PDA

View Full Version : Life 5 Shocking Architectural Failures


ForeverChiefs58
09-08-2011, 10:25 PM
Was surprised Kemper made it and the Hyatt Regency callapse didn't make the list

5 Shocking Architectural Failures

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/re/gr2/cr_architectfailmain.jpg


People make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes happen on the job. Usually, the incident is corrected and the whole thing is forgotten within minutes. However, the workplace mistake is harder to ignore when the person who makes it is an architect.

After all, when the teenager working the drive-thru window gives you a Quarter Pounder instead of a Big Mac, it causes a lot less trauma than when a 3,000-foot-long suspension bridge collapses into the Puget Sound.

In "The Yale Book of Quotations," the legendary American architect Frank Lloyd Wright is quoted as saying, “The physician can bury his mistakes, but the architect can only advise his client to plant vines.” While this statement from 1954 is still true today, it doesn’t take into account the architectural, design, and engineering errors that became possible in the decades after his death. Those mistakes have been bigger, costlier, and more spectacular than Wright could have imagined, and there are not enough vines in the world to hide them.

What are some of the more notable architectural failures in modern history? Here are five that impressed us:

Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Tacoma, WA

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/re/gr2/cr_tacomanarrows.jpg
Amazingly, the whole collapse was captured on video.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was a suspension bridge that connected the port city of Tacoma, WA, with the Kitsap Peninsula. It was the third-longest suspension bridge in the world when it opened to the public on July 1, 1940, but it closed four months later after a spectacular collapse.

The cause of the collapse was inadequate girders that were used to keep construction costs low. They failed to keep the bridge deck in place, allowing it to sway violently whenever a strong enough wind blew.

This situation was already noticeable to construction workers, who nicknamed it “Galloping Gertie.” The name stuck when the general public crossed the bridge and noticed its similarity to a bucking bronco. It finally collapsed on Nov. 7, 1940, under the stress of a 40 mile-per-hour wind.

Lotus Riverside, Shanghai, China

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/re/gr2/cr_lotusapart.jpg
Tenants had yet to move in, but one worker died in the incident.

The Lotus Riverside is a residential apartment complex in Shanghai consisting of eleven 13-story buildings. On the morning of June 27, 2009, one of them toppled over, just barely missing an adjacent building. Had it not missed, it might have caused one toppled building to topple into the next, creating a horrifying domino effect that, thankfully, did not come to pass.

The cause of the collapse was attributed to excavation that was in progress to create an underground garage. The earth removed from beneath the building was dumped into a landfill near a creek, and its weight caused the river bank to collapse. Water from the creek then seeped into the ground, turning the building’s foundation into mud.

Vdara Hotel & Spa, Las Vegas, NV

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/re/gr2/cr_vdarahotel.jpg
Fortunately, singed hair was the only human casualty of the unintended death ray.

When researching hotels for an upcoming trip, many potential guests hope to find certain amenities, such as a mini-bar, a gym, or close proximity to sightseeing. However, the Vdara Hotel & Spa in Las Vegas offers a unique accoutrement that neither its guests nor its architect anticipated—a death ray.

The hotel opened in December 2009 and featured a unique, curved structure. However, its design collected solar rays and beamed them to the hotel swimming pool area. Guests sunning themselves nearby were regularly singed, such as Bill Pintas, who claimed that the hotel’s impromptu death ray had burned his hair and melted the plastic bag he had with him.

Playground at Pier One, Brooklyn Bridge Park, NY

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/re/gr2/cr_brooklynpark.jpg
The offending domes have since been removed from the play area.

Most parents who take their children to the playground know the drill. Before putting their kids into a swing, they touch it first to make sure the seat, which has been sitting in the sun all day, isn’t too hot. However, the designers of the playground at Pier One in New York’s Brooklyn Bridge Park managed to overlook this principle when they designed three play structures for children to climb on, and built them out of steel.

The domed structures regularly became too hot to touch, much less climb. Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates, measured their temperature at more than 127 degrees, and parent Roula Fokas observed, “You can fry an egg on them." In July 2010, The New York Post reported the domes would be replaced with new equipment which, presumably, could be touched by anyone, at any time of year.


Kemper Arena, Kansas City, MO

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/re/gr2/cr_kemperarena.jpg
About an acre of the roof collapsed from excess water.

