Mexico Connect
Forums  > Specific Focus > Home, Garden & Construction in Mexico


patricio_lintz


Mar 24, 2006, 9:37 AM

Post #1 of 12 (4654 views)

Shortcut

Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
Does anyone have a detailed scale map of the geologic faults in the Lake Chapala area?

I have been told many different things but have confirmed on a large map that there are faults in the area, especially near the north shore of Lake Chapala.



Rolly / Moderator


Mar 24, 2006, 9:52 AM

Post #2 of 12 (4649 views)

Shortcut

Re: [patricio_lintz] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
Take it from an old California earth quake rider -- it doesn't matter if you are right over a fault or just nearby. In fact sometimes the damage from a quake can be worse some distance away from the fault.

In the last big one in Los Angeles (the Northridge quake), I was about 3 miles from the center. There was no difference in the damage between my neighborhood and that right over the center. There was also serious damage 25 miles away.

Knowing exactly where the fault lines are may be of academic interest, but it has little real-world value for a home owner unless it is a major fault that is visible from the ground. In which case you would not want to build a house straddling a visible line like parts of the San Andreas.

Rolly Pirate


tonyburton


Mar 24, 2006, 10:10 AM

Post #3 of 12 (4648 views)

Shortcut

Re: [patricio_lintz] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
INEGI has published (though it may now be out of print) a geological map of the area at a scale of 1:50,000.


sfmacaws


Mar 24, 2006, 3:18 PM

Post #4 of 12 (4632 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
Rolly's absolutely right, it's wave theory and damage can be much greater a distance away if the waves line up right. More important is what kind of substrata you are built on. Sand = bad, rock = good, fill = you're screwed.


Jonna - Mérida, Yucatán




patricio_lintz


Mar 25, 2006, 4:08 PM

Post #5 of 12 (4600 views)

Shortcut

Re: [sfmacaws] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
Thanks, guys!


dolores57

Mar 25, 2006, 9:53 PM

Post #6 of 12 (4581 views)

Shortcut

Re: [sfmacaws] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
I am curious about this earthquake business. Are all parts of Mexico susceptable to earthquakes? Are some parts more likely to have them? d.


johnv

Mar 26, 2006, 6:35 AM

Post #7 of 12 (4570 views)

Shortcut

Re: [dolores57] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
I've been told by many locals that Guanajuato Capital does not have earthquakes. I don't know if it is true, but I really don't understand why this area of this state would be immune. I do know that I have noticed no tremors here in over 3 years, and having lived previously in neighboring San Miguel de Allende for 2 years, had noticed none there either. I was on the Pacific Coast when the 1985 quake hit and witnessed first hand some of the extreme damages there. It seems that Guerrero and Oaxaca are most prone.


Rolly / Moderator


Mar 26, 2006, 6:44 AM

Post #8 of 12 (4567 views)

Shortcut

Re: [dolores57] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
Here is a map that show seismic activity in Mexico: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/...rld/mexico/gshap.php

Rolly Pirate


Papirex


Mar 26, 2006, 12:19 PM

Post #9 of 12 (4551 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Rolly] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
Thanks for the link Rolly. I found it to be very informative. I was born and raised in California, which is the second most seismically active state in The US, and I moved to Alaska, which is the most seismically active state. The pacific plate is sliding under the North American plate at the Alaska coast. In Anchorage, earthquakes are usually at least a weekly occurrence.

I looked up the 1964 Good Friday earthquake in Alaska, and the 1960 earthquake in Concepción, Chile. I knew that the most severe earthquake ever recorded was somewhere in Chile, but I didn’t know where, or when. The second most severe earthquake ever recorded was the 1964 Alaska earthquake, I did know that.

I knew that the tsunami from the Chile quake traveled across the Pacific Ocean and killed people in Japan. The tsunami from the Alaska quake traveled across The Gulf of Alaska and down the western side of The North American continent. It killed people in Canada and as far south as The State of California in The US.

Because of the small population, the loss of life from the Alaska quake was small. Less than a hundred deaths were recorded. It did do a lot of structural damage in Anchorage; there is a type of clay that underlies much of Anchorage that liquefies when it is vibrated at a certain number of cycles per minute. Much of the quake damage in 1964 was because buildings literally sank.

No commercial building may be built in downtown Anchorage now until core samples of the earth at the building site are taken and analyzed to determine that none of that type of clay is present. The tallest building in Anchorage today is 22 stories. The second tallest is 20 stories. I worked on both of them; they were built in the 1980s.

It completely destroyed the town of Valdez. The crest of the tsunami was 67 feet high when it hit Valdez. The highest loss of life from that quake was in Valdez. Valdez was rebuilt and relocated about 7 miles from its original location. Nothing in present day Valdez is more than 42 years old.

Every number on the Richter scale indicates a quake twice as severe as the number before it. So if there is a 4.0 earthquake, and then there is a 4.1 quake, it is twice as severe as the 4.0 quake. If there is a 4.2 quake, it is twice as severe as a 4.1 quake and four times as severe as a 4.0 quake, etc. The 1964 Alaska earthquake was 9.2 on the Richter scale.

