Victor Lord
Mother nature is ruthless. From flooding to volcanic eruptions, there are a variety of weapons that cause havoc to our population. Specifically, earthquakes have always been problematic. According to the National Earthquake Information Center, there is an average of 20,000 earthquakes each year, and around 10,000 deaths annually; the majority of the death toll is not only caused by the quake itself but the collapse of buildings with people inside them. Though, scientists have learned to come up with a solution to prevent this problem: earthquake-resistant structures.
4 factors are taken into consideration when building an earthquake proof building: foundation, force absorption, deflection, and structure. Earthquake-resistant buildings are constructed with a base that lift's the foundation with flexible pads made with rubber, steel, and lead. This allows for the building to not be controlled by the seismic waves of the earthquake, rather, it relies on the base isolators that hold it to move freely but not sporadically. Force absorption executed through vibrational control devices, which are implemented on the walls of a building to absorb the energy of the force and convert it into heat, and pendulum power, in which engineers install a giant ball connected with steel wires inside the building to counteract the swaying of the building. Regardless, both of these force absorption techniques work to take the force of the earthquake and transform it into an effort to keep the building standing.
Later on, scientists turned to deflection of seismic waves in which they believed that placing plastic rings underneath the buildings would reroute the energy of the earthquake. The use of cross braces, horizontal frames, and moment resisting frames have been implemented in the structure of the building to provide even more flexibility to the building without collapse. Japan has even began to make earthquake-resistant structures a requirement when constructing a building. Beginning in 1971, construction of buildings had to meet certain laws regarding earthquake sustainability and is mandated throughout the process. Because of this, the nation is said to have an extremely low earthquake to building collapse ratio.
Earthquake-proof buildings is only one of the many examples of how the human population managed to adapt to the environmental conflicts we deal with. With the use of these buildings in city areas that are at risk of an earthquake, the amount of lives that could be saved would be astronomical. Though, with all of these new technologies that developed to combat the destruction of earthquakes, these buildings still would not be able to survive a powerful earthquake without collapse. There is still much more room for improvement and it's not guaranteed that one could be safe inside, but with the steady growth of technology and the development of different strategies, earthquakes can soon be a problem in the past.
What's your opinions on Earthquake-proof structures? Do you believe it could help the population? Do you think the US should consider building some? Do you think we should tear down some old buildings and replace it with earthquake resistant ones? What places do you think we should place these structures in?
28 comments:
I believe Earthquake proof structures are necessary in each and every city. Although some cities might not have earthquakes as often as others, earthquake proof structure should be built because you never know what might happen. I believe that investing in structures would be very beneficial for a city in the future. I also believe that normal structures should be taken down and replaced with Earthquake proof structures because a building might be very important to a city, and the city can suffer huge losses if that building is not earthquake proof. I believe that we should place these structures in major cities like Dallas, Chicago, LA, and NY. Placing them is major cities is important because most big buildings are in the downtowns of those cities, and the population for those cities are the highest in the nation, which would mean that if a building did fall, there would be a lot of lives lost.
Earthquakes can truly have a devastating impact on a nation’s people and economy. But when discussing ways in which governments can set earthquake regulations for buildings, lots of controversy can arise among the corporate interests. People and companies wanting to save money and make a profit would most likely take the effects of an earthquake lightly. They would focus their attention on the price tag of the plan. Therefore, it is critical to take a more step by step approach on creating regulations for the structure of the buildings. I believe that the best way to do this would be to make this a requirement in cities more susceptible to future earthquakes, such as thus along tectonic plate boundaries. Once this is achieved, we could focus more on expanding these regulations to less susceptible cities. Although this may take several years or decades to implement, it ensures the safety of the people and the buildings without damaging businesses and sparking controversy.
For places near fault lines such as San Francisco and parts of Japan, I think it is very beneficial if we begin as soon as possible to build earthquake preventable and withstanding structures. The difficult part is that these areas are already highly populated with many structures already built, the challenge lies within the fact that it is nearly impossible to create a safe living space for all these people. The government should make it an official law that all buildings constructed within a certain radius of these fault lines should be built with certain codes and structure that it will have a higher chance to withstand the earthquakes. The regulations could include a max number of people in a building at a given time, the height of the building, or even the proximity of a building compared to others. I’m hoping the government takes a stronger stance in enforcing these laws to prevent mass catastrophes.
