Stanford researchers create earthquake-proof system for houses

Stanford researchers have created and tested a system that prevents damage by allowing houses to slide back and forth instead of shaking during an earthquake.

Over the summer, contractors built a full-scale model home, and Stanford engineers tested the system in September at the earthquake plate at University of California, San Diego.

“The first shaking test was a little scary,” said Gregory G. Deierlein, director of the John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center.

“We made our computer models, but if something goes wrong, it could throw off the whole scale,” he added.

In the end however, the calculations and predictions proved to be accurate. The earthquake-resistant system was so effective that it resulted in almost no damage to the house during the test.

“We were able to reduce the damage to near zero, and so I think that’s a lot of potential,” said Ezra A. Jampole, one of Stanford’s Ph.D. students leading the project.

Even when the test’s intensity was scaled up to more than three times that of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the house stood strong.

 

Project’s inception and technology

The sliding house project was started nearly six years ago by a doctoral student named Scott Swenson; now, the project is managed by Ezra Jampole and Cristian E. Acevedo under the supervision of Deierlein and Eduardo Miranda, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering.

The technology for the earthquake resistant house consists of two parts: the isolation system and the unibody.

The seismic isolator system works by placing the house on small sliding – puck-like – units, instead of attaching it directly to the ground. When an earthquake occurs, the house is able to slide from side to side over the ground instead of falling apart due to the violent and sporadic movements of the earthquake.

According to Acevedo, the unibody draws its name from the car industry, because car frames are made in one piece. Stanford engineers applied this idea to home-building by gluing the structural components of the house (walls and studs) to the architectural components (dry-wall and stucco).

By gluing these parts together, Acevedo and his teammates were able to create a structure that moved together as one unit.

“The whole thing is just one unit working together to try and resist the lateral forces of the earthquake,” Acevedo said. “[Furthermore], I saw this project and saw the practicalities of it – how it can be applied to real life – and that’s what drew me in.”

According to Jampole, most earthquake damage prevention research and systems focus on large structures. What makes Stanford’s project unique is that it focuses on small light-frame residential buildings.

“A lot of it is just the potential impact this could have on residential construction,” Jampole said.

 

Difficulties of implementation

Now that several weeks have passed since the full-scale experiment, the students are continuing to analyze the collected data and as well as beginning to study how this system will hold up over time.

The next step is for early adopters to come in and start using the product. According to Deierlein, however, this could take a while due to the complexity of the industry.

“From what we’re doing now till when it will be more routine could be 10 to 15 years,” Deierlein said. “When other folks start to see that this idea is really viable and economic, it will start to gain more widespread use.”

Because the Stanford engineers used easily accessible materials, contractors who have the design will be able to find the materials and build a house that uses the unibody and isolation systems.

“Earthquakes – we’re all aware of them, but we tend to not appreciate, when they come, how much damage they can cause,” Deierlein said.

Contact Erica Evans at elevans ‘at’ stanford.edu.

  • Paul Rawdon

    The headline is misleading, the building was described as earthquake resistant NOT earthquake proof.

  • Charles Weber

    Earthquake protection of buildings
    by a double concrete slab foundation.

    by Charles Weber, MS

    retired

    1908 Country Club Road, Hendersonville,
    NC 28739

    Abstract

    Protection of buildings by double
    slab construction with lubricant in between and centered by springs.

    Keywords:
    slab; concrete; earthquake; spring; oil; construction; base isolation

    *Corresponding author. isoptera@att.net

    Introduction

    I have a suggestion that is applicable to earthquake damage control.
    Buildings are very strong in vertical compression. I believe it is side to side
    motion that is ruinous. So if a thick reinforced slab were first poured and
    covered with grease or oil before the actual building concrete basement floor
    were poured, I suspect it would eliminate side to side motion during an
    earthquake. Of course it would be necessary to have some kind of spring or air
    piston on the sides to prevent wind motion.

    Construction as described in patents US6289640 B1 and US4599834 A work
    on the same principle of sliding surfaces as my invention but are elaborate and
    expensive to construct. JP2003301625 A is only for small light buildings.

    Discussion

    A building protected as above would have no covalent or valence bond
    links to the ground and no support from earth on the sides to support the building.
    So very tall buildings would seem to be vulnerable to toppling. However, in
    addition to the weight of the building and the weight of the upper slab, the
    atmosphere is pressing down with a pressure about one ton per square foot
    because the interface is effectively sealed. Thus there is no chance at all
    that a three story building would topple nor even a six story building. If the
    slabs were extended out to the sides and the upper one suitably thick and
    reinforced and buttressed, much greater than six story buildings should be safe
    as well. Even much higher buildings yet should be safe if the side retaining
    springs are attached high up.

    Making the upper slab thick would give the structure desirable added
    inertia. This would be inexpensive to achieve because the upper slab would not
    have to be smooth on top. Therefore, boulders could be incorporated into it.

    The primary consideration would be to use an oil with a very low
    viscosity, since viscosity of the oil is undoubtedly the primary resistance to
    the top slab trying to follow the bottom slab. A silicone oil is probably the
    oil of choice for most buildings because of its resistance to change from
    temperature. Silicone coated river sand might work well also for low buildings.

    An advantage of this procedure is that it would require less skilled
    workers and less maintenance than other methods. One big advantage of this
    procedure is that it should be fairly easy to retrofit existing buildings,
    because it should be possible to underpin a few hundred square feet at a time.
    When building new, making the bottom slab a little concave upward would
    probably make less stiff side springs possible and somewhat easier to return
    the building to its original position. This is because as the building moves
    sidewise it would require energy to move slightly upward and less energy for
    the springs or other devices to move it back.

    I had a patent pending for this procedure. However, it had to be abandoned
    in view of a similar patent awarded in France in 1987.