etworks.com.au> 3189550a   
   XPost: alt.building.construction, alt.trades.construction.us, alt.survival   
   XPost: alt.construction, alt.talk.weather, rec.travel.usa-canada   
   From: harbinjr@adelphia.net   
      
   "Terryc"  wrote in message   
   news:452afb00$0$4668$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...   
   > Harbin Osteen wrote:   
   >   
   >> Hi Jack:   
   >> Yea, they could be a prob, but with a burm house (half in the ground, and   
   covered with earth)   
   >> would be safe in a earthquake, because it moves with the earth, and   
   building on the south   
   >> slope of  a hill to take advantage of alternative power should get you   
   above any tsunami.   
   >   
   > I think your assumption is wrong.   
   > Earth quakes travel by pressure waves through the ground.   
   > When the earthquake reaches your house, it is simple going to punch in the   
   wall on the source side, unless it is sufficently   
   > strong (and massively costly) to effectively resist that force.   
   >   
   > AFAIKI, all earthquake design is about resisting the destruction of building   
   to give people time to evacuate to a "safer" area.   
   >   
   >>   
   Hi Terryc:   
       Your probably right for a structure that is compleatly underground, but   
   a berm house is only half under ground level, and will have a weaker   
   interface for the transfer of shear forces, but I need to do more research   
   on this to see how big of a problem this is.   
      
   --   
      
   SeeYaa:) Harbin Osteen KG6URO   
      
   When American Citizens with dual citizenship pledges allegiance   
   to the flag, to which flag do they pledge allegiance too?   
      
   -   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)