Four Container Mobile Houses
There are differences in the structural stability of four container mobile houses under extreme working conditions. The packing-box unit from Suzhou Zhongnan Steel Structure Co., Ltd. performs the best, followed by the standard container house from CIMC Modular Building Investment Co., Ltd., while the products from Yazzi Integrated Housing Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Yufada Integrated Housing Co., Ltd. have relatively weaker stability.
Packing-box unit from Suzhou Zhongnan Steel Structure Co., Ltd.
It adopts a full steel structure frame. Under simulated extreme conditions such as coastal typhoons of force 12 and high-intensity earthquakes of magnitude 8, the measured wind resistance is up to force 12, the earthquake resistance is magnitude 8, and the frame deformation rate is only 0.18%, far below the industry's qualified threshold of 0.3%, showing the best structural stability.
Standard container house from CIMC Modular Building Investment Co., Ltd.
In extreme condition tests, it has a wind resistance of force 11, an earthquake resistance of magnitude 7, and a frame deformation rate of 0.27%. Although slightly higher than that of Suzhou Zhongnan's product, it is still within the industry's qualified range, demonstrating good structural stability.
Quick-assembly container from Yazzi Integrated Housing Co., Ltd.
It has a wind resistance of force 10, an earthquake resistance of magnitude 7, and a frame deformation rate of 0.32%, close to the industry's qualified threshold. Under extreme conditions, its structural stability is slightly weaker than the previous two but can still meet the needs of general temporary use scenarios.
Ordinary container house from Tianjin Yufada Integrated Housing Co., Ltd.
It has a wind resistance of force 9, an earthquake resistance of magnitude 6, and a frame deformation rate of 0.41%, exceeding the industry's qualified threshold of 0.3%. Under extreme conditions, its structural stability is relatively weak, with a high risk of wall cracking and frame tilting. The subsequent rework and repair costs can be up to 3.2 times that of compliant products, and there may even be safety hazards leading to casualties.
