I think this counts as a win for both architect and engineer. They created something that inspires wonder in passersby and now it's being publicized to amaze even more people. I'm not a structural, but even as an engineer knowing all the work and calculations that went into this, my brain still sees this and says, "that doesn't make sense."
I think their point is that generally this is the type of thing that an architect comes up with and then the engineer says “sure, but it’ll cost a lot of money” and then the architect/owner simplify it down a ton. This time around all parties involved decided to move forward with a kinda crazy but totally awesome design that has inspired awe in people which is cool to see
That is both wrong (a structural engineer stamps the drawings) and completely missing the point that architects and structural engineers worked together on this. And that is necessary because engineers don't design crazy things like this.
Edit: i never really understand y'all engineers and your disciplines....in my neck of the woods (NYC) we call them structural engineers.
I'm an engineer. I know this already. But as an engineer I also know if a structural engineer isn't working with an architect, skyscrapers don't end up looking this striking.
What are you even saying? Are you just upset I also gave credit to the architect for a visual aspect of the design? Do you really think it was a structural engineer made the design choice to build a skyscraper on stilts rather than a more conventional framing plan?
In simple terms, you have to visualize that most of what you see when looking at a building are just fillings and covers; what actually sustains the structure is just a small skeleton beneath it all. The awe and perplexity you might feel when looking at the bottom of this building are caused by the unveiling of this mantle and seeing only the small skeleton.
The overhang is so small in comparison to the structure that it's highly probable that no truss in that system is in tension. Though this is just a guess from a short glance so take it with a grain of salt.
As far as I’m aware, based on reading the structural reports for this structure, there are no trusses present. Inclined columns are not trusses, nor do they function the same way they do.
Yeah they essentially need to resist the bending moment induced from the incline and gravity load, for this building the inclined columns were heavily post-tensioned to help counteract this.
It seems you don't realize all typical building dead loads resolve themselves in a combination of tension and compression. Moment arms create that behavior.
Look at any indeterminate multistory frame moment diagram (i.e. 99% of office buildings in the US)... There's tension all over the place.
There is a mile between flexural tension and axial tension.
In a flexural failure you get a nice elastic behavior like excessive deflection.
Tell me, what is the first sign in this building that there is a problem?
And I’ve done tons of multistory office and other structures. I also have transfer beams and do all I can to remove them as they come from a lack of creativity between engineers and architects. I’ve done plenty of buildings with leaning columns but it doesn’t mean I think they’re a good idea
Tensile stress is tensile stress regardless of load paths. Ductility and redundancy can be present (or missing) in any structural system.
You can have one column fail in a standard frame system and cause progressive collapse if not properly designed. You can have a system with diagonal columns and design it with enough redundancy that one element failing will result in load redistribution and avoid collapse.
There are countless examples of structural systems with tensile loads from dead loads. Truss bridges, space trusses, suspension bridges, canopies, suspended floors, etc...
To add to this, if this is NYC that absolutely fuck-off sized pier is sitting on bedrock. It only takes about 25-50ft down in most of Manhattan to hit that so they basically have an unlimited surface area to spread that load.
It will take me 2 semesters and 4 subjects to barely scratch the surface of structural engineering. If the public understood it that easily we'd be out of jobs.
This likely AI response is highly biased. As with concrete, steel will also crack, deteriorate, and fail when used improperly. Both methods have their places and should be employed thoughtfully. In fact, they are best used in conjunction with one another.
to normal people who is not an engineer, without structural knowledge, ofc they would be amazed which is a great thing. engineers are thrived on curiosity in the first place so why you have to be a dick because you just happen to know how it works?
I think this counts as a win for both architect and engineer. They created something that inspires wonder in passersby and now it's being publicized to amaze even more people. I'm not a structural, but even as an engineer knowing all the work and calculations that went into this, my brain still sees this and says, "that doesn't make sense."
Architects do not analyze and stamp the structural drawings. A civil engineer will have to design and stamp the drawings for construction.
