Not to minimize the consequences of a major earthquake in LA, San Francisco Seattle, Portland, or other large cities. However, one needs to keep in mind that the amount of ground breakage is very dependent on local geologic conditions, which vary dramatically in a small area. ......Regarding airports specifically, the control tower at Anchorage International collapsed. I'm not sure how much damage was done to the runways. I do recall reading somewhere that Elmendorf AFB (just north of downtown) was able to get recon flights into the air the day following the '64 quake, to begin surveying the extent of damage. I will try to find out more info on this.......
OK, replying to myself now, I did a bit of research after work today. Damage to airports after the '64 Alaska Earthquake was overall surprisingly light. According to Hansen et al (1966, USGS Prof Paper 541, "The Alaska Earthquake March 27, 1964: Field Investigations and Reconstruction Effort"):
"Damage to airports was relatively minor....Greatest damage was at Anchorage International Airport, where a life was lost when the control tower collapsed...and where minor damage was sustained by other buildings.....Runways and taxi strips were only slightly damaged."However, port damage was another matter. The ports of Whittier, Seward, and Valdez were almost totally destroyed by a combination of fires, slumping, locally induced waves due to underwater landslides, and the tsunami generated by the earthquake. The Port of Anchorage (which is not subject to tsunamis) was damaged, though much less severly, by slumping and shaking.
As I noted in my previous post, damage in an earthquake is highly dependent on the local geology of each site (soils, topographical relief, etc). How succeptable a port is to tsumanis is likewise highly dependent on the local underwater topography.
Previous Topic
Index
