On Dec 9, 2020, at 6:26 AM, John <[email protected]> wrote: > I wonder if they could have made the new more earthquake resistant? I'm > pretty sure architects & engineers knew the principles back in the 80s.
Yes they did (spurred by the Napier earthquake in 1931*), but the earthquake building standards are more about making sure the occupants can evacuate safely. I think only three of the modern buildings in the city failed that standard. Two total collapses and one where the internal stairway collapsed, leaving some people stranded. The longer-term fate of the building can be considered during its design but the construction costs go up substantially, so it's generally only critical facilities such as hospitals that were built to remain operational. There have been new innovations coming out such as reinforcing which is designed to absorb energy and fail at a known point (rather like a fuse) which can be made easily replaceable. I've seen base isolation being used in some new buildings (the technology was invented here in the 1970s, but it costs money). Keeping occupants alive while they get out is a good start, but replacing an entire CBD is pretty time-consuming and expensive, nevermind the disruption. * https://teara.govt.nz/en/historic-earthquakes/page-8 Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
