🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2i64ma$5k6@mailer.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes...
> 
>Impressive.  I heard last night that the 5/14 bridge is estimated 
>to have been deflected by 10 feet before it failed.  I think they 
>said it was a vertical deflection, and that the big problem with 
>this quake was that -- coming as it did from an unknown thrust 
>fault -- produced larger vertical stesses than anyone expected. 
>Is this accurate? 

That's what I've heard.  Interestingly, they said a similar thing about
the '89 Bay Area quake - that there were far larger vertical stresses
than had been anticipated on the basis of historical data.  That was
the reason that a section of the Bay Bridge collapsed.  I wonder why
the geologists are so surprised at the vertical motion.  Were these
two quakes anomalous?  

-Scott 
--------------------
Scott I. Chase					"Mmmm... floor pie."		
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV					-Homer J. Simpson