Science: Earthquake-proof building

Share

During term 4 of 2021, our cohort was tasked with making an Earthquake-proof building made out of pasta and blu-tac for Science. This project was taken over the course of the whole term and had many parts to it. We had to define the problem to be solved with the building, then brainstorm ideas for the building, research possible ways to tackle the situation, design an earthquake-proof building through sketches, create an earthquake-proof building with pasta and blu-tac, test the earthquake-proof building with the shake table (a table that shakes to help replicate earthquakes).

The first major part of the project was the 1st design of the earthquake-resistant structure. The second major part was the 2nd design where we evaluated the first design and created the 2nd design to help improve the design of our 1st one. This meant another build and another test to do. Improvements could include things such as less cost of building, more strength in structure, and possible advantages such as those. The last major part was an evaluation of both designs and our E-Portfolio submission about the work we did over the term.

Above is a diagram of the final product of our earthquake-resistant building. The major problem with a structure was that it has no movement at all. The structure was very stiff and did not sway at all. Because of the structure of a pyramid, the building had minimal movement and didn’t go with the flow of an earthquake. Just because a building doesn’t sway/move does not mean that the building isn’t earthquake-proof it just means that the building will have to take all impact of the earthquake and not move with the flow lessening the earthquake power on the structure.

To improve the ability to move and sway, my group and I could remove more cross bracing to provide less stability and allow the structure to sway more. This change does not need to be done but is always an idea because the structure is already very stable but will lose large amounts of stability if we could provide movement to the structure.

Collaborate

My project group consisted of Ashton Thum, Charlie Allen, Aiman Fayyez, and Adam Charlton (Me). Our group had very different abilities which helped our project because we could do a wide spread of things due to a different selection of skills.

Ashton and Aiman were the main researchers as they found large amounts of information for the group. Aiman was a strong designer as he did a large proportion of our design and sketches with detailed explanations. Charlie helped with gathering our resources for the build and keeping track of our equipment. I took lead for the project manager because of my leadership abilities as I overlooked the building progress of our structure and also checked the progress of our members to make sure we could finish the work due on time. As group members got distracted and side-tracked by other obstacles, I made sure they got back on track and focused on their work to make sure we could provide our work at a high standard on time. Because of Aiman’s incredible skill with numbers, he did all of our calculations for the cost of the build. Because of the teamwork of Charlie and me, we were the two builders of the structure. We made both of the 2 designs of the structure and we worked collaboratively and strongly because of our chemistry together. Being friends for a long time and playing basketball together is a big reason why Charlie and I worked very well together and produced a very strong structure.

Overall, our group was a very strong team because we had a wide range of skills and we worked well together. With this strength, we were able to work very smoothly to produce an amazing outcome.

Representation of the project

We first started off by brainstorming possible ideas for our structure. This research consisted of videos and articles on what possible structures could withstand earthquakes. This gave us a possible idea of what the building looked like. Then we sketched possible designs of an earthquake-resistant building through the research we created.

Above is a picture of the sketches we made of possible designs. On the top right is a simplified tuned mass damper. As the shake table moves, inertia causes the pendulum to move in the opposite direction, causing the impact of the shake table to be “dampened”. However, this would be difficult, if not impossible, to make with spaghetti and blu-tack. At the top left, is a design of a structure’s outer layers. The reason we used the isosceles triangle instead of cross bracing is that the isosceles triangle will help sway easier, unlike the cross bracing which won’t help it sway as much. The bottom left diagram involves 4 strong pillars with cross bracing across. This building will be stronger but will sway less and have less movement which restricts such areas. At the bottom right, we have a pyramid structure. There is less surface area at the top and lots of surface area at the bottom creating more stability for the structure. A pyramid structure is one of the strongest structures because of its strength and stability. With added cross-bracing on the faces, the structure will be even more stronger and stable.

In the end, my group and I went with a pyramid design building, for the 1st design, because of the many positives it included. This photo shows the 3-part structure and the key points of the structure in clear detail. Structure 1 is the base of the build with cross bracing across to provide strong stability. This part of the structure holds most of the weight meaning it needs to be the strongest. Structure 2 is the point/tip of the build. This part helps distribute the weight and force of the earthquake because of the pyramid structure. Structure 1 and 2 is the main build with the pyramid look and with strong cross bracing. Structure 3 was just one piece of pasta to get us over the build limit. If we made the pyramid taller instead of adding the extra structure, this would have made the structure weigh too much and the height of the structure with the base being small would have caused the structure to tip over because the base wasn’t wide enough to hold up a 60cm high pyramid. Each of the 3 structures was on average 20cm high with our final structure being roughly 62-63cm. Our first design cost $18 for crossbracing $4.8 for blue-tac and $37.2 for the outer structure putting us exactly $60 in the build money cost. The first design met all design criteria of being at least 60cm in height, a max base of 30cm x 30cm which our structure was within, and the cost of the build to be $60 or under which we were exactly $60 for our building.

Down below is a photo of our first design on the shake table. The magnitude of the earthquake was 3. Our structure did not take any damage from the earthquake and it remained standing. Our first design passed and met all criteria.

For our second design, we took 3 grams of blue-tac out to save some money which helped lessen the cost by $3 because of each gram. It also lessened the weight on the spaghetti allowing for it to sway more. We also took cross-bracing on the base out. We took out the cross-bracing at the base as it made the structure stable which didn’t allow for swaying so the building took all the impact weakening the spaghetti. This also made the structure cost less as we saved $4.6 because we took out 46 cm of spaghetti. We took tuned mass damper out as it was a waste of our budget and also functioned the opposite of what we wanted as it swayed in the same direction that the earthquake was going. Our final design cost, $12 for 120 cm for crossbracing, $4 for blu tac, and $37.2 for 372 cm for the outer structure. This took our final cost to $53.2 which saved $6.8 from our original design. This means that we removed 11.34% of the cost with minimal change in the structure. This new design also met all building criteria and easily withstood the shake table of a 3.3 magnitude earthquake.

With these new changes, my group and I lessened the cost of our structure to save money while still keeping its earthquake-resistant qualities. This change also gave the ability to sway a bit more.


Overall the science project was a huge success for my group and me as we made a very strong structure that met all criteria whilst also having plenty of fun. Our group worked together very well and we produced an amazing product.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *