How Will the Bay Area and New Delhi Handle the 'Big One'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hammertime
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earthquake
AI Thread Summary
The San Francisco Bay Area is not fully prepared for a significant earthquake, as many older buildings lack earthquake-resistant designs. While new constructions adhere to modern standards, retrofitting older structures remains a challenge. In contrast, New Delhi's earthquake preparedness is less discussed, and its building resilience against seismic activity is uncertain. Specific geological risks, like liquefaction, affect certain neighborhoods in San Francisco, complicating the overall safety landscape. Overall, both regions face significant challenges in ensuring their infrastructure can withstand major earthquakes.
hammertime
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
As a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, the recent quake got me thinking - how prepared are the buildings and structures in the Bay Area for the upcoming 'Big One'? I mean, are the majority of buildings, bridges, and tunnels capable of handling a magnitude 7 or 8 quake?

Also, what about New Delhi, India? Is it in a very quake-prone area? If so, are many of the buildings ready for the types of quakes that come their way?

Thanks.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
My knowledge is very limited. But. There are a lot of older SF buildings that were not built with any understanding of earthquake resistance. So the answer is "No, SF has a long way to go, except for new construction". Here is Earthquake 101 from your friendly local government:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/2005/15/#info

There are a lot of risk scenarios associated with quakes, all based on local geology.
For example SF is not at much risk for solifluction - where buildings sink into saturated ground, like they were built on quicksand. So, I can't answer at all about New Dehli.
 
jim mcnamara said:
My knowledge is very limited. But. There are a lot of older SF buildings that were not built with any understanding of earthquake resistance. So the answer is "No, SF has a long way to go, except for new construction". Here is Earthquake 101 from your friendly local government:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/2005/15/#info

There are a lot of risk scenarios associated with quakes, all based on local geology.
For example SF is not at much risk for solifluction - where buildings sink into saturated ground, like they were built on quicksand. So, I can't answer at all about New Dehli.

A small part of San Francisco is built on fill. I've forgotten the name of the neighborhood most affected, but that is at risk for liquification.

Over in Oakland, there is (was?) an office dedicated to preparing. They had displays etc. There's been a lot of retrofitting since the 1989 quake, but older buildings are a problem, particularly if there's any history.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top