I saw a new hotel being built in Japan and was amazed that all the structural beams were steel. The even more amazing thing is that most buildings in Japan only have a 30 year lifespan. When those steel buildings are taken down, all that steel is recycled into the next construction project. I have nothing but respect for the Japanese construction industry.
I'm from New Zealand and hold a PhD in structural engineering from the University of Canterbury. Our campus has worked in close collaboration with the Universities of California, Seattle Washington, BC, Japan and many others since the 1970's on earthquake design of buildings. Most engineers would agree that brick is a problem but the concrete model shown is especially unrealistic for countries where proven design practices and strict building codes are enforced. Unfortunately, the form of collapse shown with floor separation is still an issue in countries where building officials appear to lack the onus or authority to enforce standards. The good news going forward is that the structural engineering know-how to prevent these disasters is like totally dude available to all those who choose to look. Just bring some note paper, a pen and calculator (HP, TI and Casio are all good).
thank you so much for this feedback! I am working on a new simulation that will be more realistic (added shear walls and better building design for reinforced concrete). I would love to keep in touch with you and get more of your feedback in the future :) Greetings from Chicago, Mike!
Sure no problem. A simulation with shear walls would be good to see....it should change the deflected shape from sway to single curvature cantilever. I think what you are doing here illustrates the incredible difference between well engineered and appropriate structures from their opposites. All people from the Pacific Rim region will appreciate this. Chile in particular has very many strong quakes (the most) and when studying I found a text on structural dynamics written by Prof. Mario Paz (a Chilean) to be very helpful. There is a lot of collective thought involved on an international scale, especially by those most affected. You're in Chicago with the tall stuff by Fazlur Khan and the like....so wind is your main issue. Keep up the good work 👍🤓
@@a2falcone Yes, concrete structures are very robust if properly configured with enough reinforcing steel present and correct. I see from an earlier post that Chile uses the ACI code and response spectrum accelerations, so that's a great approach. Here in NZ we use our own design standard NZS 3101 and modified response spectra. Our concrete design standard would consider ACI 318 to be the parent document, but modified to include our own and other international research. We have a community of Chileans here in NZ too, my next door neighbor comes from Puerto Aysén in the south and her brother farms in Tierra Del Fuego. NZ is not too cold for her 😃
Being Chilean has taught me that in case you live anything stronger than a VIII degree earthquake, you shouldn´t worry about buildings anymore, since at that stage earth itself probably will collapse. Nice video! Edited: saw on another comment that this scale is Mercalli and not Richter, my comment applies to IX-X degree Richter
The earthquake that hit eastern Japan was about 10th degree and it wasn't tectonic plate subduction nor eruption. If we have any of such, the continents will be shifted and deformed greatly, but that's not the end of the world, ppl still will survive.
From the simulation all of them seemed to fall differently which means they’d probably need different ways of keeping them up. I’m NOT an expert but maybe the brick one would need more support at the bottom because that’s where it broke?
Japanese pagodas dating many centuries since their construction have demonstrated that wood is actually a great material for resisting earthquakes. Timber is a natural polymer, which tend to have better plastic and elastic properties than ceramic materials (like bricks or concrete). Steel being a metal, has even better elasticity and ductility than that of timber, hence why it lasted the longest.
I love and admire the Japanese building construction to this very day. Most of Southern California buildings up to date. But I don’t know if we can handle 7.5+.
Yet steel is only used in Japan for the largest structures, and even then the buildings have to be tuned out of the frequency of the earthquakes that Japan has. One of the interesting things is that different regions of earthquakes have different frequencies. If you don't tune your steel structrue out of that frequency, you might as well build with rubber. Steel can become extremely plastic if subjected to the right frequencies of vibration. The most famous example of this was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse. A steel bridge literally flexed itself to death because, of all things, wind.
It would appear that the timber structure could have done better with different joints. We don’t have earthquakes here in Tasmania but a recent 5 or 6 story building built with LVL and glass looks like the structure could survive well in these conditions.
@@TheSkunk1996 there's was only one flaw with the old, very old Japanese buildings, the roof was covered with tiles made of clay, if I'm no mistaken, and that weight on top creates pressure on the all building, as soon as one tremor occurs it all adds to make them very unforgiving for any shaking...don't know about now, I'm guessing that they correct that... anyway they probably don't build like that anymore
Wouldn't the concrete building be steel-reinforced? I don't see a concrete building above one floor being constructed without steel. Also, brick isn't really used as a supporting material anymore. It too would have a steel structure underneath.
@@prashantkumar-tv3js unfortunately i work for government and am a civil servant in one of ministry of my country. the only way to work in my co, is to be our citizen first. xD
@@gmail.commmmmmmm How is that possible? The structural code of all countries are almost the same, stipulating the use of reinforced concrete or braced steel in high structures.
I've been involved in the design and construction of Post Disaster Structures, specifically Fire Stations. My engineers felt that in actual fact, wood frame structures were the better choice for their resilience and flexibility . When the earth quake is done you want the structure to perform it's function. Looking at the four models presented here there is one noticable issue. All were constructed using the same method, post, beam and horizontal diaphragm. This method will favour the steel structure. The wood structure would have survived had vertical diaphragms (sheer walls) been used. Similarly for the masonry and poured concrete but clearly this example was biased towards the steel structure. Dollar for dollar you can't beat wood frame structures (within reason of course).
And hows that wood handle tornado’s, hurricanes, fire seasons and flooding? Many scenarios in play, many ways to play. Pound for pound the enclosed structure with the greatest strength, durability & flexibility is a geodesic dome, it’s also resistant to earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, and requires the least amount of material to construct. What did your schooling teach you about the dome?
0:50 Are these actual simulations or just somebody screwing with animations? Bricks flying upwards(simulated on the moon I guess, with somebody giving it a low kick from the ground, to fly upwards) and the building just chilling there without critical structure pillars under it.
I will shout out the person who writes the most interesting observations about this video in the comments below! It can be anything from small physics errors to building resonance, collapse triggers, anything you can think of! :) Good luck!
Ini terkait resistensi bangunan misal rangka batu bata karena terdiri dari rankaian pasang maka cepat hancur. Semen karena terdiri atas batuan serbuk sehingga mudah hancur. Rankaian kayu berbeda tergantung apa yg dipakai. Rankaian baja sulit hancur karena terdiri atas besi besi.
This is related to the resistance of a building, for example a brick frame, because it consists of a series of pairs, so it breaks quickly. Cement because it consists of powdered rock so it is easily destroyed. The range of wood differs depending on what is used. Steel chains are difficult to destroy because they are composed of ferrous iron.
Wow, the wood absorbs and flexes a lot more the other materials, but once its past its breaking point it shifts off base dramatically that makes sense. Brick buildings fall outward while pancaking, the concrete ones just pancaked! Good old wood lasts pretty long. It makes sense a lot of wooden buildings of the old world were often pretty old buildings. Falling masonry is one of the most terrifying things about earthquakes. Anyone watch Earthquake its a movie about a quake in New York city. Doesn't have the fancy CGI of San Andreas, but it follows different people through the event. San Andreas isn't the same now, now I can't stand anything with "The Rock" in it, and I never liked Oprah to begin with. Millionaires with their own TV shows named after themselves where they give tiny amounts away to peasants willing to sacrifice their first born for a chance to get close enough to meet her EWE. Real heroes are everyday people, that are kind compassionate and brave, they save us from all forms of harm. They are each and every one of us :) Cascadia is coming, it will be a very big day for many of us. Prayers for people still recovering from the quake in Syria. That was a crazy situation. We need powerful simulations on here to cause buildings to come off foundation intact but just rolling around on its side instead, and we saw that often throughout the footage of the destruction in Turkey and Syria. Simulations on this channel helped me understand the scale of what happened and the magnitude. Maybe, just maybe, if we start being more peaceful and stop pissing the earth off she wouldn't have so much steam to vent you know what I mean? At the end of the day we can only build structures to resist only so much forces, I do believe that karma of the hearts of humans effects the earths magnetic field, and quakes. Its a global thing to not just for one place or only in one place.
I noted in the recent Taiwan earthquake that some large buildings that were otherwise largely intact tipped over. Wouldn't it be the case that at some point the quality and strength of the earth holding the building in place would determine whether the building stays upright?
i would like to see the comparison of quake behavior of wall concrete (tunnel formwork system) and columnal design (like the third building in this video) concrete buildings in quakes of intensities 6 to 12.
Yes, but you designed everything like it was a steel structure... each material requires it's own design and considerations, there are older brick buildings in places with earthquakes than steel could last due to rust, but they are designed differently... a donkey can beat a race car in a cross country race if there are no gas stations...
Tokyo Skytree, which is the tallest (634m)building in Japan has encountered a big earthquake on 3.11 2011. At that time, the building was under construction and the core, which is most important for earthquake resistance, had not been installed. However, Tokyo Skytree survived the earthquake with only a steel frame. Without any damage. This is amazing and shows the high level of Japanese architectural technology.
'Made is Japan' gives me always feelings of, good quality; you can trust on it; don't worry; good for your money; etc. Therefore my respect to all Japanese people and engineers..
People make fun of American homes being made of wood instead of stone or Brick like Europe. Yet most of Europe doesn't have to worry about Earth Quakes. Pretty much from East to West the whole of the USA does. You don't see houses in Japan made out of Brick and Stone for the same reason as well.
We don't make fun of you for wood framing. It is perfectly valid and quiet study. It is the flimsy nature of what you cover the wall in. Hint, you have never seen a picture of a hole punched in a European wall, as it is just not physically possible to punch through OBS board, concrete or brick.
It's because of wood + hurricanes/tornados that I'm shocked people use wood for their houses in USA. I think I've seen houses dissolve like spilled matches in videos (please correct me if I'm wrong, I may misremember)
Here's an UPDATED video of this simulation: th-cam.com/video/Vv1xXvHP1vw/w-d-xo.html Thanks EVERYONE for providing all your amazing feedback in the comments so that I can make better videos!
