Stone Houses in Earthquake Areas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Silverbackman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Areas Earthquake
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the suitability of stone houses in earthquake-prone areas, exploring the structural implications of using stone as a building material compared to other materials. Participants examine the effects of flexibility and rigidity in construction during seismic events, as well as practical examples from different countries.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the assertion that stone houses are inherently bad for earthquake resistance, suggesting that their weight could provide stability.
  • Others argue that flexibility in building materials is crucial for absorbing seismic forces, which may lead to better outcomes during earthquakes.
  • A participant provides an analogy comparing flexible and inflexible materials to illustrate the potential advantages of flexibility in construction.
  • Practical examples from Iran highlight the dangers of traditional building methods in earthquake zones, indicating that construction practices significantly impact safety.
  • Another participant points out that the mortar between stones may be a critical factor in the structural integrity of stone houses during earthquakes.
  • Japan is cited as an example of effective earthquake engineering, with suggestions that their construction methods favor flexibility over the use of stone.
  • There is a mention of engineering concepts like "springs and dashpots" in relation to earthquake-resistant design, indicating a focus on compliant structural frameworks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness of stone houses in earthquakes, with no consensus reached on whether stone is a suitable material. The discussion includes multiple competing perspectives on the importance of flexibility versus rigidity in building design.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include a lack of detailed technical specifications regarding building materials and methods, as well as varying definitions of what constitutes effective earthquake-resistant design.

Silverbackman
I heard that it is bad to build a house made of stone on an area that is known for Earthquakes. Is that true? Are stones houses the worst against Earthquakes? That is what I heard, but I somewhat disagree with it.

Why would houses made of stone be bad for a house? It is heavy and cannot sway as much therefore would be better against Earthquakes, right? It would hug the foundation better than any other house and is stronger, so why would it be bad? Houses made of stone are best for hurricane, tornadoes, ect., so why can't they be best for earthquakes too? Or does it make a difference?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
I'm no expert on the subject, although my college and university lectures have touched on the subject occasionally. I believe that when a large force is applied to a building, there are two movements that can occur- It can flex, or it can break. Flexibility allows force to be absorbed (relatively) harmlessly, which is why many bridges nowadays are designed to have moving parts, and sway in the wind, rather than remain unmovable. If no flexing occurs when an earthquake hits a building, it will be much more prone to brittle fracture than one that can move. This is a very simplified picture, and there are a lot more factors that contribute to building stregnth than the material they are constructed from however.
 
Good reply, matthyaouw.

Imagine shaking something nice and flexible (a bamboo cane, for instance) compared with shaking something more inflexible, like a long glass rod or something. The glass might have a greater tensile strength, but you only need to picture the two in your head to see the difference.
 
For a practical example: Iran. Even a moderate earthquake (they had one a few weeks ago) generally kills an enormous amount of people because of the way they build their houses.
 
It's also not the stones that are the problem, but the mortar between them that cracks and crumbles during the earthquake. :wink:
 
russ_watters said:
For a practical example: Iran. Even a moderate earthquake (they had one a few weeks ago) generally kills an enormous amount of people because of the way they build their houses.

You can even look at the other side. Japan has the best engineering for earthquakes. What do they use? Well, I'm not exactly sure, but I'm pretty sure they don't use any kind of stone, or at least not much of it. Mostly, they probably make their buildings able to bend easier and don't build very many decorative structures.
 
Chrono said:
You can even look at the other side. Japan has the best engineering for earthquakes. What do they use? Well, I'm not exactly sure, but I'm pretty sure they don't use any kind of stone, or at least not much of it. Mostly, they probably make their buildings able to bend easier and don't build very many decorative structures.

Yeah, I think you could characterize the bases to be marvels of "springs and dashpots" along with an overall compliant "skeleton".
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
8K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
Replies
9
Views
3K