Engineering Challenge: Building an Earthquake Resistant Building

The Challenge

For our last science project in year 9, we were given the task to create a building from spaghetti and blu-tack that could withstand a simulated earthquake lasting 10 seconds. Whilst creating and building this structure, the task also required that we ran through the steps of the engineering process. By using this process, we went through certain steps to ensure that we would construct the best structure as possible by evaluating its effectiveness and proposing new ways to improve our design based on testing.

Earthquakes of larger magnitudes can cause mass destruction to people in the area along with the buildings and structures in the vicinity. When an earthquake strikes, buildings are often destroyed or damaged. Many people can be injured or killed by falling rubble. And many are left homeless. It can take a very long time to rebuild homes after the disaster. As such, this project not only allows us to have a deeper understanding of the engineering process but also provides us knowledge on earthquake-resistant buildings around the world and how engineers have developed buildings in high earthquake zones.

At the very start of the project, all the groups were given a project brief.

We had to design a building that would withstand a major earthquake. And we needed to design, build, and test a small-scale model that meets the following criteria:

• is quick and easy to assemble
• has a minimum height of 60 cm
• has a maximum base of 30 cm x 30 cm
• remains standing after an earthquake, as simulated by shaking a table for 10 seconds
• is constructed from the materials supplied (spaghetti and blu-tack)
• costs less than $60 to build, given the material costs (spaghetti – $1 per 10cm) (blu-tack – $1 per g)

Engineering Process

The engineering process is certain steps that when done in order, helps engineers around the world test and develop potential solutions to problems. Through the use of this in our own project, we would learn its real-world appliances.

The first step in this process was to identify what our problem was and what we were trying to achieve. We needed to identify the challenge, the desired outcome, and how we knew if we completed the challenge or not. We needed to design a building that would withstand a major earthquake. It must be made out of spaghetti and blu-tac. We only have scissors and a ruler to build it. It must be at least 60cm tall and have a maximum base of 30 by 30cm. It also must not exceed a budget of $60 as per the costs above. It must remain standing after the simulated earthquake has finished. We are hoping to build a tower/building to fit these parameters. It is important because it will show how we worked as a team and how we were able to overcome challenges that we were forced to face.

The next step that we needed to complete was to brainstorm and research ideas of how we could build this structure. We listed various different ways in which we thought we were going to achieve this. This then led to what we thought was our best design.

Having our building come to a point and a wider base allows the diffusion of the earthquake to be quicker and less damaging. The crossbracing on the walls allows for the transfer of movement away from the foundation to allow for diffusion. Having a strong foundation allows the building to be strong and have a good shock absorber to take the first impact of the earthquake.

After we had finished researching and come up with our first design, we then moved on to creating the prototype. After attempting to build our original model, we found out that it was not able to support its own weight and to remain standing even with no earthquake. It would not have been able to withstand any earthquake. Due to the very poor design, we changed most of the design. As can be clearly seen in the diagram and the image. In our prototype, we had a smaller base but made sure that the connection between it and the second square (20 cm above) was straight, so it didn’t cave in on itself. We connected both bases diagonally to include more cross bracing into the structure. We added some cross-bracing on the side and had our point at the top only reach 43cm. This is because we thought that we could add a solitary stick on the top that got to 60cm instead of our whole building reaching 60cm. This meant that most of our weight was at the bottom, creating a more stable and secure building.

After testing our new design, we realized that there was no damage to our building but the supports around the corner pieces of blueback where it connected the base support to the top pyramid were quite unstable and after testing started to fall apart. So we modified our model and added more support and cross bracing to the top of the square to ensure that we wouldn’t have that problem again.

After going through the engineering process, and looking back on what we did, I feel like our group followed the process quite well. However, there are a few changes I would make to the process. Instead of having the research after the brainstorm, it would be more beneficial to have it before as it would allow the brainstorm to be more accurate and useful towards our final design. Another change I would make would be to include multiple “testing” designs in order to improve our final design. Having multiple testing designs at once would also allow us to test certain measurements and lengths with greater ease.

Teamwork:

An important aspect of this project also included how well we worked together as a team which was mainly shown through the different roles each one of us had.

Declan: Reporter- Made sure that we had everything together and done on time.

Matthew: Equipment manager- Made sure we had all the equipment in the class and ready to go. Main builder of the tower.

Ben: Project manager- The leader of the group, made sure everyone knew what they were doing.

Scarlett: Spokesperson- Talked to others and found out more information.

During the creation of our building, we had many problems that we had to address and figure out. To solve these problems, we met together and discussed them in a respectful manner so we could come up with a solution. I took charge of these conversations as he was the project manager and made sure everyone was happy with the adjustments we were going to make.

Reflecting on our group, I think that everyone had strengths that they brought to the team. When we combined these different strengths together, we had a full complete team that was ready to tackle the challenge ahead. I brought intelligence and good mathematical skills to calculate the measurements of our design. I was also a leader for the group who kept everyone on task. Matthew is very good with his hands so he was the main builder of the design and we relied on him to do any challenging tasks or make adjustments when the building might fall over. Scarlett was quite particular which meant she really examined the design to make sure all the spaghetti was stuck together and helped put it together. Declan as well was quite involved with the creating of the building and proposed any adjustments that we could make.

All in all, I think that this challenge was an effective way to build on our creativity, teamwork, and leadership skills whilst learning a bit about earthquakes and the designs that can withstand them.