It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Skyscraper that may cause earthquakes

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:41 PM

Skyscraper that may cause earthquakes

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

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.

Much more....

This is simply shocking and totally unexpected!

I eagerly await Valhall and Soficrow's responses....

[edit on 1-12-2005 by loam]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:02 AM

It looks like a weed growing out of the city. Very esthetically unpleasing.

Maybe this is why God put the brakes on the Tower of Babel. tsk tsk tsk - should have read our history!

By the way, this statement...

Meanwhile, the idea of carbon sequestration - reducing global warming by locking up carbon dioxide in holes under- ground, will be pointless if earthquakes let all the carbon dioxide escape. "Huge amounts of fluid are going to be put in large cavities and earthquakes are a real concern," says Leonardo Seeber, a geologist from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York. "I am less worried about nuclear waste as it is more likely to be put in a small tunnels rather than huge cavities," he adds.

I agree with. I don't think subterranean cavities or sea floor lakes is the way to go with CO2 sequestration. We'll just end up having a huge burp of CO2 release at some point.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:03 AM

Compared with dams and underground waste deposits, skyscrapers such as Taipei 101 are mere pinpricks on the Earth's surface. "It is a point load which is probably going to be insignificant at depth," says Dr Seeber.

We should be more worried about China's dams then Japans or Taiwans skyscrapers IMO.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:13 AM
It's the pin prick that might be the problem, sardion. You put 700,000 tons over the ground area of a dam and it's nothing compared to placing that same load on the head of a needle.

BUT - the geologist dude states it will place a loading of 4.7 bars on the underlying ground. Thats about 70 psi. I'm not sure I buy that's a fault-waker loading.

I would more suspect activity associated with the construction. They may have blasted bedroock and such.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:18 AM
Okay I didn't really think of that (mah brain is working slowly this mounin)

I just thought Dams would be heavier thusly putting more strain on any nearby faults even though the weight is more distributed.

What would be a fix for this other then not building skyscrapers(which isn't going to happen lets face it)?

Would Skycity by safer as it's load is more spread out on a tri-pod setup?

Also the blasting theory seems valid as well. Sorry but Geology is not my strong suit.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by sardion2000]

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 12:54 PM
Here is an interesting factoid....

Taipei 101, which looks like a giant steel-and-glass bamboo shoot, is equipped with a 733-ton ball suspended near the top that moves to counter the force of earthquakes or strong winds.

Very cool.

top topics

log in