A Major Earthquake in North America Imminent. within weeks? claims Jim Berkland.

[SlowwHand]

Geology affects the methods of architecture many times. If there are no geological considerations, then no. Most places do have such concerns. The slope of a building's roof, though weather related, is still related to geology. Buildings on the west coast are built to handle more sway. Certainly geological. Buildings are rarely built in a manner that facilitates parking a fully loaded airliner in them though.

[Aeson]

Tell that to cave men

[KrazyHorse]

I have no idea what you're on about. This is quite simple: the man with the unpronounceable name claimed that geography (likely he means the types of dirt, rocks etc making up various layers in the ground) would cause an equal-magnitude quake to be more destructive in one region than another. Then mini-kuci claimed that in addition buildings are designed differently in one place than another. These are two separate issues. I have no opinion on the validity of either statement, but they are quite distinct claims.

[SlowwHand]

At the core, all I'm saying is that architecture most certainly is designed with geological considerations in mind. You don't build a building in the eastern USA with the same considerations that you do in the west.

[Dinner]

Two identical quakes could have totally different effects depending on the geology of the effected areas. For instance, places like LA are actually (geologically speaking) a giant basin (as in the bed rock is shaped kind of like a bowl) which has been mostly filled up with loosely consolidated river deposits. During Earthquakes the LA basin is a horrible place to be (some parts of it are better then others but on average it's not good) because you get a lot of reflection of waves which cause a lot of reverberation plus the loosely consolidated sediments can experience liquefaction. Ever see a building sink into the ground? It happens though usually this causes the rest of the building to collapse. Anyway it's how those waves reflect off of the bowl shaped bedrock and how the waves interact with each other which can cause some of the worst but also most localized damage. A place with different geology would have totally different outcomes even if the hypothetical earthquake was identical.

[Docfeelgood]

Geology and architecture are different fields of endeavor

Building a dam?

[MikeH]

Magnitude 6.0 on the Richter Scale is not a significant earthquake. It is equivalent to 15 Kilotons of dynamite being released. Unlike a TNT explosion near the surface of the Earth, An Earthquake's energy comes from deep in the ground and most of a 6.0 Earthquake will be absorbed underground before it reaches the surface.

A 7.0 earthquake is much strong stronger than a 6.0, a 7.0 Earthquake is equivalent to 476 kilotons of Dynamite being exploded. The 8.9 Earthquake that hit Japan was equivalent to about 440 Megatons of Dynamite exploding.

The destructive power of an earthquake is not only related to the seismic movement of the Earthquake, but on the geology of where it strikes. A 7.0 Earthquake in California will be quite a bit less destructive to cities than the same size earthquake occurring on the East Coast of the United States.

You could just say that the Richter scale is base 10 logarithmic

[MOBIUS]

Magnitude 6.0 on the Richter Scale is not a significant earthquake.

Tell that to the people in Christchurch...

[Asher]

Maybe the people of Christchurch should've been more prepared. 6.0 isn't a big earthquake.

[dannubis]

Maybe the people of Christchurch should've been more prepared. 6.0 isn't a big earthquake.

See what the geologist has to say about that (4 posts above yours)

[Asher]

Even tough Oerdin may be right here, history points to him never being right so I try not to read his posts.

[Thoth]

See what the geologist has to say about that (4 posts above yours)

6.0 is SFA when it comes to earthquakes. It means you get a bit of a shake and some of your dishes might fall out of the cabinet and get broken.

It's nothing to get all DocFeelgooded up about.

(I've been through a couple of 6.x earthquakes. Unsettling, but not life threatening)

[MikeH]

That's a pretty foolish comment considering there's just been this:

New Zealand's prime minister says at least 65 people have died after a 6.3-magnitude earthquake hit Christchurch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12533291

Oerdin is right.

[Asher]

How prepared was Christchurch for an earthquake? What are their building codes like?

If a 6.3 quake topples many buildings in a modern country, it's highly likely the buildings were not designed with earthquakes in mind.

[Asher]

Here we go: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/worl...age-52197.html

New Zealand Earthquakes Provides Insights Into Improving Safety

As rescuers continue to sift through the devastation that rocked Christchurch’s central business district last week, experts are looking into exactly why the city sustained such extensive damage and loss of life after the 6.3-earthquake hit the city.

George Walker, a specialist in earthquake engineering, building codes, and disaster risk management, says the loss of life, which is likely to reach over 200, was largely due to pre-1970 buildings collapsing which, for the most part, were unable to survive the earthquake.

Walker did his doctoral thesis on earthquake engineering in New Zealand and is now an adjunct professor of Building and Construction at Australia’s James Cook University in Queensland.

New Zealand is unique in the fact that it requires that old buildings be assessed and strengthened in order to make them more resilient to earthquakes, but the measures required to do this may now be outdated and will have to be reviewed.

Although, according to Walker, New Zealand has one of the most advanced earthquake building codes in the world that “virtually incorporates everything we know about earthquake engineering,” new building code legislation, as it pertains to pre-1970 buildings, may have been too relaxed.

“I think it will turn out that nearly all the people who have been killed have been killed as a result of failure of what we might call ‘pre-modern code buildings,’” he said.

The Christchurch earthquake has brought to light those areas in the current building code legislation that may need to be changed or strengthened.

Another area that is being carefully reviewed by experts is the “foundational design” of buildings.


Liquefaction

Walker said one surprising effect of the two earthquakes that hit Christchurch in the past six months was the amount of liquefaction that occurred.

Liquefaction is where waterlogged sediment seeps up from the ground, usually indicating a lot of air and instability in the ground.

This liquefaction made the ground throughout the Christchurch region “alluvial,” meaning, not compacted or not stable.

Walker said he believed that the Hotel Grand Chancellor, which was relatively new and one of the tallest buildings affected in the quake, was damaged to the point that it will have to be demolished due to the liquefaction occurring at its foundation.

Alluvial soils, however, were not the problem, he said, as there are many cities around the world built on river flats.

“Engineers have tests for determining this sort of thing,” he said. “The issue is being able to recognize that the ground is susceptible.

“Maybe the tests need revisions. That would seem to be more the likely thing.”

While it is difficult to predict exactly where the next quake will hit in New Zealand, there are areas that are more vulnerable to earthquakes than others.

However, one of the biggest dangers that New Zealanders will have to face after this last quake is their own complacency.

Walker said awareness on both individual and community levels is critical to survival, saying people should know about what needs to be done and what procedures are in place.

In the more earthquake vulnerable areas of Japan, there are emergency packs at every front door, he said, replete with a hard hat.