NEW YORK | One World Trade Center (1WTC) | 541m | 1776ft | 104 fl | T/O - Page 588

MattTheTubaGuy · November 22nd, 2009, 05:23 AM

Far out, I knew the original WTC was raised, but I didn't think it was that much!!
I think there was no concrete at all in the twin towers, except for floors.

nobody can complain about the new one going slow any more now!

meh_cd · November 22nd, 2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hightech Pro

On these pics the original WTC steelwork looks a lot stronger than the current WTC1. But they were using old techniques, no diagonals, and less concrete obviously.

And the steel was only bolted; no welding. Looks can be deceiving.

micrip · November 22nd, 2009, 09:19 AM

Still, it looks pretty massive, and gives a whole new appreciation of the amount of force it took to bring them down. Are these photos on the web somewhere? I'd like to look at the original underconstruction.

boss-ton · November 22nd, 2009, 09:39 AM

Dont forget that the old twins used lightweight trusses for each floor to save weight and money. Trusses are perfectly fine but not when a plane hits the building at 600mph. The trusses were the real weak point in the old buildings along with how they were attached. This tower is gonna have lots of beams holding up the floors which are a lot heavier and stronger than trusses, and along with welded joints, and a concrete core. This building is much stronger than the old twins with these changes, but I think the old design with those hundreds of perimeter columns with these changes would be the strongest design of all. Since thats not happening though this design is still a lot stronger than the old one.

Desparye · November 22nd, 2009, 10:13 AM

Jesus, the original twins were HUGE. Thanks for sharing!

And progress has really picked up a lot. Notice how the "slow" trolls have vanished?

..I so jinxed that.

DinoVabec · November 22nd, 2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bohdan Astro

Amazing process!!!

But I think there is no optimal planning of cranes work.

They erected too early two not enough powerful to lifting 70t columns Favelle Favco cranes... Therefore at present we see there Manitowoc crawler cranes with powerful engines which need many litres

of fuel per day

. These cranes are very useful at industrial construction works. But here they are too slow and bulky.

I suppose that more effective way in construction of such skyscrapers bottom part, which consist of massive construction elements, is to use powerful tower cranes like Liebherr 5000HC http://www.liebherr.com/cc/en/produc...ister=1249_330 or Kroll K-10000 http://www.impact-enterprises.com/photo/0317031h.jpg

. I think such cranes could work more fast than crawler ones, and they are less energy consumable

. Also I suppose that erection time for such tower cranes is more short...

When bottom heavy part of skyscraper is finished, then Favelle Favco (or more economical and safe IHI JCC cranes) could be erected on the top of building using above powerful tower cranes.

They want american cranes on the site...

webeagle12 · November 22nd, 2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bohdan Astro

Amazing process!!!

But I think there is no optimal planning of cranes work.

They erected too early two not enough powerful to lifting 70t columns Favelle Favco cranes... Therefore at present we see there Manitowoc crawler cranes with powerful engines which need many litres

of fuel per day

. These cranes are very useful at industrial construction works. But here they are too slow and bulky.

I suppose that more effective way in construction of such skyscrapers bottom part, which consist of massive construction elements, is to use powerful tower cranes like Liebherr 5000HC http://www.liebherr.com/cc/en/produc...ister=1249_330 or Kroll K-10000 http://www.impact-enterprises.com/photo/0317031h.jpg

. I think such cranes could work more fast than crawler ones, and they are less energy consumable

. Also I suppose that erection time for such tower cranes is more short...

When bottom heavy part of skyscraper is finished, then Favelle Favco (or more economical and safe IHI JCC cranes) could be erected on the top of building using above powerful tower cranes.

Here in USA crawler cranes are really popular, while in Europe tower cranes ( even mini tower cranes) are more popular that crawler cranes. Crawler cranes have greater capacity and bigger boom than most of tower cranes. I really like crawler cranes like 15000 and up versions.

DinoVabec · November 22nd, 2009, 12:28 PM

November progress...

westmc9th · November 22nd, 2009, 12:46 PM

proud of all the progress

that is an awesome video above

westmc9th · November 22nd, 2009, 12:56 PM

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1310/november21st.jpg

DinoVabec · November 22nd, 2009, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmc9th

thats kewl did you use freedomtowers pics of flickr they look like otherwise thats awesome oh weather aint looking good for this week and snow for the beggining of december

Yes, I used his pics...

Bohdan Astro · November 22nd, 2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DinoVabec

They want american cranes on the site...

But Favelle Favco cranes are not American cranes!

These cranes were made in Australia. Actually America has not tower cranes for construction of skyscrapers like WTC...

DinoVabec · November 22nd, 2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bohdan Astro

But Favelle Favco cranes are not American cranes!

These cranes were made in Australia. Actually America has not tower cranes for construction of skyscrapers like WTC...

Don't know about that...I just heard that...

Bohdan Astro · November 22nd, 2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webeagle12

Here in USA crawler cranes are really popular, while in Europe tower cranes ( even mini tower cranes) are more popular that crawler cranes. Crawler cranes have greater capacity and bigger boom than most of tower cranes. I really like crawler cranes like 15000 and up versions.

