Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44

Thread: Why Buildings Respond Differently to Earthquakes

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ōtepoti, Aotearoa
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Super_BQ View Post
    Then we've not even touched the issue on what will happen to residential home construction? What kind of building improvement will they see?
    Residential has never been excluded. So the evaluation of damages will include all types of structures commercial, industrial and residential. Thus any new regulation like code, standards and laws will certainly lead to improvements for all!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    77

    Default

    How about reintroducing cob houses. Aren't they are very earth quake resistant? My NZ ancestors had one but unfortunately it burnt down in the 1950's. They are meant to be fire resistant as well.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ōtepoti, Aotearoa
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Origems View Post
    How about reintroducing cob houses. Aren't they are very earth quake resistant? My NZ ancestors had one but unfortunately it burnt down in the 1950's. They are meant to be fire resistant as well.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chch, NZ
    Posts
    2,218

    Default

    cob houses? Isn't that short of living under a tree in a tent?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ōtepoti, Aotearoa
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Origems View Post
    How about reintroducing cob houses. Aren't they are very earth quake resistant? My NZ ancestors had one but unfortunately it burnt down in the 1950's. They are meant to be fire resistant as well.
    On a serious note I would think it might be possible to use them. However the problem is to standardise them. This especially relates to guarantying that the materials used have uniform properties. This is necessary so that proper design and construction can be carried out.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Super_BQ View Post
    cob houses? Isn't that short of living under a tree in a tent?
    I think you'll find they are a little bit more substantial than that. It did last a hundred years before it burnt down. They have been experimented with in various places in recent times mainly because of their sustainability credentials. They are excellent in terms of insulation which seems a big improvement on a lot of NZ houses.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ōtepoti, Aotearoa
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralf-nz View Post
    On a serious note I would think it might be possible to use them. However the problem is to standardise them. This especially relates to guaranteeing that the materials used have uniform properties. This is necessary so that proper design and construction can be carried out.
    Here some more information - http://www.earthbuilding.org.nz/cob.htm:

    "Cob is an old technique that offers the potential to create very sculptural wall shapes. Many of the old cob cottages in the South Island have survived from the last century.
    For cob construction you mix straw and often small gravel into a sandy soil. You form the mixture into lumps or cobs, which you then throw on to the wall and stamp or work into the previous layer. The rough surface is later trimmed up, and usually rendered to give a smooth surface. The result is often a softly undulating surface, which can follow whatever shape you choose to build into the wall. Cob builds extra thick or curved walls easily, and it is common for them to taper inwards towards the top.
    This technique is also very shrinkage sensitive and a mixture has to be found that minimises shrinkage. Because of the comparative lack of modern experience in New Zealand with cob, it is included in the Earth Building Standards only as an informative section, so careful analysis of materials and design is required."

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    77

    Default

    This made me chuckle on the site below

    http://www.awaterevalley.org.nz/index.mvc?ArticleID=31

    "The original home was cob one - so badly damaged in the 1855 earthquake that the family lived in tents for a few weeks"

    Maybe tents are the way to go

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mamee & Co View Post
    There is no doubt though Rick that they will use modern technology if they rebuild now. I can't understand why you would think that this country would allow buildings to be erected now with codes used between 100 and 30 years ago. The codes have already changed and may be strengthened further because of the levels of ground acceleration that were experienced.

    Engineers did not call for a re-think of building design right after the Sept '10 quake. They only called for the re-think of the design after Feb '11 when 300 buildings are set to be demolished. I'm on the side of changes in the building design for new buildings.

    Here are 2 interesting questions: If they called for new designs for rebuilding new buildings. Does that mean engineers admit that old designs of existing buildings are inadequate? If so, did engineers drop the ball when they did not call for design changes right after the Sept '10 quake?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ōtepoti, Aotearoa
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ricktee View Post
    Engineers did not call for a re-think of building design right after the Sept '10 quake. They only called for the re-think of the design after Feb '11 when 300 buildings are set to be demolished. I'm on the side of changes in the building design for new buildings.

    Here are 2 interesting questions: If they called for new designs for rebuilding new buildings. Does that mean engineers admit that old designs of existing buildings are inadequate? If so, did engineers drop the ball when they did not call for design changes right after the Sept '10 quake?
    Please read my other posts on this topic.

    Summary: It has been common knowledge, and as such it has ben conveyed by us, that old design of existing structures might be inadequate depending on the specific situation. It has not been the intention of the general public that they all needed to get their buildings redesigned. Many of these structures required as a consequence a seismic strengthening. However they did not want to spend so much money.


    PS: There is currently no call from us engineers to change the design per se. It is at this stage recommended to increase one safety factor out of several in the design; the one relating to the region in which a structure is to be erected.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •