S&T Jordan PowerStructure System
a technology of power structure and jordan, which is applied in the direction of building types, construction, building material handling, etc., can solve the problems of large emotional and financial damage, damage to structures and businesses, and relatively easy flooding of land adjacent to waterways and low-lying areas, and achieve the effect of stiffening the structur
Inactive Publication Date: 2008-07-10
JORDAN ALFRED A +1
View PDF5 Cites 3 Cited by
- Summary
- Abstract
- Description
- Claims
- Application Information
AI Technical Summary
Benefits of technology
"The invention is a building system that is highly energy efficient and can withstand various natural disasters such as tornados, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, bullets, and fires. The structure includes a floor structure, trussed floor joists, rectangular beams, wall system, holddown bolt, flotation means, guide posts, and seismic shock absorbers. The floor structure is supported by trussed floor joists and rectangular beams. The wall system uses structural supporting members and polystyrene panels as insulation, and a cementious coating with flexible polymers on the exterior of the walls provides stiffness and resistance to bullet and fire. The structure can also be supported by structural piers or foundation supports and will float above the foundation level in the event of a flood."
Problems solved by technology
Unfortunately, land adjacent waterways and in low-lying areas is relatively prone to flooding.
Flooding can cause tremendous emotional and financial damage as structures and businesses are damaged, and personal property destroyed.
Worldwide, the annual cost of flood damage and displacement runs into many billions of dollars every year.
For building occupants and owners this is a particularly pressing problem as it is frequently difficult or at least expensive to obtain insurance cover against flooding.
Naturally, the more prone to flooding an area is, the more difficult it will be to obtain such insurance.
One of the difficulties of planning for buildings in flood prone areas is that floods occur at irregular intervals and that the magnitude of less common floods can be substantially greater than those floods that occur over a typical human lifetime.
Clearly this is an undesirable form of construction for use in flood-prone areas, simply because flood waters of any substantial depth can advance higher than the floor level.
Further, such buildings can obstruct the flow and egress of flood waters, potentially exacerbating flooding problems.
(a) flood waters may advance higher than the raised floor level 110;
(b) the fixed piers 115 may be unsightly, especially if they are relatively high to deal with correspondingly high potential flood water situations;
(c) building regulations may place restrictions on maximum roof or floor heights, which can prevent sufficiently long piers being used;
(d) in very low-lying areas or areas prone to deep flooding the required pier height can be considerably higher than is desirable given the need for day-to-day access for residents.
For example, the extendable telescopic piers 330 are exposed even in the retracted position, and can be subject to ingress of moisture and dirt over time.
Moreover, the exposed portions of the piers 330 can corrode, inhibiting their subsequent extension.
However, this also washes away protective lubricants, further accelerating corrosion.
In addition the foam filed plastic liners are potentially prone to degradation over the long term.
Under normal conditions, access for inspection and maintenance to these units is limited.
In addition, the Winston housing unit 300 is unstable when it floats and requires careful balancing of loads.
This is complex, inefficient and time consuming as it requires a compressor, a level measuring device and fine tuning (i.e. repeated inflation and deflation) of each air bladder to achieve a level flotation.
Thus, with the disclosed floor joist system, it is likely that there will be relative movement within, and hence physical distress to, the housing unit 300.
The provision of cranes or other lifting devices to achieve this is both costly and inconvenient.
Furthermore, Carlinsky does not disclose the manner in which the buoyancy forces generated during a flood are transferred from the unitary basement structure 405 to the rest of the building 400.
It is likely that excessively large concrete cross sections will be required to achieve a sufficiently stiff and strong basement structure 405 if the building 400 is constructed according to the disclosure.
The method of construction using a monolithic concrete basement 405 is potentially expensive and inappropriate on some sites or in some regions.
In addition, the Carlinsky system is cumbersome and potentially unreliable.
Both the Winston and Carlinsky systems suffer from another serious disadvantage.
Firstly the building subject to high water may simply float away off the top of its guides.
Alternatively, the building can be constrained at the upper limit of its travel, but then risks being violently and unpredictably torn from the constraints under the influence of increasing flotation forces.
Both scenarios are potentially disastrous and are worse than the consequences of the flooding event that the systems were trying mitigate.
However, this is relatively expensive.
As the amount of liquid is varied within the casings the pontoons rise or fall, thus causing the superstructure to rise or fall.
For its basic operation the system relies upon a relatively complex system of electrical systems, mechanical systems and structures.
Furthermore the flotation units are normally installed under the ground and so under normal conditions access for inspection and maintenance to these units is limited.
Hence, these may not reliably activate in a flood that may occur many decades after the structure is constructed.
This could result in damage to the superstructure or to the flotation units themselves.
For example failure of any one of the bearings, seals, valves, monitoring or control systems could cause one of the pontoons to “stick”.
Alternatively failure of a seal or valve could cause an uncontrolled volume of fluid to enter the casing causing one pontoon to rise excessively.
In either case this could cause damage to the flood support systems or to the building structure itself.
In addition the systems and structures disclosed by Mays are likely to be expensive relative to the cost of the superstructure.
This has the potential to render the system economically unfeasible in many situations.
Placing guide columns on the exterior of the structure may be considered unattractive in many communities and may be prohibited by business associations or neighborhood associations interested in preserving property values.
Furthermore, the placement of exterior guide columns may interfere with other necessary architectural components such as guttering, which will need to be specially placed to accommodate the exterior guide columns.
With the column support's exposure to weather conditions, it may require structural maintenance more frequently than an interior encased tube system, especially in salty-air environments near oceans or seas.
The Davis system does not transfer uplift load down from the wall top plate to the foundation and therefore does not adequately increase structural stability during high windage or loading situations.
The Davis collar is mounted to the floor system, thus as wind load lifts the structure, the upper portion of the structure may rip away from the floor system.
The Davis system does not have any perceivable seismic considerations in its design.
No does it positively affect fire resistance or bullet resistance in its design.
The Winston, Carlinsky and Mays systems all suffer from a disadvantage in that they allow free vertical movement of the structure under the influence of buoyancy forces but they do not disclose a method whereby the building structure is prevented from upwards movement under the influence of wind loads.
As a consequence potential exists for excessive damage to the building structure during a wind storm.
Method used
the structure of the environmentally friendly knitted fabric provided by the present invention; figure 2 Flow chart of the yarn wrapping machine for environmentally friendly knitted fabrics and storage devices; image 3 Is the parameter map of the yarn covering machine
View moreImage
Smart Image Click on the blue labels to locate them in the text.
Smart ImageViewing Examples
Examples
Experimental program
Comparison scheme
Effect test
Embodiment Construction
[0066]Referring to the drawings there is a structural system that features the ability to float in a flood situation with controlled ascent and descent provided by telescoping guide tubes located within structural walls so as to not be visible from the exterior or interior of the finished structure. The structural system provides for a highly insulative wall system that is lightweight making the overall structure more buoyant.
[0067]The invention includes an anchoring system that prevents the structure from moving during non-flood times when there may be high wind loads that generate uplift on the structure. When floods are anticipated, safety holds are removed from the telescoping guide tubes that allow the inner tube to move upward, which in turn allows the entire structure to float upward. A plate connected within the wall limits the rise of the structure and prevents damage to the structure when the structure is stopped from further rising. The plate is specified to make installa...
the structure of the environmentally friendly knitted fabric provided by the present invention; figure 2 Flow chart of the yarn wrapping machine for environmentally friendly knitted fabrics and storage devices; image 3 Is the parameter map of the yarn covering machine
Login to View More PUM
Login to View More Abstract
The present invention relates to flood resistant building structures, and more particularly to building structures that are floatable such that damage is reduced in the event of a flood. The invention includes significant improvements for combining various necessary elements to resist floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, high winds, fire, and bullets while not impeding on architectural aesthetics. It utilizes novel approaches to structural hold down and controlled ascent and descent during flooding.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY OF THE INVENTION[0001]The present invention relates to flood resistant building structures, and more particularly to building structures that are floatable such that damage is reduced in the event of a flood. The invention includes significant improvements for combining various necessary elements to resist floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, high winds, fire, and bullets while not impeding on architectural aesthetics. It utilizes novel approaches to structural hold down and controlled ascent and descent.BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION[0002]The present invention relates to flood resistant building structures, and more particularly to building structures that are floatable such that damage is reduced in the event of a flood. The invention includes significant improvements for combining various necessary elements to resist floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, high winds, fire, and bullets while not impeding on architectural aesthetics.[0003]The inventi...
Claims
the structure of the environmentally friendly knitted fabric provided by the present invention; figure 2 Flow chart of the yarn wrapping machine for environmentally friendly knitted fabrics and storage devices; image 3 Is the parameter map of the yarn covering machine
Login to View More Application Information
Patent Timeline
Login to View More Patent Type & AuthorityApplications(United States)
IPC IPC(8): E04B1/34
CPCE04H9/145
InventorJORDAN, ALFRED A.JORDAN, TROY L.
OwnerJORDAN ALFRED A