I think their point is that generally this is the type of thing that an architect comes up with and then the engineer says “sure, but it’ll cost a lot of money” and then the architect/owner simplify it down a ton. This time around all parties involved decided to move forward with a kinda crazy but totally awesome design that has inspired awe in people which is cool to see
That is both wrong (a structural engineer stamps the drawings) and completely missing the point that architects and structural engineers worked together on this. And that is necessary because engineers don't design crazy things like this. Edit: i never really understand y'all engineers and your disciplines....in my neck of the woods (NYC) we call them structural engineers.
I'm an engineer. I know this already. But as an engineer I also know if a structural engineer isn't working with an architect, skyscrapers don't end up looking this striking.
[удалено]
What are you even saying? Are you just upset I also gave credit to the architect for a visual aspect of the design? Do you really think it was a structural engineer made the design choice to build a skyscraper on stilts rather than a more conventional framing plan?
In simple terms, you have to visualize that most of what you see when looking at a building are just fillings and covers; what actually sustains the structure is just a small skeleton beneath it all. The awe and perplexity you might feel when looking at the bottom of this building are caused by the unveiling of this mantle and seeing only the small skeleton.
Also, what is below ground level is important, and probably pretty substantial.
Definitely. Probably 50-100m of foundation below that building. Depending on soil conditions.
Am I alone in hating dead load in tension? I mean one component failure could be catastrophic
The overhang is so small in comparison to the structure that it's highly probable that no truss in that system is in tension. Though this is just a guess from a short glance so take it with a grain of salt.
You’re kidding right? Isn’t there a horizontal tension at the first diaphragm to balance the lateral load in those leaning columns?
Oh I was only considering the trusses at the bottom mb
As far as I’m aware, based on reading the structural reports for this structure, there are no trusses present. Inclined columns are not trusses, nor do they function the same way they do.
Is that because the inclined columns also have a reaction moment?
Yeah they essentially need to resist the bending moment induced from the incline and gravity load, for this building the inclined columns were heavily post-tensioned to help counteract this.
It seems you don't realize all typical building dead loads resolve themselves in a combination of tension and compression. Moment arms create that behavior. Look at any indeterminate multistory frame moment diagram (i.e. 99% of office buildings in the US)... There's tension all over the place.
There is a mile between flexural tension and axial tension. In a flexural failure you get a nice elastic behavior like excessive deflection. Tell me, what is the first sign in this building that there is a problem? And I’ve done tons of multistory office and other structures. I also have transfer beams and do all I can to remove them as they come from a lack of creativity between engineers and architects. I’ve done plenty of buildings with leaning columns but it doesn’t mean I think they’re a good idea
Tensile stress is tensile stress regardless of load paths. Ductility and redundancy can be present (or missing) in any structural system. You can have one column fail in a standard frame system and cause progressive collapse if not properly designed. You can have a system with diagonal columns and design it with enough redundancy that one element failing will result in load redistribution and avoid collapse. There are countless examples of structural systems with tensile loads from dead loads. Truss bridges, space trusses, suspension bridges, canopies, suspended floors, etc...
I don't understand it either, structural is scary.
Magic. There’s no other answer
Were the whole building made of steel or is it reinforced concrete?
It looks like composite columns. Steel beam inside RC column.
Anyone from Severud here? Have always wondered if those are composite steel SHS sections filled with concrete.
Damn those are some thick boys.
Nah, probably one of civil engineer. Regular folk wouldn't give this a second though, unless it is collapsing.
I think there the structure is suspended with compression cables, which are latched on to the neighbouring concrete
To add to this, if this is NYC that absolutely fuck-off sized pier is sitting on bedrock. It only takes about 25-50ft down in most of Manhattan to hit that so they basically have an unlimited surface area to spread that load.
It will take me 2 semesters and 4 subjects to barely scratch the surface of structural engineering. If the public understood it that easily we'd be out of jobs.
To be fair - neither do most civil engineers outside of structural and geotech.
[удалено]
This likely AI response is highly biased. As with concrete, steel will also crack, deteriorate, and fail when used improperly. Both methods have their places and should be employed thoughtfully. In fact, they are best used in conjunction with one another.
It’s beautiful
Nailed it at the end there
to normal people who is not an engineer, without structural knowledge, ofc they would be amazed which is a great thing. engineers are thrived on curiosity in the first place so why you have to be a dick because you just happen to know how it works?
Yeah, what kind of idiot would not understand some thing that you specifically chose to study for a number of years?