High-rise buildings in Bangkok resistant to earthquake

[webfact]

High-rise buildings in Bangkok resistant to earthquake



BANGKOK: -- High-rise buildings built after 2007 in Bangkok can withstand shaking from earthquake of 6.3 magnitude, according to the Building Control Division of the Department of Public Works of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.

Assurance from the Building Control Division came as there is rising concern among people living in high-rise buildings after the devastating 7.8 earthquake hit Nepal last week.

It said that it had collected information from over 70 high-rise buildings of which occupants reported feeling the shaking after the 6.3 earthquake struck Phan district of Chiang Rai on May 5, 2014.

These tall buildings are not pronged to risk from earthquake but merely could feel shaking from the quake,

It said after the 6.3 quake that hit Chiang Rai and high-rise buildings in Bangkok felt the shaking, preventive regulations were issued requiring all high-rise buildings must be designed to be earthquake resistant to such magnitude.

This was to ensure that all high-rise buildings built after 2007 will meet international safety standard to cope with the quake.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/high-rise-buildings-in-bangkok-resistant-to-earthquake


-- Thai PBS 2015-04-30

[zaphod reborn]

"High-rise buildings built after 2007 in Bangkok can withstand shaking from earthquake of 6.3 magnitude, according to the Building Control Division of the Department of Public Works of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration."

Nonsense. Thai engineers wouldn't have a clue about soil liquefaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction

I'm certain the soil underneath the buildings in Bangkok was never strengthened to avoid this earthquake phenomenon.

Edited April 30, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[Local Drunk]

Sorry... I'm from Southern California and I don't believe it. Sounds like they cherry picked a few high rises for their inspection. You don't want to be anywhere in in Bkk if a 6.3 hit.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Local Drunk

[Local Drunk]

"High-rise buildings built after 2007 in Bangkok can withstand shaking from earthquake of 6.3 magnitude, according to the Building Control Division of the Department of Public Works of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration."

Nonsense. Thai engineers wouldn't have a clue about soil liquefaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction

I'm certain the soil underneath the buildings in Bangkok was never strengthened to avoid this earthquake phenomenon.

They never hit bedrock here... but if the piles are deep enough the building should stand. (but it won't feel like a gentle sway at 50+ floors up) It's the thousands and thousands of other buildings and bridges that are going to kill everyone.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Local Drunk

[DM07]

Sure they are!

And no fire exit is ever blocked in any public building.

And all Thais wear safety- belts in cars!

...and...

...and...

...and...

[Strangebrew]

If foundation isn't in bedded in bedrock the soil here will turn to liquid causing most building to collapse, also the longer the quake the more the damage meaning a 4.0 that shook for say 3 minutes would equal a 30 second 7.8 quake in damage.So with that in mind I choose to live on higher floors so my body will be found sooner.

[Just1Voice]

Why do I not take comfort from the always reliable Thai sources??

[dcutman]

So all the hundreds, thousands? of highrise building built prior to 2007, what sort of magnitude quake can they withstand? I would have to assume this guy is only talking about the earthquake resistance in the structure itself, because I have not seen one steel reinforced masonry wall in any building in Thailand.

Edited April 30, 2015 by dcutman

[berybert]

Bangkok will tumble like a pack of cards if a decent quake hits.

Hundreds of thousands will die. But a lot will be non Thai, so that's OK then.

[Prbkk]

Bits and pieces keep falling off my building even in the absence of a tremor ( or even a strong breeze).

[lemonjelly]

i suppose the alternative would be to tell the truth and invoke hysteria and a plummet in BKK property prices........

[zaphod reborn]

"High-rise buildings built after 2007 in Bangkok can withstand shaking from earthquake of 6.3 magnitude, according to the Building Control Division of the Department of Public Works of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration."

Nonsense. Thai engineers wouldn't have a clue about soil liquefaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction

I'm certain the soil underneath the buildings in Bangkok was never strengthened to avoid this earthquake phenomenon.

They never hit bedrock here... but if the piles are deep enough the building should stand. (but it won't feel like a gentle sway at 50+ floors up) It's the thousands and thousands of other buildings and bridges that are going to kill everyone.

Obviously, you never lived in California. If you read the linked article, the building may stand, but will no longer be safe. The shifting sand under the building causes damage that is difficult to detect.

[Nick167]

Well hopefully an earthquake thats high on the richter scale hits bangkok soon so we can see if its true.

[Just1Voice]

Well hopefully an earthquake thats high on the richter scale hits bangkok soon so we can see if its true.

Yeah! I wanna see if they're right or not!

[ratcatcher]

Why do I not take comfort from the always reliable Thai sources??

Because deep down you just know they are always reliable.

[Local Drunk]

Well hopefully an earthquake thats high on the richter scale hits bangkok soon so we can see if its true.

I really can't respond to the stupidity of your post with out being banned for life.

[55Jay]

Was anyone else left a bit confused by this article?

After the CM quake on 05 May 2014, 70 high rises were checked in BKK, and regulations issued to ensure resistance to quakes.

It goes on to say the regs would ensure high-rises built after 2007 would meet Int'l standards.

They must be referring to retrofitting existing structures built since 2007?

[moobie]

Naturally the high-rise buildings of Bangkok are resistant to Earthquakes - until one happens that is….

(Then respected geologists will no doubt be told they do not understand Thai Earthquakes by the higher authorities.)