Kemper Arena is an indoor stadium in Kansas City, MO, that opened in 1974. It had been the site of the 1976 Republican National Convention and it won raves for its unique design. Rather than employ view-obstructing columns, the roof was suspended from trusses on its exterior.

On June 4, 1979, the roof collapsed when a heavy storm battered the city. Fortunately, it wasn’t being used at the time, so there were no injuries or fatalities, but it was a shock to the city nonetheless.

The roof had been designed to release rainwater slowly, in order to avoid flooding the nearby West Bottoms area. This caused rainwater to collect on top and pool anywhere the roof sagged, creating excess weight. Worse yet, the roof was suspended from hangers, and the strength of their bolts had been miscalculated. Once a single bolt gave way, many of the neighboring ones followed suit, ultimately leading to the roof’s collapse.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/5-shocking-architectural-failures.html

aturnis
09-08-2011, 10:35 PM
Kemper made it but the Metro dome is alright?

Phobia
09-08-2011, 10:37 PM
Wasn't the Hyatt more of a job site implimentation error than an architectural error?

stlchiefs
09-08-2011, 10:39 PM
Kemper made it but the Metro dome is alright?

Kemper only collapsed once, the Metrodome has collapsed multiple times so it's not longer shocking. :shrug:

Bacon Cheeseburger
09-08-2011, 10:41 PM
The Metrodome doesn't really collapse, it just deflates.

4th and Long
09-08-2011, 10:44 PM
My belly is becoming an architectural failure, as of late.

Brock
09-08-2011, 10:45 PM
Wasn't the Hyatt more of a job site implimentation error than an architectural error?

Nope. The architecture firm okayed what they did.

stlchiefs
09-08-2011, 10:48 PM
My belly is becoming an architectural failure, as of late.

That's not true, the blob shape of the "Bean" in Chicago is considered a great success.

4th and Long
09-08-2011, 10:49 PM
That's not true, the blob shape of the "Bean" in Chicago is considered a great success.

Awesome! My belly has gone from failure to success!

Setsuna
09-08-2011, 10:50 PM
Wow this is great. Architecture is my major. I never thought to look at failures to learn from. That's learning 101 I know. I'm special at times. Thanks for this. If anyone can post some more I'd be obliged.

cdcox
09-08-2011, 10:52 PM
Someone needs to learn the difference between an engineer and an architect.

An architect draws a pretty picture of a bridge or a building. It's up to the engineer to make it work or to tell the architect to get real. These are all engineering failures. But cutting edge designs and the resulting failures is one of the ways that engineering knowledge advances.

4th and Long
09-08-2011, 10:55 PM
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5630/mistakes3za9.jpg

Discuss Thrower
09-08-2011, 10:55 PM
Someone needs to learn the difference between an engineer and an architect.

An architect draws a pretty picture of a bridge or a building. It's up to the engineer to make it work or to tell the architect to get real. These are all engineering failures. But cutting edge designs and the resulting failures is one of the ways that engineering knowledge advances.

And thus is born the hate between the two parties.

cdcox
09-08-2011, 11:01 PM
And thus is born the hate between the two parties.

Both professions serve their purpose. If engineers designed buidings, they would all look like boxes, with every square foot designed to deliver function. You don't want engineers designing anything more inspiring than a Walmart.

In contrast, when it comes to making sure the building won't fall down, you don't want someone grinding through the calculations or managing the project who would rather be sketching the next conceptual design.

Frankie
09-08-2011, 11:11 PM
These are ENGINEERING failures, not Architectural ones.

ForeverChiefs58
09-08-2011, 11:23 PM
5 more from their extensive 10 Major Architectural Failures list

Aon Center

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_SLIDESHOWS/10ArchitectureFails/SS_10_Architecture_Fails_Aon_Building.jpg

The Aon Center is the third-tallest building in Chicago. It was completed in 1973 and was originally named the Standard Oil Building. When it was completed, the building was a visual wonder to behold, thanks to the decision to sheath the entire structure in Italian Carrara marble. The building looked great, but its fetching exterior came at a very high price.

Carrara marble is much thinner than building materials normally used to clad buildings, and in 1974 one of the slabs detached from the building and crashed into the roof of the neighboring Prudential Center. An investigation revealed the completely unsuitable marble was cracking and bowing all over the exterior. Ultimately, the building was refaced with granite at a cost of more than $80 million .

