Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101
atlasobscura.com
atlasobscura.com
Magnitudes 6-7 were in the epicenter near Taitung, fairly far away - about 200-300km
Haha I'm well aware of that. I'm not saying that's not the case I'm saying in another comment that the shaking that I felt, I felt sickening. What you say doesn't contradict what I'm saying
Just disagreeing for the sake of it? Stupid and abusive.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000i90q...
You can see on the shakemap Taipei has an MMI of close to 4, which corresponds to: "Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day: At night, some are awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors are disturbed; walls make cracking sounds. Sensations are like a heavy truck striking a building. Standing motor cars are rocked noticeably."
The Central Weather Bureau in Taiwan uses an intensity scale where a value of 2 means the event is noticeable by most people and 3 means some of those people are frightened.[0]
For example, here[1] is the recent report for this morning's "5-" event (#137), which I can assure you everybody in the office still felt in Taipei, where it was only a "2". This event also had a magnitude of 5.9 on the ML scale that is used internationally.[2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Weather_Bureau_seismic...
[1] https://www.cwb.gov.tw/V8/E/E/EQ/EQ111137-0919-100745.html
[2] https://scweb.cwb.gov.tw/en-us/earthquake/details/EE20220919...
Magnitude measures the amount of energy released by the ground movement. It is a property of the earthquake and is independent of where the measurements are taken. When someone says 'a magnitude 7 EQ', this what they are referring to. Today, the Moment Magnitude scale is used, which is a better version of the Richter scale.[1]
Intensity is a measure of the effects of an earthquake in a particular location. Intensity is commonly assessed with the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale[2], which is a qualitative measure of how the shaking was felt and what damage was done. (As an aside, since it is qualitative, it is the starting point for assessing the size of historical earthquakes.)
[1] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/moment-magnitude-richter-scale-wha...
[2] https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/earthquake-intensity-scale
The intensity scale on the other hand measures the amount of shaking for a given location. Naturally, the further you are from the epicenter, the lower the intensity will be.
It's quite confusing to have a couple of different numbers to "characterize" a quake: magnitude (in a few different systems), intensity scale (guess there are different systems around the world as well).
Really great to see the clarity here from knowledgable people on this! :) ;pxx ;p
6.8 and 6.9 are both right, just different unit.
Also, another thing: why does an earthquake often have an initial magnitude that then changes over time? Like I think the initial ping for this was a 7.2, like take a look at this prelim from USGS:
https://twitter.com/USGSted/status/1571394895075500032
How can it be OoM off at first?
I’d always been irrationally afraid of going through an earthquake in a skyscraper when I lived in Japan, but then I had this exact experience in Taipei and it more or less cured that particular strain of anxiety.
A paltry 4 million for a project which cost almost 2 billion (USD); and I imagine it resulted in some measurable reductions in insurance cost.
But I wonder, what happens if the entire land that it stands on shifts and is no longer level? That pendulum won't help right a tilted building, and in fact it will move the center of gravity of the building much higher, putting more stress on the structure (when the entire structure is leaning).
https://www.civilengineeringforum.me/the-tower-of-taipei-101...
https://structures-explained.com/taipei-101-structural-engin...
It is designed to resist high earthquakes and typhoons. The damper changes the mode of the vibrations to reduce the peak stresses. If an earthquake is going to destroy the foundation there is nothing the tuned mass damper can do. If the entire building is leaning it almost certainly a write off and will be demolished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgBtBkW0u8Y
Also - given the large motion of the damper in today's earthquake, why weren't more people freaking out? I'm also curious about how much the dampers (shock absorbers) heated up from restraining the movement of the ball.
Look at japanese engineering that implemented the same concept for their castles... WAY THE HECK earlier...
Also, TIL about Stockbridge dampers. Always wondered what those things were.
It does need to be mentioned that the Burj Khalifa only needs to deal with winds and does not need to worry about earthquakes where as Taipei 101 does both.
[0] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Burj-Khalifa-damper-system
Although this isn't the fault of the companies that designed/built the Burj Khalifa.
If you use google scholars, the only results you get are researchers mentioning in their intro that passive systems don't work for seismic and then they propose an active (ei. with motors, pumps, etc.) system or a semi-active system (ef. fluid dampers with electronically controlled valves).
Passive mass dampers (ei. no valves, motors, etc.) like the one in Taipei 101 require too long to resonate with the earthquake and dissipate energy. by the time they start doing work, the earthquake is over.
This subject is like airplane lift explanations, the misinformation gets repeated so much that it even make its way into college textbooks.
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/engineer-in-wonderla...
On the other hand, you have scientists who ran computer simulations and shaking table experiments proving that passive damper do almost nothing during a seismic event.
As I said before, the reason they rarely get mentioned by actual engineers/scientist in this domain who can back up their claims is that we've known for decades that they are literally useless for seismic. We're at the point where you don't even need to quote sources on your peer-reviewed article to say in your intro that they don't work for this use case.
There were no 7+ magnitude quakes in recent years. [1] The closest is 2016 at 7.1 which took out some undersea internet cables the caused a reduction in spam worldwide of 50%. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_earthquakes [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Hengchun_earthquakes
alright I checked: this is weird, but can't remember this one being a 6. Anyway, it was 7 on the Taiwan intensity scale. Maybe that's where I got it from?
https://scweb.cwb.gov.tw/en-us/earthquake/details/EE20190418...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hualien_earthquake
f off downvoters
A good demonstration here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=607&v=VCxm3vTWgvU&feature=yout...
I don't care what kind of fancy mass damper you've got, this just seems like a bad idea. The same building would be safer somewhere else. Why do humans insist of trying to defy nature?
There's also the issue that tallest structures really need to be placed in areas of extreme density in order to attract the usage they need to be economically viable. Our ancestors didn't tend to plan cities around suitable geography for buildings these tall, but we'd have trouble convincing people to move to a planned city with better geography.
But I'm more amazed it was all built correctly by the lowest bidders on materials, sometimes mafia controlled, by the lowest cost workers sometimes still drunk and hungover from the night before.
Kinda trippy to realize this is true for almost everything in civilization.