earthquake!!!~
thats disappointing
10-31-2007, 09:03 AM
#23
I'd be careful with such broad statements. A poorly detailed wood building is toast in a significant earthquake. In fact, wood houses are often the worst offender as far as bad seismic detailing is concerned. Concrete can be equally crappy if you're talking about unreinforced concrete blocks. But on the other hand, reinforced concrete can perform quite well, especially for low-rise structures. Brick is pretty bad, yes. Seismic performance is all in the details.
Reply
0
0
10-31-2007, 10:16 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 917
Total Cats: -8
I guess you've never felt a magnitude 7.
Wood is actually better than concrete since it flexes. But appearantly mud and straw is better than either since in that Mexico City earthquake that broke the **** out of the region none of the historical structures suffered damage.
You should be hoping for small quakes every day then. Unless you didn't pay attention in basic Earth sciences.
You should be hoping for small quakes every day then. Unless you didn't pay attention in basic Earth sciences.
Reply
0
0
10-31-2007, 12:09 PM
#28
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
you guys crack me up. pansies. california isn't going to fall into the ocean for at least a million or so years. go ahead and buy your central california "waterfront property" now and I'll just sit back and snicker.
<-- california native for 30 years and felt all the "big ones" over that time.
the 7.1 bent a lamp and a silver pitcher. I was about 20 miles from the epicenter for that. Oh and it was my dad's bday.
<-- california native for 30 years and felt all the "big ones" over that time.
the 7.1 bent a lamp and a silver pitcher. I was about 20 miles from the epicenter for that. Oh and it was my dad's bday.
Reply
0
0
10-31-2007, 12:10 PM
#29
Mexico City is a different story altogether. Due to site characteristics (soft soil), the high frequency seismic waves were damped out, leaving only the amplified low frequency waves, which were right within the range of natural periods of modern construction. The response spectrum of the Mexico City earthquake, recorded in Mexico City (as opposed to outside the city), is very different than what occurs in this country.
Earthquake engineering is my specialty in forensic engineering, so this is a topic close to heart.
Reply
0
0
10-31-2007, 12:19 PM
#30
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Milpitas, CA
Posts: 1,047
Total Cats: 1
haha nah im outta the closet.
anyway, im not saying that the 5.6M was scary as ****, but it sure was a nerve wrecker. i can still remember the loma prieta earthquake. it was all over news, went to a couple of stores, everything was on the floor... and that was only a 6.9...
as for the BIG one coming... its getting dangerously close for the hayward fault according to the USGS. milpitas (the city i live in) lies directly above the hayward fault. the last big one was some decade ago, and calaveras fault shaker last night was considered "normal seismic activity"
the big shaker that just occurred could even trigger the "BIG" one, but im holding my breath for that one.
i guess you can say that because it was a shallow earthquake (only 5 miles from the under the surface) the effect of it "felt" greater than what it really was measured.
and i was only 5 miles from the epicenter.
anyway, im not saying that the 5.6M was scary as ****, but it sure was a nerve wrecker. i can still remember the loma prieta earthquake. it was all over news, went to a couple of stores, everything was on the floor... and that was only a 6.9...
as for the BIG one coming... its getting dangerously close for the hayward fault according to the USGS. milpitas (the city i live in) lies directly above the hayward fault. the last big one was some decade ago, and calaveras fault shaker last night was considered "normal seismic activity"
the big shaker that just occurred could even trigger the "BIG" one, but im holding my breath for that one.
i guess you can say that because it was a shallow earthquake (only 5 miles from the under the surface) the effect of it "felt" greater than what it really was measured.
and i was only 5 miles from the epicenter.
Last edited by Marc D; 10-31-2007 at 12:45 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-31-2007, 01:45 PM
#35
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
10 million? 20 million years?
http://www.scotese.com/pangeanim.htm check out the animation on the left.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
y8s
Insert BS here
100
11-03-2012 02:54 PM
