The destructive and unpredictable nature of earthquakes can not only wreak havoc on buildings but negatively impact surrounding societies, causing uncertainty and fear. In addition to injuries, organizations and infrastructure may be disrupted. Hence, the long-term repercussions of this are socially, economically and environmentally unsustainable. This was demonstrated through the Nepal 2015 earthquake. In the 2 year aftermath, less than 5% of the destroyed houses were rebuilt, leaving 800, 000 families to take refuge in temporary shelters. If we understand how to engineer earthquake-safe buildings, we will be able to better resist the inevitable damage brought upon us, which would save lives, infrastructure and organizations, creating a safer society for all to reside in.
To end our science course, we were tasked with designing, building and testing a model that would withstand a major earthquake. To be considered successful, this model:
- was to be made out of spaghetti and blu-tack
- had to remain standing after an earthquake, as simulated by the 10-second shake of a table. Ideally, it had to be left undamaged after P Waves, S Waves & Surface Waves.
- had to be quick and easy to assemble
- constructed using scissors and a ruler
- It was required to have
- a maximum base of 30cm by 30cm
- a minimum height of 60 cm
- a 5 cm by 5 cm platform at the top
- a cost less than $60, where each spaghetti strand or gram of blu-tack costs $1. (This was given twice for the initial prototype and once for the second prototype.)
We first engaged in a 50-minute design sprint, and then researched, created a plan and engineered a model based on this. Throughout the process, we kept in mind the design features that would help improve building resistance. As a result of this, our final model was drastically different.
Our building was able to withstand all types of waves, however, due to unforeseen circumstances arising from snapped spaghetti, the fragility of the materials and the interactions between the blu-tack and spaghetti, we were forced to alter, adapt and change our plan. This caused us to have a lack of resources as we neared the top of our model, meaning that we missed the height requirement by a few centimetres. However, we learnt that having a top that is flexible and able to sway on a rigid base is not necessarily a negative. Overall, though the building could not be implemented in real life, it fulfilled most requirements, with the exception being the height.
I thought that our research was thorough, however, as it couldn’t perfectly correlate to real life, it was partly for naught. In terms of teamwork, I thought that we collaborated by distributing the work evenly and taking initiative as required.
To improve the outcomes of the project, it would have been beneficial to spend less time observing, deliberating and researching, to allow more time to iron out any inevitable problems or experiment more with bases that would work and think about how theory applies to real life (by taking into account the specific materials we have on hand).