I believe that earthquake structures should be a requirement in the United States, because of how necessary they are in saving lives in case of a disaster. What really causes death in an earthquake is not necessarily the magnitude it is the proximity of the epicenter to a populated area. The United States has a lot of urban areas and the west coast is situated on top of an extremely active fault line. Tall buildings that are not earthquake resistant are dangerous as they can kill everyone inside or collapse and damage other buildings. It is irresponsible for them to not be earthquake resistant. It should become a requirement in the next decade that all tall multi-story buildings be earthquake resistant as a precaution. They are especially important in urban areas and even more important in urban areas that are located in earthquake hotspots, like San Francisco.
Earthquake structures are a great use of engineering know-how and environmental awareness, and based on my limited knowledge of construction and your great report, I would recommend the building of earthquake-resistant structures at or around active fault lines or hot spots. Another place where resistant structures would be beneficial would be large or quickly growing cities, especially ones of lower economic development, to protect against general disaster aforehand. I don’t know how much time, rescources or effort goes into creating earthquake-resistant structures, but I assume it would take a lot economically, so building them would have to be stratiegic and prioritized at first. As world population grows and urban centers expand and become more dense, it is especially important to protect against not only earthquakes, but other natural disasters.
I agree with your statement of Mother Nature being ruthless, and it doesn’t tell us when and where it decides to strike. For this reason I think its essential to build and have several Earthquake resistant buildings. Of course it is super important for cities along fault lines to be lined with these precautions, but when those who don’t recieve disasters that often, its better to be safe than sorry. With more urban spreading, and increase of advanced infrastructure, such as tall buildings, the consequences of earthquakes are heightened due to the bigger impact of tall buildings crashing and falling which not only harms everyone inside the building but also everyone and everything around it. However, if this building was earthquake proof, it would be much more safe and sustainable for the whole city. So I believe that no matter where you live, there needs to be some sort of natural disaster back up plan; earthquake proof structures is a great start.
I think earthquake-proof buildings are important to our society to decrease the risks and prevent the destruction caused by earthquakes. I do believe that earthquake-proof buildings could help the population by providing safe structures for human use. In addition, these structures could also benefit the environment because when less buildings are destroyed in earthquakes, less debris would end up in natural habitats or waterways. Another factor is that there would be less construction required to rebuild buildings after earthquakes, which would decrease the potential environmental harm that may occur during construction. I think the US should consider constructing earthquake-proof structures in areas that are more prone to large earthquakes. However, we should not tear down all previous buildings and replace them unless it is absolutely necessary due to large risks. This is because of the amount of environmental harm that would come along with this level of reconstruction. As a result, these buildings should be used in regions that are known for their high earthquake destructions risks.
I believe we should start building Earthquake proof structures. It would be extremely beneficial as payments to re-build structures after they have fallen are high. It will also save the lives of others. This new architecture can prevent destruction and help provide a safer environment for people all around. I think tearing down these structures now and budding the earthquake proof structures can save money for the government too. I think we should start to put these structures near fault lines where earthquakes occur the most. That way we can test out these new buildings and make sure they are environmentally friendly and useful. As cities begin to rise in population, structures like these can help in significant ways.
I believe that earthquake-resistant structures are a necessary measure for any city. Although the effects of earthquakes are usually closer to fault lines, every city needs to be prepared for the damage that an these disasters can cause. Having earthquake-proof structures in major cities could help reduce death tolls from earthquakes and would provide a sense of security to the city’s citizens. It would take many resources and a costly amount of time, but creating these structures could help lessen the effects of an earthquake on a major city. I think the US should build these structures in areas of high population or where the risk of an earthquake runs high.
I think these Earthquake-proof structures are super cool. Their ability to withstand the seismic waves of an earthquake seems pretty reliable. It could save many lives, especially in countries like Brazil, which has houses built up on top of each other. One earthquake would take down an entire town, and if these houses could be redone to be earthquake resistant, they would all be relatively more safe. The USA should definitely consider building some, especially in urban areas like New York or Detroit. These places would be more susceptible to earthquake damage, and it would be beneficial to make these buildings less likely to fall over and cause catastrophic damage.
I believe that these earthquake-proof structures are vital for every city. Every city needs to be prepared to be able withstand seismic activity and the potential threats it brings with it. It could save many lives, structures, and not to say economies in general. Having these structures become earth-quake proof definitely provides a sense of security. I think that governments need to slowly implement these structures in areas especially near fault lines. It would be much better for an area if buildings were slowly made earthquake-proof rather than the the entire city collapsing and builders have to implement this technology in every building. This would save time, money, resources, and not to mention countless lives.
