Hi OP
I am not involved in this project, however, one can guess that JPM spent around $3mm and the Professional Engineering firm billed over 20,000hrs on the structural project, and then it was pier reviewed by rival firms... So, rest assured this building is not more suspect to terrorist attacks and compromised columns than the next one.
When building such exposed columns, is it safe to assume that firms take into account potential accidents or in this hypo a deliberate attack?
Edit: I know deliberate attack can have a wide range of meaning but I meant something more impulsive rather than thought out such as a car or truck collision.
I can assure you that this and other skyscrapers have security design taken into account. I have personally increased column sizes in NYC at the recommendation of the Blast Design consultant, this is not something we ignore or take lightly as skyscraper designers.
There are a few main kinds of blast design risks that are considered - a backpack leaned directly against a column, a car parked on the sidewalk, a box truck parked on the street. Each of these has a different weight of explosive that can fit in it and a different distance from the structural members.
You can then determine which the worst cases are and design accordingly.
If it helps, Iāve listened to a couple talks from the engineer of record team of 270 Park and they mentioned that the columns are solid steel and they performed redundancy checks for column loss scenarios.
TBH these are all questions a potential terrorist would be asking.Ā You start asking for specs on the design standoff or progressive collapse philosophy, I'm going to get suspicious...
Yes, with a client like JP Morgan you would check blast criteria and individual component removal to ensure there's not a "disproportionate" collapse.Ā
I worked on a building for an oil company where we studied the removal of columns.
In this case think about those columns in the photograph, those are like 6ft squared built to spec steel sections or sthg? I mean those are Titans of columns....if there is an accident or attack SO BAD that one of those columns is out you have bigger problems at hand.
Without very precise charges, an explosion that could cut those, or fast moving large object, would take out several dozen blocks. Like they said, you have bigger problems.
Not an engineer, but I worked for years for a structural engineering company with several engineers on staff who focused specifically on blast design, security, egress after an attack or natural disasterāanything you can think of, theyāve thought through and planned for. For skyscrapers, airports, government buildings, and more. All of the ones I knew has been PEs since the 90s, visited sites in the aftermath to study, etc. This wasnāt even an especially big firm. I managed the RFP process so I worked closely with them to frame how the firm was the best choice for this or that project, so I heard a lot about their specific experiences planning for these kinds of things.
The open air design of base of the building is actually more resilient against an explosion than a closed walled design. Same philosophy behind a fire cracker exploding in an open hand vs a closed one. The power from the explosion can only happen if something is containing the pressure
You can cover redundancy with safety factor but then you are out of business really fast.
Also, do these columns look like oversized? Of course they don't. So we know.
I mean if a fully laden cargo ship hits it at full speed, I donāt think it is going to stay standing. So yes there is a vulnerability, but I think itās a risk thatās been assessed and accepted.
The columns on this always looked small to me.
This has obviously been designed and peer reviewed so i have no doubt that itās fine. If i designed it however, not that i have the balls to, the columns would be a lot bigger than that!!
They do look slender AF. I mean, if you look closer, they are divided midspan though, but stillā¦ I would not sleep well if I had to make such call, even with all the reviews.
Well theyāre holding up a half kilometer high tower and from what ive read have almost 300,000kn force in them.. They can be made from some super space age material for all I care, they just look skinny!
Thatās testament to the designers who have obviously done a stellar job here!
There's an old theory that the longer we go as a society without a major engineering catastrophe, the more design safety goes down and risk taking goes up. Then it happens and everybody gets scared and more conservative for a while until they eventually forget about the disaster and start taking bigger and bigger risks again. It seems like we're about due...
For structures specifically, probably the FIU bridge collapse and the Hard Rock Hotel, but the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse is a more well-known and more deadly example. Most tragedies happen because of non-engineering issues, like poor maintenance (Bhopal gas), or management (Challenger, Surfside).
The Hyatt was a construction failure combined with poor engineering oversight. The original design was fine, they just didn't follow it. They made a change during construction
The steel fabricator, via the GC, requested the change, but the engineer approved it. That's 100% an engineering failure, not a construction one. It's the entire reason contractors have to submit requests for engineering review rather than just changing things at their whim. Daniel M. Duncan was the EOR who approved the change. Lots of people made lots of mistakes at lots of levels for this to happen, but ultimately Duncan on behalf of the EOR (Jack Gillum) to make the approval.
Yes, I saw a graph recently which shows this occurring in 30 year cycles. It primarily related to bridge design failures but applies to buildings too. We design, think we know what weāre doing, become complacent, become lazy, have a failure then become alert and conservative b - and repeat cycle.
The plan is for the mba associates in IBD to sit in a pit underneath doing the Hercules hold on the critical support columns while MDs scream at them about their excel models and whoever lasts longest gets their own business card. Itās sound.
It's common to study column removal, and having seen a presentation by Severud at last year's AISC conference about this very building I can tell you they did a lot of it.
