Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3
7388 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3861


  Reply # 1492164 14-Feb-2016 18:37
Send private message

JWR:

 

Fred99:

 

surfisup1000:

 

5.7 -- doesn't sound that big but everyone is saying it was really big.

 

I guess quakes of similar reported strengths can have different effects at the ground level -- depending on depth and underlying geology. 

 

The immediate questions will be around that school they were trying to close underneath some cliffs near sumner... and , in general, buildings on and below the cliff. Look pretty dangerous to my untrained eye. 

 

 

 

 

The school (Redcliffs) is well forward of the cliffs.  The Feb 2011 ground shaking intensity was 5-10x stronger than the shake today - yet here was no rockfall in the school grounds.

 

The school is being closed for reasons other than EQ risk - that's just an excuse.  The same government closing down the school will have no problems allowing the land to be sold for housing development etc.

 

Problem is threshold of risk. If you were an engineer who had to sign off to say that in your opinion there was no risk, you'd likely hesitate, in the same way that you might be reluctant to say that central Auckland won't be blown sky high by a volcano.

 

 

Been a few more minor shocks too.

 

Bit of a shake just now.

 

 

 

 

That one was funny. Was watching news - TV1 - supposed "live" interview.  It clearly wasn't a "live" interview at all.


623 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 124


  Reply # 1492167 14-Feb-2016 18:48
Send private message

surfisup1000:

 

5.7 -- doesn't sound that big but everyone is saying it was really big.

 

I guess quakes of similar reported strengths can have different effects at the ground level -- depending on depth and underlying geology. 

 

The immediate questions will be around that school they were trying to close underneath some cliffs near sumner... and , in general, buildings on and below the cliff. Look pretty dangerous to my untrained eye. 

 

 

 

I'm glad it wasn't bigger. I was just saying last week touchwood Chch hasn't had a decent quake latelty. There was quite a few decent quakes around the pacific ring over the last 3 weeks, and a Volcano getting quite active again in Japan and south of Australia. With that much activity Christchurch was usually the radar like the last few big ones.

 

 

 

Edit to include:

 

 

 

Over the last 30 days.

6.3 Chile
6.6 mexico
7.1 alaska
6.2 l.esperance rock (North of NZ)
6.3 indonesia
6.4 taiwan
7.2 russia

Not to mention scores of 5+ everywhere.

Volcanos that got media attention:

Sakurajima (Japan)
Mount Makaturing (Phillipines)
Karymsky volcano (Russia)
Big Ben- Heard Island in sub-Antarctica (Australia)
McDonald islands (neighbouring Heard Island)
Popocatepetl volcano in Puebla, Mexico


1155 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Subscriber

  Reply # 1492170 14-Feb-2016 19:00
Send private message

Fred99:

 

That one was funny. Was watching news - TV1 - supposed "live" interview.  It clearly wasn't a "live" interview at all.

 

 

 

 

Haha was just saying that to the missus , bollocks that's live its not shaking her about.





Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man


1224 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 123


  Reply # 1492171 14-Feb-2016 19:02
Send private message

surfisup1000:

 

5.7 -- doesn't sound that big but everyone is saying it was really big.

 

I guess quakes of similar reported strengths can have different effects at the ground level -- depending on depth and underlying geology. 

 

The immediate questions will be around that school they were trying to close underneath some cliffs near sumner... and , in general, buildings on and below the cliff. Look pretty dangerous to my untrained eye. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I got the feeling that after the previous quakes people kind of developed the equivalent to sea legs on a ship.  People will offer an opinion on how deep something was and how far away just by the feel of the shake. We make a bit of a competition out of it to see who can guess the closest score before someone looks up the result, it helps divert attention sometimes.

 

For me, a 3 is not much different than a heavy truck going over a bump in the road nearby, a 4 is a bit  of a shake or a jolt and a 5 is usually a bit of a rattle and wobble. What makes it interesting is when they go on for longer than normal like todays one. My memory isn't that good from the old quakes, but I seem to remember that the long duration ones used to sometimes pick up intensity half way through, so it can be interesting while waiting during the shaking to see if that happens or not.

