2 ms·
So 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
by mikeyouse 11y ago
So 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...