3 ms·
That means little without comparison to other bridges. Standing in an open wheat field is probably safer than a bridge, but how does the GGB compare to other br
by sliverstorm 11y ago
That means little without comparison to other bridges. Standing in an open wheat field is probably safer than a bridge, but how does the GGB compare to other bridges?
Also, a Richter 8.0 is a pretty damn hefty quake.
- mikeyouse 11y agoSo the GGB would be substantially damaged in an 8.0 quake, but the Bay Bridge is designed to survive and be immediately accessible to emergency vehicles in an 8.5 quake. Those seem like relatively minor differences, but (assuming the new span actually performs like designed) the Bay Bridge should easily survive an earthquake that is 3.1x larger and releases over 5x more energy than one that will "extensively damage" the Golden Gate Bridge. http://i.imgur.com/07u65bj.png http://i.imgur.com/07u65bj.png
- sliverstorm 11y agoI'm familiar with the logarithmic nature of the Richter scale. I was not sure whether the Bay Bridge was indeed designed to survive a larger quake.
- hugh4 11y agoSeems an important distinction given that the largest quake recorded in California was a 7.9 and the largest in San Francisco a 7.8. So presumably an 8.0 is plausible but an 8.5 may not be.
- mikeyouse 11y agoApparently the maximum 'plausible' (which is a generous modifier) earthquake on the San Andreas is about an 8.3, but the entire fault line from Mexico to Northern California would have to rupture simultaneously. You're right that we're unlikely to see an 8.5. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-will-really-happen-california-when-san-andreas-unleashes-big-one-180955432/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-will-reall...