I was in Mexico City a few months after the devastating 1985 earthquake. My mother in laws house was destroyed then. Several other relative’s homes were either destroyed or severely damaged too. There were many collapsed high-rise hotels and other buildings with bodies still inside them at that time too.

Much of the damage, in my opinion, was due to the construction methods used here in Mexico. Of course many of the older buildings that were destroyed had no reinforcement at all, just brick construction, etc. The rigidly constructed building, no matter how strong, is the most likely to fail in an earthquake.

The flexible building is the most likely to survive, with little or no damage. Wood or steel framed, or properly engineered concrete, with pre-stressed concrete beams are the most likely to survive an earthquake with little or no damage. Properly engineered concrete, especially pre-stressed concrete beams will flex, without fracturing.

In the meantime, we live with what we’ve got in Mexico. It is too bad that they don’t have any enforced building codes here.

Rex
"The supreme happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved" - Victor Hugo


arbon

Mar 26, 2006, 4:20 PM

Post #10 of 12 (4525 views)

Shortcut

Re: [RexC] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post |
Just checking my memory.

Tsunami '64: The luck of the fjord on the West Coast.

No deaths or injuries in Canada.


http://www.cbc.ca/...owland/20041231.html

The Alaska earthquake in 1964 was the largest recorded in North America, magnitude 9.2. According to NOAA, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the epicentre was in Prince William Sound, 22 kilometres deep in the earth, about 88 kilometres west of Valdez. The earthquake hit at 5:36 p.m. Alaska time. Later studies showed that the ground east of Kodiak, Alaska, was raised about 10 metres, while at Portage, Alaska, it dropped about 2½ metres.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Papirex


Mar 26, 2006, 6:10 PM

Post #11 of 12 (4511 views)

Shortcut

Re: [arbon] Lake Chapala Geology

Can't Post | Private Reply
Arbon, You are probably correct about no Canadians being killed. I have read that some people were killed in Canada, but I have never found any documentation of it. I was still living in Napa, California when the quake occurred. I do remember that the last two people killed were two fishermen on their boat in, or near the harbor at Eureka, California.

It is considered a blessing that the quake occurred on Good Friday. Many people had taken the afternoon off to go to church, and were not in harms way when the quake hit. A friend of mine credits that with saving his life.

He was working on the construction of a new building in downtown Anchorage, in the excavation where the basement was to be located. He told me when he went to the job on Monday, there was no excavation, the ground was leveled. If there had been men working there in the afternoon, they would have been buried alive.

News of the disaster was slow to reach the lower 48. There was no satellite communications then. The phone system run by the Army in Alaska was knocked out. Individual volunteer amateur ham radio operators provided the only life saving communications with Alaska at that time.

There are several places in the state where the ground or lake levels did rise or fall permanently. At Portage, there are a lot of trees near Turnagain Arm that died from salt-water infiltration when the ground level dropped. A highway runs right past them.

There are still sometimes wild eyed, fanatic, tree hugging “environmentalists” that come to Alaska to “save” us. When they see those long dead trees they immediately start trying to raise money to try to reduce the “pollution” that they think killed those trees to save the rest of our trees. There is no real pollution in Alaska.

The lake level of Mirror Lake near Anchorage dropped about ten feet; it has never recovered its previous level. Geologists have studied it, they have not come up with an explanation, the ground level at the lake did not drop.

There is a now decommissioned Coast Guard Station off the southern coast. In the late 1940s a freighter sank just off that island. I have seen photographs of that ship. It now sits high and dry on the beach of that island. That earthquake raised the seabed. The children of the Coastguardsmen that used to be stationed there used to play on it.

Mother nature has unimaginable power when she acts up. She is often also a bitch.

Rex


"The supreme happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved" - Victor Hugo


tonyburton


Mar 26, 2006, 6:13 PM

Post #12 of 12 (4510 views)

Shortcut

Slight clarification re intensities of earthquakes

Can't Post | Private Reply
Reading Rex's detail about the intensity of earthquakes doubling from 6.1 to 6.2 etc, reminded me of that old puzzle about grains of rice on a chessboard - one on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, etc, with the question being how many would be on the 64th square. (or its variants like one cent on the first square, two cents on the second etc.) The answer in either case is totally mind-blowing.

But to get back to the point, and to quote directly from the Geological Survey of Canada webpage at http://www.pgc.nrcan.gc.ca/seismo/eqinfo/richter.htm

The Richter Scale is logarithmic, that is an increase of 1 magnitude unit represents a factor of ten times in amplitude. The seismic waves of a magnitude 6 earthquake are 10 times greater in amplitude than those of a magnitude 5 earthquake. However, in terms of energy release, a magnitude 6 earthquake is about 31 times greater than a magnitude 5.


(This post was edited by tonyburton on Mar 26, 2006, 6:13 PM)
 
 
Search for (advanced search) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.4