Impressive how the steel-frame structure survived the intensity 12 quake even when struck by the collapsing timber structure next to it. Also found it a bit odd how parts of the concrete structure remained standing even without any supporting elements still attached to them, almost like tree trunks. Not sure if concrete pillars that tall would be able to remain free-standing like that in real life.
As long as the foundation is good and there is enough reinforcement to deal with the wiggling, a concrete pole should be quite sturdy and able to stay upright like that.
Not sure what fastening techniques were set up in the models, but how the materials are joined makes a huge difference as well...many brick structures in earthquake areas are now polymer laminated, essentially turning them into dry-stacked structures in an earthquake as the mortar is destroyed. Good demonstration of material stress response though.
And the fastening makes a difference. If using joist hangers, screws and angle braces on the timber construction, that's much stronger than end-nailing or toe-nailing. I would expect that strong lateral forces could knock down a timber structure pretty quickly if only nailed together. This has already been pretty well publicized in hurricane-prone areas, where the use of screws, clips, and other brackets or fasteners are required by code
In Charleston SC after the great quake of 1886 (Mercalli X) most of the houses and buildings made of brick were cross reinforced by metal bars with large stars on the exterior...still common there today. Charleston also suffered a severe quake approx 1699.
I have many questions: -The concrete is only concrete or reinforced concrete? -Why the concrete was so flexible if concrete doesnt work with flexion force but cuttting force? -Why the steel is not flexible? Steel works with flexin force because is a really flexible material, thats is why steel building use anchoring(vertical bracing)
Nice simulation, but I think the buildings are not properly designed. There should be shear walls present to make the structure more resistant to horizontal movements and much more robust in all scenarios. Usually It's elevator shaft or stairwell that is also build with extra reinforcement to act as a stabilizing core.
All my other simulations are more complex. This simulation is just for an informational purpose about material strength and I did not intend to create realistic buildings. Will do that in a future video 👍❤️ thanks for the feedback!!
Also brick buildings has steel for beams, ceiling, etc etc (what for i dont know the correct english term). So they are much more resistant if constructed correctly.
I'm really impressed with the timber structure. It really held on right to the end. Still wouldn't live in a timber high rise though. There is still the very real threat of fire with a timber structure.
"very real threat of fire with a timber structure" The timber is treated and engineered. Engineered glulam timber has a burn-off rate of glulam is 0.7mm/min and therefore expensive fire protection coatings are normally not even necessary for standard fire safety norms.
concrete burns at high degreed and melts down, and the paint that coats it is very easy to fire up. timber is really underestimated but not in Japan. they now what they are doing.
Burning wood forms a coal layer which protects the inner wood and slows the burning. The construction then is longer intact. A steel construction will deform because of the heat and Breaks down then. So a steel construction will fail before a wood construction.
Fire threat these days in timber buildings is very low. They're built with special coatings that prevent the wood from catching fire. In the event they do, the building is built in a way that the fire won't be able to burn for very long. The B1m and tomorrows build did some interesting videos about it
Steel structures are fascinating the way I look how steel ships are build. A ship is battling high and rough seas almost every occasion on her service and 30 years down the line, if well maintained, is still a sea worthy. The second best is timber, again a wooden boat
I was thinking if we can recycle those large retired cruise ships and place them on land for an instant buillding and structure. condos / apartment or other multi-purpose building... hmmm.
I remember going through a 7.8 earthquake a few years back (Fiordland, NZ). I spent the entire time, watching my friend's $700 teapot ride on top of the refrigerator rolling about the kitchen, while holding on to my brand new TV. The fridge had wheels. I had to make a tough choice on whether to save my friend's expensive teapot, or save my nice new big TV. 40 seconds of concentrated decision making - what to do, what to do??? I saved the TV. Funny thing was, the teapot was fine, just rode out the whole thing sitting on top of the roving refrigerator. I am now thinking, next earthquake, is the top of the refrigerator my go-to safe spot?
No, if you have a really sturdy desk or kitchen table, get under that - most people killed within buildings die when they are crushed by the furnishings within toppling onto them. A sturdy table can protect you from falling bookcases, refrigerators, etc. If the whole building collapses you could still be killed, but even then, if you can stay beneath your table as the whole floor beneath you falls away, the table might keep parts of the building structure from completely collapsing the space you are in, allowing you to live long enough to be dug out by rescuers.
There's a reason why Timber is seeing some resurgence in construction, once banded together and adequately fireproofed. It's surprisingly strong and flexible but I did expect the steel building to win. Appears to be fully welded in terms of both floors and columns, plus + spread out supports. It'd be curious to have seen if it'd survive an intensity "XIII" scenario. Brick, sadly, was doomed from early on. Also curious as to the concrete reinforcement question posted below.
The reason is because the timber organizations have lobbyists now and are greenwashing their products to appeal to people who like that kind of thing. The most sustainable way to build is steel, when you consider the lifespan of the building. There are steel structures that have been standing in this country for over 100 years at this point.
@@Lv-nq9qz steel is much more expansive than wood. It is not about lobbying, it is simply about economics. You want a house right? Well, a house owith a steel framing will be more expansive than a house with a wooden framing. In countries with alot of timber, such as canada, every single house ive been in has wooden framing. This is simply because of costs and how difficult it is to build too. You are probably from europe. In northern united states and canada, every single house is wood. And yes, houses can still last long. Many wooden homes even outlive steel homes, because wood does not rust. Wood can rot, but steel can rust. Its all about good maintenance.
Wood resists fires very well, but in the USA it seems that no one knows. the trick is to use large sections, the fire affects the wood from the outside to the inside at a speed of about 1 inch* every 30 minutes on each face exposed to the flame. There are tables by type of wood, I put an approximate average value.
I am making a shake table for the science fair at my school. I need some materials to test for the table but I don't know what to use? What are some household materials? Please answer.
I understand that you are smarter than me and have factored in many different items, but I'm from California and lived through many earthquakes. Where were your buildings located? Epicenter, type of soil , and duration. I'm was in the sf quake it rolled for minutes. I was not near the epicenter. I was also in the santa Cruz quake and I was very near the epicenter and the ground just snapped like an old stick an it was over. The ground did move a lot and if any buildings were there they would not still be standing.
I found some correspondence with European Macroseismic Scale (used in Italy): 0:42 EMS VIII: some badly built brick buildings collapse 1:15 EMS IX: some ordinary RC buildings partially collapse 2:04 EMS X: some ordinary RC collapse completely However, well built wood houses may collapse at EMS XI and even the steel ones at EMS XII. In this simulation, they're very robust.
Yes, our Mercalli scale is actually based on descriptive definitions of the outcome of earthquakes, where XII is total destruction, so definitely steel would also be gone. The deadliest earthquake I was in (Irpinia 1980, 3000 casualties, entire towns down to the ground) was 6.8 Mw on Richter scale, and level X on Mercalli
Nevermind, I just found out that the concrete is not reinforced. Indeed, the falling of multiple floors in the partial collapse scenario seemed a bit weird.
In real life there’s now multi layered refined and treated wood types that are just as strong as steel while being lighter and more flexible! They are also extremely fire resistant because of the chemical treatments applied to them! :)
One negative thing about the wood-multi types is the chemical treatments being used for fire and weather protection could be carcinogenic. And once those treatments come off, structure is vulnerable. In coastal and tropical areas, these cannot be built. The best standing structures today from ancient times are made from rocks. Pyramids, temples, etc
If you treat wood by boiling in sodium hydroxide and sulphuric acid and use high pressure to squeeze and change wood grain and heat that wood becomes 4 times stronger than steel . There's a TH-cam clip made about 3 years ago the possible uses is for body armour.
This is just one scenario with similar construction designs. Each building material should be designed to take advantage of the inherent strengths/advantages of that particular material. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake the building in which I operated my business survived with very little damage. I was inside and feared the building would collapse. It was built with concrete block walls with steel rebar and poured concrete in the hollow blocks. The walls were attached to the concrete floor which had criss-crossing steel rebar in the floor and footings. The gently sloped roof was 2x8 or 2x10 T&G planks secured to 6x10 beams. The building suffered a couple of 6x8 plate glass windows broken. The houses on my street were virtually undamaged. We were about 10 miles from the epicenter. Santa Cruz and Watsonville had major damage but not nearly as extensive as San Francisco and Oakland. Moss Landing (about 15 miles from the epicenter) also had major damage. Liquefaction was a major factor in the worst damaged areas.
Bricks are strong in compression, but not in tension. A reinforced concrete structure if Analysed using NLTH, may be able to withstand greater intensity. For the Timber and Steel Structure, THE Connection Details are not clear. It the Connection details which yields or breaks first.
Here in Chile, a very sismic country most construction are highly audited in all specs. Most seismic buildings are a mix with Concrete and Steel anchored to a steel seismic base. can endure very high earthquake.
I did expect steel to win, and I knew timber would come in second because it can withstand strong shaking within a short period. also, in order for the brick building to survive longer, more reinforcements should be added to the bottom of the building, as it would prevent the building from collapsing like a pancake, floor by floor. the concrete building feels as if it isn't connected, so even small shaking can make the building collapse. @earthquakesim, please make more videos about this, it really is interesting! 😄😄💯💯
I observed the same thing, based on what I can tell: 1. The structural members; especially the brick and concrete, were not properly designed to standard. 2. The way i see it, the structural materials were not simulated on a human scale (columns had no size/ height limitations due to transportation limitations in real life). With size limitations, the connection of structural members becomes even more important for simulating load transfer and how it seismic load affects the building. With that being said, I like that it shows the weakness and strength of each building material we mainly use.
Ten is the theoretical maximum. Everything is destroyed because the topography is deeply modified and the map has to be redrawn : if a sinkhole forms under your skyscraper however perfectly built it is and whole it remains it will fall like a column. In general controlled demolition occurs to prevent the damage from spreading. The maximum ever recorded was 9.5 in Chile in 1960.
@@EarthquakeSim I don't know that scale. I'll check. Thanks. The fact is that beyond a certain level the quake proper is no longer the main destructive factor but the destruction of the ground below the buildings. That was observed in Chile and also in Alaska about the same period : some houses remained intact but fell into precipices and cracks and turned into tombs.