John Hancock Tower

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_SLIDESHOWS/10ArchitectureFails/SS_10_Architecture_Fails_Hancock_Center.jpg

The John Hancock Tower is a 60-story skyscraper in Boston that was designed by the I.M. Pei & Partners architectural firm and unveiled in 1976. Its striking, minimalist appearance won it accolades from the architectural community, but it was famously plagued with problems.

One major issue the building encountered concerned its windows: They were falling out and crashing to the pavement hundreds of feet below. In the 1992 book "Why Buildings Fall Down," authors Matthys Levy and Mario Salvadori explained that this was due to unanticipated, repeated thermal stresses to the panels. Ultimately, all 10,000 windows would be replaced at a cost of $5 million.

The John Hancock Tower encountered one other major problem. Skyscrapers are meant to sway in order to absorb strong gusts of wind, though the sway is normally not felt by the building’s residents. The John Hancock Tower, however, swayed so dramatically that it gave the occupants of its upper floors motion sickness. The problem was finally solved by Cambridge engineer William LeMessurier .


Ray and Maria Stata Center

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_SLIDESHOWS/10ArchitectureFails/SS_10_Architecture_Fails_Stata_Center_MIT.jpg

The Ray and Maria Stata Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was designed by award-winning architect Frank Gehry. It opened in 2004 and houses the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, and the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems. It was hailed for its logic-defying angles and walls that challenged the laws of physics.

Three years after it opened, MIT filed a negligence suit against Gehry, claiming design flaws in the $300 million building had caused major structural problems. Drainage issues had caused cracks in the walls. Icicle daggers hung pendulously from the roof like deadly sash weights. Mold grew on the building’s brick exterior.

The school paid more than $1.5 million for repairs. A spokesman for the construction company, Skanska USA Building, claimed the company had tried to warn Gehry of problems with the design on numerous occasions, and had made repeated requests to use more suitable material. "We were told to proceed with the original design," the spokesman said . "It was difficult to make the original design work."


W.E.B. Du Bois Library

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_SLIDESHOWS/10ArchitectureFails/SS_10_Architecture_Fails_WEB_Dubois_Library.jpg

The University of Massachusetts Amherst is home to three distinguished libraries, which include the Music Reserve Lab and the Science and Engineering Library. However, the best known is the W.E.B. Du Bois Library, a 26-story structure that is the tallest library in the U.S .

Within two months of its opening, the building began shedding brick chips, a phenomenon known as spalling. There are various urban legends that persist about its causes, the most popular of which is that the architect who designed the building failed to take into account the weight of the books to be housed inside it.

While no official cause of the spalling was given, 60,000 books had to be moved out of the building. It was later discovered the building was sinking into the pond-saturated ground on which it was built. However, YouMass, a helpful guide to life on the UMass Amherst campus, says this claim is overblown and describes the degree to which the building is sinking as “ not so much .”


CNA Center

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/_SLIDESHOWS/10ArchitectureFails/SS_10_Architecture_Fails_CNA_Center.jpg

The CNA Center is a high-rise building in Chicago that opened in 1972. The 44-story building was designed by the firm of Graham, Anderson, Probst & White. It’s painted bright red, making it impossible not to notice.

In 1999, a large piece of a window came loose from the 29th floor of the building and plunged to the ground, causing one fatality. The culprit was thermal expansion , and after an $18 million settlement every one of the building’s windows was replaced. Each window is still checked on a monthly basis to this day.

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 06:08 AM
Nope. The architecture firm okayed what they did.

To clarify... it was a combination of structural engineering failure, relying on computer modeling too much and a deviation from the original design by the contractor.

Of all places... wikipedia has it accurate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

Three days after the disaster, Wayne Lischka, a structural engineer hired by The Kansas City Star newspaper, discovered a significant change of the original design of the walkways. Reportage of the event later earned the Star and its associated publication the Kansas City Times a Pulitzer Prize for local news reporting during 1982.[12] (Radio station KJLA-AM won a National Associated Press award for its reporting during the night of the disaster.)

