Can you blow down a skyscraper?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- I head to New York City with a leaf blower to find out what keeps buildings from swaying in the wind and to take a look at one building that didn't quite get the calculation right.
--------- II ---------
This video was brought to you by an unhealthy amount of coffee and our awesome Patrons at / atomicfrontier .
--------- II ---------
Hi, I'm James. I explore the world looking for interesting engineering stories which explore complex issues in interesting ways. I hold a First-Class Honors in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Western Australia and am currently studying a Masters of Space Systems Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
My website is www.atomicfron..., I occasionally tweet from / atomicfrontiers , and you can join the Atomic Frontier Discord server to talk about cool engineering stuff at / discord . You can help support my work and see some cool behind-the-scenes content at / atomicfrontier .
I'm so excited to back with a new season! Lots more episodes coming soon, although thankfully none which require me to drag a table and leaf blower into Central Park (again)!
Lmao hopefully it’s just as entertaining
great to see you back! i‘m excited for what’s to come!
You were at that height and ther part you didn't like was moving a table in a park? :-)
what was up with your audio when you were talking about putting a hole in the skyscraper
Great video,very well presented!
Been following you since Tom Scott featured you on his channel, and i must say that while your content was good back then, your improvement has been incredible impressive, especially in the production quality. Keep it up! Looking forward to the new season.
Same.
It wasn't just a conversation with a student which inspired his realization that the skyscraper was unstable. The student herself noticed the problem and did all the math to prove it was real. It is fortunate the architect had the humility to recognize his mistake and solve it even when it was brought to him by a student.
This video is a good in depth explainer th-cam.com/video/um-7IlAdAtg/w-d-xo.html
...surprised he left that out. That's a huge part of that story and he didn't even mention it.
Engineer, not Architect*
It's your duty if the engineers doesn't listen to your. Go to every single news station in the local area. They will love a fear fest story of "local engineer endangers lives of thousands"
@@Aztesticals that isn’t how engineering works, you aren’t an engineer so stay in your lane.
I was just in NY visiting my sister and somehow I was reminded of 601 Lexington, and I shared the “cliffs notes” version of that story. We ended up passing by the building just by chance, and I must say, it’s surreal to see a building of that size supported by columns like that. Even though you know it’s definitely safe, something deep down tells you it isn’t.
You get the same feeling around insanely tall/big trees too I feel. You know it's obviously safe, well, as safe as a tree can be, and you know there's roots underground that are doing their job, but you don't want to trust it.
That's not exactly the story I read before. I thought he was completely oblivious to the flaw until it was pointed out by a student. And that he first ignored said student concerns.
☝️THIS👆
It wasn’t even the architect’s mistake though. The steel contractor changed the design from welded to bolted joints to save money, which weakened the structure. Additionally, the story about the students is a bit more complicated then what you said. Diane Hartley, the student you are referring to, did question the building’s design, but was assured by the architect that the building was fine; however, her questions led the architect to discover the design change. Later on, the architect was having a conversation with Lee DeCarolis, the student the video refers to, which, when combined with Hartley’s inquiry, convinced the architect to recalculate structure, which allowed him to discover the danger.
8:46 I have always herd that an engineering student, Diane Hartley, was the one who discovered the design flaw with the building and not LeMessurier. The Wikipedia "Citicorp Center engineering crisis" has a more detail. I am really curious about the your source on the repairs not being need. Over all you have a really great channel and video, thank you.
Fun fact, the typical holes in the Hong Kong skyscrapers are called "Dragon Gates". They represent a passage for dragons to fly from the mountain to the sea, symbolising living in peace with nature.
The video mentions it at 4:39 *also used by commuting dragons
@@timanderson5717 you’re right, I did not see that. Thanks for pointing it out
@@301IKI still, thanks for clarifying what dragons use it.
Ironic to do things that symbolise living in peace with nature while they are destroying and exploiting it
@@chrisogrady28 I agree, although we should never forget that humans are nature.
As I recall, it was more than just, "chatting with a student." She brought the problem to him and then he decided to look into it, it wasn't a eureka moment during a conversation.
I’ve been missing your videos ! But this one was absolutely worth the wait :) I can’t wait to see the rest of the season !!
this video absolutely blew me away. it's one thing to research all this online, and it's a whole new level to go out and get the data and test simulations yourself.