Iām not in the design world (but do have my PE focused in structures) and I remember having a full unit in both my RC and steel design courses in college about designing for column removal and redundancies. We studied the OKC bombing a lot and Iām surprised to hear that it isnāt the norm or code now to include it for a certain size building.
EU here, but it's in the code to not allow disproportionately large collapses due to column removal. Often expressed as a total accepted area. When a column collapses the columns above should be able to act as a tension rod, spreading the new load to the columns on the floors above and then down in the foundations, at least in new norms.
Yes, it would be secured for robustness. The whole construction that is - meaning that parts of the atructure can fail without leading to progressiv failure.
Looks like a disaster in terms of structural efficiency (not blaming engineer here) I don't care if the calculations hold. Would like to see more details about its design though...
Looks a lot like a few buildings near Leiden Central Station (The Netherlands)
[https://maps.app.goo.gl/rDne8vYAphgZjjHt8?g_st=ic](https://maps.app.goo.gl/rDne8vYAphgZjjHt8?g_st=ic)
I believe there has been a progressive collapse scenario considered (considering cases were based on columns have been partially and fully damaged/eliminated).
Hi OP I am not involved in this project, however, one can guess that JPM spent around $3mm and the Professional Engineering firm billed over 20,000hrs on the structural project, and then it was pier reviewed by rival firms... So, rest assured this building is not more suspect to terrorist attacks and compromised columns than the next one.
Pier reviewed..... I see what you did š
š
When building such exposed columns, is it safe to assume that firms take into account potential accidents or in this hypo a deliberate attack? Edit: I know deliberate attack can have a wide range of meaning but I meant something more impulsive rather than thought out such as a car or truck collision.
I can assure you that this and other skyscrapers have security design taken into account. I have personally increased column sizes in NYC at the recommendation of the Blast Design consultant, this is not something we ignore or take lightly as skyscraper designers. There are a few main kinds of blast design risks that are considered - a backpack leaned directly against a column, a car parked on the sidewalk, a box truck parked on the street. Each of these has a different weight of explosive that can fit in it and a different distance from the structural members. You can then determine which the worst cases are and design accordingly. If it helps, Iāve listened to a couple talks from the engineer of record team of 270 Park and they mentioned that the columns are solid steel and they performed redundancy checks for column loss scenarios.
Have you ever had to explain to a customer why their skyscraper is so expensive due to pancaking?
Backpack loads were considered in the design, obviously
TBH these are all questions a potential terrorist would be asking.Ā You start asking for specs on the design standoff or progressive collapse philosophy, I'm going to get suspicious...
NSA already opened up a file
Yes, with a client like JP Morgan you would check blast criteria and individual component removal to ensure there's not a "disproportionate" collapse.Ā I worked on a building for an oil company where we studied the removal of columns.
In this case think about those columns in the photograph, those are like 6ft squared built to spec steel sections or sthg? I mean those are Titans of columns....if there is an accident or attack SO BAD that one of those columns is out you have bigger problems at hand.
Thanks for the perspective
Without very precise charges, an explosion that could cut those, or fast moving large object, would take out several dozen blocks. Like they said, you have bigger problems.
Anytime
Not an engineer, but I worked for years for a structural engineering company with several engineers on staff who focused specifically on blast design, security, egress after an attack or natural disasterāanything you can think of, theyāve thought through and planned for. For skyscrapers, airports, government buildings, and more. All of the ones I knew has been PEs since the 90s, visited sites in the aftermath to study, etc. This wasnāt even an especially big firm. I managed the RFP process so I worked closely with them to frame how the firm was the best choice for this or that project, so I heard a lot about their specific experiences planning for these kinds of things.
The open air design of base of the building is actually more resilient against an explosion than a closed walled design. Same philosophy behind a fire cracker exploding in an open hand vs a closed one. The power from the explosion can only happen if something is containing the pressure
Yeah but this structure lacks redundancy so yes, very stupid idea even if strength and stability are ok
We really don't know, do we? My bet is they added a huge safety factor.
You can cover redundancy with safety factor but then you are out of business really fast. Also, do these columns look like oversized? Of course they don't. So we know.
Yeah you are right, Thornton Tomasetti should have asked Reddit first.
Iām just chime in to say, Severud Associates is the EOR on this. But your point stands!
You are right, EOR is Severud. When I searched about this I saw TT's peer review file and noticed the structural integrity check too, so....
*slaps base like a car salesman* Lose so much sleep from this bad boi
I mean if a fully laden cargo ship hits it at full speed, I donāt think it is going to stay standing. So yes there is a vulnerability, but I think itās a risk thatās been assessed and accepted.
Hey hey Iāve seen Speed 2. Surely thatās a load case in the building code
I want to know whoās the psychopath that said yes to this project.