@@MrMirville The Roman Numerals signify intensity using the Modified Mercalli Scale. Magnitude is measure of energy released by an earthquake and is not the same as intensity. Magnitude scales are logarithmic and open ended.
Is it not more about how the softer materials absorb the vibrations rather than being stronger? Concrete and bricks are brittle therefore easier to crack under more power
@@munzurharck368Timber is stronger than concrete. To prove this just pour some boards/ beams of varying size and compare equally sized wooden boards/ beams.
We build houses in southern California out of wood that are two and three stories. They are designed to sway 14" without collapsing. This doesn't mean your house is going to survive and you'll live happy every after. It means the house will not fall down and kill you and you will be able to get out.
Pity you didn't include mud homes. During a huge earthquake in NZ the only building undamaged was the cob (mud) house - still standing today - while the others, mainly wood, all collapsed.
@@wendyweaver8749 the Sichuan earthquake caused about 90000 deaths, because most houses were built with without a seismic forces resisting structural frame. "Most residential houses in the region are made of mud, stones and bricks, with little reinforcement. These buildings were the hardest hit as 83% of them collapsed..." (Nature). Also in 2023, it was mud-brick housing that made the Morocco earthquake so deadly. When building houses in earthquake regions, you need some kind of structural frame to resist the lateral (sideways) forces. In China and California they have tested steel reinforced mud-brick, which seems promising. Where I live in earthquake-prone Philippines the structure is usually steel reinforced concrete post and beam with masonry infill. Even the masonry infill is reinforced with steel every 60 cm vertically and horizontally. As masonry you could use concrete hollow blocks, lightweight AAC blocks and probably mud-brick or cob. The Philippine building code will not allow you to build an unreinforced building and I think New Zealand is similar. Just because some structures survive, does not mean that they are sufficiently earthquake resisting up to magnitude 7 or 8. We just experienced a magnitude 7 earthquake nearby 3 days ago, with almost no structural damage even near the epicenter, but plenty of non-structural damage in suspended ceilings.
That's amazing story. I'm living in south Korea and we have long history with only a few rare events of earthquake. Up until recently we used to live in cob house too. But we also don't have much more infos about the collapsing of cob house when striken by earthquake several hundred years ago, and 1 thousand years ago. The record says, intensity 6-7 degree of earthquake as of those times, but not so much damages reported as for those cob houses. Probably it was because they were built by mud, without structural frame inside. We usually use muds with dry hays to build house. I wonder if mud made bricks with steal frame inside would be more resistant to earthquake than steal plus concrete structured building.
I’m curious about log homes now, I’ve heard they can be resistant to earthquakes but it would fascinating if there was a simulator to demonstrate the effects an earthquake has to the structure.
I am a Civil Engineer with over 40 years of experience in Construction ! I think the seismic Structural Design varies according to different zones ! However the best Structure would be a Steel & Concrete Composite Structure ( R.C.C) with Hinged Joints Not Fixed Joints in the Frame to Absorb the Shock Wave Energy !!
Amazing video. It's good to see a chanel like this to raise awareness about the danger of earthquakes. But, it would also be interesting to see how the buildings would react with a reinforced concrete core in the middle of the floor plan, or if they had a diagrid system on the facade. Buildings with a core made of walls are very common.
Maybe because wood or timber is more pliable. It can bend, flex, and divert traveling energy outward, where as bricks, ceramic, concrete can facture from the violent shakes and vibrations.
that type timber structure aren't just big pieces of timber. they're laminated and bonded together with a lot of connections. timber construction requires larger columns, larger beams etc. all of which are labour intensive and very high cost. it's not a straight up like for like comparison.
@@jcpenny3606 You`re correct Brick, as a ceramic, is very fragile. It can't bend, only break. So, if a part of a brick pillar is forced to bend, it will instead break and collapse the whole structure. Concrete is not too different if not for it`s density and the steel within it. Wood, however, is very "bendible" and resistant to vertical traction/compression. Not so resistant to horizontal forces, which is why is only manages to snap, when the earthquake practically slides the building off center.
Or use Autodesk Robot for this kind of operation... This is just like an jurnalist point a view with a video simulation that may or may not be real....
Yes, great comparison but it's partially true. Currently: steel beats all, then timber holds good, concrete collapses. Possibilities: it might be missing engineering and resilience
I absolutely didn't expect the wood to make a stand for so long. Neither that the beicks would be the first to fall 🤯 Guess we can be glad in Germany that our quakes are barely noticeable. We'd be so screwed otherwise 😅
America and Canada are natural disaster central. So the houses have to be made with wood and drywall. There are only a couple spots in America where building with brick and stone is okay. Elsewhere, you got earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, high wind blizzards, etc.
Would be very important to know how thick you made the columns? As of cause a steel building would be more stable if it has triple diameter columns. Good that my house is steel at the base and wood in the upper part :)
as a civil engineer, i know that, the structure which is box type (based on bricks) can only constructed upto G+1 or G+2 which is maximum and also the thing is that brick structure is not even suitable for in that area if you are constructing the structure if it the structure comes in Zone 5 or Zone 6, defined and mentioned IS Codes (By the Way i am Indian, and so, we follow IS Code to Design our Structure). So, that's why Steel Structure and RCC Structure are the best option. But here we should also should know that Structure is also Depends on the Foundation, If foundation is design with the help of bearings and pile or deep foundation is constructed, then it would be helpful. During the design construction beams and columns are the better option to transfer the load of the structure towards foundation and foundation transfers towards earth. So it is great simulation to understand what are the effects and reactions when earthquake comes.
As a manufacturer of S275 galvanized steel frames, I’ve noticed that surprisingly few builders and engineers take advantage of steel framing, despite its clear benefits. Steel frames allow for the construction of safer, more durable structures, and they often come together faster and more affordably than other options. 1. Earthquake Resistance: Steel frames are incredibly flexible and strong, which helps them absorb and dissipate the energy from earthquakes much better than concrete or brick, which can crack under pressure. 2. Durability: Unlike wood and brick, steel is resistant to pests, mold, and decay, meaning structures last longer and need less maintenance over time. 3. Efficiency: Prefabricated steel frames speed up the construction process and reduce labor costs. Plus, the precision of steel framing means less material waste and more cost savings.
Thank you so much for your feedback!I agree with what you’re saying about steel frames structures. I’ve made another simulation where the 3D modeling is more accurate than this
@@EarthquakeSim I would love to see you do some tornado and hurricane simulations too. One challenge we have is showing builders and engineers how effective steel frames actually are. Love the videos keep it up!
@@EarthquakeSim Costa Rica but we adapted this technology after the major earthquake in Turkey a few years back. The technology became widespread after that tragic incident as engineers looked for ways to avoid another tragedy and minimize the damage. Can we get your permission to show this video on our website?
@@DecentraHomes absolutely!! You have my permission!! :) But make sure you also check my recent construction material comparison video since this one is almost one year old. Greetings from Chicago and I hope we can stay in touch!
Timber is amaizing material (And that i say as structural civil engineer) Its easy to work with, its cheap, its easy to repair or to reinforce if needed. Actualy i dont see anymore reason why people use concrete on buildings except HPC, basic concrete mostly used have nearly same strenght as timber. Problem are in legislations. For example im from czech republic, and i cant disign a timber bridges becouse we do not have them in our state materials that we have to follow (its not eurocodes its something extra for national projects).
Timber beeing the most basic and cheapest bulding material since humans builds anything and collapsing only in higher earthshake than happens is still my winner
I was surprised to see the timber building survive all the way up to XI. IN your simulation is the concrete building reinforced? No one that I know of builds anything out of concrete without rebar.
@@EarthquakeSim - you might want to do it for reinforced. An un-reinforced concrete structure will crumble like a Nabisco cookie. There’s also pre-stressed and pre-fabricated - like the bovadilla and viquete system often used in Mexico. The viguetes (beams) are pre-stressed, reinforced and pre-fab. No one in Mexico builds unreinforced.
@@Nabalok-s4b when steel rebar and re-mesh is set in the forms, and the concrete is poured. The rebar and re-mesh are the reinforcement. Any concrete building made today is built this way generally.
Me parece extraña la forma en que ensamblaron los pilares con las losas tanto en la madera como en el concreto puesto que en el concreto no hay refuerzos en los pilares (al unirse con las losas) es decir algún tipo de escuadra o alguna biga en todo el perímetro ni muros interiores como un núcleo y pasa algo similar con la estructura de madera no así con la de acero en que los pilares tienen escuadras en los extremos y los pilares y vigas tienen formas de L que en sí actúa como refuerzo de la estructura de ladrillo ni hablar porque a menos que sea de un piso no tiene cómo soportar un sismo, saludos desde Santiago de Chile.
Sin dejar de mencionar que en el video, los sismos duraron unos pocos segundos cuando en la realidad, pueden durar minutos. De hecho el terremoto de 9,5 de Valdivia de 1960 duró entre 9 y 14 MINUTOS!!!!
Los Angeles still has a large number of brick commercial buildings. After the 1934 Long Beach Quake the building codes were amended requiring reinforcement, but the buildings already built were grandfathered until they had renovations done. After the 1971 Sylmar Quake the codes were changed again and the old brick buildings had to be reinforced with metal rods. I worked for an insurance company and we had a paper binder that listed the address of every unreinforced brick building in the county. I remember atound 1980 I actually found a building that had its Certificate Of Occupany revoked because the owner had done the reinforcing. One thing about high-rise steel reinforced buildings. It may survive the wuake but if you're on the upper floors you'll have vertigo for a long time after it stops swaying.
Could you run a simulation comparing various construction standards? For instance, the construction standard in Chile is quite rigorous compared to that of neighboring countries and other nations in different regions, especially regarding seismic resistance.
I am glad to live in Chile, even though we have earthquakes frequently, our buildings are very stable. in the 2010 earthquake, a few buildings collapsed, with some others badly damaged. (it reached a maximum magnitude of IX)
I'm impressed that you managed to find 5 story high single wood beams. That's probably the only way it holds up. Otherwise it collapses at the joints much sooner.