The two walkways were suspended from a set of 1.25 inch diameter[13] steel tie rods, with the second floor walkway hanging directly under the fourth floor walkway. The fourth floor walkway platform was supported on 3 cross-beams suspended by steel rods retained by nuts. The cross-beams were box girders made from C-channel strips welded together lengthwise, with a hollow space between them. The original design by Jack D. Gillum and Associates specified three pairs of rods running from the second floor to the ceiling. Investigators determined eventually that this design supported only 60 percent of the minimum load required by Kansas City building codes.[14]

Havens Steel Company, the contractor responsible for manufacturing the rods, objected to the original plan of Jack D. Gillum and Associates, since it required the whole of the rod below the fourth floor to be screw threaded in order to screw on the nuts to hold the fourth floor walkway in place. These threads would probably have been damaged and rendered unusable as the structure for the fourth floor was hoisted into position with the rods in place. Havens therefore proposed an alternate plan in which two separate sets of tie rods would be used: one connecting the fourth floor walkway to the ceiling, and the other connecting the second floor walkway to the fourth floor walkway.[3]

This design change would prove fatal. In the original design, the beams of the fourth floor walkway had to support only the weight of the fourth floor walkway itself, with the weight of the second floor walkway supported completely by the rods. In the revised design, however, the fourth floor beams were required to support both the fourth floor walkway and the second floor walkway hanging from it. With the load on the fourth-floor beams doubled, Havens' proposed design could bear only 30 percent of the mandated minimum load (as opposed to 60 percent for the original design).

The serious flaws of the revised design were compounded by the fact that both designs placed the bolts directly through a welded joint connecting two C-channels, the weakest structural point in the box beams. Photographs of the wreckage show excessive deformations of the cross-section.[15] During the failure the box beams split along the weld and the nut supporting them slipped through the resulting gap between the two C-channels which had been welded together.

Investigators concluded that the basic problem was a lack of proper communication between Jack D. Gillum and Associates and Havens Steel. In particular, the drawings prepared by Jack D. Gillum and Associates were only preliminary sketches but were interpreted by Havens as finalized drawings. Jack D. Gillum and Associates failed to review the initial design thoroughly, and accepted Havens' proposed plan without performing basic calculations that would have revealed its serious intrinsic flaws — in particular, the doubling of the load on the fourth-floor beams.[

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 06:08 AM
Someone needs to learn the difference between an engineer and an architect.

An architect draws a pretty picture of a bridge or a building. It's up to the engineer to make it work or to tell the architect to get real. These are all engineering failures. But cutting edge designs and the resulting failures is one of the ways that engineering knowledge advances.

Thank you for saying it so I don't have to.

KcMizzou
09-09-2011, 06:14 AM
Most parents who take their children to the playground know the drill. Before putting their kids into a swing, they touch it first to make sure the seat, which has been sitting in the sun all day, isn’t too hot. However, the designers of the playground at Pier One in New York’s Brooklyn Bridge Park managed to overlook this principle when they designed three play structures for children to climb on, and built them out of steel.

The domed structures regularly became too hot to touch, much less climb. Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates, measured their temperature at more than 127 degrees, and parent Roula Fokas observed, “You can fry an egg on them." In July 2010, The New York Post reported the domes would be replaced with new equipment which, presumably, could be touched by anyone, at any time of year. LMAO Really?

"Metal playground equipment gets hot" makes the list?

Amnorix
09-09-2011, 06:34 AM
Someone needs to learn the difference between an engineer and an architect.

An architect draws a pretty picture of a bridge or a building. It's up to the engineer to make it work or to tell the architect to get real. These are all engineering failures. But cutting edge designs and the resulting failures is one of the ways that engineering knowledge advances.

errr....no. Architects need to understand load capacity and all that sciency-building stuff too.


EDIT: Let me qualify my statement -- I understand that architects are not PEs and do not have the same degree of knowledge as, say, a Civil Engineer would have for building materials, etc. But they are supposed to have some knowledge on these matters as well in order to create realistic designs. Some of the examples given -- in particular the bridge in Tacoma, would seem to be more of an engineer failing than an architectural one, definitely.

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 06:52 AM
errr....no. Architects need to understand load capacity and all that sciency-building stuff too.


EDIT: Let me qualify my statement -- I understand that architects are not PEs and do not have the same degree of knowledge as, say, a Civil Engineer would have for building materials, etc. But they are supposed to have some knowledge on these matters as well in order to create realistic designs. Some of the examples given -- in particular the bridge in Tacoma, would seem to be more of an engineer failing than an architectural one, definitely.

Uhh... not really. They need to understand very, very basic engineering fundamentals, but that is only really used to gather if what they are conceiving is even remotely feasible. Most of the time they draw on their experience from other jobs and rules of thumb. Actually, never have I seen one do a calculation of any kind.

