3 ms·
Well New York isn’t on an active fault line. I think California would fare pretty well, as much as can be expected after the big one.
by kerpotgh 4y ago
Well New York isn’t on an active fault line. I think California would fare pretty well, as much as can be expected after the big one.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoI have heard that the issue with New York, is that we have this solid rock substrate, and the buildings are anchored directly to it. In Japan, I have heard that the buildings actually have some kind of "shock absorber" structure, in their basements, and lots of counterweights.
- kerpotgh 4y agoYes they are anchored to the schist substrate. The point I’m trying to make is you generally don’t build to account for earthquakes if you’re not on a fault line.
- noir_lord 4y agoActive protection systems (big hydraulic dampers (passive and active)) and tuned mass dampers/diagonal dampers.
- moralestapia 4y ago>as much as can be expected after the big one It blows my mind to think that at some point in history the world's 2nd largest metro center (by GDP) is going to become rubble, and everyone knows about it, and we know it will happen for sure but there's not much that could be done but wait and see.
- wantsanagent 4y agoWe don't know it will happen. The release of seismic stress can happen in many ways and we don't know enough to know anything for sure. A series of 7 or 8 quakes over a decade could relieve identified stresses to the point where a 9+ is put off for another 100+ years. After that even if statistically you can expect a major event "at some point" in the future, the damage from that event decreases with time as our building methods improve. Even today buildings are being built (in Tokyo) going up designed to withstand a 9.0 quake.