Just to point out, ive been a fan of your channel for a while and i saw the pinned comment and tried to make an observation about this video. The overall graphics are immaculate and i am so grateful we have this channel to make these videos, but the concrete physics are slightly inaccurate, in real life the concrete wouldnt sway to side as it is quite stiff, since its connected to the ground though, it will move with the earthquake and collapse this video told me that brick and concrete buildings are quite weaker than i expected. Thank you. your channel is so amazing please know that your work is strongly enjoyed.
Pregunta... ¿Que tipo de terremoto se ha simulado? (vibratorio, osilatorio, etc) ¿En esta simulación a que escala RITCHER corresponde cada intensidad? Soy habitante de la Ciudad de México... GRACIAS.
@@pronak4410 Tiene usted toda la razón... Replanteo, ¿ Superficiales, Intermedios o Profundos? Y aún así, me gustaría conocer la escala planteada para esta simulación... Gracias.
theres a mistake done by designing joints in steel n concrete building. actually the structure is a whole not like here shown that each part is a different piece. so the floors are kinda pured together with beams and columns. so claiming that earthquake will disconnect joints of each element is fiction because the steel in floor slabs IS joined with steel in beams AND in columns. It will never disconnect easily like shown on the simulation. It might be not as good as steel but not like shown here. just saying as an architect. edit: in edited version theres still this mistake. IF the column holds weight of next column beams n floors how can it dosconnect in the middle and fall away from its core? its only possible by hitting it with a missile but still the steel inside would stay there kinda intact, maybe bent in every direction but wouldnt just disconnect like the simulation shows. the concrete is squeezed and steel inside is pulled thats why together they work perfectly imho
The steel structure because the beams and posts have a web structure to resist shear forces was able to stand. In Europe and north Africa, primarily in the Mediterranean Sea area, where masonry structures are the majority there is no structure to resist shear which results in massive damage and death. Not only do these structures have no lateral bracing they actually put very large loads on the roofs adding to shear loads.
Only if they have better lateral bracing to prevent swaying. That is why bridges and steel structures are fabricated using a 'series' of triangle bracing. Triangle bracing won't bend like rectanglular structures. @@jimjim8645
Great sim. I was wondering if the wood structure could be demonstrated, as well, with other material methodologies? I was thinking of things like laminated beams, as well as current framing techniques that are used in North America, where each story is framed on top of the previous. Your sim here, seems to show vertical beams that go from the ground to the roof, which is approximately 20 meters/66 feet.
No the wood structure in the video was platform framed, likely with thin steel connector plates; you can see the moment when the steel connectors broke and the columns about 3 stories up detached from the ones below and started sliding all over the place until the upper stories began to fall. That would not have happened with continuous wood columns and balloon framing method, which might have had the floors detach from columns as happened with the concrete building.
I would like to see a simulation on pre-fab concrete appartment blocks, like the ones typical in Eastern Europe (known as "Khruschovka", "Commie block", "Panelák" etc.). In Ukraine, these types of buildings show almost heroic resilience against direct rocket hits with couple of panels falling down, but the rest of the structure surviving. But Eastern Europe has very little earthquakes, which makes me wonder, how would these buildings hold.
Romania is also Eastern Europe and they very much should worry about the earthquakes. And continental Europe has a K-T boundary and some isolated anomalies
There are a couple 4 story-ish apartment blocks built with that system in Santiago (Chile) during the 70s. I don't know how good they are compared with other structures, but at least they're still standing after 2 major earthquakes.
Soviet Union even produced a special panel series for regions with earthquakes - 1-467DS-8, which has thicker reinforced concrete frame. You could find many of them in Tashkent or Sochi
Вот только кирпичные дома строят иначе. Не хлипкие столбики с цельным перекрытием, а продольные и поперечные толстенные несущие стены и плиты перекрытия, которые лежат на них. Такое явно покрепче домика Ниф-Нифа в видео будет.
No one frames with bricks, that's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard of, It's either steel framing with brick walls, or concrete framing with brick walls, There is no such brick pillars.
I’ve treated this video as an experiment and I have never intended to represent virtual habitable buildings. The whole point of this simulation was to show that brick is worse than unreinforced concrete and steel ❤️
@@EarthquakeSim I understand that, but people who built buildings for ages know what you have demonstrated already, Even concrete is reinforced with steel, it's not just poured into forms, So any building has to have a structural frame, Steel beams, wood beams or reinforced concrete, Then for walls you can use whatever cheaper at the location, maconery bricks, wood sheeting with studs, glass ....etc.
Intensity "X" was so strong even the biggest tree toppled, while the ones on front of the brick one kept getting repeatedly crushed and resurrected... 🌲⚰
Hi, how can built a buildind resist from earthquakes. This is charecter of shaking earth.we see this is a advice.nethanyahu destroyed many buildings.if un not take a secession of 2 state system , u can built a safety building in palastene?many life missed in under the buildings.
that's not how the richter scale works, it's much more like the decibel scale, as in it's logarithmic, the difference from 7 to 8 is much greater than from 6 to 7, as it the difference from 80 db to 100 db is much greater than from 60 to 80 db
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I made a BETTER more accurate version of this simulation here: th-cam.com/video/nQZvfi7778M/w-d-xo.html
Nice
Nice
They actually had another brother...
What is this simulator? Ist awailable for pc?
Would like to see Richter Scale equivalents next to the "intensities".
So what I'm getting from this is, the third little pig should have built a steel-frame house
yes indeed! :)
lmao
A
they survived the wolf but not the Earthquake 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
The wolf: Time to use my secret weapon: jet fuel
I saw a new hotel being built in Japan and was amazed that all the structural beams were steel. The even more amazing thing is that most buildings in Japan only have a 30 year lifespan. When those steel buildings are taken down, all that steel is recycled into the next construction project. I have nothing but respect for the Japanese construction industry.
That 30 year lifespan policy and insane amount of houses constructed, along with Japan's declining population has led to millions of unoccupied homes
How can you respect and industry that’s replacing buildings every 30 years
@@patty109109keeping their building in a prime condition
@@hawaliakbar9081 and homeless too
They had to learn a lot with all those Godzilla's attacks
I'm from New Zealand and hold a PhD in structural engineering from the University of Canterbury. Our campus has worked in close collaboration with the Universities of California, Seattle Washington, BC, Japan and many others since the 1970's on earthquake design of buildings. Most engineers would agree that brick is a problem but the concrete model shown is especially unrealistic for countries where proven design practices and strict building codes are enforced. Unfortunately, the form of collapse shown with floor separation is still an issue in countries where building officials appear to lack the onus or authority to enforce standards. The good news going forward is that the structural engineering know-how to prevent these disasters is like totally dude available to all those who choose to look. Just bring some note paper, a pen and calculator (HP, TI and Casio are all good).
thank you so much for this feedback! I am working on a new simulation that will be more realistic (added shear walls and better building design for reinforced concrete). I would love to keep in touch with you and get more of your feedback in the future :) Greetings from Chicago, Mike!
Sure no problem. A simulation with shear walls would be good to see....it should change the deflected shape from sway to single curvature cantilever. I think what you are doing here illustrates the incredible difference between well engineered and appropriate structures from their opposites. All people from the Pacific Rim region will appreciate this. Chile in particular has very many strong quakes (the most) and when studying I found a text on structural dynamics written by Prof. Mario Paz (a Chilean) to be very helpful. There is a lot of collective thought involved on an international scale, especially by those most affected. You're in Chicago with the tall stuff by Fazlur Khan and the like....so wind is your main issue. Keep up the good work 👍🤓
This is so accurate! Greetings from Chile 😁 we use ACI code + a modified spectrum for RC buildings
Exactly! I'm from Chile and I couldn't understand how concrete failed so easily, when we know it's the best material.
@@a2falcone Yes, concrete structures are very robust if properly configured with enough reinforcing steel present and correct. I see from an earlier post that Chile uses the ACI code and response spectrum accelerations, so that's a great approach. Here in NZ we use our own design standard NZS 3101 and modified response spectra. Our concrete design standard would consider ACI 318 to be the parent document, but modified to include our own and other international research. We have a community of Chileans here in NZ too, my next door neighbor comes from Puerto Aysén in the south and her brother farms in Tierra Del Fuego. NZ is not too cold for her 😃
thanks to cameraman who took all the risk and preserved this beautiful shots for us
Yes!! Make sure to check my recent Tokyo simulation! ☺️
This 3d simulation
It's not real shoot
Being Chilean has taught me that in case you live anything stronger than a VIII degree earthquake, you shouldn´t worry about buildings anymore, since at that stage earth itself probably will collapse. Nice video!
Edited: saw on another comment that this scale is Mercalli and not Richter, my comment applies to IX-X degree Richter
Roman numerals for Mercalli, arabic for Richter.
Interesting, thanks.
Magnitud de Momento, no Richter.
The earthquake that hit eastern Japan was about 10th degree and it wasn't tectonic plate subduction nor eruption. If we have any of such, the continents will be shifted and deformed greatly, but that's not the end of the world, ppl still will survive.
yeah since magnitude 25 would be enough to explode the sun
Building resilience is not just about the materials used , but how to design a form that suites the material
European wood frame looks very different from that and all the pieces are locked into each other.
Very underrated comment. 👍🇺🇲
yes exactly!@@Jamie-lw5sy
From the simulation all of them seemed to fall differently which means they’d probably need different ways of keeping them up. I’m NOT an expert but maybe the brick one would need more support at the bottom because that’s where it broke?
@@pixelzebra8440 Bricks would take a building shape resembling an arch or pyramid, having a wider and more solid base than the top.
Japanese pagodas dating many centuries since their construction have demonstrated that wood is actually a great material for resisting earthquakes. Timber is a natural polymer, which tend to have better plastic and elastic properties than ceramic materials (like bricks or concrete). Steel being a metal, has even better elasticity and ductility than that of timber, hence why it lasted the longest.