Architects rely on the engineers to make their buildings safe and code compliant (except for fire codes and egress). Most of the time if there is a "building" failure it is due to engineering/construction... not architects.

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 06:55 AM
Of the 10 above I would say that three are possibly architectural failures: Vdara Hotel & Spa, Las Vegas, NV; Playground at Pier One, Brooklyn Bridge Park, NY; and Ray and Maria Stata Center.

The rest are either structural or geotechnical in nature.

rageeumr
09-09-2011, 07:07 AM
errr....no. Architects need to understand load capacity and all that sciency-building stuff too.

They don't NEED to. The good ones do, but there are plenty that don't, and still have a stamp.

Amnorix
09-09-2011, 07:08 AM
Uhh... not really. They need to understand very, very basic engineering fundamentals, but that is only really used to gather if what they are conceiving is even remotely feasible. Most of the time they draw on their experience from other jobs and rules of thumb. Actually, never have I seen one do a calculation of any kind.

Architects rely on the engineers to make their buildings safe and code compliant (except for fire codes and egress). Most of the time if there is a "building" failure it is due to engineering/construction... not architects.

Since you're a CivE as I recall, I'll definitely defer to you.

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 07:16 AM
They don't NEED to. The good ones do, but there are plenty that don't, and still have a stamp.

err... wrong. To get a stamp they have to pass a test in each discipline which makes them learn the basics. (And it is the basics because I have taught some of the structural portions to a few architect friends to prepare them for that test... which is supposedly the hardest one they take.)

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 07:17 AM
Since you're a CivE as I recall, I'll definitely defer to you.

:thumb:

Just trying to teach the world the finer points of my industry.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 07:25 AM
I gotta say, there is often nothing more inspiring than a monumental building symbolizing the achievements of human industrial and commercial aptitude.

And I'm amazed at some of the road systems people put together. The clover highways, underpasses, ramps, molding together to create the grid we rely on for transportation in commerce and leisure.

rageeumr
09-09-2011, 07:31 AM
err... wrong. To get a stamp they have to pass a test in each discipline which makes them learn the basics. (And it is the basics because I have taught some of the structural portions to a few architect friends to prepare them for that test... which is supposedly the hardest one they take.)

I feel like we're arguing the same point. I was saying that structural knowledge is not required to have an AIA stamp, but the "good" architects have a pretty decent understanding of structural requirements and constructability. They're obviously not going to be sizing structural members, but they can allow for structure in preliminary sketches, instead of handing over a pretty picture and saying "ok, figure out how to make this stand up"

cdcox
09-09-2011, 07:32 AM
Let me elaborate on what epitome1170 has said.

I am the lead academic advisor in our department. A few students every year do a dual degree in architecture and civil engineering. We give architects credit for about 5 hours of structural engineering. Our undergrads that do not specialize in structural engineering take least 3 additional hours in structures. So an engineer who has no interest at all in structures will know more about what makes a building stand up or fall down than an architect. Students who graduate with some specialization in structural engineering at the BS level will take at least 9 more hours than an architecture student. But to really know structural engineering, you would get an MS degree and take additional 30 hours of structural engineering classes, beyond the BS level. At that point you are comparing a lawyer to someone who has take a business law class.

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 07:34 AM
I feel like we're arguing the same point. I was saying that structural knowledge is not required to have an AIA stamp, but the "good" architects have a pretty decent understanding of structural requirements and constructability. They're obviously not going to be sizing structural members, but they can allow for structure in preliminary sketches, instead of handing over a pretty picture and saying "ok, figure out how to make this stand up"

I guess what I am saying that in order to get the AIA stamp they have to have some decent knowledge of the structural requirements and constructability (at least for a short time... their test), but as we both know many people take the cram and purge approach to tests... (god, I hated physics)

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 07:35 AM
Let me elaborate on what epitome1170 has said.

I am the lead academic advisor in our department. A few students every year do a dual degree in architecture and civil engineering. We give architects credit for about 5 hours of structural engineering. Our undergrads that do not specialize in structural engineering take least 3 additional hours in structures. So an engineer who has no interest at all in structures will know more about what makes a building stand up or fall down than an architect. Students who graduate with some specialization in structural engineering at the BS level will take at least 9 more hours than an architecture student. But to really know structural engineering, you would get an MS degree and take additional 30 hours of structural engineering classes, beyond the BS level. At that point you are comparing a lawyer to someone who has take a business law class.