[Reigntax]

If foundation isn't in bedded in bedrock the soil here will turn to liquid causing most building to collapse, also the longer the quake the more the damage meaning a 4.0 that shook for say 3 minutes would equal a 30 second 7.8 quake in damage.So with that in mind I choose to live on higher floors so my body will be found sooner.

A mag 4.0 earthquake is equal to the energy released from approx 15 tonnes of TNT. A mag 7.8 is equal to approx. 7.6 million tonnes of TNT. For simplicity we can call it 500,000 times the energy released.

The shaking force or peak ground acceleration between a 4.0 and a 7.8 is the same difference as being woken up during sleep and major structural damage to most buildings. The two are incomparable in relation to the forces imposed on any structure due to horizontal acceleration.

[Local Drunk]

"High-rise buildings built after 2007 in Bangkok can withstand shaking from earthquake of 6.3 magnitude, according to the Building Control Division of the Department of Public Works of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration."

Nonsense. Thai engineers wouldn't have a clue about soil liquefaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction

I'm certain the soil underneath the buildings in Bangkok was never strengthened to avoid this earthquake phenomenon.

They never hit bedrock here... but if the piles are deep enough the building should stand. (but it won't feel like a gentle sway at 50+ floors up) It's the thousands and thousands of other buildings and bridges that are going to kill everyone.

Obviously, you never lived in California. If you read the linked article, the building may stand, but will no longer be safe. The shifting sand under the building causes damage that is difficult to detect.

I was born and raised in California. The last big quake quake that I experienced was the Northridge which was about 6.9. I lived in Santa Monica at the time in and living one level house that was built in the 30's on Pico and 29th Street. It's plaster and lathe construction kept it all tied together, but I was maybe 35 miles from epicenter and everything came off the walls and the house was tossed up and down like a basket ball at a Lakers's game. You're the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. You're not an engineer or a builder.. you know nothing.

[Reigntax]

"High-rise buildings built after 2007 in Bangkok can withstand shaking from earthquake of 6.3 magnitude, according to the Building Control Division of the Department of Public Works of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration."

Nonsense. Thai engineers wouldn't have a clue about soil liquefaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction

I'm certain the soil underneath the buildings in Bangkok was never strengthened to avoid this earthquake phenomenon.

They never hit bedrock here... but if the piles are deep enough the building should stand. (but it won't feel like a gentle sway at 50+ floors up) It's the thousands and thousands of other buildings and bridges that are going to kill everyone.

Obviously, you never lived in California. If you read the linked article, the building may stand, but will no longer be safe. The shifting sand under the building causes damage that is difficult to detect.

I was born and raised in California. The last big quake quake that I experienced was the Northridge which was about 6.9. I lived in Santa Monica at the time in and living one level house that was built in the 30's on Pico and 29th Street. It's plaster and lathe construction kept it all tied together, but I was maybe 35 miles from epicenter and everything came off the walls and the house was tossed up and down like a basket ball at a Lakers's game. You're the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. You're not an engineer or a builder.. you know nothing.

Zaphod, soil cannot be strengthened. It can be assessed for bearing capacity and if determined unpredictable, safety factors will be increased or serviceability factors decreased.

Local Drunk is correct stating that solid bearing capacity founding material is rarely utilised mainly because BKK is a river delta with multiply layers of low bearing capacity soils.

The two main piling systems used are drilled or driven and although different, if lower soils are analysed correctly and construction is of good standard, the performance of both systems with acceptable engineering practices will both suffice.

The damaged caused to any modern building can only be estimated and depends on the many variables of any earthquake.

The suggestion by authorities that buildings constructed after 2007 are earthquake proof is both naive and negligent as no such situation exists with mag 6.0 or greater. As Local Drunk said, should BKK experience such a magnitude earthquake most buildings would fail to the extend of requiring eventual demolition. However, the same would also apply to most major cities around the world.

[givenall]

We all should be glad living in a perfect society Thailand, everything is always perfect. Of course when things goes to shxt, no one will talk or take the blame

[Ricardo]

In England one might perhaps comment "famous Last Words" ?

[englishoak]

Every building has a few pictures of you know who in the lobby and no doubt a few buddhas, ie earthquake proof.

[Restinpeace]

They may be somewhat resistant to earthquakes but not resistant to impending rising groundwater in the next 50 years as Bangkok becomes slowly consumed by the ocean.

[godden]

Will have to wait and see if this holds true until after the BIG one.

[ToddinChonburi]

If an earthquack hits just run inside of Costco. These stores are built like fortresses. OH wait they do not have them here.

[fred Kubasa]

t has been estimated that, lacking really experienced engineers, 4 to 17 buildings would fall if a 6.5 quake hit urban BKK but only if they fell Straight down which is unlikely. More likely you would see a domino effect wherein those 4 to 17 could take down 25/30 or more !

[paulchiangmai]

Tell me all you Quake experts, previously having lived in the shaky isles, California, Chiang Mai and Rai I know next to nothing about this subject. Is an earthquake of say 7.0 at forty miles deep better or worse than the same magnitude at 5 miles deep? Where is the number taken from, 40 or 5 miles down or at the surface? Does a seven mean anything if it is a hundred miles down? Does a three mean anything half a mile down under your house. Let's hear from you cos' I don't know.

[paulchiangmai]

If an earthquack hits just run inside of Costco. These stores are built like fortresses. OH wait they do not have them here.

Thank God, there's 50 bucks saved.