Prayers for Myanmar and Bangkok

#27
#27
Orangeburst said:
Monster..Mercy..isnt 7.7 seventy times stronger than a 7? Fujita?
Click to expand...
I think it a 7.7 = 7 times a 7.0 on log scale ... 8 would be 10 x a 7.0 (and that is about the worst)

I wonder if all the water in the pools had any impact.... I don't see how that water sloshing could be mitigated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#29
#29
StarRaider said:
I think it a 7.7 = 7 times a 7.0 on log scale 8 would be 10 x a 7.0 (and that is about the worst)

I wonder if all the water in the pools had any impact.... I don't see how that water sloshing could be mitigated.
Click to expand...
Is that where all that water was coming from, a roof pool? Seemed like a ton of water, more than a fire protection system that high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#32
#32
McDad said:
Google Ai:
Skyscrapers in earthquake-prone areas of the USA, like Los Angeles and New York City, are designed to withstand earthquakes of a 7.0 magnitude or higher, with some designed for even stronger quakes, using techniques like flexibility and high-strength materials.

@LouderVol probably has more precise details.
Click to expand...
unfortunately the preciseness I can bring has more vagueness than direct answers.

It depends entirely on the seismic risk of the area and the seismic design factor of the building. and the math to translate between the magnitude vs the code requirements is above my head.

In some areas its a pretty low requirement, and may not have a direct seismic requirement, because the risk of any earthquake is low. and the normal design standards provide a safety factor over a low level earthquake even without designing specifically for it.
where earthquakes are more likely it goes up, and you have to add in specific criteria to determine how much of a safety factor is required above standard.

I don't know of any hard set value a building has to hit as a general condition. but the more things you add to it, the more/stricter the requirements there are. I do know California has their own code, so maybe its more directly referenced there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, StarRaider and McDad
#33
#33
LouderVol said:
unfortunately the preciseness I can bring has more vagueness than direct answers.

It depends entirely on the seismic risk of the area and the seismic design factor of the building. and the math to translate between the magnitude vs the code requirements is above my head.

In some areas its a pretty low requirement, and may not have a direct seismic requirement, because the risk of any earthquake is low. and the normal design standards provide a safety factor over a low level earthquake even without designing specifically for it.
where earthquakes are more likely it goes up, and you have to add in specific criteria to determine how much of a safety factor is required above standard.

I don't know of any hard set value a building has to hit as a general condition. but the more things you add to it, the more/stricter the requirements there are. I do know California has their own code, so maybe its more directly referenced there.
Click to expand...
How would the sunsphere hold up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and StarRaider
#34
#34
PEPPERJAX said:
How would the sunsphere hold up?
Click to expand...
I would assume pretty good. Steel is about the best thing for earthquakes.

tall buildings always have to be designed to sway with wind loads, typically how an earthquake impacts a building is similar to the sway from wind, just from a different direction, which is where some of the issue comes from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
#35
#35
LouderVol said:
unfortunately the preciseness I can bring has more vagueness than direct answers.

It depends entirely on the seismic risk of the area and the seismic design factor of the building. and the math to translate between the magnitude vs the code requirements is above my head.

In some areas its a pretty low requirement, and may not have a direct seismic requirement, because the risk of any earthquake is low. and the normal design standards provide a safety factor over a low level earthquake even without designing specifically for it.
where earthquakes are more likely it goes up, and you have to add in specific criteria to determine how much of a safety factor is required above standard.

I don't know of any hard set value a building has to hit as a general condition. but the more things you add to it, the more/stricter the requirements there are. I do know California has their own code, so maybe its more directly referenced there.
Click to expand...
heck erryone thinks of Cal, but Memphis and even East TN might get the Madrid quake..frightening.

I gappened to be in Chatt visiting back when that quake hit Chatt years ago..I was asleep and thought I was having a seizure or something.
 
#36
#36
LouderVol said:
I would assume pretty good. Steel is about the best thing for earthquakes.

tall buildings always have to be designed to sway with wind loads, typically how an earthquake impacts a building is similar to the sway from wind, just from a different direction, which is where some of the issue comes from.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight.
 
#38
#38
Orangeburst said:
heck erryone thinks of Cal, but Memphis and even East TN might get the Madrid quake..frightening.

I gappened to be in Chatt visiting back when that quake hit Chatt years ago..I was asleep and thought I was having a seizure or something.
Click to expand...
I have read that ST. Louis would be devastated, and Memphis would no longer exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, Orangeburst and InVOLuntary
#39
#39
StarRaider said:
I think it a 7.7 = 7 times a 7.0 on log scale ... 8 would be 10 x a 7.0 (and that is about the worst)

I wonder if all the water in the pools had any impact.... I don't see how that water sloshing could be mitigated.
Click to expand...
Correct it is a Logarithmic scale, of course base 10. So every time the rictor scale passes a whole number it has went up 10 fold. Also this doesn't measure energy, but instead the amplitude.
For years places subject to these Shockwaves have used bearing, spring and other dampening systems in the foundation of buildings to absorb the energy being released.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Orangeburst
#49
#49
StarRaider said:
I think it a 7.7 = 7 times a 7.0 on log scale ... 8 would be 10 x a 7.0 (and that is about the worst)

I wonder if all the water in the pools had any impact.... I don't see how that water sloshing could be mitigated.
Click to expand...
Tell the Japanese that an 8 is about the worst. Their 2011 quake was 9.1. That one was so strong it shifted the earth on its axis.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#50
#50
Orangeburst said:
heck erryone thinks of Cal, but Memphis and even East TN might get the Madrid quake..frightening.

I gappened to be in Chatt visiting back when that quake hit Chatt years ago..I was asleep and thought I was having a seizure or something.
Click to expand...
A lot depends on the soil condition too. Anything along the rivers is going to be really rough. That type of soil essentially turns into a liquid under the right/wrong conditions. And when you are relying on that soil for support and it turns into a pseudo liquid it's bad...

That's why you see so many deep foundations now. Need to find bedrock.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top