:clap:

Well explained. Thank you.

Otter
09-09-2011, 07:43 AM
Wow this is great. Architecture is my major. I never thought to look at failures to learn from. That's learning 101 I know. I'm special at times. Thanks for this. If anyone can post some more I'd be obliged.

Is anyone here a marine biologist?

Stewie
09-09-2011, 08:21 AM
Someone needs to learn the difference between an engineer and an architect.

An architect draws a pretty picture of a bridge or a building. It's up to the engineer to make it work or to tell the architect to get real. These are all engineering failures. But cutting edge designs and the resulting failures is one of the ways that engineering knowledge advances.

How is designing a curved hotel that focuses the sun on the swimming pool area an engineering failure?

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 08:23 AM
How is designing a curved hotel that focuses the sun on the swimming pool area an engineering failure?

How is a swaying bridge an architectural failure?

See my post #22

Setsuna
09-09-2011, 08:37 AM
I know I have to take physics I & II w/ Calculus. And Structures, so I think we do need to learn something.

ForeverChiefs58
09-09-2011, 08:40 AM
I gotta say, there is often nothing more inspiring than a monumental building symbolizing the achievements of human industrial and commercial aptitude.

And I'm amazed at some of the road systems people put together. The clover highways, underpasses, ramps, molding together to create the grid we rely on for transportation in commerce and leisure.



Yes, the Grandview triangle was always a head scratcher. Amazing that someone looked at that on paper and thought that would be a good idea and not a total cluster fuck.

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 08:43 AM
I know I have to take physics I & II w/ Calculus. And Structures, so I think we do need to learn something.

No one is saying that you don't learn something... or aren't important to society for that matter.

As cdcox put before, you are taking A structure class... not years of it so there is no way that you will know enough of it to be a competent structural engineer... and you don't need to be that's why you hire guys like me for your design team.

loochy
09-09-2011, 08:44 AM
Yes, the Grandview triangle was always a head scratcher. Amazing that someone looked at that on paper and thought that would be a good idea and not a total cluster fuck.

http://blogkc.com/images/triangle.gif

Setsuna
09-09-2011, 08:46 AM
No one is saying that you don't learn something... or aren't important to society for that matter.

As cdcox put before, you are taking A structure class... not years of it so there is no way that you will know enough of it to be a competent structural engineer... and you don't need to be that's why you hire guys like me for your design team.

Haha alright. I bet you make a lot. How much did you make starting out?

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 08:49 AM
Haha alright. I bet you make a lot. How much did you make starting out?

Not enough. And still not enough... structural engineers don't make crap compared to what others make and for the amount of liability they have on their design.

But I love what I do and love going to work so that counts for something.

rageeumr
09-09-2011, 09:00 AM
Haha alright. I bet you make a lot. How much did you make starting out?

About tree fiddy.

Donger
09-09-2011, 09:28 AM
These are ENGINEERING failures, not Architectural ones.

Not all of them.

mikeyis4dcats.
09-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Someone needs to learn the difference between an engineer and an architect.

An architect draws a pretty picture of a bridge or a building. It's up to the engineer to make it work or to tell the architect to get real. These are all engineering failures. But cutting edge designs and the resulting failures is one of the ways that engineering knowledge advances.

+1

Frankie
09-09-2011, 10:08 AM
errr....no. Architects need to understand load capacity and all that sciency-building stuff too.


EDIT: Let me qualify my statement -- I understand that architects are not PEs and do not have the same degree of knowledge as, say, a Civil Engineer would have for building materials, etc. But they are supposed to have some knowledge on these matters as well in order to create realistic designs. Some of the examples given -- in particular the bridge in Tacoma, would seem to be more of an engineer failing than an architectural one, definitely.

This is exactly right. The architect who does only "pretty designs" is not a real architect. The Architect does have to have reasonable knowledge of loads and dead and live loads, strength of materials, etc. It helps him/her to avoid creating unreasonably unfeasible designs. But the seeing to the structural integrity of the work is the engineer's role.

In most cases both the Architect and the Engineer sign off to the final product.

Frankie
09-09-2011, 10:10 AM
:thumb:

Just trying to teach the world the finer points of my industry.

Engineers suck!

Architect


:evil:

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 10:19 AM
Engineers suck!

Architect


:evil:

Good luck coming up with an efficient design and not having buildings fall down.

