6 ms·

The moment I saw the diagram text "Seismic moment connection with Fuses", I knew it was not meant to last 1000 year. The moment you introduce seismic fuses, you

The moment I saw the diagram text "Seismic moment connection with Fuses", I knew it was not meant to last 1000 year. The moment you introduce seismic fuses, you need active Repair post a large earthquake. This is like expecting to keep repairing every few years and claim Life. My first though reading the title was, you need to build it with STONE. So was "Taj Mahal" and many other religious structure lasting LONG years.

robocat 5y ago
Stone is heavy: can you design a stone structure to withstand an earthquake? In my magnitude 6.2 experience, stone structures without massive steel framing fail in an earthquake.
- kansface 5y ago
  Doesn't Italy have stone masonry construction that has lasted centuries? Maybe you need a really good foundation to pull it off?
  - dpark 5y ago
    I think you just need a lot more stone than people think. Ancient structures still standing had massive construction. 3-4 foot thick walls. If I recall correctly, the Roman coliseum has arches that are more like 6-8 feet thick. But most structures standing for that long have also been maintained to some degree. Unmaintained millennium-old structures are generally referred to as ruins.
  - jccooper 5y ago
    Rome and its environs are fairly quiet. Italy elsewhere has quite a lot of masonry construction that was destroyed by earthquakes.
- dpark 5y ago
  Were there no earthquakes in the ancient world? Lots of ancient stone buildings are still standing.
  - robocat 5y ago
    In locations hit by strong earthquakes, you don’t notice the ancient stone buildings that didn’t survive and are not there.
    - dpark 5y ago
      Italy was hit by a series of earthquakes in 2016, including a 6.6. Certainly there was a lot of damage, including in Rome, but most stone structures survived.
      - robocat 5y ago
        Damage from Earthquakes is usually localised - how close you are to the fault really really matters (until you get up to the mega-quakes that can affect much of a small country). Christchurch was hit by a 6.2, but most of the damage occurred on the suburban south-Eastern half of the city, and the commercial buildings in the city centre which were more vulnerable. 10’s of kilometres away and no significant damage to buildings. The magnitude 7.8 Kaikoura earthquake in 2016 had an epicentre 100km away from Christchurch, and there was no damage here in Christchurch. Italy is ~1000km long.
        dpark 5y ago
        Several of the earthquakes Italy has experienced were reasonably close to Rome. None have had the epicenter there to my knowledge, though. It’s perhaps more interesting to ask what non-stone buildings have survived 1000 years. I don’t think there are any. So even if stone is more susceptible to earthquakes, it might still be the best choice for a building to last 1000 years.
- dta5003 5y ago
  Carve it into the side of a mass of stone that has survived all the other earthquakes already.
dpark 5y ago
Nothing about this design seems intended for 1000 years. It needs wood fireplaces in case that’s the only way of heating the space, but yeah, in a world where we’ve reverted to this, they’ll be able to weld stainless steel and source replacement seismic fuses. So many elements of this thing don’t make sense together. Clad the whole thing in a double layer of brick that isn’t actually going to bear load? Why? This is unlikely to last for 1000 years anyway. It probably won’t survive the first major earthquake and even if it does you’ll probably have to tear it apart to get to those seismic fuses. In general structures do not remain standing unless they are maintained, so plan for that. Assume the cladding can and will be replaced. The person who needs to do work on this imaginary house certainly isn’t going to reclad in this nonsense at 4x the cost of the brick veneer it actually needs. Hell, just wrap the thing in hardiplank and it will probably be fine for the first 100 years.

robocat 5y ago

Stone is heavy: can you design a stone structure to withstand an earthquake? In my magnitude 6.2 experience, stone structures without massive steel framing fail in an earthquake.

kansface 5y ago
Doesn't Italy have stone masonry construction that has lasted centuries? Maybe you need a really good foundation to pull it off?
- dpark 5y ago
  I think you just need a lot more stone than people think. Ancient structures still standing had massive construction. 3-4 foot thick walls. If I recall correctly, the Roman coliseum has arches that are more like 6-8 feet thick. But most structures standing for that long have also been maintained to some degree. Unmaintained millennium-old structures are generally referred to as ruins.
- jccooper 5y ago
  Rome and its environs are fairly quiet. Italy elsewhere has quite a lot of masonry construction that was destroyed by earthquakes.
dpark 5y ago
Were there no earthquakes in the ancient world? Lots of ancient stone buildings are still standing.
- robocat 5y ago
  In locations hit by strong earthquakes, you don’t notice the ancient stone buildings that didn’t survive and are not there.
  - dpark 5y ago
    Italy was hit by a series of earthquakes in 2016, including a 6.6. Certainly there was a lot of damage, including in Rome, but most stone structures survived.
    - robocat 5y ago
      Damage from Earthquakes is usually localised - how close you are to the fault really really matters (until you get up to the mega-quakes that can affect much of a small country). Christchurch was hit by a 6.2, but most of the damage occurred on the suburban south-Eastern half of the city, and the commercial buildings in the city centre which were more vulnerable. 10’s of kilometres away and no significant damage to buildings. The magnitude 7.8 Kaikoura earthquake in 2016 had an epicentre 100km away from Christchurch, and there was no damage here in Christchurch. Italy is ~1000km long.
      - dpark 5y ago
        Several of the earthquakes Italy has experienced were reasonably close to Rome. None have had the epicenter there to my knowledge, though. It’s perhaps more interesting to ask what non-stone buildings have survived 1000 years. I don’t think there are any. So even if stone is more susceptible to earthquakes, it might still be the best choice for a building to last 1000 years.
dta5003 5y ago
Carve it into the side of a mass of stone that has survived all the other earthquakes already.

dpark 5y ago

Nothing about this design seems intended for 1000 years. It needs wood fireplaces in case that’s the only way of heating the space, but yeah, in a world where we’ve reverted to this, they’ll be able to weld stainless steel and source replacement seismic fuses. So many elements of this thing don’t make sense together. Clad the whole thing in a double layer of brick that isn’t actually going to bear load? Why? This is unlikely to last for 1000 years anyway. It probably won’t survive the first major earthquake and even if it does you’ll probably have to tear it apart to get to those seismic fuses. In general structures do not remain standing unless they are maintained, so plan for that. Assume the cladding can and will be replaced. The person who needs to do work on this imaginary house certainly isn’t going to reclad in this nonsense at 4x the cost of the brick veneer it actually needs. Hell, just wrap the thing in hardiplank and it will probably be fine for the first 100 years.