Lucky for everyone Dianne Hartley asked a simple question why were calculations different from that on the plan. That then started a chain of events which led to the fixing of the building
Hartley did express concern about the quartering winds in conversation with an project engineer (not LeMessurier) and in her thesis published April 1978 - however LeMessurier didn't recalculate until June 1978 after a phone call with another student Lee DeCarolis - his recalcs led him to the same conclusion (but differing in details) - however - they might have both been wrong according to a recent NIST study
Apparently this was meant to be a very brief summary. However, since the main point centered on the change from LeMessurier's Welded to the actual Bolted beam assembly of building - then *why* would the solution (in this presentation) use the word: APPLIED regarding the solution as "two inch thick plates" to 200 bolted joints. 'APPLIED how?' by bolting or wielding? is the obvious question immediately asked by the interested viewer.
Maybe. Her story is very corroborated but LeMessurier said he talked to male student. And, LeMessurier certainly seems like a man that would give proper credit. Entirely possible that multiple students flagged the problem.
@@thomasarcturus8947 - that male student is Lee DeCarolis - but he didn't flag the problem - he just got LeMussurier to rethink the wind loads - the capper to this story however is the recent NIST reassessment of the building - and their finding that the ORIGINAL design was strong enuf - no danger existed
the NIST recently reevaluated the wind loads on the building's structure - and concluded that the wind loads were not the threat LeMessurier thought - maybe the original structure was safe - (i don't know what they'll say 40 years from now)
As a man who makes things admittedly as a craftsman with near zero mathematical ability it seems to me this building and its supports ie the concept could be weak in any resistance to rotary strains ie twisting. Thanks, I find this v interesting, got here from 'New York 1960'.
the design included quartering winds - there are engineers who did those studies who have spoken up - however after speaking with student Lee Carolis - the chief engineer Wm LeMessurier later recalculated the wind loads and grew concerned - however it seems his concern (and Diane Hartley's who wrote a thesis expressing concern over the quartering wind load) was unfounded - the NIST has reassessed the wind loads and says the quartering winds WERE NOT the threat that those two thought - suggesting that the building did not need to be reinforced
I still do not trust this building. it does not look stable. I would like to see some computer modeling under various wind load conditions. RIP to all when it finally comes down.
your command is NIST's wish - they recently concluded that the wind loads were not the threat LeMessurier thought - maybe the original structure was safe - now it's even stronger due to the reinforcement made in the latter part of 1978
Lucky for everyone Dianne Hartley asked a simple question why were calculations different from that on the plan. That then started a chain of events which led to the fixing of the building
th-cam.com/video/9tfGj86YNi0/w-d-xo.html
Hartley did express concern about the quartering winds in conversation with an project engineer (not LeMessurier) and in her thesis published April 1978 - however LeMessurier didn't recalculate until June 1978 after a phone call with another student Lee DeCarolis - his recalcs led him to the same conclusion (but differing in details) - however - they might have both been wrong according to a recent NIST study
Apparently this was meant to be a very brief summary. However, since the main point centered on the change from LeMessurier's Welded to the actual Bolted beam assembly of building - then *why* would the solution (in this presentation) use the word: APPLIED regarding the solution as "two inch thick plates" to 200 bolted joints. 'APPLIED how?' by bolting or wielding? is the obvious question immediately asked by the interested viewer.
Diane Lee Hartley
Maybe. Her story is very corroborated but LeMessurier said he talked to male student. And, LeMessurier certainly seems like a man that would give proper credit. Entirely possible that multiple students flagged the problem.
@@thomasarcturus8947 - that male student is Lee DeCarolis - but he didn't flag the problem - he just got LeMussurier to rethink the wind loads - the capper to this story however is the recent NIST reassessment of the building - and their finding that the ORIGINAL design was strong enuf - no danger existed
the NIST recently reevaluated the wind loads on the building's structure - and concluded that the wind loads were not the threat LeMessurier thought - maybe the original structure was safe - (i don't know what they'll say 40 years from now)
Fascinating. Thank you for posting.
Problem was found once the building was already occupied and not during construction.
As a man who makes things admittedly as a craftsman with near zero mathematical ability it seems to me this building and its supports ie the concept could be weak in any resistance to rotary strains ie twisting. Thanks, I find this v interesting, got here from 'New York 1960'.
Wrongly labeled. Design was not engineered for quartering winds..
the design included quartering winds - there are engineers who did those studies who have spoken up - however after speaking with student Lee Carolis - the chief engineer Wm LeMessurier later recalculated the wind loads and grew concerned - however it seems his concern (and Diane Hartley's who wrote a thesis expressing concern over the quartering wind load) was unfounded - the NIST has reassessed the wind loads and says the quartering winds WERE NOT the threat that those two thought - suggesting that the building did not need to be reinforced
can i get this slide?
And why so vital the Church thing ??
It was part of the purchase agreement. Citicorp would not have been able to purchase the land.
I still do not trust this building. it does not look stable. I would like to see some computer modeling under various wind load conditions. RIP to all when it finally comes down.
your command is NIST's wish - they recently concluded that the wind loads were not the threat LeMessurier thought - maybe the original structure was safe - now it's even stronger due to the reinforcement made in the latter part of 1978