View Full Version : What holds up a skyscraper?
LiFers September 9th, 2011, 06:03 PM I was watching some documentaries on American buildings including the World Trade Centre towers and the Empire State Building.
The WTC had steel columns in the centre, and load bearing trusses on the outside.
The vast majority of Aussie skyscrapers have a concrete centre which seems to be a fundamentally different way of building. What is that concrete centre called (so I can google it!)
TIA
Avatar September 9th, 2011, 08:48 PM Walls usually.
Avatar September 9th, 2011, 08:51 PM Concrete is cheaper here, as far as I know most counrtries build with a concrete core over the steel construction as used in the US. Concrete is far stronger and if the twin towers were constructed in this way they would quite likely still be standing.
lowey September 10th, 2011, 12:57 AM I was watching some documentaries on American buildings including the World Trade Centre towers and the Empire State Building.
The WTC had steel columns in the centre, and load bearing trusses on the outside.
The vast majority of Aussie skyscrapers have a concrete centre which seems to be a fundamentally different way of building. What is that concrete centre called (so I can google it!)
TIA
the core
i watched the 6 part series called the rising and noticed with the wtc building that the floorplates were ahead of the core
CULWULLA September 10th, 2011, 06:09 AM you will find north america avoid all concrete skyscrapers because the steel industry is partly run by you know who (mafia). so steel skyscrapers it is!
mute123 September 10th, 2011, 11:10 AM Generally holds itself up. Concrete (or steel) frame. :)...
hornetfig September 10th, 2011, 12:45 PM Concrete is far stronger and if the twin towers were constructed in this way they would quite likely still be standing.
Also, vertical columns are provisioned redundantly and floors are tied back into the core, so an aircraft or explosion would have to knock out a lot of columns to collapse any floors, and even if it did, the building wouldn't suffer catastrophic implosion.
But, particular features of the WTC design plus particular features of the incidents caused them to collapse, not merely that they were steel-framed. Too much of their structural strength was in their exterior and too much of the remaining structural steel was exposed to extreme temperatures from the jet fuel fire for too long.
That said, even in the US, I think the general consensus is that new tall buildings will have to be built with a concrete core, even if the remaining structure is steel.
RSG January 9th, 2012, 11:13 AM Not too many columns. Slabs cannot cantilever off cores.
Another issue with the WTC was impact loading of the floors. Once the top collapsed the rest was destined to fail.
Cactus January 10th, 2012, 01:57 AM Councils, Nimbys and sometimes the green and gold bell frog.
Brizer January 10th, 2012, 06:12 AM Councils, Nimbys and sometimes the green and gold bell frog.
Damn your eyes, sir! You beat me to it!
Cactus January 10th, 2012, 06:53 AM Damn your eyes, sir! You beat me to it!
Damn these quirky threads that sound like the start of a really bad joke.
New thread ideas.
Why did the skyscraper cross the road?
How many skyscrapers does it take to change a light bulb?
Knock Knock, mega structure who?
Mornnb January 10th, 2012, 08:08 AM How many skyscrapers does it take to change a light bulb?
Lets see, you need legal. And the NSW work cover and health and safety to sign off on it. And of course the energy company. I'm thinking at minimum, 3.
Cactus January 11th, 2012, 12:11 AM Thanks Mornb, I wrote the joke then drove myself nuts thinking of punch lines.
Why did the skyscraper cross the road?
Because the chickens would only take out a 35 floor lease and naming right if it was on the other side
Knock Knock, mega structure who?
Ive got nothin...
Brizer January 11th, 2012, 12:30 AM Don't give up your day job, guys, unless you fancy turkey farming. Friendly advice, eh?
|
|