This is a very interesting blog post! I have always wondered what the science behind earthquake-resistant buildings are, but I have never looked into it. This is amazing technology that undoubtedly has—and continues to— save many thousands of human lives. Like Japan, I believe the United States should place requirements on buildings in areas that get frequent (or infrequent, but strong) earthquakes. This seems like an obvious solution to help save citizens and infrastructure alike. Though it may be costly at first to construct new buildings, in the long run it will likely save money if the technology is successful in protecting the buildings from falling in the event of an earthquake.
I believe that earthquake-proof buildings are very important and are needed in every city. Although not all places have frequent earthquakes, it doesn’t hurt to take extra precautions for the sake of keeping the people safe. Earthquake-proof buildings would make large urban areas safer and more stable in area such as California, which experiences frequent earthquakes. It would also create a safer atmosphere for office workers and children who live near areas with frequent earthquakes and provide a sense of security. Earthquake-proof buildings could also help save money that would be used to repair buildings and other infrastructure damaged from building debris. For this reason, earthquake-proof buildings should be encouraged, if not, required for cities globally.
Earthquake proof buildings are necessary parts of our existence. Cities near fault lines and are likely to experience earthquakes should start building earthquake proof buildings, and replacing old buildings with safer ones. Once those areas have been secured, we can start renovating and building more earth quake proofs buildings outside the radius of earthquakes. Plenty of companies and people will be opposed to this, however, because they consider the price tag of safety over how many lives could be saved. In order to prevent companies from finding loopholes, strict regulations on earthquake proof buildings should be put in place, and buildings should be held to a certain standard of earthquake proof-ness depending on where they are located. The latter will spur companies to renovate their buildings so they can be up to code and not have to be taken down. Earthquakes are dangerous, and we need to take the steps to keep ourselves safe without cutting corners because of money. The world is in our hands, and if our buildings fall and destroy everything around them because mother nature shook her head, well then, that's our own fault.
Earthquake proof structures seem like a really good idea in places where relatively strong earthquakes occur frequently. However, I don’t see any point in structures being earthquake resistant if earthquakes rarely occur or do not occur at all at that location. It is difficult to say that we should tear down buildings to rebuild them to be earthquake resistant, because if the building would have ended up being able to withstand future earthquakes without being rebuilt, there would have been no point. I think we should decide to replace building foundations only after we have properly assessed the situation.
I believe earthquake-proof structures are great innovations and could definitely help populations who live near plate boundaries (where earthquakes can be frequent). The U.S. should seriously consider building some, especially in the areas near the San Andreas fault line where most of the earthquakes that occur in the U.S. are located. However, I don't think every place needs to build earthquake-proof structures since in some areas, earthquakes very rarely happen (and if they do happen in these areas, they would be very small). Thus, not all old buildings should be torn down and replaced wiht earthquake resistant ones unless these buildings are in an earthquake-prone area (because in other areas of the country, other natural catastrophes like tornadoes or floods are more prominent, and the architecture in these areas should be geared more toward these environmental disasters).
Earthquakes are no longer concentrated only in locations along transform fault boundaries. Because of increased fracking across the country, earthquakes are occurring in places where it is not normal. For example, Irving itself had a moderate earthquake a few years ago, due to fracking in the region. This fracking not only triggers seismic activity, but can also contaminate fresh water aquifers. I believe that architecture standards should be immediately increased to account for this new unpredictability. Old buildings that occupy cities, like downtown San Francisco, pose a hazard to its residents. Furthermore, innovation in architecture must be improved to withstand stronger earthquakes in unexpected locations. Other methods, instead of fracking should be utilized to get natural gas. Perhaps, these steps will ease the strain on the next population center that experiences an earthquake. Unfortunately, developing countries that lack the resources to implement this architecture are the most vulnerable.
Earthquake proofs structures are a necessity for any cities near faultlines. For now, there is no way to avoid an earthquake, so the most efficient plan of action would be to minimize its damage on the population, economy, and environment. Structures that are able to move with the quake will allow more stability and wont collapse as easily, saving many lives and reducing damage costs. The US should definitely consider building more in earthquake prone areas such as San Fransisco in preparation for future quakes. Tearing down older, non-earthquake proof buildings would increase the degree of safety under earthquake conditions.
