OT. Interesting video about Manhattan Building structural integrity

I haven't viewed the entire video yet, but that is amazing. A Tacoma Narrows bridge in midtown Manhattan.

I have learned that we are not as good at implementing our technology as we would like. If you listen to the early part of the interview LeMessurier said that no one had considered winds from the quarter direction when analyzing buildings, if I understood him correctly. That floors me! That such an obvious thing would be missed.

This is the sort of thing that results in Fukushima type accidents. And yet we continue to believe that we can do anything we put our minds to.

Fascinating. Thanks.

Sylvia.

Well, there was NO mention of using standardized struts on the corners of the building *AND* rotating the placement 45 degrees! Obvious advantages (1) standardized struts, and (2) avoidance of the church. Was anybody THINKING, or was there this orgasm rush of new "cutting edge" design?

rotating the building would make it smaller to fit on the same square

Since they couldn't hang the corners of the building over the street, that would have reduced the floor space considerably.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

It's NY. Who cares if it falls over >:-} ...Jim Thompson

I think that would require a smaller building. Skyscrapers already have significant floorspace used by the infrastructure so that if you reduce the floor area more, the usable space drops considerably.

Methinks that using known, standard design for maximum stability and SAFETY should trump all else. Besides, they are famous for tall structures there, so a few more floors would yield total floorspace desired. Oh,,,did you see those ugly diagonal beams right in the MIDDLE of rooms?

I think when it comes to this sort of building there is no "standard" design. They are all very unique structures and are usually built much like large ships, one of a kind or one of a small family of structures each with differences.

They build to the building code which doesn't tell you what to build, rather the performance specs required and it would seem the ways in which you must verify them... which aren't always up to the task. That was the real problem with this structure wasn't it? The "standard" analysis they did was only appropriate for buildings with the main supports in the corners.

I will say I'm surprised it never occurred to anyone that they should consider winds other than direct to the faces. I guess someone did a fairly convincing "proof" that for the building they had erected to date, face centered winds were the worst case... but I'm not sure how they could do that for the wide variety of buildings in use. They have a very wide range of shapes and sizes even without moving the main supports to the centers of the faces.

I guess that is what E&O insurance is for.

This is an excellent link to an interesting story. I vaguely remember seeing something on educational TV sometime back about that building. I think this article and the embedded video make a great story and a fascinating interview. Thanks, Mikek.

The people who, if they knew about it, are destined to die, Mr. Curmudgeon.

Extremely. I think the building was started in 1978 or so. I wonder what computing power they had back then for structural design and analysis.

But according to what I saw in that link and the embedded multi-part video, the whole thing was actually caused by permitting the chevrons to be bolted rather than welded. It all could have been avoided.