3 ms·
>The buildings themselves are not required to survive in habitable fashion This is the norm for the pacific rim. It's just not economically viable to build for
by telesilla 5y ago
>The buildings themselves are not required to survive in habitable fashion
This is the norm for the pacific rim. It's just not economically viable to build for longevity in the face of tectonic movement. Saving lives however? We know how and those cities and citizens at risk that don't invest pay terribly for it. Given what we know about quakes these days, it's inexcusable any civil infrastructure or building should lead to loss of life.
- titzer 5y ago> It's just not economically viable Is that code for "it costs too much"?
- CryptoBanker 5y agoThat’s literally what it says. It’s not code for anything
- irrational 5y agoIt’s interesting to see what some people consider to be big complicated words.
- imtringued 5y agoYes, it costs too much to build it to last, it costs very little to rebuild it...
- Apes 5y agoI may be mistaken, but I believe in Japan the standard is "build to remain habitable." as a result, skyscraper building techniques there are very different to the US.
- ddkto 5y ago“The Japanese Building Code (BSLJ) explicitly requires that buildings withstand moderate earthquakes with almost no damage, while collapse prevention and life-safety is required for severe earthquakes. It is expected that a typical building will be subjected to several moderate earthquakes during their service life, while the likelihood of occurrence of a severe earthquake during the same period is rare.” (Comparison of the Seismic Code Provisions of the National Building Code of Canada and the Building Standard Law of Japan, https://www.caee.ca/12CCEEpdf/192-oZfU-119.pdf https://www.caee.ca/12CCEEpdf/192-oZfU-119.pdf) A similar approach is used in California and other places under the name Performance-Based Design.