It's always great to see fluid dynamics topics covered in any kind of science communication. I especially love that you used amateur CFD in a YT video. I am a bit too young to make this comment, but for those a few years older than me, if you went back 15 or 20 yrs and told them that CFD would be so advanced and accessible that anyone can run a relatively informative model on their laptop and that someone causally did so to explain a point in a youtube video, they would be absolutely floored... also you'd have to explain what a laptop was and what a youtube was, but that's besides the point. The point is the capability you showed was just a twinkle in some researchers' eye even 15-20 years ago. Totally wild to see how far it has come. Can't wait to see where it goes. Maybe in 15-20 years, instead of needing 2 months and 20,000 cores of a supercomputer to run a multiphase simulation of a rocket engine injector, I'll be able to do it on my phone in a few hours...
For a bit of context, I am PhD computational fluid dynamicist from JHU, and a professional multiphase fluid dynamicst and propulsion engineer with NASA... no question that any critique I have for this video would be dramatically over judgmental, and needlessly critical. Of course this wasn't made for me, and hopefully it was a nicely informative discussion for lots of viewers. The more people interested and excited by the wonderfully silly, counterintuitive, often spectacularly beautiful world of fluid dynamics the better.
So instead of critique, I have a hopefully helpful suggestion regarding attribution. It's usually considered best practice to refer to a known fluid dynamics phenomenon (or really any physics phenomenon) by it's wildly accepted name, if it has one. Especially if that common name serves as attribution for the original scientist who discovered it (which it often does). To be clear, this is absolutely not a question of plagiarism or anything remotely along those lines, the ethics of this video are perfectly fine as far as I can tell. I think it's more about respectful attribution of profound scientific achievement, even if it's just through a simple common name for a regularly observed phenomenon.
Based on the info in your bio, I am certain you the author already know this, but for anyone else reading along: Just as equations are named for people, so to commonly observed phenomena are named for people, as are fundamental non-dimensional numbers, and lots of things in science.
In this case, the particular flavor of vortex shedding you showed is typically called Karman (or Von Karman) vortex shedding, which creates a Karman vortex street. Not that you're expected to give a history lesson on Theo von Karman (or Vincenc Strouhal for that matter), just including the name the first time you reference it is generally considered best practice even in conversational, informal contexts. I don't think it's super important, but I do think it's nicely respectful to attribute credit to the brilliant fluid dynamicists, physicists, and mathematicians who came before us. After all, we stand on the shoulders of giants. I think others might be a bit more militant about this than I am. For me, it just sounds... idk, vaguely "off" I guess. To hear "vortex shedding" (i.e.absent named attribution) in this context when it is very obviously a named flavor of vortex shedding and when presenting to an audience that is definitely not expected to know you are obviously referring to Karman vortex shedding... it's not like "un-cited reference" off, but just... slightly off, I guess.
Anyways, it's super late, and I've been up refereeing proposals for several hours. So my critical editor/referee hat is probably on way too tight, and I'm certain I'm being needlessly nitpicky. Great video, love the topic and the way you covered it, and just a friendly note that some people don't like it when you introduce new people to scientific discoveries without attribution... I didn't really think I was one of those people, but here I am writing this comment, so go figure.
Welcome back James!!
We missed you and your content :)
Can't wait for the new season
Thanks! It's been too long, but on the plus side there are now five more finished episodes and many more on the way!
Fantastic video! Great work as always, excited for more.
Thanks for providing more nuance to the classic engineering story of 601 Lexington. Many videos I’ve seen only go as deep as “boo engineer bad”.
Amazing video as always James! Amazing explanations of some really complicated topics. Looking forward to some more videos from the US! Hope you are doing well at MIT :)
Diane Hartley was actually the one who found the issue while studying the new innovative design. She was a Princeton student at the time and her initial claims were ignored. She’s the one who actually pushed to have the issue looked into.
As usual, you perfectly capture the "huh, I never thought about that" energy. Great video!
Actually, when LeMessurier redid the calculations of his original design, they were fine in the diagonal winds. But someone in Citigroup had the builders use bolts instead of welded joints. For perpendicular winds, this was still fine, but now the diagonal winds were a problem because the bolts were not the best kind of joints, but a cheaper (and easier to fabricate) design.
Yup! Origional edit went into waaay more detail with how it happened, but had to cut for time. Glad you shared full story here :)
Fantastic work amigo. The visual data you throw together is always top notch
You missed a great opportunity to end the video saying “This is James Dingly, dangling from the Atomic Frontier”.
