Chile Forum

This is one possibility for adobe structures using strips, but still not the one I am looking for:
http://db.nzsee.org.nz/2005/Paper32.pdf

Bingo, I think this is the paper:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18780537

I however found a whole web site before that included photos, graphs, data, and video of the shake table test.

here is a basic pdf presentation about it: http://www.kenken.go.jp/english/informa ... 7/2-14.pdf

This looks like their grant update to the world bank. Perhaps it is somewhere on the world bank web site.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVM ... 145104.pdf

I have an acre of land and small wooden house 6 miles from the epicenter. It sits at around 350 feet above sea level. It is a one story octagon shape house using simple cement pillars, 3x3 mud sills and 3x3 for all framing. It has an OSB/ asphalt shingle roof. There was no damage to the structure or the windows. The houses near me, 2-300 meters, made from adobe or cement block were all partly or totally destroyed. No one was hurt! My next house will be 2 story. I am going to stick with the octagon shape but use bigger pillars with Simpson SSBT anchor bolts and plenty of other “strong ties” in the construction. It will use 2x6 studs and either OSB or ply for floors, walls and roof with asphalt shingles. A lightly constructed wood house is best, in my mind, for areas with seismic activity. I would not use heavy adobe shingles. I was an wood/epoxy boat builder for many years and believe that a structure should be light, but strong, yet be able to flex.

I found the FEMA documant... all 200+ pages. Lots of information... seems like it is geared more towards the actual home builder and not the owner. But still worth a read for anyone that is planning on building their own place in Chile.

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2103

I have to agree with wood structures for earthquake resistant structures. I was putting the finishing touches on a small house I built for my brother on the day of the presidential handover and the rather strong aftershocks that day hit while I was standing next to the house. The house I built was standard 2x4 construction on a cement pad, not big either, it is only a 10' x 10' . I did nothing special to reinforce it against earthquakes, I just followed building codes from back home where there are few earthquakes. The main house is brick with cement tile roof and when the 6.0 + aftershocks hit it was shaking and the windows were rattling and in general, it was evident that there was an earthquake going on. During the aftershock I placed my hand on the little casita I had just built and it was barely vibrating. Wood really does absorb a lot of the energy.

Of course one should not lose sight of the fact that earthquakes are only one of many ways a house can be destroyed. Cement is hard to burn down and brick buildings are remarkably resistant to rotting and termites. Just make sure the house is built well.

patagoniax wrote:Must be before anybody learned to build properly with diagonally braced steel framing, with "metalcom" as they call it in Chile. I thought I wanted to cut down forests to build houses in Patagonia until I discovered that steel framing works out better down here.

I assume you are referring to standard steel studs.

I have been considering using them for the construction of my own house but I am still in decided. In addition to their awful thermal efficiency, it is basically a conductor for cold to get into your house and there is no way to stop it. You can insulation the space between all you want but the studs still get cold and that will make its way through to the other side. At least wood has some insulation properties when compares to metal, I also find it more difficult to work with but that may in part be because I am not used to it, but have the holes pre-drilled for all the electrical is pretty handy.

Also the earthquake data on steel stud structures has maybe 20 years behind it while wood framed home have about 10 times that. And in the last 100 years in Canada and the US there have been very few deaths due to structural failure wood frames houses during earthquakes. On page 9 of this document, http://www.cwc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/287CDD66-C63C-4B48-8D24-10AD5A4F56E7/0/BP_5earthquakee.pdf there is a table with some pretty convincing numbers.

For my house I keep coming back to to wood for the reasons mentioned above plus there is an engineered product available called Laminated Strand Lumber from companies like LP Building Products that uses "weed like" trees harvested from "sustainably managed sources" (their words not mine). I just can't seem to find any one in Chile that sells the stuff.

patagoniax wrote:And not just steel studs but all of the structure including joists and beams.

Regarding thermal issues, the conductivity path between an outside cold surface (where the OSB contacts the steel member) and the point just before where the steel contacts the drywall inside, is only 0,5mm thick, vs about 45 mm conductivity path for a typical 2x4 wooden stud. So quantitatively I think it has been demonstrated that a normally insulated wall (using fibreglass batts) comes out better with steel studs. Not sure where I found that analysis or I would send it along.

Because of the shape of the stud you still have that same 45mm of steel directly against the back of the drywall. Steels is such horrible insulator that when the exterior side of the steel is at -5C the inside is at -5C, it will literally such the heat right through the wall. Even with the reduced thickness going through the wall.

The only undisputed advantages to steel is that termites won't eat it (but it rusts) and its compressive strength. Everything else (fire resistance [steel will melt or deform right through the drywall if it gets hot enough], earthquake performance, workability) is highly debatable.

See http://www.contractortalk.com/f14/steel-vs-wood-framing-32191/ for a discution that makes some valid points for both sides.

For me, the unbeatable advantage of wood framing is that I know how to work with it. I know how to repair it, and I know how to repair the wiring and plumbing systems that run through it. I know where the wiring goes and how to find it and how to add to it or replace it.

A new system would involve re-learning how to deal with it and it would involve a new set of tools (lots of expense).

I am willing to learn for a vastly superior system, but for very small advantage, I'll stick with what works quite well.