Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Skyscraper that may cause earthquakes [Tapei 101]
The Guardian (UK) ^ | December 2, 2005 | by Kate Ravilious

Posted on 12/01/2005 6:56:52 PM PST by aculeus

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: earthquake; skyscraper; taipei101; taiwan; tapei101
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 12/01/2005 6:56:53 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aculeus

probably causes global warming and racism. the very shape of it is homophobic.


2 posted on 12/01/2005 6:58:09 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (whatever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

3 posted on 12/01/2005 6:59:15 PM PST by martin_fierro (_____oooo_( ° ¿ ° )_oooo_____)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

While there's solid science about filling reservoirs and injecting liquid causing quakes, the weight of a building is so small I'm quite dubious these quakes were caused by it (along with many of the geologists quoted in the article.)


4 posted on 12/01/2005 7:01:12 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

5 posted on 12/01/2005 7:01:57 PM PST by SamAdams76 (What Would Howard Roarke Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Question: Why is the recent earthquake activity so surprising?
Answer: This was a very stable area, with earthquake levels equal to the UK (negligible).

Question: Why is the building so incredibly heavy?
Answer: It is built of hybrid materials intended to withstand earthquakes (hmmmm).

Question: When did the earthquake activity begin?
Answer: As soon as construction began, years before a substantial building was on site (hmmm).

Question: Is this building causing earthquakes?
Answer: Of course not.

6 posted on 12/01/2005 7:06:08 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

Perhaps this was the fate of the tower of Babel?


7 posted on 12/01/2005 7:06:51 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

Another shot. Pretty impressive! No WTC, though.

8 posted on 12/01/2005 7:07:04 PM PST by martin_fierro (_____oooo_( ° ¿ ° )_oooo_____)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

That is one of the ugliest buildings I have ever seen.



9 posted on 12/01/2005 7:07:27 PM PST by TexanToTheCore (Rock the pews, Baby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

This is like saying that changing the side your hair is parted on will aggrevate your pre-existing back problem.


10 posted on 12/01/2005 7:07:45 PM PST by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

I would think it would spontaneously cause people in Kansas to have an incredible craving to get mu-shu pork takeout.


11 posted on 12/01/2005 7:07:57 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

"While there's solid science about filling reservoirs and injecting liquid causing quakes, the weight of a building is so small I'm quite dubious these quakes were caused by it (along with many of the geologists quoted in the article.)"


I thought the same thing.


12 posted on 12/01/2005 7:08:44 PM PST by Blzbba (For a man who does not know to which port he is sailing, no wind is favorable - Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
In 1967, mountains of waste that had been injected into the Rocky Mountains set off a magnitude 5.5 earthquake under Denver in Colorado. A similar earthquake under a nuclear waste store would be disastrous.

What a load of crap. A 5.5 earthquake under a nuclear waste storage facility would be a non-event. I grew up in earthquake country. A 5.5 quake would knock some pictures off walls, but it doesn't cause damage to a modern wooden house, let alone a steel-reinforced concrete structure that would be holding nuclear waste.

13 posted on 12/01/2005 7:09:22 PM PST by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

It's not the tallest. The CN Tower in Toronto is 1,815 feet high. There haven't been any earthquakes there that I know of.


14 posted on 12/01/2005 7:09:45 PM PST by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen

CN Tower is a fraction of the weight of this thing, though.

I'm unaware of stuff like the Transamerica Tower, Pac Bell Park, etc. setting off any quakes after construction in San Francisco, or anywhere else though.


15 posted on 12/01/2005 7:12:28 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Republicanprofessor

Ping for a later read.


16 posted on 12/01/2005 7:13:15 PM PST by Republicanprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I visited that building last summer. Not only is it built to withstand earthquakes, but also the strong winds from typhoons. They have a display in the middle of the building that shows how much the building is swaying in the winds. It is something like 50 feet laterally it is built to withstand.


17 posted on 12/01/2005 7:14:07 PM PST by Codeograph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Maybe all the weight we fat Americans have gained will cause an earthquake along the San Andreas fault...it's worth a shot any way...lol


18 posted on 12/01/2005 7:15:55 PM PST by willyd (No nation has ever taxed its citizens into prosperity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

Michael Moore hits 700,000 tonnes before the second foot hits the scale. Does this mean Flint is next?


19 posted on 12/01/2005 7:17:54 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

That is one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen.


20 posted on 12/01/2005 7:21:16 PM PST by reagan_fanatic (Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence - R. Kirk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson