Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

#71

Post by graderjs »

ungamedplayer wrote: post #55
graderjs wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I know how you feel.

Well you don't know how I feel at all, but thanks for saying that as I think you were either: joking a little bit (a play on words, as in: "You don't know how I feel, please...", "I know how you feel" sympathetic, so it's kind of funny), or also showing support, because you can relate to people being fake and trying to tell you what you can and can't feel, which is total bullshit. When of course nobody else can tell you what you can and can't feel, and to try to do so is an abuse. ;p ;) xx ;p

Re: Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

#72

Post by ddkto »

alisonatwork wrote: post #53
luobogao wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Taipei was only around 2. Magnitudes 6-7 were in the epicenter near Taitung, fairly far away - about 200-300km.

There seems to be a bit of confusion in this thread between differing seismic scales. The Central Weather Bureau in Taiwan uses an intensity scale where a value of 2 means the event is noticeable by most people and 3 means some of those people are frightened.[0] For example, here[1] is the recent report for this morning's "5-" event (#137), which I can assure you everybody in the office still felt in Taipei, where it…

Seismic magnitude and intensity are two different measures.

Magnitude measures the amount of energy released by the ground movement. It is a property of the earthquake and is independent of where the measurements are taken. When someone says 'a magnitude 7 EQ', this what they are referring to. Today, the Moment Magnitude scale is used, which is a better version of the Richter scale.[1]

Intensity is a measure of the effects of an earthquake in a particular location. Intensity is commonly assessed with the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale[2], which is a qualitative measure of how the shaking was felt and what damage was done. (As an aside, since it is qualitative, it is the starting point for assessing the size of historical earthquakes.)

[1] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/moment-magnitude-richter-scale-wha...

[2] https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/earthquake-intensity-scale

Re: Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

#73

Post by graderjs »

kahnclusions wrote: post #56
graderjs wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The recorded magnitude of an earthquake depends on your distance from the epicentre. The farther away you are, the weaker an earthquake feels. The recording of 6.9 was made hundreds of kilometres away from Taipei. What was felt at Taipei 101 was a much lower magnitude.

The recorded magnitude of an earthquake depends on your distance from the epicentre

No, this is a confusion.

Read the other comments here: there's two things (which I just learned from reading this, but I always knew the epicenter magnitude is the measure of quake power):

1. The recorded magnitude for a quake is the measure of energy of quake at that epicenter.

2. An intensity scale measures the shaking (and it's perceptual effects on humans) at distances from the epicenter.

Stop contesting what I'm saying here: I'm saying the magnitude was 6.9. That's a true statement.

I'm also saying I fucking felt it. That's also true. Stop telling me I got either of those things wrong. They're both true. You don't fucking know what I felt or what I didn't feel. Also, the magnitude was 6.9 (or 6.8 depending on system used).

Obviously I know that what you feel a further distance from it is less shaking that what you feel up close. Come on, of course! It's obvious. Why assume I'm saying something "dumb", or can't understand that unless you need to pretend to look down. And why assume that what I'm saying is false; I'm saying that what I felt in Taipei was sickening. You can't question! That's what I fucking felt.

You have no idea of what I felt. You can't question it. Jeeus F Christ, what is wrong with you?

Ok, maybe you weren't saying that specifically...but you know what I mean? People on here trying to tell me I had magnitude wrong: no I had it 100% right. Trying to tell me what I could or couldn't feel, not they can't. Trying to be like surprised I felt sickening at this: it's my fucking reaction. I can feel whatever I want and you have no idea about that and no say in that.

It's a basic question and boundary. My feelings and reactions are what I know and no one else can tell me that something internal to me didn't happen, and I experienced it, and I know it happened.

I mean can you understand how exasperating that is? It's like: "You people don't have any idea at all, what are you even talking about?" Ugh.

Re: Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

#74

Post by AlexandrB »

buildbot wrote: post #44
irjustin wrote: post #29

A very interesting counter-part design is the Burj Khalifa tower in Dubai that while taller, does not have any dampener at all[0]. It does need to be mentioned that the Burj Khalifa only needs to deal with winds and does not need to worry about earthquakes where as Taipei 101 does both. [0] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Burj-Khalifa-damper-system

I recall that the design of the Burj Khalifa is quite unique and very scalable. A really cool feet of engineering from this company: https://www.som.com/projects/burj-khalifa/

Counterpoint: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/dubais-burj-khal...

Although this isn't the fault of the companies that designed/built the Burj Khalifa.

Re: Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

#76

Post by SamBam »

LegitShady wrote: post #18
z9znz wrote: post #2

> Safety comes at a hefty price, however, as the tower’s tuned mass damper cost $4 million to build. A paltry 4 million for a project which cost almost 2 billion (USD); and I imagine it resulted in some measurable reductions in insurance cost. But I wonder, what happens if the entire land that it stands on shifts and is no longer level? That pendulum won't help right a tilted building, and in fact it will move the ce…

Tall buildings are built with deep foundation systems. Taipei 101 has 380 1.5m diameter piles tied into a 3m thick concrete raft that creates its basement. The piles rock socketed into some 40-60m below the structure. those piles are socketed up to 30m into the bedrock. https://www.civilengineeringforum.me/the-tower-of-taipei-101... https://structures-explained.com/taipei-101-structural-engin... It is designed to res…

I watched a very tall building near me get build. The pounded in 20m piles into the bedrock with a gigantic hammer, for 12 hours a day for many days. It was amazing to see those massive lengths go deep into the earth, and also it was amazing how rythmic pounding for days will drive you insane.

Re: Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

#77

Post by phkahler »

>> As one of the tallest structures in the world, located only 660 feet from a major fault line...

I don't care what kind of fancy mass damper you've got, this just seems like a bad idea. The same building would be safer somewhere else. Why do humans insist of trying to defy nature?

Re: Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

#78

Post by FPGAhacker »

culturestate wrote: post #58
fisherjeff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t say that my first reaction to a major earthquake would be “let’s go up to the 89th floor and see what that 1.5 million pound ball is doing!”

It’s part of the observation deck at the top of Taipei 101, so if you’re already up there when an earthquake hits then “let’s go see what the ball is doing” is really your only option aside from sitting down and praying to the gods of civil engineering. I’d always been irrationally afraid of going through an earthquake in a skyscraper when I lived in Japan, but then I had this exact experience in Taipei and it more o…

That doesn’t strike me as irrational at all.

Re: Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

#79

Post by ravi-delia »

phkahler wrote: post #77

>> As one of the tallest structures in the world, located only 660 feet from a major fault line... I don't care what kind of fancy mass damper you've got, this just seems like a bad idea. The same building would be safer somewhere else. Why do humans insist of trying to defy nature?

Nature would have us dying in childbirth (as babies and mothers), most times we get injured, and in brutal generational raids. Once you agree to birthing forceps and antibiotics we've established the kind of person you are, and move on to negotiating the price.

Re: Tuned Mass Damper of Taipei 101

#80

Post by culturestate »

FPGAhacker wrote: post #78
culturestate wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s part of the observation deck at the top of Taipei 101, so if you’re already up there when an earthquake hits then “let’s go see what the ball is doing” is really your only option aside from sitting down and praying to the gods of civil engineering. I’d always been irrationally afraid of going through an earthquake in a skyscraper when I lived in Japan, but then I had this exact experience in Taipei and it more o…

That doesn’t strike me as irrational at all.

Irrational in the sense that I know the geophysical theory is well-understood, the engineering is solid, and the construction practices have been repeatedly proven in real-world scenarios, but what if that one-in-a-billion thing happens and I’m living a future disaster documentary.
Post reply on HN