I had to explain this to my Polish in-laws who were baffled as to why every house in California is made mostly of wood.
I love and admire the Japanese building construction to this very day. Most of Southern California buildings up to date. But I don’t know if we can handle 7.5+.
Yet steel is only used in Japan for the largest structures, and even then the buildings have to be tuned out of the frequency of the earthquakes that Japan has.
One of the interesting things is that different regions of earthquakes have different frequencies. If you don't tune your steel structrue out of that frequency, you might as well build with rubber.
Steel can become extremely plastic if subjected to the right frequencies of vibration. The most famous example of this was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse. A steel bridge literally flexed itself to death because, of all things, wind.
It would appear that the timber structure could have done better with different joints. We don’t have earthquakes here in Tasmania but a recent 5 or 6 story building built with LVL and glass looks like the structure could survive well in these conditions.
@@TheSkunk1996 there's was only one flaw with the old, very old Japanese buildings, the roof was covered with tiles made of clay, if I'm no mistaken, and that weight on top creates pressure on the all building, as soon as one tremor occurs it all adds to make them very unforgiving for any shaking...don't know about now, I'm guessing that they correct that... anyway they probably don't build like that anymore
Wouldn't the concrete building be steel-reinforced? I don't see a concrete building above one floor being constructed without steel. Also, brick isn't really used as a supporting material anymore. It too would have a steel structure underneath.
What I was thinking...
No, even 100 floor building can be built out of only concrete (structure wise).
im cevil engineer, ask me anything.
@@gmail.commmmmmmm have any vacancy in your company ? 😉 give me it's website link. I want to improve my experience in construction work .
@@prashantkumar-tv3js unfortunately i work for government and am a civil servant in one of ministry of my country. the only way to work in my co, is to be our citizen first.
xD
@@gmail.commmmmmmm How is that possible? The structural code of all countries are almost the same, stipulating the use of reinforced concrete or braced steel in high structures.
RIP to all who lost their lives in these disasters. This is so heartbreaking.
@@venskus2009 😂
I've been involved in the design and construction of Post Disaster Structures, specifically Fire Stations. My engineers felt that in actual fact, wood frame structures were the better choice for their resilience and flexibility . When the earth quake is done you want the structure to perform it's function.
Looking at the four models presented here there is one noticable issue. All were constructed using the same method, post, beam and horizontal diaphragm. This method will favour the steel structure. The wood structure would have survived had vertical diaphragms (sheer walls) been used. Similarly for the masonry and poured concrete but clearly this example was biased towards the steel structure.
Dollar for dollar you can't beat wood frame structures (within reason of course).
And hows that wood handle tornado’s, hurricanes, fire seasons and flooding? Many scenarios in play, many ways to play. Pound for pound the enclosed structure with the greatest strength, durability & flexibility is a geodesic dome, it’s also resistant to earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, and requires the least amount of material to construct. What did your schooling teach you about the dome?
0:50 Are these actual simulations or just somebody screwing with animations? Bricks flying upwards(simulated on the moon I guess, with somebody giving it a low kick from the ground, to fly upwards) and the building just chilling there without critical structure pillars under it.
I will shout out the person who writes the most interesting observations about this video in the comments below! It can be anything from small physics errors to building resonance, collapse triggers, anything you can think of! :) Good luck!
Ini terkait resistensi bangunan misal rangka batu bata karena terdiri dari rankaian pasang maka cepat hancur.
Semen karena terdiri atas batuan serbuk sehingga mudah hancur.
Rankaian kayu berbeda tergantung apa yg dipakai.
Rankaian baja sulit hancur karena terdiri atas besi besi.
This is related to the resistance of a building, for example a brick frame, because it consists of a series of pairs, so it breaks quickly. Cement because it consists of powdered rock so it is easily destroyed. The range of wood differs depending on what is used. Steel chains are difficult to destroy because they are composed of ferrous iron.
Wow, the wood absorbs and flexes a lot more the other materials, but once its past its breaking point it shifts off base dramatically that makes sense. Brick buildings fall outward while pancaking, the concrete ones just pancaked! Good old wood lasts pretty long. It makes sense a lot of wooden buildings of the old world were often pretty old buildings. Falling masonry is one of the most terrifying things about earthquakes. Anyone watch Earthquake its a movie about a quake in New York city. Doesn't have the fancy CGI of San Andreas, but it follows different people through the event. San Andreas isn't the same now, now I can't stand anything with "The Rock" in it, and I never liked Oprah to begin with. Millionaires with their own TV shows named after themselves where they give tiny amounts away to peasants willing to sacrifice their first born for a chance to get close enough to meet her EWE. Real heroes are everyday people, that are kind compassionate and brave, they save us from all forms of harm. They are each and every one of us :) Cascadia is coming, it will be a very big day for many of us. Prayers for people still recovering from the quake in Syria. That was a crazy situation. We need powerful simulations on here to cause buildings to come off foundation intact but just rolling around on its side instead, and we saw that often throughout the footage of the destruction in Turkey and Syria. Simulations on this channel helped me understand the scale of what happened and the magnitude. Maybe, just maybe, if we start being more peaceful and stop pissing the earth off she wouldn't have so much steam to vent you know what I mean? At the end of the day we can only build structures to resist only so much forces, I do believe that karma of the hearts of humans effects the earths magnetic field, and quakes. Its a global thing to not just for one place or only in one place.
These guys are desperate for a shout out 😂
I noted in the recent Taiwan earthquake that some large buildings that were otherwise largely intact tipped over. Wouldn't it be the case that at some point the quality and strength of the earth holding the building in place would determine whether the building stays upright?
3D City Block! - Earthquake DAMAGE Comparison - th-cam.com/video/20Dr1QBqTyo/w-d-xo.html
i would like to see the comparison of quake behavior of wall concrete (tunnel formwork system) and columnal design (like the third building in this video) concrete buildings in quakes of intensities 6 to 12.
Start with serious attention end up so funny 🤣🤣🤣
Yes, but you designed everything like it was a steel structure... each material requires it's own design and considerations, there are older brick buildings in places with earthquakes than steel could last due to rust, but they are designed differently... a donkey can beat a race car in a cross country race if there are no gas stations...
Tokyo Skytree, which is the tallest (634m)building in Japan has encountered a big earthquake on 3.11 2011.
At that time, the building was under construction and the core, which is most important for earthquake resistance, had not been installed.
However, Tokyo Skytree survived the earthquake with only a steel frame.
Without any damage.
This is amazing and shows the high level of Japanese architectural technology.
'Made is Japan' gives me always feelings of, good quality; you can trust on it; don't worry; good for your money; etc.
Therefore my respect to all Japanese people and engineers..
People make fun of American homes being made of wood instead of stone or Brick like Europe. Yet most of Europe doesn't have to worry about Earth Quakes. Pretty much from East to West the whole of the USA does. You don't see houses in Japan made out of Brick and Stone for the same reason as well.
We don't make fun of you for wood framing. It is perfectly valid and quiet study. It is the flimsy nature of what you cover the wall in. Hint, you have never seen a picture of a hole punched in a European wall, as it is just not physically possible to punch through OBS board, concrete or brick.
It's because of wood + hurricanes/tornados that I'm shocked people use wood for their houses in USA. I think I've seen houses dissolve like spilled matches in videos (please correct me if I'm wrong, I may misremember)
Here's an UPDATED video of this simulation: th-cam.com/video/Vv1xXvHP1vw/w-d-xo.html
Thanks EVERYONE for providing all your amazing feedback in the comments so that I can make better videos!
nine one one simulation
Impressive how the steel-frame structure survived the intensity 12 quake even when struck by the collapsing timber structure next to it. Also found it a bit odd how parts of the concrete structure remained standing even without any supporting elements still attached to them, almost like tree trunks. Not sure if concrete pillars that tall would be able to remain free-standing like that in real life.
It's possible. Given photos from the middle east and the Ukraine war it is possible for a single piller of concrete to stand on its own.
As long as the foundation is good and there is enough reinforcement to deal with the wiggling, a concrete pole should be quite sturdy and able to stay upright like that.
A 12 level eq in richters scale would be something completely catastrophic, not something like in this video.
@@St0n3dCold Intensity is Mercalli, not Richter.
@@riccardo6820 you're confusing intensity (damage felt/done) with magnitude (energy released) there.
意外と木造って地震に強いんですね。
地震の多い日本でお寺の五重の塔が1000年近くも倒れずに残っているのは納得します。
そうです。
構造によると思います。五重塔はスカイツリーにも使われた心柱を中心に建てる構造なので強いですが、一般の住宅はもちろんそんな建て方はしないので耐震構造でないとやはり大地震では倒壊しやすいと思います。日本ではこの動画のような6階建のビルを木造で建てることはまずないですが、木造の「六重の塔」を作って住宅にしたらどんな感じなんでしょうね。(まあ倒壊はしなくても相当揺れるとは思いますが…😅)
Not sure what fastening techniques were set up in the models, but how the materials are joined makes a huge difference as well...many brick structures in earthquake areas are now polymer laminated, essentially turning them into dry-stacked structures in an earthquake as the mortar is destroyed.
Good demonstration of material stress response though.
True, the base makes a big difference
And the fastening makes a difference. If using joist hangers, screws and angle braces on the timber construction, that's much stronger than end-nailing or toe-nailing. I would expect that strong lateral forces could knock down a timber structure pretty quickly if only nailed together. This has already been pretty well publicized in hurricane-prone areas, where the use of screws, clips, and other brackets or fasteners are required by code
In Charleston SC after the great quake of 1886 (Mercalli X) most of the houses and buildings made of brick were cross reinforced by metal bars with large stars on the exterior...still common there today.
Charleston also suffered a severe quake approx 1699.
I have many questions:
-The concrete is only concrete or reinforced concrete?
-Why the concrete was so flexible if concrete doesnt work with flexion force but cuttting force?
