message_115655

Conflict and Natural Disasters
 
Hexagon plan buildings for earthquake safety?
One of my thoughts is that rectangular- shaped buildings with square corners may not work too well because earthquakes can come from any angle.

Whereas if the horizontal plan of a building was of a honeycomb shape then (a) there would be a better probability of there being walls in line with the earthquake, and (b) the intersecting walls would be angled and staggered "T" junctions and act as wall butressing.

This plan form is a horizontal geodetic and in addition, if the building plan was a seven cell honeycomb shape, then the central cell would act as a main living space, one of the outer cells would act as a lobby and the other five cell-spaces as surrounding rooms.

Plus, Such a honeycomb plan would allow for a low dome over each cell-space and the central honeycomb space would need to be lit from above with skylights.
Frank John Snelling
Responses
 
Hexagon plan buildings for earthquake safety?
Don't be silly Frank, humans are not bees. Human genes will always make people build square or rectangular buildings with straight walls.
Frank John Snelling
Hexagon plan buildings for earthquake safety?
Dear Frank,
I think that your idea of hexagonal buildings is a very interesting concept. Personally I have a great interest in the ideas of geometrical buildings. Do the possibilities of using this like an igloo have any economic benefit, i.e cheaper production? Obviously it can have long term benefits, but until it includes immediate cost efficiencies I believe we'll keep our ignorant 4 walls ideal.
Omar Raza
Hexagon plan buildings for earthquake safety?
Omar, In the same way as bends or folds or buttresses along a wall give extra strength, then so will a hexagon shape. In other words, the shape of the design gives extra strength for no extra cost in materials or labour. Plus, using a non-directional shape it is more likely to survive an earthquake.

The other shape which is as good but harder to make is a round building. But on the other hand round and hexagon shaped buildings are made for "domes" which are also non-directional.

Remember, I have studied both "Naval (Marine) Architecture" and "dry land" Architecture. If you look at boat and ship design you will see rectangular and square shapes are not only answer.

Another non-directional shape is the octagon which has been used with the hexagon as the basis for towers, etc.
Frank John Snelling
Hexagon plan buildings for earthquake safety?
Are there any earthquake architects here who have considered the effect negative (or otherwise) of using buildings with parallel walls (square, rectangular shapes)as opposed to using buildings with non-parallel walls or radial (round,hexagon shape) walls?

I realise such a comparison of design is "trial and error" experimental, but then all new architectural designs are naturally prototypes.

Simply using "bigger and stronger" versions of a design that fails in an earthquake is not good design work. Surely, there are shapes that are less likely to fail in an earthquake and if so people need these safer shapes.
Frank John Snelling
Hexagon plan buildings for earthquake safety?
Does anyone out there have any imformation upon the qualities and properties of square, oblong, round, oval, hexagonal shaped buildings?
Frank John Snelling
Re search

Thumbnails
View

This site is adjusted only for landscape mode. Please rotate your device for properly using Archnet.org
We are sorry, we are still working on adjusting Archnet.org for Metro IE. Please use another browser for the best experience with our site.