Earthquakes are natural occurrences that can occur anywhere, however are most common along tectonic plate boundaries. Japan, Indonesia and New-Zealand all lie on plate boundaries and are heavily populated or major tourist attractions. When a place like Japan gets hit by an earthquake, due to its density and immense population this natural disaster can be catastrophic and have extremely expensive aftermath, which can be the case for many places. To avoid major destruction to infrastructure, engineers have come up with many innovative designs to maximise building integrity and minimise the earthquakes effect. This project required us to design, construct, test and evaluate an earthquake resistant building. This building was to be constructed of blu-tack and spaghetti, couldn’t be attatched to the table in any way, have a minimum height of 60cm, maximum base of 30cm x 30cm and must come to a flat platform at the top of at least 5cm x 5cm. The structure then must remain standing after an earthquake which is simulated by a shake table which will provide motions of both primary and secondary waves.

Engineering Process

This project provided many challenges to overcome. The engineering process required us to research, design, construct, test, evaluate, redesign, reconstruct, retest and re-evaluate until it sufficed the tasks requirements. The task required initial researching to find some common and effective methods engineers currently have to help a building maintain a solid foundation, and to withstand the harsh movements of an earthquake. There are many strategies such as; various drainage mechanisms, seismic dampers and concepts of ‘floating homes.’ These are many common solutions engineers have come up with that works very effectively in real life however when transferred to the project, are not possible due to our available resources. Things like cross-bracing, centre of gravity, having an effective scale and even knowing how to construct a spaghetti tower were not shown to us. Even though this seems simple and should have been common sense is these skills where taught to us it would have made the process much more efficient as my partner and I struggled with the actual construction of the tower which made time more of an issue. If these skills were taught before commencing the project it would have ensured a simpler process.

Collaboration

I have worked multiple times with my partner therefor when entering the project we were very confident. We already knew our strengths and weaknesses as a pair and we knew how to collaborate. Due to us knowing how to work as a pair we were able to help each other and knew what we had to do for us to do well. The project provided many challenges for us that we have not had to face yet however, proved to us that communication is key and that sticking to our strengths is important. We are both good at researching and quite enjoy it therefor we halved the research work. However when it came to the designing and drawing/ sketching and even the building I did most of it as that is what I am good at and what I like. My partner is very good at explaining and turning thoughts into words, therefor most of the evaluating was done by her as we would talk about it together and she would communicate it into words. When originally building the design we tried doing it together however found it didn’t work as the more we touched it the more it broke. This project helped us see our strengths even more and I feel was split accordingly.