-Why the steel is not flexible? Steel works with flexin force because is a really flexible material, thats is why steel building use anchoring(vertical bracing)
Nice simulation, but I think the buildings are not properly designed. There should be shear walls present to make the structure more resistant to horizontal movements and much more robust in all scenarios. Usually It's elevator shaft or stairwell that is also build with extra reinforcement to act as a stabilizing core.
All my other simulations are more complex. This simulation is just for an informational purpose about material strength and I did not intend to create realistic buildings. Will do that in a future video 👍❤️ thanks for the feedback!!
Also brick buildings has steel for beams, ceiling, etc etc (what for i dont know the correct english term). So they are much more resistant if constructed correctly.
Agree on that. It is nice as a video but nothing to do with reality. In real it looks completely different.
I'm really impressed with the timber structure. It really held on right to the end. Still wouldn't live in a timber high rise though. There is still the very real threat of fire with a timber structure.
"very real threat of fire with a timber structure" The timber is treated and engineered. Engineered glulam timber has a burn-off rate of glulam is 0.7mm/min and therefore expensive fire protection coatings are normally not even necessary for standard fire safety norms.
concrete burns at high degreed and melts down, and the paint that coats it is very easy to fire up. timber is really underestimated but not in Japan. they now what they are doing.
Burning wood forms a coal layer which protects the inner wood and slows the burning. The construction then is longer intact. A steel construction will deform because of the heat and Breaks down then. So a steel construction will fail before a wood construction.
Fire threat these days in timber buildings is very low. They're built with special coatings that prevent the wood from catching fire. In the event they do, the building is built in a way that the fire won't be able to burn for very long. The B1m and tomorrows build did some interesting videos about it
u dont know muhc about it man,.
Steel structures are fascinating the way I look how steel ships are build. A ship is battling high and rough seas almost every occasion on her service and 30 years down the line, if well maintained, is still a sea worthy. The second best is timber, again a wooden boat
Very interesting comparison! Thanks for the comment 🙂
What a brilliant analogy.
Thanks.
I was thinking if we can recycle those large retired cruise ships and place them on land for an instant buillding and structure. condos / apartment or other multi-purpose building... hmmm.
Obviously so. 'Coz you can't build a concrete or brick boat, can you? 😂😂
Man, we need to be making buildings out of whatever those pine trees are made of.
@@lukecitro6918 hahaha
I remember going through a 7.8 earthquake a few years back (Fiordland, NZ). I spent the entire time, watching my friend's $700 teapot ride on top of the refrigerator rolling about the kitchen, while holding on to my brand new TV. The fridge had wheels. I had to make a tough choice on whether to save my friend's expensive teapot, or save my nice new big TV. 40 seconds of concentrated decision making - what to do, what to do??? I saved the TV. Funny thing was, the teapot was fine, just rode out the whole thing sitting on top of the roving refrigerator. I am now thinking, next earthquake, is the top of the refrigerator my go-to safe spot?
No, if you have a really sturdy desk or kitchen table, get under that - most people killed within buildings die when they are crushed by the furnishings within toppling onto them. A sturdy table can protect you from falling bookcases, refrigerators, etc. If the whole building collapses you could still be killed, but even then, if you can stay beneath your table as the whole floor beneath you falls away, the table might keep parts of the building structure from completely collapsing the space you are in, allowing you to live long enough to be dug out by rescuers.
@@certiPHIer But how could he hold the TV steady and get under the table at the same time?
Best to save youtself first before a tv
It would be interesting to see this modeling repeated with the addition of a mobile mass damper in each structure.
That's a very good point!!!
Animate the Taipei 101 damper in action! It's designed with both earthquake and typhoon winds in mind.
Why the timber one trying to sabotage the steel one at the end 💀💀💀
It got wood over the rigidity and flexibility of the steel building next to it so it just did what comes naturally to it and started hitting on it.
I thought Timber would fall before Concrete but its amazing how it lasted till the end.
Wood flexes where concrete doesn't
but in reality, many wooden house are destroy easy in earthquake
Superb! Shared on my Facebook Wall.
There's a reason why Timber is seeing some resurgence in construction, once banded together and adequately fireproofed. It's surprisingly strong and flexible but I did expect the steel building to win. Appears to be fully welded in terms of both floors and columns, plus + spread out supports.
It'd be curious to have seen if it'd survive an intensity "XIII" scenario.
Brick, sadly, was doomed from early on. Also curious as to the concrete reinforcement question posted below.
The reason is because the timber organizations have lobbyists now and are greenwashing their products to appeal to people who like that kind of thing. The most sustainable way to build is steel, when you consider the lifespan of the building. There are steel structures that have been standing in this country for over 100 years at this point.
hmmm i get your point the in the timber is you can regrow them, but making steel is a permanent lose from the materials if destroyed@@Lv-nq9qz
@@Lv-nq9qz steel is much more expansive than wood.
It is not about lobbying, it is simply about economics. You want a house right? Well, a house owith a steel framing will be more expansive than a house with a wooden framing. In countries with alot of timber, such as canada, every single house ive been in has wooden framing. This is simply because of costs and how difficult it is to build too.
You are probably from europe. In northern united states and canada, every single house is wood. And yes, houses can still last long.
Many wooden homes even outlive steel homes, because wood does not rust. Wood can rot, but steel can rust. Its all about good maintenance.
That is not actually timber, that is cross laminated timber, which is a material with very different properties than pure timber
Wood resists fires very well, but in the USA it seems that no one knows. the trick is to use large sections, the fire affects the wood from the outside to the inside at a speed of about 1 inch* every 30 minutes on each face exposed to the flame.
There are tables by type of wood, I put an approximate average value.
Timber is much stronger than i anticipated.
It’s going down. I’m yelling “BRICKS” you better move, you better dance
XD
I am making a shake table for the science fair at my school. I need some materials to test for the table but I don't know what to use? What are some household materials? Please answer.
I understand that you are smarter than me and have factored in many different items, but I'm from California and lived through many earthquakes. Where were your buildings located? Epicenter, type of soil , and duration. I'm was in the sf quake it rolled for minutes. I was not near the epicenter. I was also in the santa Cruz quake and I was very near the epicenter and the ground just snapped like an old stick an it was over. The ground did move a lot and if any buildings were there they would not still be standing.
Странно. В Японии проводили РЕАЛЬНЫЕ тесты зданий и деревянный сложился уже при 7 баллах. Так что я считаю эту симуляцию - фикцией.
Как выше подметили, бетонный домик у них без арматуры. А вообще бетонные колонны не ведут себя, как резиновые. Так что да, симуляция - фикция.
I found some correspondence with European Macroseismic Scale (used in Italy):
0:42 EMS VIII: some badly built brick buildings collapse
1:15 EMS IX: some ordinary RC buildings partially collapse
2:04 EMS X: some ordinary RC collapse completely
However, well built wood houses may collapse at EMS XI and even the steel ones at EMS XII. In this simulation, they're very robust.
Very interesting findings! Thanks for letting us know! 🙂👍
Yes, our Mercalli scale is actually based on descriptive definitions of the outcome of earthquakes, where XII is total destruction, so definitely steel would also be gone.
The deadliest earthquake I was in (Irpinia 1980, 3000 casualties, entire towns down to the ground) was 6.8 Mw on Richter scale, and level X on Mercalli
@@webcucciolo thank you so much for your feedback😊
Nevermind, I just found out that the concrete is not reinforced. Indeed, the falling of multiple floors in the partial collapse scenario seemed a bit weird.
In real life there’s now multi layered refined and treated wood types that are just as strong as steel while being lighter and more flexible! They are also extremely fire resistant because of the chemical treatments applied to them! :)
One negative thing about the wood-multi types is the chemical treatments being used for fire and weather protection could be carcinogenic. And once those treatments come off, structure is vulnerable. In coastal and tropical areas, these cannot be built. The best standing structures today from ancient times are made from rocks. Pyramids, temples, etc
If you treat wood by boiling in sodium hydroxide and sulphuric acid and use high pressure to squeeze and change wood grain and heat that wood becomes 4 times stronger than steel . There's a TH-cam clip made about 3 years ago the possible uses is for body armour.
Nice but, there's mistake, if you're building from brick there must be walls and they must be load-bearing
This is just one scenario with similar construction designs. Each building material should be designed to take advantage of the inherent strengths/advantages of that particular material. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake the building in which I operated my business survived with very little damage. I was inside and feared the building would collapse. It was built with concrete block walls with steel rebar and poured concrete in the hollow blocks. The walls were attached to the concrete floor which had criss-crossing steel rebar in the floor and footings. The gently sloped roof was 2x8 or 2x10 T&G planks secured to 6x10 beams. The building suffered a couple of 6x8 plate glass windows broken.
The houses on my street were virtually undamaged. We were about 10 miles from the epicenter. Santa Cruz and Watsonville had major damage but not nearly as extensive as San Francisco and Oakland. Moss Landing (about 15 miles from the epicenter) also had major damage. Liquefaction was a major factor in the worst damaged areas.
Bricks are strong in compression, but not in tension. A reinforced concrete structure if Analysed using NLTH, may be able to withstand greater intensity. For the Timber and Steel Structure, THE Connection Details are not clear. It the Connection details which yields or breaks first.
in Japan wooden pavillions with 10 floors still stand even after very strong earthquakes
i dnt knw if this can be reflected to real life. does anyone construct with just 1 material without the other? just curious to what's the point here?
Here in Chile, a very sismic country most construction are highly audited in all specs.
Most seismic buildings are a mix with Concrete and Steel anchored to a steel seismic base. can endure very high earthquake.
I did expect steel to win, and I knew timber would come in second because it can withstand strong shaking within a short period. also, in order for the brick building to survive longer, more reinforcements should be added to the bottom of the building, as it would prevent the building from collapsing like a pancake, floor by floor. the concrete building feels as if it isn't connected, so even small shaking can make the building collapse. @earthquakesim, please make more videos about this, it really is interesting! 😄😄💯💯
I observed the same thing, based on what I can tell:
1. The structural members; especially the brick and concrete, were not properly designed to standard.
2. The way i see it, the structural materials were not simulated on a human scale (columns had no size/ height limitations due to transportation limitations in real life). With size limitations, the connection of structural members becomes even more important for simulating load transfer and how it seismic load affects the building.