Your saving grace,
Structural Engineers.

Setsuna
09-09-2011, 10:20 AM
Not enough. And still not enough... structural engineers don't make crap compared to what others make and for the amount of liability they have on their design.

But I love what I do and love going to work so that counts for something.

Dang. Well as long as you love it man. That's the best position to be in.

Frankie
09-09-2011, 10:20 AM
Good luck coming up with an efficient design and not having buildings fall down.

Your saving grace,
Structural Engineers.

I was just joking dude.

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 10:20 AM
This is exactly right. The architect who does only "pretty designs" is not a real architect. The Architect does have to have reasonable knowledge of loads and dead and live loads, strength of materials, etc. It helps him/her to avoid creating unreasonably unfeasible designs. But the seeing to the structural integrity of the work is the engineer's role.

In most cases both the Architect and the Engineer sign off to the final product.

The architect signs off his part of the design... finishes, floor plans, egress, fire protection.

The structural engineer signs off his part... columns, foundations, beams (things that actually make a building safe).

They never sign off on the same items.

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 10:21 AM
I was just joking dude.

I know... architects know they need us.

and most engineers know we need architects... even if they are a pain in the ass at times.

ForeverChiefs58
09-09-2011, 10:24 AM
How is a swaying bridge an architectural failure?

See my post #22



Architectural design trends and artistic tastes. My understanding of it since the bridge itself was designed by famous New York bridge engineer Leon Moisseiff, that it was at the time the call for a certain style of aesthetic architecture. His design was influenced by architecture at the time that was meant to include terms such as graceful, elegant, slender, and lean feminine type of architecture.

This type of design is what influenced the call for minimal girders and contributed to its actual failure. I know architecture and engineering run together a lot in design, and is probably why the footage of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge callapse is still shown today to architecture, as well as engineering and physics students as a cautionary tale as well as being selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

epitome1170
09-09-2011, 10:30 AM
Architectural design trends and artistic tastes. My understanding of it since the bridge itself was designed by famous New York bridge engineer Leon Moisseiff, that it was at the time the call for a certain style of aesthetic architecture. His design was influenced by architecture at the time that was meant to include terms such as graceful, elegant, slender, and lean feminine type of architecture.

This type of design is what influenced the call for minimal girders and contributed to its actual failure. I know architecture and engineering run together a lot in design, and is probably why the footage of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge callapse is still shown today to architecture, as well as engineering and physics students as a cautionary tale as well as being selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

I realize the architect was going for a particular aesthetic approach, however, it was not an architectural failure, but rather an engineering one because of the lack of knowledge in vibrations and resonance due to wind and natural frequencies of the bridge.

The bridge itself could have given the same aesthetics had the engineers altered the natural frequencies (which could have been done numerous ways). This is, literally, a text book example of structural engineering failures and has aided in greatly understanding wind phenomenons and how it effects the structure.

There are definitely some architectural failures in that article... this is not one of them.

vailpass
09-09-2011, 10:38 AM
These are ENGINEERING failures, not Architectural ones.

Thanks for saying the exact same thing CDCox said about 159 seconds before you did.

ForeverChiefs58
09-09-2011, 10:55 AM
I realize the architect was going for a particular aesthetic approach, however, it was not an architectural failure, but rather an engineering one because of the lack of knowledge in vibrations and resonance due to wind and natural frequencies of the bridge.

The bridge itself could have given the same aesthetics had the engineers altered the natural frequencies (which could have been done numerous ways). This is, literally, a text book example of structural engineering failures and has aided in greatly understanding wind phenomenons and how it effects the structure.

There are definitely some architectural failures in that article... this is not one of them.

I agree with you 100%. Especially since the actual bridge itself was designed by a bridge engineer, the same engineer who worked on the Golden Gate and not just by some architecture firm.

cdcox
09-09-2011, 11:33 AM
How is designing a curved hotel that focuses the sun on the swimming pool area an engineering failure?

This one is more of an architectural failure, but there must have been hundreds of engineers on the job who had taken physics (as freshmen!) and knew all about how curved mirrors tend to focus light. If one of them had sent their concern up the chain of command, this could have easily been averted. Engineers have responsibility to society to make sure that the projects they work on are safe and serve the needs of their client regardless of whether a particular decision fell within their own realm of responsibility.

