Skyscraper that may cause earthquakes (The Guardian)

(This is just amazing to me)

Skyscraper that may cause earthquakes

· World's tallest building may have reopened fault
· Doubts cast on plans for Sky City in Japan

Kate Ravilious
Friday December 2, 2005
The Guardian

Taipei 101 is a building with a lot to boast about. Standing 508 metres (1,667ft) high, it is the world's tallest. And at 700,000 tonnes, 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. If he is right, then it raises concerns about proposals such as Sky City 1000 in Japan, the vertical city that has been proposed to solve Tokyo's housing problems. 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. "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," says Dr Lin.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1655977,00.html?gusrc=rss>
(more at link above)

I wonder what they'll do? They won't just knock it down will they?

Might be the last thing standing after a big quake?

Earthquakes, even small ones, usually involve enormous amounts of rock and earth.

I have also heard that there is a series of faults and low-density rock under New York City. True? Yet, there with all the construction that has been done there in the past 150 years, they have had very little seismic movement.

Are there any seismologists in the house?

--p!
Richter? Why, it knocked her down!

...in two places, Mid-town and Lower Manhattan, both places where they can sit on the solid Granite bedrock.

until that big horny monkey starts jumping up and down on the radio tower.

(Oh admit it, you WILL buy a ticket to watch King Kong climb that building just one more time...)

The force needed to move a tectonic plate is well beyond anything we're likely to do. Look at Tokyo: The most populous city on the planet sits in an earthquake zone, with about 2 billion tonnes of commuter moving twice a day, but they've never blamed them for the ground moving.

I'd place good money on this just being a coincidence.

EDIT: million, not billion, unless the Japanese are really overwieght. But the point still stands...

...but on a HUGE scale.:shrug:

Of course, one could always argue that the building is the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

Still, I think it is unlikely. I'd like much more evidence, and even more importantly I'd like to know what they propose to do about it.

It's human nature. Incidentally, if you look at a map of Wellington, NZ You'll see a a road called "Lambton Quay", about 200m back from the waterfront.

It used to be the waterfront, but there was an earthquake.

There's a plaque on the one(1) building that stayed upright. :)

Edit: See what I mean?

Some in the SF Bay Area have been blamed on rain.

First of all, the Tokyo Metropolitan Area is spread out over thousands of square kilometers. You don't have 2 million tonnes of commuters in any given spot at any one time anywhere in Tokyo, even in the most crowded commuter districts of Shinjuku, Shibuya, Shinagawa, Tokyo, and Ueno. And commuters are spread out over time--that is, there are not two distinct rush hours in Tokyo, as you can find crowded trains and jammed-to-the-gills expressways as early as 6 a.m. and as late as 11 p.m., and most times in-between.

As for being in an earthquake zone, Tokyo probably experiences more earthquakes than any other major city in the world. There are often several shivers on any given day. Some are unrecognizable, some are quite noticeable. How many of those seismic events are completely natural, and how many of them are induced, or aggravated, by the great concentration of steel and concrete that makes up what is commonly referred to as the "city" of Tokyo?

It is interesting to note that 55 stories or so is generally considered to be the limit for building height in Tokyo. There are several reasons for this, including doubts about whether a higher building could withstand a major earthquake. But some Japanese researchers have also suggested that it would be unwise to concentrate too much weight in any one spot. Whether or not a concentration of weight like the Taiwan skyscraper in itself could trigger an earthquake is uncertain, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility.

The point may not stand, but not for your reasons (:P)

A bit of digging around reveals that most of the Island of Taiwan is built up of fractured plate fragments, not contiguous crust, so a few kilotons here or there may well make a difference to the overall balance.

As an aside, I'd doubt that the height limit is related to mass - the Empire State Building weighs less that the rock removed for the foundations (useless trivia #64), and I'm sure that also holds true for new buildings with modern construction. By the same token, I'd be interested to know how much 101 changed the weight balance...

very geologically stable foundation. The skyscrapers in Tokyo and Taiwan are not. There is no active seismic zone anywhere near New York. There are all sorts of active zones in Tokyo and Taiwan. The earth excavated from the Empire State Building site was mostly very dense rock. The earth excavated from a Tokyo construction site is usually mostly alluvial deposits of Kanto loam, often with sand underneath that.

Rocky Mountain Arsenal that may have been caused by pumping water into 12,045 foot well.

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2001/12dec/colo_quakes.cfm

--snip--
The most famous episode of a human-induced earthquake began in 1961, when a 12,000-foot disposal well was drilled in the U.S. Army's Rocky Mountain Arsenal northeast of Denver. The well was used for disposing of waste fluids from arsenal operations, and injection commenced in March 1962.

Shortly thereafter an unusual series of earthquakes erupted in the area, and by the end of December 1962 about 190 earthquakes had occurred. None caused damage until December, when several structures were damaged in Dupont and Irondale.

Over 1,300 earthquakes were recorded between January 1963 and August 1967. In April 1967 the largest earthquake since the series began in 1962 occurred, and damage was recorded in the arsenal, Derby and Boulder. This tremor measured 5.0 on the Richter scale.

Even after the Rocky Mountain Arsenal waste dumping practice stopped, earthquakes continued to be felt in the Denver area, so in 1968 the Army began removing fluid from the arsenal well very slowly in an effort to reduce the earthquake activity.
--snip--

that must be some lovely "liquid" (more of a god forsaken hell sludge really). I wonder where it's going and/or went?

...I stopped drinking it (I was 8).

mikey_the_rat

It's very dangerous to leave a pan filled with it(after draining it) around, a lot of pet dogs have been poisoned by it because they say dogs like the taste.

to add a bittering agent to antifreeze so that doesn't happen.

(--Xema who thinks she saw a headline)

in the sierra foothills that caused a small quake.

weight of the water caused the rocks to resettle.

Here is a USGS report on "RESERVOIR-INDUCED SEISMICITY":

http://ca.water.usgs.gov/archive/reports/auburn/induced.html

It specifically talks about a proposed dam above Sacramento CA. This is the pet project of Dolittle, my repub representative. :grr:

What's it been, 20 years now?

He's never going to give up on this thing.

HOWEVER, he's been linked to the lobbying scandle - here is a snip from a post a while back in the California forum:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/26/MNGFBFU51A1.DTL&hw=doolittle&sn=001&sc=1000


Looks like we might actually be able to get rid of the asshat in 2006. :woohoo: