1
$\begingroup$

Why,What could be the reasons for saying that flexible buildings that are far from the epicenter of an earthquake are more sensitive to damage than those located near it.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Because they are built differently. Look up earthquake engineering. $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Feb 12 '17 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ @jamesqf, Indeed definitely important to the topic. But are similarly engineered buildings all likely to fall at the same magnitude, or is there variation or additional factors that may play a factor? $\endgroup$ – JeopardyTempest Feb 13 '17 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Taller de Control, I'm confused by the changes. You're asking why similar neighboring buildings don't always get damaged the same? Or you're asking if there are features of earthquakes that can cause more distant areas to be damaged more than those near the epicenter? It seems you've changed the direction of your question with your newest edit. $\endgroup$ – JeopardyTempest Feb 13 '17 at 1:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jeopardy Tempest, I wonder if there are any characteristics in the physics of earthquakes, such as the distance to the epicenter that made them more sensitive to a building than to another one identically constructed, to suffer damages. Apparently in the Wellington NZ earthquake. August 13, 2013, buildings furthest from the epicenter (100 km in Wellington) suffered more damage than those in areas near the epicenter (Http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/86639645/…). I appreciate your comments. $\endgroup$ – Carlos Feb 13 '17 at 2:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The local geology is an important factor. E.g. The 1985 Mexico City earthquake occurred at some distance, but Mexico City's location on soft lake sediments caused the damage. $\endgroup$ – Tactopoda Feb 13 '17 at 3:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.