Jokes apart, great video, as always 👍
Haha, that's genius. I'll have to go climb something again
@@AtomicFrontier Well, the first time I saw you, you were climbing a tree.
Great video! The demonstrations with the leaf blower, followed by the simulations, were really cool and informative. Thanks for making these!
This man underrated af this production quality is insane
Dingley dangles dangerously, divulging descriptive, detailed, delectable, delightful, dynamic discoveries.
Dingley dangling is too fun to ignore ;)
The student was the one that discovered that 601 Lexington was vulnerable to diagonal wind.
Was just wondering the other day if there were any more videos coming. Glad you're still active! :)
Atomic Frontier, it is good to see that you continue to make more videos. You make learning fun. :)
A concrete design professor of mine in architecture school gave a lesson on a still existing major security risk with the structural design of 601 Lexington. Unfortunately, there’s no way to publicly talk about it without getting on some watchlists, even though the issues with it aren’t exactly secret…
That said, it was quite the eye opener about how to design to protect against wind load _and_ terrorism. We live in a post-9/11 world, so those are considerations that we’re taught about during our schooling now. Anyways, this building is innovative in its design, but has had some serious issues with it. And it potentially still does depending on who you ask.
Wow! Thats really interesting, thanks for sharing!
This is just amazing production quality!
Just a heads up on the pronunciation for anyone who's confused, at 0:41 I believe he meant to say Anemometer which measures windspeed not Ammeter which measures amperage.
Finally your back!!!
Love your content.
Wish you health and happiness for the new year. May God gives you prosperity, piece of mind and a lot of ideas to educate us.
My greetings from Greece
George
I heard a podcast years ago about the university student who figured out the flaw with 601 Lexington Ave. It was very interesting.
I’m on the top floor of an apartment building which is currently swaying slightly in high winds, it’s freaking me out a bit, but this made me feel better 😅
My takeaway is that Empire State was built properly, and it just so happens to be better looking than the rest too.
Excited for the season!
For those wondering, the answer is that they're heavy, strong, shaped to reduce wind loads, and can absorb wind loads elastically.
I did a quick calculation for the Empire State Building. If treating it as a completely rigid object, the wind would have to blow around 400mph to make it fall over. This only takes into account the fact the building is extremely heavy and it would take a massive amount of force to blow it over.
Hope that saves 10 minutes!
The story about 601 and the corner forces at 8:00 is actually more interesting than you depicted. 99% invisible covered it and spoke with the student who originally discovered the problem. She was misrepresented as a male student by the original architect. Worth a listen to if that sort of thing tickles your fancy.
Pretty impressive you got that take while climbing up a skyscraper in a line of people. Not a lot of room for error there.
This is so high quality
I love how you mentioned the commuting dragons
You deserve some major recognition for all of your work, every video is better than 99.9% of the stuff on youtube. Can't wait for the other episodes!
I could watch your clear, concise and fantastic presentations all day. Welcome back son 🤗
This channel is some of the best content on TH-cam…keep it up! (Though you missed an opportunity for a “James DANGLE-y” pun in that last shot. Haha!)
Also instantly thought about the dangle joke
Holy shit your channel blew up. Great work.
Holy cow! This video is incredibly made. The editing is superb and the script is too! Looking forward to see what you make next :D
08:53 If I'm not mistaken they worked on this in secret and gave no credit to the student!
Correct! Apparently the student's original critique of the building being unstable was misinformed, but then that prompted LeMessurier to do his own analysis after also finding out his original design wasn't implemented in the way he intended (bolts rather than welded from the get-go, thus making it weaker). How much of that is actually true vs. "very smart engineer not wanting to admit a random student spotted a mistake" is debatable though.
Tourists climbing the skyscraper scared for their life just to see James casually filming a video
601 Lexington Avenue structural problem was discovered by Diane Hartley then, in 1978, engineering student at Princeton University.
I always appreciate when someone doesn't use the "retrofitting will cost more than just paying for the funerals" line of reasoning
Learned a lot in your video and the production quality and commentary is great, always a pleasure to watch.
James has achieved full Tom Scott quality. Keep up the good work 👍🏻
This sort of video motivates me to do engineering!
Sounds like you said ammeter instead of anemometer, or was that just the wind? 🙂
The immense quality of your videos never ceases to amaze me!