I think Earthquake proof structures are essential for any city next to a fault line. It is important to minimize the amount of damage done, and as cities get bigger, that damage threshold starts to increase. Making buildings that can resist it is in the best interest of the public. The US needs to invest more in its infrastructure, so yes, it needs to consider building some. I am not sure if tearing down old non-earthquake proof buildings would be a great idea, considering that gentrification might push poorer people out of buildings, however, it is also inhumane to subject poorer people to buildings that are not earthquake-proof, so as a generality, it should be replaced.
I believe that earthquake-resistant buildings are very important in cities that are at high risk for earthquakes. They greatly reduce the damage and loss of life that earthquakes can cause, and would make places like California and Japan much safer. The United States should definitely consider making buildings in several areas earthquake proof (like California). If the technology is available, it should be used to save lives and prevent the millions of dollars in damages an earthquake can cause.
While it may be a huge advantage to economies to say that all earthquake prone countries/regions should have these structures it is not really feasible. Many earthquake prone countries such as Haiti or Nepal may not be able to afford such measures. Furthermore I also feel that unnecessary earthquake proofing may have negative consequences on the environment besides being a waste of resources. However this technology is indeed brilliant.
In my opinion, earthquake-resistant structures are necessary for the future to ensure safety. This could definitely help the population as the death toll caused by earthquakes each year could be reduced. The United States should consider building earthquake-proof structures especially in Californian cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles which see dozens of earthquakes every year, with some being catastrophic. While tearing down buildings and replacing them with reinforced structure sounds good, economically it may not be possible. Countries that have been rattled with earthquakes in the past few years, such as Haiti and the rest of the Caribbean, should use earthquake-proof structures. However, as most of these are developing countries, it may not be possible with the costs.
Earthquake-resistant structures are brilliant when considering how many lives could be saved. The designs used reminded me of challenges we used do in elementary schools where you had to make a paper and tape structure resistant to earthquakes, or the shaking of the table. I think these structures could definitely be beneficial in areas that experience earthquakes often, but not in other places. Earthquake-resistant structures are needed at fault lines and along the ring of fire, but also in areas where fracking occurs and the man-made practice can cause deceasing natural calamities. That being said, I don’t think these structures need to be a top priority for the United States top because there are only a few areas that suffer from earthquakes very year. Even though the concept is sound in theory, I don’t know how feasible it would be to build these structures in earthquake prone and often impoverished areas. In areas prone to earthquakes, old buildings should be torn down and replaced with earthquake-resistant ones because the building is going to end up destroyed anyways.
I believe that earthquake resistant structures should be mandated in every city, whether prone to earthquakes or not. The creation of earthquake proof buildings, or the renovation of existing buildings to increase earthquake resistance would be beneficial to all people in cities. While I would be interested in seeing how much greater the toll on the environment would be from the increased resources necessary to strengthen buildings, I think that the safety and protection offered to countless human lives would far outweigh the costs. Earthquake resistant structures also help fortify buildings against other natural disasters more common in other cities such as hurricanes and tornadoes.
I believe that earthquake resistant buildings should be mandatory. I think that all cities should have them, regardless of whether it’s a place that receives a lot of seismic activity or not. I feel like too many lives have been lost for the governments of the world to not do something about it. I think states and regions that fall on fault lines should have an extra layer of protection as well. Saving buildings from damage helps the country economically too as well, so there should be no excuses as to why a region can’t implement these technologies. However, tearing down old buildings to build new and safer ones actually has some significant disadvantages. Gentrification can occur, forcing the poor and the homeless out of their area.
I believe that earthquake-resistant buildings should be mandated in every city regardless of the levels of seismic activity within the area. Earthquakes have already needlessly caused the death of far too many people. If we have the knowledge and the resources available to prevent needless deaths, then there's no point in not taking precautions to save lives. However, I am aware that some communities do not have access to the funds needed to build these structures.
Earthquake-resistant buildings are essential in every city. When I used to live in California, our house was right on San Andreas Fault Line. Every now and then, we would experience earthquakes. Sometimes, those earthquakes can be disastrous. Especially in big cities (whether they are build on fault lines or not) those buildings should be earthquake-proof. It will keep people safe, preserve historical landmarks, and prevent the downfall of the economy.
Post a Comment