PDA

View Full Version : Do Skyscrapers Cause Earthquakes? Or is it just us?


the4thpip
12-03-2005, 02:54 AM
Taipei skyscraper may have triggered quakes

(China Daily)
Updated: 2005-12-03 06:29

Taipei 101 is a building with a lot to boast about. Standing 508 metres high, it is the world's tallest. And at 700,000 tons, it must be among the heaviest.

But the sheer size of the Taiwan skyscraper has raised unexpected concerns that may have far-reaching implications for the construction of other buildings and man-made megastructures. Taipei 101 is thought to have triggered two recent earthquakes because of the stress that it exerts on the ground beneath it.

According to the geologist Cheng Horng Lin, from the National Taiwan Normal University, the stress from the skyscraper may have reopened an ancient earthquake fault. And it is not just skyscrapers that are a problem. Dams and underground waste deposits may also cause rumblings if they become too large.

Before the construction of Taipei 101, the Taipei basin was a very stable area with no active earthquake faults at the surface. Its earthquake activity was similar to parts of the UK, with micro-earthquakes (less than magnitude 2) happening about once a year.

However, once Taipei 101 started to rise from the ground, things changed.

Lin said: "The number of earthquakes increased to around two micro-earthquakes per year during the construction period (1997 to 2003).

"Since the construction finished there have been two larger earthquakes (magnitude 3.8 and 3.2) directly beneath Taipei 101, which were big enough to feel,"

Using the construction information, Lin has calculated how much pressure Taipei 101 exerts on the ground. The weight of steel and concrete came to more than 700,000 tons. This is spread over an area of 15,081 square metres, meaning that it exerts a huge pressure of 4.7 bars on the ground below. "The construction of Taipei 101 is totally different from many other high-rise buildings because it used hybrid structures made of both concrete and steel, to give it added protection from earthquakes and fire. Therefore it has a huge vertical loading on its foundation," Lin said.

And it is this exceptional downward stress that Lin thinks may have caused the extra earthquakes.

"I think that the considerable stress might be transferred into the upper crust due to the extremely soft sedimentary rocks beneath the Taipei basin," he said in his paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"Deeper down this may have reopened an old earthquake fault."

Other experts are more cautious about blaming the skyscraper for the earthquakes.

John Vidale, an earthquake expert at the University of California in Los Angeles, said: "A building will change the stress on the ground under the building, but this probably won't reach down to around 10km, the level where the earthquakes occurred."

Zygmunt Lubkowski, an earthquake analyst for the engineering firm Arup, is concerned at the lack of data.

"Earthquakes occur on timescales of thousands to millions of years. From just 10 years of earthquake data it is hard to tell if the extra earthquakes are just noise in the signal or due to the building."

Many engineers and scientists are more perturbed about the impact of other types of construction. "It is well known that man can induce earthquakes from things like mining, building reservoirs and extracting oil and gas, where a large load acts over a large area," Lubkowski said.

Compared with dams and underground waste deposits, skyscrapers such as Taipei 101 are mere pinpricks on the Earth's surface.

"It is a point load which is probably going to be insignificant at depth," Dr Leonardo Seeber, a geologist from the Lamont Doherty Eearth Observatory in New York, said.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/03/content_500105_2.htm

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,549876,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,421663,00.jpg

Jeff Brady
12-03-2005, 03:39 AM
That is one fugly building.

Cam63
12-03-2005, 03:58 AM
Looks worse than some church designed in the '70s.

The Beast Of Yucca Flats
12-03-2005, 03:01 PM
Looks worse than some church designed in the '70s.

"Do Skyscraper's cause catty comments?" :D

Cam63
12-03-2005, 03:11 PM
I visit Canberra occasionally and most of the churches that cropped up in the last 30 years or so are really ugly architecture.

Gilda Dent
12-03-2005, 03:35 PM
On the other hand, the building that's going to pass it in three years as world's tallest, and end the debate altogether over whether "world's tallest" includes decorative spires, the Burj Dubai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Dubai), is a strikingly beautiful looking structure.

Gilda

Jeff Brady
12-03-2005, 03:44 PM
Burj Dubai

Now THAT is beautiful. It looks like it's striving for something, as opposed to a bunch of Chinese take-out containers stacked upon each other.

Cam63
12-03-2005, 03:46 PM
The Chrysler Building is the best lookin' 'scarper.

Lester C.
12-03-2005, 03:58 PM
The Chrysler Building is the best lookin' 'scarper.

I’ve been to the top of the Sears Tower and the view was amazing so it has my vote. Anyway for a long time we had the world’s tallest building and not one earthquake. Anyway I thought I read something about cities with skyscrapers aren’t able to have a tornado form other and was wondering if that just urban legend?

Jeff Brady
12-03-2005, 03:58 PM
The Chrysler Building is the best lookin' 'scarper.

I don't know if it's the best; it certainly is a great one. The WTC towers were very dull. Empire State has a little character to it, but other than its height, isn't very interesting. Rockefeller Center, which just reopened its observation deck last month, has an interesting layout, but the facade is a tad bland.

Lester C.
12-03-2005, 04:06 PM
What makes the city of Chicago so beautiful is that we had a planning commission oversee the building of our fine city. At least that what I tell myself as it is ten degrees outside which is actually quite warm for this time of year.

Jeff Brady
12-03-2005, 04:30 PM
Chicago is really nice. My dad was born there, and we stopped there for a few hours during a family trip a few years ago.

Gilda Dent
12-03-2005, 04:47 PM
The official site for the Burj Dubai:

http://www.burjdubai.com/

They have long animated video on there that really gives you a good idea of what it's like.

Emily and I briefly considered staying at the Burj Al Arab (http://www.burj-al-arab.com/) hotel, also an architechtural beauty, for our honeymoon, but decided the $1000 a night would be a waste, especially with no amusement park nearby. It's built on a man made island out in the Persian Gulf, and is one of the worlds most luxurious hotels. We went ot Universal Orlando instead for 1/3 the price.

I don't think we have anything that would qualify as a skyscraper here.

Gilda

Azrael52
12-03-2005, 06:08 PM
The article really brings up an interesting question. Maybe mother earth is trying to say, "Shit, dude, that's really freakin' heavy."