Underrated channel
You used the drum and bugle Corps Southwind logo on your thumbnail. I just thought I would leave a comment and let you know that it was really cool to see it
Realy interesting stuff, little James really cracked me up. I wonder what other engineering screw-up and solution type videos you will cover in the future. Can't wait. 😊
This was so well produced so much effort and thought v well done, looking forward to the new episodes
love your channel its so infromative
you make absolutely incredible videos!! Thank you for your dedication in these ^^
Great to have you back ! Cheers !
Whenever you go to DC, could you do a socially distanced fan meet and greet or a lecture somewhere or something cool like that
I know I'm a year or two late to the comments here... but just wanted to mention that you don't really have to travel all the way down from Boston to NYC to find skyscrapers with interesting histories of engineering issues! We've got our very own John Hancock Tower (technically just called 200 Clarendon Street since 2015) right here in Boston's Copley Square. 😉 Back in the 70s, engineers at MIT apparently built a scale model of the tower + the entirety of Back Bay, and tested it in the MIT Wright Brothers Wind Tunnel to figure out why the 500lb window panes kept crashing hundreds of feet down to the street in high winds. As part of the fix, the entire 58th floor was converted into a huge tuned mass damper (à la 7:34) weighing hundreds of tons. Even today, if you stand in the middle of Copley Square and look up at the tower past Trinity Church, you'll see it as a row of windows three down from the top of the tower which appears to be missing.
I for one would love to see what that tuned mass damper looks like up close, and learn more about how it works... You think they'd let you up there to make a follow-up video? 😄🤞🙏
I absolutely love your videos!
If you blow at the skyscraper at like 100 km/s it might go down.That is what Oppenheimer specifically tried to avoid.
Amazing video quality, as always! Glad to see you back :)
"With thanks to ..., and whoever invented instant coffee"
Awesome video, and well worth the wait. I'm excited for the next one!
Another excellent video with really sick editing, keep up the awesome job!
Hell yes bro. Love your shit, great quality.
Your content gives me Tom Scott vibes, but more polished. definitely earned a subscriber.
Another fantastic video, well informed and well crafted.
The fact that skyscrapers have inertial dampeners will always be cool to me
Just found this channel and it's super cool! Thank you making this!
Brilliant as ever!
Simple answer, the weight of the building coupled with the depth of the foundations is greater than the force the wind can exert against their sides. This is a 30 sec video tops not 11 minutes.
Love it happy to see you back
3:52 that perfect masking of your right arm is WITCHCRAFT
Love your videos
Nice, love your videos. Keep up the good work, they're very interesting :D
You forgot to mention that every welder from the state and even near by states were working non stop to fix the problem. Goddamn just imagine that.
I remember watching an old video that said some skyscrapers have giant blocks of stone that move against the wind to counterbalance the building
It's always a good day when James uploads.
Ho how i love this channel
Mind-blowing !
Amazing video! Keep up the good work
Excellent work. Lot's of good stuff.
3:27 The effeect of shedding alternating voritces is called formation of a Kármán vortex street. Many tall cylinders (chimneys , antennas ...) have helical fins fitted to prevent the prevent/reduce th formation of vortices.
Are you over-dubbing your voice? Which ever method you're using is great. Also - Your single take long shots don't go unnoticed. Awesome work!
Thanks! Its a mix depending on how good the origional audio was. The intro and conclusion are 100% dubbed though. I played the origional recording on headphones while repeating the lines, then Julian used the origional reference audio to work out what SFX to use. I think he used ball bearings to make the rattling sound from the climbing mechanism. Thanks for letting us know you liked it! -James
@@AtomicFrontier It was the audio design that directed my attention to it! Loved it all. Can't wait for the next vid!
wasn’t this called something like: How We Keep Skyscraper’s Standing ?
Yup, no one was clicking it though so tried out something different (thid is what it was called in my script document). Let me know if you have other title ideas! I suck at good naming
Great job
Sometimes they’re so strong you need a plane to take ‘‘em down!
This guy traveling the world while corona got the rest of us stuck at home
Great video
They would have to put swiveling turbines in buildings with openings on each side on the level of the turbine. Like the openings in 432 Park ave, they might work to house wind turbines.
this reminds me of my first time in New York
I’m just commenting so that this can be boosted more in the algorithm
Awesome video!
Thanks!
Skyscrapers certainly look cool but I really wouldn't want to be in one of them (mostly cause I'm terrified of heights :3). Also, I'm pretty sure they're just illegal to build in my country so that doesn't help my chances of visiting one
2:22 shoutouts to UTS
Well this somehow made me more comfortable being in tall buildings, and also extremely more afraid of tall buldings