With that being said, I like that it shows the weakness and strength of each building material we mainly use.
Author also knew it so he draw this cartoon this way.
Ten is the theoretical maximum. Everything is destroyed because the topography is deeply modified and the map has to be redrawn : if a sinkhole forms under your skyscraper however perfectly built it is and whole it remains it will fall like a column. In general controlled demolition occurs to prevent the damage from spreading. The maximum ever recorded was 9.5 in Chile in 1960.
Remember that what you see is Mercalli scale and not Richter scale❤️
@@EarthquakeSim I don't know that scale. I'll check. Thanks. The fact is that beyond a certain level the quake proper is no longer the main destructive factor but the destruction of the ground below the buildings. That was observed in Chile and also in Alaska about the same period : some houses remained intact but fell into precipices and cracks and turned into tombs.
@@EarthquakeSim stupid video
@@MrMirville The Roman Numerals signify intensity using the Modified Mercalli Scale. Magnitude is measure of energy released by an earthquake and is not the same as intensity. Magnitude scales are logarithmic and open ended.
Timber is stronger then concrete and brick. Steel is also strong
Yep! The San Francisco simulation is coming along very nicely!! You will be impressed 🙂
@@EarthquakeSim I m excited to watch.
Is it not more about how the softer materials absorb the vibrations rather than being stronger? Concrete and bricks are brittle therefore easier to crack under more power
I would say flexible but not stronger.
@@munzurharck368Timber is stronger than concrete. To prove this just pour some boards/ beams of varying size and compare equally sized wooden boards/ beams.
Maybe put rubber as a base material. The cars didn't move a bit.
We build houses in southern California out of wood that are two and three stories. They are designed to sway 14" without collapsing. This doesn't mean your house is going to survive and you'll live happy every after. It means the house will not fall down and kill you and you will be able to get out.
Wood is a very flexible construction material and it usually performs really well during an earthquake. :)
Pity you didn't include mud homes. During a huge earthquake in NZ the only building undamaged was the cob (mud) house - still standing today - while the others, mainly wood, all collapsed.
Tens of thousands of people died in western China as their mud homes crumbled from a huge earthquake about 20 years ago.
Traditional adobe (mud and straw) homes in Chile are death traps during earthquakes.
@@ChristianWagner888- Were the homes in western China actual mud houses or were they cob houses? The undamaged house in NZ was a cob house.
@@wendyweaver8749 the Sichuan earthquake caused about 90000 deaths, because most houses were built with without a seismic forces resisting structural frame. "Most residential houses in the region are made of mud, stones and bricks, with little reinforcement. These buildings were the hardest hit as 83% of them collapsed..." (Nature). Also in 2023, it was mud-brick housing that made the Morocco earthquake so deadly.
When building houses in earthquake regions, you need some kind of structural frame to resist the lateral (sideways) forces. In China and California they have tested steel reinforced mud-brick, which seems promising.
Where I live in earthquake-prone Philippines the structure is usually steel reinforced concrete post and beam with masonry infill. Even the masonry infill is reinforced with steel every 60 cm vertically and horizontally. As masonry you could use concrete hollow blocks, lightweight AAC blocks and probably mud-brick or cob.
The Philippine building code will not allow you to build an unreinforced building and I think New Zealand is similar. Just because some structures survive, does not mean that they are sufficiently earthquake resisting up to magnitude 7 or 8. We just experienced a magnitude 7 earthquake nearby 3 days ago, with almost no structural damage even near the epicenter, but plenty of non-structural damage in suspended ceilings.
That's amazing story. I'm living in south Korea and we have long history with only a few rare events of earthquake. Up until recently we used to live in cob house too. But we also don't have much more infos about the collapsing of cob house when striken by earthquake several hundred years ago, and 1 thousand years ago. The record says, intensity 6-7 degree of earthquake as of those times, but not so much damages reported as for those cob houses. Probably it was because they were built by mud, without structural frame inside. We usually use muds with dry hays to build house. I wonder if mud made bricks with steal frame inside would be more resistant to earthquake than steal plus concrete structured building.
Hi! I would like to know the seismic parameters you are using. It would be great a video considering deep foundations and 2 or 3 geological strata.
The maximum ground accelerations I’m using are corresponding the the Mercalli scale featured in the video 🙂
I’m curious about log homes now, I’ve heard they can be resistant to earthquakes but it would fascinating if there was a simulator to demonstrate the effects an earthquake has to the structure.
I am a Civil Engineer with over 40 years of experience in Construction !
I think the seismic Structural Design varies according to different zones !
However the best Structure would be a Steel & Concrete Composite Structure ( R.C.C) with Hinged Joints Not Fixed Joints in the Frame to Absorb the Shock Wave Energy !!
So what you’re telling me is that yellow car is better than all of those buildings. It didn’t even budge. Jeez
Amazing video. It's good to see a chanel like this to raise awareness about the danger of earthquakes.
But, it would also be interesting to see how the buildings would react with a reinforced concrete core in the middle of the floor plan, or if they had a diagrid system on the facade. Buildings with a core made of walls are very common.
Imagine being in a chair on one side of a room in the steel building then being shot over to the other side the next second
😵💫
Or getting yeeted out the window!
I'm surprised the wooden structure lasted for as long as it did.
Yep! I totally recommend watching my last video on my channel it’s similar and better 😋
Maybe because wood or timber is more pliable. It can bend, flex, and divert traveling energy outward, where as bricks, ceramic, concrete can facture from the violent shakes and vibrations.
It has also something to with mass. During an earthquake the building is loaded by x times it own weight. The lighter the mass the less impact.
that type timber structure aren't just big pieces of timber. they're laminated and bonded together with a lot of connections. timber construction requires larger columns, larger beams etc. all of which are labour intensive and very high cost. it's not a straight up like for like comparison.
@@jcpenny3606 You`re correct Brick, as a ceramic, is very fragile. It can't bend, only break. So, if a part of a brick pillar is forced to bend, it will instead break and collapse the whole structure.
Concrete is not too different if not for it`s density and the steel within it.
Wood, however, is very "bendible" and resistant to vertical traction/compression. Not so resistant to horizontal forces, which is why is only manages to snap, when the earthquake practically slides the building off center.
Or use Autodesk Robot for this kind of operation... This is just like an jurnalist point a view with a video simulation that may or may not be real....
Yes, great comparison but it's partially true.
Currently: steel beats all, then timber holds good, concrete collapses.
Possibilities: it might be missing engineering and resilience
I absolutely didn't expect the wood to make a stand for so long. Neither that the beicks would be the first to fall 🤯
Guess we can be glad in Germany that our quakes are barely noticeable. We'd be so screwed otherwise 😅
America and Canada are natural disaster central. So the houses have to be made with wood and drywall. There are only a couple spots in America where building with brick and stone is okay. Elsewhere, you got earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, high wind blizzards, etc.
Would be very important to know how thick you made the columns? As of cause a steel building would be more stable if it has triple diameter columns.
Good that my house is steel at the base and wood in the upper part :)
3D CITY Earthquake SIZE Comparison: th-cam.com/video/kFNud4nCFs8/w-d-xo.html
Its now well above 3 million. This is a succes video
All of the little piggies should have built Monolithic Dome Homes, that can easily survive natural disasters
Is there any simulations on reinforced concrete?
May I know what software you are using? We badly need your answer for our thesis. Thank you so much.❤
Дома надо строить как в Узбекистане сейсмоустоичивые
as a civil engineer, i know that, the structure which is box type (based on bricks) can only constructed upto G+1 or G+2 which is maximum and also the thing is that brick structure is not even suitable for in that area if you are constructing the structure if it the structure comes in Zone 5 or Zone 6, defined and mentioned IS Codes (By the Way i am Indian, and so, we follow IS Code to Design our Structure). So, that's why Steel Structure and RCC Structure are the best option. But here we should also should know that Structure is also Depends on the Foundation, If foundation is design with the help of bearings and pile or deep foundation is constructed, then it would be helpful. During the design construction beams and columns are the better option to transfer the load of the structure towards foundation and foundation transfers towards earth. So it is great simulation to understand what are the effects and reactions when earthquake comes.
Thank you so much for your feedback! I've made a more realistic simulation on my channel with construction materials 😊
As a manufacturer of S275 galvanized steel frames, I’ve noticed that surprisingly few builders and engineers take advantage of steel framing, despite its clear benefits. Steel frames allow for the construction of safer, more durable structures, and they often come together faster and more affordably than other options.
1. Earthquake Resistance: Steel frames are incredibly flexible and strong, which helps them absorb and dissipate the energy from earthquakes much better than concrete or brick, which can crack under pressure.
2. Durability: Unlike wood and brick, steel is resistant to pests, mold, and decay, meaning structures last longer and need less maintenance over time.
3. Efficiency: Prefabricated steel frames speed up the construction process and reduce labor costs. Plus, the precision of steel framing means less material waste and more cost savings.
Thank you so much for your feedback!I agree with what you’re saying about steel frames structures. I’ve made another simulation where the 3D modeling is more accurate than this
Where are you from?
@@EarthquakeSim I would love to see you do some tornado and hurricane simulations too. One challenge we have is showing builders and engineers how effective steel frames actually are. Love the videos keep it up!
@@EarthquakeSim Costa Rica but we adapted this technology after the major earthquake in Turkey a few years back. The technology became widespread after that tragic incident as engineers looked for ways to avoid another tragedy and minimize the damage. Can we get your permission to show this video on our website?
@@DecentraHomes absolutely!! You have my permission!! :) But make sure you also check my recent construction material comparison video since this one is almost one year old. Greetings from Chicago and I hope we can stay in touch!
I knew that steel would win, but the timber actually surprised me a lot in a good way!))
Timber is amaizing material (And that i say as structural civil engineer) Its easy to work with, its cheap, its easy to repair or to reinforce if needed. Actualy i dont see anymore reason why people use concrete on buildings except HPC, basic concrete mostly used have nearly same strenght as timber. Problem are in legislations. For example im from czech republic, and i cant disign a timber bridges becouse we do not have them in our state materials that we have to follow (its not eurocodes its something extra for national projects).
