagoda of Fogong Temple [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But who knows how large the earthquakes were. Any structure could probably survive a good amount of tiny-ish earthquakes.
This is easily fixed; just edit the Wikipedia entry to indicate that they were all 6.0 magnitude plus.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft, nowhere near good enough, the earthquake in the store was one and a half orders of magnitude larger than a 6.0.
7.0 or bust (literally!).
Yes, it's "wood", but... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be an architecture student.
You appear to understand structures.
Get your ass over to the engineering school and design buildings that should be torn down.
Let the architects get back to design buildings that will fall down.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, pagoda temples built in Japan are famous for their earthquake-proof designs because the design of the pagoda itself and the use of hardwood structural members meant the building would absorb the shock of an earthquake, which meant the building could even survive the occasional very strong earthquake that are common in Japan.
Indeed, the Taipei 101 skyscraper uses the same structural principle found in Japanese pagodas in order to withstand the earthquakes that happen on the island of
Code enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
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. [state.il.us] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's the problem. You know 21 days after the pour if the concrete is no good. That kind of testing only works with a strong enforcement bureaucracy behind it.
I'm a little underwhelmed (Score:2)
*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.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit that I'm a little underwhelmed by the video.
Same here, I didn't think much of the video. However someone posted a link to a video of the inside [popularmechanics.com]. I saw that and said that's more like it.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still like to experience it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Aaah :) That's more like it.
I'd still like to experience it though.
Same here. I don't know if I've ever been in an earthquake but I've been in severe thunderstorms and had close encounters with hurricanes. Growing up in Florida friends of mine and I had this saying, it was easy to tell a true Floridian from a transplant, when a hurricane comes along the Floridian says it's tyme to batten the hatches whereas the transplant panics, throws up his arms in the air, and screams "Let's get out of here."
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not as big a problem as it might seem. As pointed out upthread [slashdot.org], the structure was constructed with a lot of engineered lumber. The binders in the engineered lumber probably have some inherent insect & mold deterrent properties, which could be bolstered by the addition of insecticide and/or fungicide.