In this item, they say that Taipei 101 Building may be causing tremors because of it's weight. Wouldn't the weight of the earth that was removed in order to build the tower far outweigh the tower itself? Even if the weight of the tower is concentrated on a slightly smaller "footprint" than the total area of the removed earth, the tower's weight still shouldn't be greater. I think this hypothesis might be a little shaky, if you'll pardon the pun! What say the experts in structural engineering and seismology?
because removal of a lot of dirt and rock at the foundation would have lightened the load at that spot.
A cubic yard of granite weighs abbout 2.25 tons. If the building has a base of 100 yards by 100 yards and the hole is 31 yards deep then the weight of material removed should be about 700,000 tons.
Anyway, why should a building be causeing tremors or earthquakes other than tiny ones just under the building? All buildings have some settlement.
But then where did they put all the mud and concrete that they took out? Did they incinerate it? Eat it? Even if they ate it all, it would still weigh a lot so the people walking round with it all in the bellies could actually be the problem for earthquakes.
My conclusion is - I don't have a ****ing clue what I'm talking about.
So - back to Judas returning to Pompey. Why don't you fellas come and have some real discussion with some very surreal people, you know it makes sense.
If you pay me 100 Euro’s ($120) an hour to read and post there! Otherwise, why should I socialize with people who don’t have "a ****ing clue" what they are talking about?
Brain
Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club. "You've got to learn, that when you push people around, some people push back."
This is indeed a subject that I was contemplating the other day when it was mentioned at the University of Bognor Regis
There are so many angles to take this subject from, but I think the PDB view is by far the best option.
Far be if for me to have the definitive answer, but I truly believe you are correct in this instance
And this theory is backed up by the Portsmouth Department of Buidingworks who published a journal by John Knox (2005) about structures and their effects on earthquakes and tremors
That was indeed a superb pun though Glen, it really made me chuckle
You're right, John Knox is an expert in this field. He was consultant to the Kaant Tower in Germany and the boundary pushing Terwat Building in Taipai.
Please contact me if you wish to take on any further reading.
Thanks to all who gave serious responses to my query. I will do some addiditional checking on this. It is just an interesting problem to keep my mind from idling too long.
I'll look for references to PDB and Knox.
isostatic adjustments in the crust. Normally you see these adjustments in areas where there were glaciers or old mountains. e.g. Most of Appalachia has earthquakes due to the erosion of the Appalachian mtns
I think that this building maybe causing them because it is built on or near a fault.
too much Guatelli on one face of the structure, it was El Ventsven that claimed that if too much Guatelli could not be balanced out with an equal quantity of Wapenaar, thus causing definite movements in the pitch of the structure. It is thought, however, that by returning the HR to the centre of the structure may well even the indifferences out.
