New Antiseismic Base for Buildings. New Invention.

OK,

So you have springs mounted in a holder.

I must be missing a lot.

What do you bring to the party?

The difference seems to be that he's added springs and I presume the yellow cylinders are viscous dampeners. All designs that I've seen (and I am not a civil engineer) relied purely on stiction (aka static friction) to keep the building from moving in the tracks laterally. Once a quake caused the ground to move laterally it was the inertia of the building that kept it in place. This then minimized any lateral force applied by the quake onto the building. By using springs and dampeners the magnitude and timing of the force applied to the building will be changed but with exception of the slight energy losses by the dampeners due to heating the fluid (if the seals don't pop) all of the energy will still be transfered to the building. AFAIK the goal in seismic isolation is to minimize the lateral energy transmitted to the building.

I believe that the desired stiction magnitude was calculated based on the anticipated wind load on the building.

02/17/2012 8:26 AM

Rubber Makes Buildings 'Invisible' To Quakes

You're correct, we've been down this road before. But to be honest, most of us here are just amateurs in protecting a building from seismic impacts. I prefer to look at some real professionals on the topic.

So whats new about it? I live a location with no earthquake history to any extent and I am aware of several designs highly similar to yours.

Not only you didn't reinvent the wheel you didnt even change the tread design from whats already in existence as far as I can see.

I give it a D+. You showed up for the test but clearly didn't study.

Impressive job with the computer graphics, but unfortunately, until you sell one, install it on a building, and have the building survive an earthquake.................there's just no telling.

Lots of things work good in theory.

How do you propose to hook external utilities to a building that wanders around like that?

Hello, nice drawings. I think is is difficult to manage the high loads that way.

I recommend you to study the structural link between the building and the roof of ancient shrines in Japan. These have survived many earthquakes already do not use nails, springs and have a build in reset feature to return to the original position. Go to the following website:http://www.lehrmach.com/japanTempleArchitecture.htm and look for the rafter and purlin design and below the multi bracket design. These are key parts why the shriine buildings survived better than this modern stuff in Fukushima.

For the foundations of modern designs these guys over there use a different approach. They construct a pin like foundation and drive it far down into the soil then they develop the pin into a platform and put 50 to 60 floors on top of it... Seems also to work pretty good. In my place on 6th floor the bed was travelling 1 foot awy from the wall and back when we had a mild tremor of 3 to 4 on the Richter scaale without other visibel damage. (the bed had casters to enable moving it for cleaning.)

Great engineering from the guys in ancient times...

Thanks for your message uli

The philosophy of ancient Japan based on the same principle that the isolation of the horizontal ground motion in two perpendicular directions. The same principle underlies the invention of mine has just added damping piston damper, the spring elasticity and restore, and minimize friction with the rolling mechanism.

See the following links and seismic technique Parthenon.

http://www.diaxeiristis.com/2008/11/20/%CF%84%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC-%CE%BC%CF%85%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BD%CF%8E%CE%BD/

http://users.sch.gr/ipap/Ellinikos%20Politismos/parthenonas/Texnika.htm

Αναίρεση τροποποιήσεων

We've seen something like this before in the Forum a couple of years ago, I think. Just another variation......possibly made by the same in Greece? Anyhow, I don't see this working very well. Others before me have stated the reasons why, and they're spot-on with their statements, and I will not add any more to that part of the discussion as it would be redundant.

Wonderful graphics however, and very well done.....but that doesn't mean diddly when it comes to designing the real deal.

IF I were to buy into this, I would first like to see the supporting structural analysis and design calcs before any money was laid down on table. Legit investors are NOT stupid and demand supporting documentation.

Has this gizmo even been tested on a full scale "shaketable" at a reputable university? Depending on the applied force amplitudes and simulated building load on the table, this so called seismic isolator IMO will be ripped to shreds. Laboratory test results available for critical review by engineering peers?

OP apparently has missed the boat on "Seismic Theory and Design 101" course........time to go back to school Junior and learn the basics.

Thanks for your posts my friends
I am a simple romantic inventor and I have not the financial wherewithal for further investigation and certification of my project. To address this large earthquake engineering construction companies who would like to construct a model to try to shake table and then produce it as an industrial product. I made the first step in many steps still need to make this idea a manufactured product.

I think if my idea is worth will find its way if not then go to the next.

The dare wins.

Well good luck with your endeavors George! I really hope that things work out developing this product....