 

There are also the really close ones, for example, having a 2.0 right underneath can make one jump just as much as a 4.0 a distance away. The close ones are interesting because the further away they are the more one can sometimes hear the approaching rumble so one can tell if they are worth giving further thought to, the close ones kind of sneak up unexpected.

 

 





Software Engineer

 


224 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 51

Subscriber

  Reply # 1492235 14-Feb-2016 20:29
Send private message

I was sitting on the beach at Rapaki and I though I was about to pass out or something when I was wobbling around. Then when I realised it was a quake I was looking around at the hills/cliffs to check for rockfalls, thankfully there were none unlike over at Godly head and Redcliffs.





PC: i7 6700k 4.8Ghz/32GB DDR4/GTX1070

 

Server: Dual L5640/36GB DDR3/GTX1060

 

HTPC: R5 2400G/16GB DDR4


706 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 206


  Reply # 1492835 15-Feb-2016 21:00
Send private message

When the shaking was happening regularly in the 2010-2012 period, I used to be pretty good at guessing size and location.

Our DVD shop in Hornby had a sign on the outside, under 3.5 and it sounded like a truck going past, air movement but no real vibrations. 3.5-4.5 and it rattled a son on the outside of the shop, again though no real movement through the floor. It was only over 4.5 that you could feel it through the floor.

Close to location quakes are more sudden / sharp in nature, far away and it's like a wave.

That's how the one on Sunday felt out in Lincoln, like being on a boat in moderately rough seas, just a gentle up/down, nothing more. A little aurprised to be honest that it was as big as has been reported, but given we are 40 odd kms from the centre of the quake, it dispersed its energy pretty quickly.

Mad Scientist
19012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1492885 15-Feb-2016 21:34
Send private message

sen8or: When the shaking was happening regularly in the 2010-2012 period, I used to be pretty good at guessing size and location.

Our DVD shop in Hornby had a sign on the outside, under 3.5 and it sounded like a truck going past, air movement but no real vibrations. 3.5-4.5 and it rattled a son on the outside of the shop, again though no real movement through the floor. It was only over 4.5 that you could feel it through the floor.

Close to location quakes are more sudden / sharp in nature, far away and it's like a wave.

That's how the one on Sunday felt out in Lincoln, like being on a boat in moderately rough seas, just a gentle up/down, nothing more. A little aurprised to be honest that it was as big as has been reported, but given we are 40 odd kms from the centre of the quake, it dispersed its energy pretty quickly.

 

I wonder if Lincoln is directly behind the Sumner/Redcliffs hills, if so the hills bore the brunt of the energy in your path?


224 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 51

Subscriber

  Reply # 1492901 15-Feb-2016 22:07
Send private message

joker97:

 

sen8or: When the shaking was happening regularly in the 2010-2012 period, I used to be pretty good at guessing size and location.

Our DVD shop in Hornby had a sign on the outside, under 3.5 and it sounded like a truck going past, air movement but no real vibrations. 3.5-4.5 and it rattled a son on the outside of the shop, again though no real movement through the floor. It was only over 4.5 that you could feel it through the floor.

Close to location quakes are more sudden / sharp in nature, far away and it's like a wave.

That's how the one on Sunday felt out in Lincoln, like being on a boat in moderately rough seas, just a gentle up/down, nothing more. A little aurprised to be honest that it was as big as has been reported, but given we are 40 odd kms from the centre of the quake, it dispersed its energy pretty quickly.

 

I wonder if Lincoln is directly behind the Sumner/Redcliffs hills, if so the hills bore the brunt of the energy in your path?

 

 

Although the hills kinda between Lincoln and the epicentre of the quake, I think the it's just because Lincoln is 30+Kms away that resulted in it feeling very mild.