A bit skeptical about whether timber can hold it's own weight for a high rise. I've never seen a timber high rise.
They have just built some where I live. 10-12 floors or so.
Theres probably a reason trees evolved to be made of wood and not brick
Trees didn’t evolved, they were designed
😂😂😂😂😂 both comments
We had an 8.5 earthquake in Chile and few buildings collapsed in Santiago.
Timber beeing the most basic and cheapest bulding material since humans builds anything and collapsing only in higher earthshake than happens is still my winner
I was surprised to see the timber building survive all the way up to XI. IN your simulation is the concrete building reinforced? No one that I know of builds anything out of concrete without rebar.
Unreinforced ☺️
@@EarthquakeSim - you might want to do it for reinforced. An un-reinforced concrete structure will crumble like a Nabisco cookie. There’s also pre-stressed and pre-fabricated - like the bovadilla and viquete system often used in Mexico. The viguetes (beams) are pre-stressed, reinforced and pre-fab. No one in Mexico builds unreinforced.
Just out of curiosity, what is reinforced concrete structure?
@@Nabalok-s4b when steel rebar and re-mesh is set in the forms, and the concrete is poured. The rebar and re-mesh are the reinforcement. Any concrete building made today is built this way generally.
@@RonDevito agreed. Also the walls and floors are connected together with the rebar internally. Which stops floors collapsing like this.
Me parece extraña la forma en que ensamblaron los pilares con las losas tanto en la madera como en el concreto puesto que en el concreto no hay refuerzos en los pilares (al unirse con las losas) es decir algún tipo de escuadra o alguna biga en todo el perímetro ni muros interiores como un núcleo y pasa algo similar con la estructura de madera no así con la de acero en que los pilares tienen escuadras en los extremos y los pilares y vigas tienen formas de L que en sí actúa como refuerzo de la estructura de ladrillo ni hablar porque a menos que sea de un piso no tiene cómo soportar un sismo, saludos desde Santiago de Chile.
Sin dejar de mencionar que en el video, los sismos duraron unos pocos segundos cuando en la realidad, pueden durar minutos. De hecho el terremoto de 9,5 de Valdivia de 1960 duró entre 9 y 14 MINUTOS!!!!
Your videos are the best for a compliment, I'm being honest and steel wins! Steel will not always lose! 😃
Steel will not always lose haha!
I believe this is the reason why people build houses with steel bars and concrete.
Los Angeles still has a large number of brick commercial buildings. After the 1934 Long Beach Quake the building codes were amended requiring reinforcement, but the buildings already built were grandfathered until they had renovations done.
After the 1971 Sylmar Quake the codes were changed again and the old brick buildings had to be reinforced with metal rods. I worked for an insurance company and we had a paper binder that listed the address of every unreinforced brick building in the county. I remember atound 1980 I actually found a building that had its Certificate Of Occupany revoked because the owner had done the reinforcing.
One thing about high-rise steel reinforced buildings. It may survive the wuake but if you're on the upper floors you'll have vertigo for a long time after it stops swaying.
Could you run a simulation comparing various construction standards? For instance, the construction standard in Chile is quite rigorous compared to that of neighboring countries and other nations in different regions, especially regarding seismic resistance.
I am glad to live in Chile, even though we have earthquakes frequently, our buildings are very stable. in the 2010 earthquake, a few buildings collapsed, with some others badly damaged. (it reached a maximum magnitude of IX)
Is the concrete structure reinforced concrete?
That would b e my question too :)
It looks like the concrete was reinforced with rubber.
Steel house is the most strongest,I prefer principal part,floor,column to support the house
I'm impressed that you managed to find 5 story high single wood beams. That's probably the only way it holds up. Otherwise it collapses at the joints much sooner.
Informative. Comments by the readers are valuable. Thanks
Just to point out, ive been a fan of your channel for a while and i saw the pinned comment and tried to make an observation about this video. The overall graphics are immaculate and i am so grateful we have this channel to make these videos, but the concrete physics are slightly inaccurate, in real life the concrete wouldnt sway to side as it is quite stiff, since its connected to the ground though, it will move with the earthquake and collapse this video told me that brick and concrete buildings are quite weaker than i expected. Thank you. your channel is so amazing please know that your work is strongly enjoyed.
Pregunta... ¿Que tipo de terremoto se ha simulado? (vibratorio, osilatorio, etc) ¿En esta simulación a que escala RITCHER corresponde cada intensidad? Soy habitante de la Ciudad de México... GRACIAS.
Ha de ser una simulación con ambos tipos de movimiento, dado que no hay sismos con únicamente oscilatorios o trepidatorios.
@@pronak4410 Tiene usted toda la razón... Replanteo, ¿ Superficiales, Intermedios o Profundos? Y aún así, me gustaría conocer la escala planteada para esta simulación... Gracias.
theres a mistake done by designing joints in steel n concrete building. actually the structure is a whole not like here shown that each part is a different piece. so the floors are kinda pured together with beams and columns. so claiming that earthquake will disconnect joints of each element is fiction because the steel in floor slabs IS joined with steel in beams AND in columns. It will never disconnect easily like shown on the simulation. It might be not as good as steel but not like shown here. just saying as an architect.
edit: in edited version theres still this mistake. IF the column holds weight of next column beams n floors how can it dosconnect in the middle and fall away from its core? its only possible by hitting it with a missile but still the steel inside would stay there kinda intact, maybe bent in every direction but wouldnt just disconnect like the simulation shows. the concrete is squeezed and steel inside is pulled thats why together they work perfectly imho
To conclude, we should build houses out of trees those things are indestructible
The steel structure because the beams and posts have a web structure to resist shear forces was able to stand. In Europe and north Africa, primarily in the Mediterranean Sea area, where masonry structures are the majority there is no structure to resist shear which results in massive damage and death. Not only do these structures have no lateral bracing they actually put very large loads on the roofs adding to shear loads.
So what should they do in the Mediterranean sea area? Are high buildings (skyscrapers) ''safe'' in this area?
Only if they have better lateral bracing to prevent swaying. That is why bridges and steel structures are fabricated using a 'series' of triangle bracing. Triangle bracing won't bend like rectanglular structures. @@jimjim8645
Great sim. I was wondering if the wood structure could be demonstrated, as well, with other material methodologies? I was thinking of things like laminated beams, as well as current framing techniques that are used in North America, where each story is framed on top of the previous. Your sim here, seems to show vertical beams that go from the ground to the roof, which is approximately 20 meters/66 feet.
No the wood structure in the video was platform framed, likely with thin steel connector plates; you can see the moment when the steel connectors broke and the columns about 3 stories up detached from the ones below and started sliding all over the place until the upper stories began to fall. That would not have happened with continuous wood columns and balloon framing method, which might have had the floors detach from columns as happened with the concrete building.
I would like to see a simulation on pre-fab concrete appartment blocks, like the ones typical in Eastern Europe (known as "Khruschovka", "Commie block", "Panelák" etc.). In Ukraine, these types of buildings show almost heroic resilience against direct rocket hits with couple of panels falling down, but the rest of the structure surviving. But Eastern Europe has very little earthquakes, which makes me wonder, how would these buildings hold.
Most of them bombed by mistake of Ukrainian anti-rocket system S-300. It's not made to destroy buildings like rockets bombing Gaza.
Most of the time prefabric is made from steel
Romania is also Eastern Europe and they very much should worry about the earthquakes. And continental Europe has a K-T boundary and some isolated anomalies
There are a couple 4 story-ish apartment blocks built with that system in Santiago (Chile) during the 70s. I don't know how good they are compared with other structures, but at least they're still standing after 2 major earthquakes.
Soviet Union even produced a special panel series for regions with earthquakes - 1-467DS-8, which has thicker reinforced concrete frame. You could find many of them in Tashkent or Sochi
Вот только кирпичные дома строят иначе. Не хлипкие столбики с цельным перекрытием, а продольные и поперечные толстенные несущие стены и плиты перекрытия, которые лежат на них. Такое явно покрепче домика Ниф-Нифа в видео будет.
what software he uses to create these simulations?
No one frames with bricks, that's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard of, It's either steel framing with brick walls, or concrete framing with brick walls, There is no such brick pillars.
I’ve treated this video as an experiment and I have never intended to represent virtual habitable buildings. The whole point of this simulation was to show that brick is worse than unreinforced concrete and steel ❤️
@@EarthquakeSim I understand that, but people who built buildings for ages know what you have demonstrated already, Even concrete is reinforced with steel, it's not just poured into forms, So any building has to have a structural frame, Steel beams, wood beams or reinforced concrete, Then for walls you can use whatever cheaper at the location, maconery bricks, wood sheeting with studs, glass ....etc.
@@Capturing-Memories I am posting a better simulation in a couple hours :)
@@Capturing-Memories go easy on the guy )
@EarthquakeSim will you manage to model rebar reinforced concrete?
When you can make good animations but you don't have engineering sense. 💀
I never intended this animation to go viral. The whole point was just to show that brick structures collapse first❤️
4:20 the goat. my country will continiu to allow building houses with sand.
Intensity "X" was so strong even the biggest tree toppled, while the ones on front of the brick one kept getting repeatedly crushed and resurrected... 🌲⚰
How about that new ultra strong wood?
That final chair during level 9 had me laughing, just motionless, then flies out the building.
Not really a fair comparison unless the buildings are of equal cost per square foot.
Hi, how can built a buildind resist from earthquakes. This is charecter of shaking earth.we see this is a advice.nethanyahu destroyed many buildings.if un not take a secession of 2 state system , u can built a safety building in palastene?many life missed in under the buildings.
Great video. Can you show similar simulation with geodesic dome structures?
that's not how the richter scale works, it's much more like the decibel scale, as in it's logarithmic, the difference from 7 to 8 is much greater than from 6 to 7, as it the difference from 80 db to 100 db is much greater than from 60 to 80 db