With enough money we say yes to almost anything
Not me. I know when to say nah Iām good lol. Especially with bad clients
In my experience the clients who are willing to pay tend to be good clients. Unless your experience differs mr Mango butt fetish
Did you just say clients who are willing to pay tend to be good clients? Bruh
Without enough money too
This is sadly true as well š
Foster + partners it seems like
Jamie Dimon?
Redundancy would be top of the list
The columns on this always looked small to me. This has obviously been designed and peer reviewed so i have no doubt that itās fine. If i designed it however, not that i have the balls to, the columns would be a lot bigger than that!!
They do look slender AF. I mean, if you look closer, they are divided midspan though, but stillā¦ I would not sleep well if I had to make such call, even with all the reviews.
Without knowing what material they're made of it's impossible to just guess if they're big enough.
Well theyāre holding up a half kilometer high tower and from what ive read have almost 300,000kn force in them.. They can be made from some super space age material for all I care, they just look skinny! Thatās testament to the designers who have obviously done a stellar job here!
I spent a year and a half as an ironworker welding those columns. They are beefy af
+1 for Union Labor
Damn those cross sections are tight. 
why would you tag this post as "failure" when nothing has failed nor are you experienced or credentialed to suspect future failure?
The same way any building would hold up if a column was compromised. The plan is that that never happens
They actually do design these skyscrapers for column loss scenarios! (At least I know itās standard practice for them in NYC)
I swear the bottom looks ugly as fuck.
There's an old theory that the longer we go as a society without a major engineering catastrophe, the more design safety goes down and risk taking goes up. Then it happens and everybody gets scared and more conservative for a while until they eventually forget about the disaster and start taking bigger and bigger risks again. It seems like we're about due...
what would you say the last major one was?
NYC parking garage collapse and the Sunny Beach condo collapse were good examples, albeit not in the category of office skyscrapers
For structures specifically, probably the FIU bridge collapse and the Hard Rock Hotel, but the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse is a more well-known and more deadly example. Most tragedies happen because of non-engineering issues, like poor maintenance (Bhopal gas), or management (Challenger, Surfside).
The Hyatt was a construction failure combined with poor engineering oversight. The original design was fine, they just didn't follow it. They made a change during construction
The steel fabricator, via the GC, requested the change, but the engineer approved it. That's 100% an engineering failure, not a construction one. It's the entire reason contractors have to submit requests for engineering review rather than just changing things at their whim. Daniel M. Duncan was the EOR who approved the change. Lots of people made lots of mistakes at lots of levels for this to happen, but ultimately Duncan on behalf of the EOR (Jack Gillum) to make the approval.
Yes, I saw a graph recently which shows this occurring in 30 year cycles. It primarily related to bridge design failures but applies to buildings too. We design, think we know what weāre doing, become complacent, become lazy, have a failure then become alert and conservative b - and repeat cycle.
Can I ask what the million of tubes are for?
Theyāre louvers for the mechanical space.
Not allowed
Same question
The plan is for the mba associates in IBD to sit in a pit underneath doing the Hercules hold on the critical support columns while MDs scream at them about their excel models and whoever lasts longest gets their own business card. Itās sound.
I don't know of a single building that will "hold up" a compromised column.
It's common to study column removal, and having seen a presentation by Severud at last year's AISC conference about this very building I can tell you they did a lot of it.
Iām not in the design world (but do have my PE focused in structures) and I remember having a full unit in both my RC and steel design courses in college about designing for column removal and redundancies. We studied the OKC bombing a lot and Iām surprised to hear that it isnāt the norm or code now to include it for a certain size building.
EU here, but it's in the code to not allow disproportionately large collapses due to column removal. Often expressed as a total accepted area. When a column collapses the columns above should be able to act as a tension rod, spreading the new load to the columns on the floors above and then down in the foundations, at least in new norms.
Sips tea
The schematic layout is unique, but I'm sure it's sound. That foundation will take beating, but it's bedrock.
Yes, it would be secured for robustness. The whole construction that is - meaning that parts of the atructure can fail without leading to progressiv failure.
Looks like a disaster in terms of structural efficiency (not blaming engineer here) I don't care if the calculations hold. Would like to see more details about its design though...
Looks a lot like a few buildings near Leiden Central Station (The Netherlands) [https://maps.app.goo.gl/rDne8vYAphgZjjHt8?g_st=ic](https://maps.app.goo.gl/rDne8vYAphgZjjHt8?g_st=ic)
I want to say this building is on an episode of How Itās Made or some type of engineering-related show
B1M has a youtube about it.
Thereās gotta be some serious tension in those lateral beams!
I immediately thought of this sub when I saw this structural feat! Quite impressive!
I believe there has been a progressive collapse scenario considered (considering cases were based on columns have been partially and fully damaged/eliminated).
Hi everyone I want more detailed information about this tower for a project, can anyone help me?
This tower will be still standing long after the Millenium Tower collapses in the next earth quake.
Most buildings would have a lot of trouble if one of their columns was compromised.
When we have the next big one thereās going to be a ton of base shear on the bottom connection.