 

here's a quick map I made: https://i.imgur.com/4QPEIdp.jpg





PC: i7 6700k 4.8Ghz/32GB DDR4/GTX1070

 

Server: Dual L5640/36GB DDR3/GTX1060

 

HTPC: R5 2400G/16GB DDR4


7388 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3861


  Reply # 1492916 15-Feb-2016 23:13
Send private message

 

 

 

Isoseismal showing station near Lincoln, pga recorded there was 1.9% g.

 

 


Mad Scientist
19012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1492978 16-Feb-2016 07:23
Send private message

I was wondering, is the latest version of the building code - in general is it stricter in certain places like Chch vs everyone else or or does everyone use the same high quake standards

31 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 11


  Reply # 1492984 16-Feb-2016 08:00
Send private message

Fred99:

 

 

Isoseismal showing station near Lincoln, pga recorded there was 1.9% g.

 

 

Interesting map, thanks for sharing. Where did you locate the image?

 

This blog entry was enlightening too: http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/quake/2016/02/14/Large+quake+off+the+coast+of+Christchurch


I iz your trusted friend
5802 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 140

Mod Emeritus
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1493031 16-Feb-2016 09:16
Send private message

kiwirock:

 

surfisup1000:

 

5.7 -- doesn't sound that big but everyone is saying it was really big.

 

I guess quakes of similar reported strengths can have different effects at the ground level -- depending on depth and underlying geology. 

 

The immediate questions will be around that school they were trying to close underneath some cliffs near sumner... and , in general, buildings on and below the cliff. Look pretty dangerous to my untrained eye. 

 

 

 

I'm glad it wasn't bigger. I was just saying last week touchwood Chch hasn't had a decent quake latelty. There was quite a few decent quakes around the pacific ring over the last 3 weeks, and a Volcano getting quite active again in Japan and south of Australia. With that much activity Christchurch was usually the radar like the last few big ones.

 

 

 

Edit to include:

 

 

 

Over the last 30 days.

6.3 Chile
6.6 mexico
7.1 alaska
6.2 l.esperance rock (North of NZ)
6.3 indonesia
6.4 taiwan
7.2 russia

Not to mention scores of 5+ everywhere.

Volcanos that got media attention:

Sakurajima (Japan)
Mount Makaturing (Phillipines)
Karymsky volcano (Russia)
Big Ben- Heard Island in sub-Antarctica (Australia)
McDonald islands (neighbouring Heard Island)
Popocatepetl volcano in Puebla, Mexico

 

 

 

 

Kaiju activities...





Internet is my backyard...

 

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...»

 

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

 


7388 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3861


  Reply # 1493050 16-Feb-2016 09:50
Send private message

flyingdutchdude:

 

 

 

Interesting map, thanks for sharing. Where did you locate the image?

 

This blog entry was enlightening too: http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/quake/2016/02/14/Large+quake+off+the+coast+of+Christchurch

 

 

 

 

That was from USGS.

 

 

 

joker97: I was wondering, is the latest version of the building code - in general is it stricter in certain places like Chch vs everyone else or or does everyone use the same high quake standards

 

For houses, it's defined in zones (1-4) under NZS 3604 - simplified/modified map from BRANZ below:

 

 

AFAIK, these are based on probability of having an event exceeding x%g peak ground acceleration per 50 years), as shown in the map below from GNS:

 

 

There seemed to be some opinion that Chch was a sitting duck for what happened - when it was actually just very bad luck / unfortunate timing.

 

 


Mad Scientist
19012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1493153 16-Feb-2016 11:42
Send private message

Christchurch is zone 2 = low risk?

7388 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3861


  Reply # 1493263 16-Feb-2016 14:37
Send private message

joker97: Christchurch is zone 2 = low risk?

 

Yeah - not "low" in world terms but only 2 in that scale of 1-4 for NZ.


1 | 2 | 3
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.