i have as much faith in the assurances given in this press release as i do when i asked directions to a destination 5 kilometer from the person who responds, that they know where it is.this includes my wife also and she has lived in the area for 50 years

Thai bricks would never fall from the interior and exterior walls (which are all made of bricks here) and kill people. Only Burmese bricks would do that.

"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.

The sediment underneath most of BKK will amplify the 6.3 to an 8.3. That is the problem. In KL the had to move and reinforce the design of the twin towers because of the same soil conditions. The dept of the pilons will make no difference as the effect is similar to having a bowl of jello (the soil) and kebab sticks (pilons) pushed into the jello. When you hit the bowl with jello it vibrates and the shockwaves sends the kebab sticks (pilons) moving up and down and sideways (at the same time) and the pilons cant handle this type of movement and will fail.

How do I reconcile

"High-rise buildings in Bangkok resistant to earthquake"

with the new topic

"Lack of funds, knowledge hampering construction of quake-resistant buildings"

or is it a matter of "yes, but that's in ChiangRai" ?

If their civil engineers can't figure out the water runs down hill does anyone think that their structural engineers can handle an earthquake?

Should a BIG one move near BKK there is not enough syrup in all the world for all the pancaking that will have gone on here.

If their civil engineers can't figure out the water runs down hill does anyone think that their structural engineers can handle an earthquake?

Should a BIG one move near BKK there is not enough syrup in all the world for all the pancaking that will have gone on here.

Then perhaps Hong Kong and Singapore should also be warned as over 80% of their people live in high-rise buildings.

I used to stay at a guesthouse near Asia Hotel near Phathum Wan and the wooden building was always shaking from the vehicle traffice around 100 meters away. The whole area is sitting on mud. If you look at the pedestrian bridge at Rama 1 leading to MBK (at the Tokyu side), you will see that additional steps have been added because the ground has sunk by a few feet already. The subsidence is from groundwater extraction. But I would not be surprised if there would be liquefaction in several areas around 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."

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.

Actually it would be more truthful to say that the buildings since 2007 are designed to withstand a 6.3 magnitude earthquake. However as everybody knows corners are cut, money for projects are scammed and all buiding control officials are corrupt, so most buildings are not built in accordance with their design. So just wait for a huff and puff and they will be blown away.

"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.

Actually it would be more truthful to say that the buildings since 2007 are designed to withstand a 6.3 magnitude earthquake. However as everybody knows corners are cut, money for projects are scammed and all buiding control officials are corrupt, so most buildings are not built in accordance with their design. So just wait for a huff and puff and they will be blown away.

Not true. I was budgeting a condo project in early 2007 when the designer came back to request more money. BMA requested compliance for earthquake. As a result, about 16% more steel reinforcement had to be added to the structure.

Construction was to the amended design.

Liquefaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-hyOwsl_NY

I live on the 25th floor of a bangkok condo and i was up here when that one hit upnorth, the building started to sway-it was trippy but i'm not worried about it because taller buildings are actually safer when eathquakes hit, its the short ones 4-10 stories that experience the most shaking and those are usually the ones that come down.

I live on the 25th floor of a bangkok condo and i was up here when that one hit upnorth, the building started to sway-it was trippy but i'm not worried about it because taller buildings are actually safer when eathquakes hit, its the short ones 4-10 stories that experience the most shaking and those are usually the ones that come down.

While the tall buildings in Bangkok swayed from an earthquake up North, those 4-10 storeys felt nothing.

Low frequency tremors travel thousands of kilometres affecting tall buildings which also have low natural frequencies. Mid to high frequency tremors dissipate quickly with distance.

Liquefaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-hyOwsl_NY

Quick segway - do other users here see the you tube video player screen with controls, or just a blank, black screen?

Thanks.

Liquefaction.

Quick segway - do other users here see the you tube video player screen with controls, or just a blank, black screen?

Thanks.

Never mind, found the problem (YouTube Center Extension in FF).

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.

There is no guarantee of liquifaction, it depends on many different factors, and even if it does happen, it may not be very deep, so the piles under the highrises may well keep the buildings standing. Secondly, bangkok is flat as a pancake, so liquified soil is not running anywhere. Further most highrises have a rather large footprint, so liquifaction may have little effect on them.

You cannot compare a 4.0 and a 7.8 earthquake. The latter is almost 10.000 times more powerful and will do much more damage in 30 secs than a 4.0 can do in a week.

We had a good earthquake near us at Mae Sai. It was a few miles into Myanmar. The ground shook for maybe 30 plus seconds. No high rise buildings here. One wall collapsed killing a woman.

If a major quake struck Bangkok, it would be a catastrophic disaster on scale that surpasses any natural disasters that have happened here before, and probably make the Nepalese earthquake appear mild in comparison.

I very much doubt that tall buildings in the city are designed to counteract the jelly-mould affect, which is basically the exaggerated shaking like a jelly being moved about on a plate base and of course most of the land in Bangkok has been claimed from it`s rivers, that are still lingering beneath the surface.

The Thai philosophy is and has always been; it hasn`t happened yet, so worry about it if something does occur in the future. My philosophy has always been and still is, to think and plan ahead, which for this reason, there is absolutely no way I would consider living in a Bangkok high rise condo, even for free.

If a major quake struck Bangkok, it would be a catastrophic disaster on scale that surpasses any natural disasters that have happened here before, and probably make the Nepalese earthquake appear mild in comparison.

I very much doubt that tall buildings in the city are designed to counteract the jelly-mould affect, which is basically the exaggerated shaking like a jelly being moved about on a plate base and of course most of the land in Bangkok has been claimed from it`s rivers, that are still lingering beneath the surface.

The Thai philosophy is and has always been; it hasn`t happened yet, so worry about it if something does occur in the future. My philosophy has always been and still is, to think and plan ahead, which for this reason, there is absolutely no way I would consider living in a Bangkok high rise condo, even for free.

Like I have said, a major earthquake striking any city that has no written history of quakes nor near to any fault lines would be catastrophic. You can imagine that to be Bangkok, or Hong Kong or Singapore or Sydney or even London.

Next, how prepared is the city of Chicago should a tsunami strikes?

only 6.3 ????

only 6.3 ????

Why not when the nearest known fault line is over 200 km away?

To some of the idiots posting nonsense, I just survived an 8.2 magnitude earthquake in Bangkok in a condo that was built in 2017.  This post sure aged well. 

Let's lock this 9 year old thread. Do feel free to post in one of the many other earthquake threads.