ForeverChiefs58
09-09-2011, 11:53 AM
This one is more of an architectural failure, but there must have been hundreds of engineers on the job who had taken physics (as freshmen!) and knew all about how curved mirrors tend to focus light. If one of them had sent their concern up the chain of command, this could have easily been averted. Engineers have responsibility to society to make sure that the projects they work on are safe and serve the needs of their client regardless of whether a particular decision fell within their own realm of responsibility.

I believe engineers bitched and complained and were really against the Ray and Maria Stata Center building from the begining, but the architects wanted it their way, and like anything else in life will pay for someone to say yes. I am sure it is that way with these on the list, even though especially the Lotus Riverside, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and a few others sure appears to lay at the feet of the engineering.

cdcox
09-09-2011, 12:55 PM
I believe engineers bitched and complained and were really against the Ray and Maria Stata Center building from the begining, but the architects wanted it their way, and like anything else in life will pay for someone to say yes. I am sure it is that way with these on the list, even though especially the Lotus Riverside, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and a few others sure appears to lay at the feet of the engineering.

Yes, but failure is an unfortunate but necessary part of engineering. As a society, we want to do things that have never been done before. Build a thinner bridge, fly to the moon, build world-wide communication network, make an arena without interior columns. The engineer's job is make those dreams come true. He or she applies what is known from science and past engineering projects to the new challenge. However, as you push the envelope, new failure modes that were never even thought of before become important. Wind causes a light bridge to vibrate at it's harmonic frequency. The light sexy skyscrapers you build are susceptible to impact by jet liners. Engineers then analyze these failures, learn from their mistakes, improve their designs, which enables the next frontier in innovation.

HemiEd
09-09-2011, 01:22 PM
It has been probably 15, maybe 18 years, maybe more, but I was in Boston when the windows were falling out of one of those beautiful new buildings. It seemed odd to see plywood in the window openings that high up on a new building.

Stewie
09-09-2011, 01:25 PM
This one is more of an architectural failure, but there must have been hundreds of engineers on the job who had taken physics (as freshmen!) and knew all about how curved mirrors tend to focus light. If one of them had sent their concern up the chain of command, this could have easily been averted. Engineers have responsibility to society to make sure that the projects they work on are safe and serve the needs of their client regardless of whether a particular decision fell within their own realm of responsibility.

I guess it depends on the time of year the glass was installed in the hotel. It might not have been an issue (and no one would have noticed) until weeks later when the sun was at the correct angle. It's probably an issue a couple of times a year, but it might affect other areas when it's not focused on the pool.

I wonder if they've come up with a solution? A film on the windows or something?

ForeverChiefs58
09-09-2011, 02:09 PM
Yes, but failure is an unfortunate but necessary part of engineering. As a society, we want to do things that have never been done before. Build a thinner bridge, fly to the moon, build world-wide communication network, make an arena without interior columns. The engineer's job is make those dreams come true. He or she applies what is known from science and past engineering projects to the new challenge. However, as you push the envelope, new failure modes that were never even thought of before become important. Wind causes a light bridge to vibrate at it's harmonic frequency. The light sexy skyscrapers you build are susceptible to impact by jet liners. Engineers then analyze these failures, learn from their mistakes, improve their designs, which enables the next frontier in innovation.

Yeah, I remember hearing how after the Hyatt Regency collapse it changed the way things were built around the country from both an architecture and engineering standpoint. Greater good can come from tragedy.

Othmar Ammann, a leading bridge designer and member of the Federal Works Agency Commission investigating the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, wrote:


"The Tacoma Narrows bridge failure has given us invaluable information...It has shown that every new structure that projects into new fields of magnitude involves new problems for the solution of which neither theory nor practical experience furnish an adequate guide. It is then that we must rely largely on judgement and if, as a result, errors, or failures occur, we must accept them as a price for human progress."

The Bronx Whitestone Bridge, which is of similar design to the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, was reinforced shortly after the collapse. Fourteen-foot-high steel trusses were installed on both sides of the deck in 1943 to weigh down and stiffen the bridge in an effort to reduce oscillation. In 2003, the stiffening trusses were removed and aerodynamic fiberglass fairings were installed along both sides of the road deck.

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3mclp9QmCGs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Setsuna
09-10-2011, 09:14 PM
Hey guys I'm going to transfer to a university/college for architecture in the fall. Don't know where to go. So far I like: Houston, KSU, University of Texas @ Arlington, maybe Syracuse.