I was just talking about optimisation of construction process for skyscrapers like WTC... But it is impossible to construct enough high skyscraper's part by crawler cranes...

At skyscrapers construction is not very important maximal capacity that usually can be realised at very small radius. More important is load momentum (dependence capacity on radius). Liebherr 5000HC, for an example has capacity 70t to 65m, Manitowoc 18000 with luffing jib of 70m and main boom of 54.9m has capacity only of 44.3 tonne at 60m radius. So, which of cranes is more powerful?

I think that using of crawler cranes at skyscraper construction is justified only in case when there is task impossible to solve by tower cranes. But at present I can't find such task...

aceflamingo23 · November 22nd, 2009, 03:46 PM

Who really cares where the cranes came from? Australia is an ally, so shouldnt that be ok?

SebaFun · November 22nd, 2009, 04:00 PM

OMG

Amazing progress.I love this tower

Bohdan Astro · November 22nd, 2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceflamingo23

Who really cares where the cranes came from? Australia is an ally, so shouldnt that be ok?

Yes, I also think it is not important where cranes came from... Important is capacity and safety of cranes!

About ally, you know, sometimes nature is very cruel, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jngUJLZEILs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WbvBinVxbQ

So, I think it is more important to select safe cranes, like Japanese JCC ones.

DinoVabec · November 22nd, 2009, 05:21 PM

If they use them, I guess they are good and safe enough...

the sock · November 22nd, 2009, 05:48 PM

great close ups and comparisons with the old towers .some close ups of the new tower shows that alot of the beams dont have all the bolts put in but they have still built above ,is this safe ?

Zensteeldude · November 22nd, 2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bohdan Astro

Amazing process!!!

But I think there is no optimal planning of cranes work.

They erected too early two not enough powerful to lifting 70t columns Favelle Favco cranes... Therefore at present we see there Manitowoc crawler cranes with powerful engines which need many litres

of fuel per day

. These cranes are very useful at industrial construction works. But here they are too slow and bulky.

I suppose that more effective way in construction of such skyscrapers bottom part, which consist of massive construction elements, is to use powerful tower cranes like Liebherr 5000HC http://www.liebherr.com/cc/en/produc...ister=1249_330 or Kroll K-10000 http://www.impact-enterprises.com/photo/0317031h.jpg

. I think such cranes could work more fast than crawler ones, and they are less energy consumable

. Also I suppose that erection time for such tower cranes is more short...

When bottom heavy part of skyscraper is finished, then Favelle Favco (or more economical and safe IHI JCC cranes) could be erected on the top of building using above powerful tower cranes.

You sound like a salesman.

Both the T cranes you mention are over kill and suffer from the major drawback all T cranes have, two cranes can't work together to lift heavy stuff.
image hosted on flickr

Photo by Joe Woolhead.

November 22nd, 2009, 05:23 AM	#11741
MattTheTubaGuy Skyscrapers to the stars Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Christchurch Posts: 711 Likes (Received): 107	Far out, I knew the original WTC was raised, but I didn't think it was that much!! I think there was no concrete at all in the twin towers, except for floors. nobody can complain about the new one going slow any more now! __________________ "Never memorize what you can look up in books" Albert Einstein "It's kind of fun to do the impossible." Walt Disney Complete and T/O Supertalls Map U/C Supertalls Map Prep and O/H Supertalls Map All Supertalls map! ZZ-II's World Supertalls List view my buildings made on Maya

November 22nd, 2009, 09:19 AM	#11743
micrip Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Baltimore Posts: 2,456 Likes (Received): 23	Still, it looks pretty massive, and gives a whole new appreciation of the amount of force it took to bring them down. Are these photos on the web somewhere? I'd like to look at the original underconstruction. __________________ Ham and eggs... A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig

November 22nd, 2009, 09:39 AM	#11744
boss-ton Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Boston Posts: 266 Likes (Received): 0	Dont forget that the old twins used lightweight trusses for each floor to save weight and money. Trusses are perfectly fine but not when a plane hits the building at 600mph. The trusses were the real weak point in the old buildings along with how they were attached. This tower is gonna have lots of beams holding up the floors which are a lot heavier and stronger than trusses, and along with welded joints, and a concrete core. This building is much stronger than the old twins with these changes, but I think the old design with those hundreds of perimeter columns with these changes would be the strongest design of all. Since thats not happening though this design is still a lot stronger than the old one. Last edited by boss-ton; November 22nd, 2009 at 09:54 AM.

November 22nd, 2009, 12:28 PM	#11748
DinoVabec Worldwide Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the clouds Posts: 5,789 Likes (Received): 136	November progress... __________________ Visit world of architecture on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest New York - Miami - Chicago - Las Vegas - San Francisco - Los Angeles There are two rules for success: 1. Never tell everything you know. -Roger H. Lincoln

November 22nd, 2009, 12:46 PM	#11749
westmc9th NYC=Amazing Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 252 Likes (Received): 0	proud of all the progress that is an awesome video above Last edited by westmc9th; November 22nd, 2009 at 01:09 PM.

November 22nd, 2009, 10:13 AM	#11745
Desparye Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: New Jersey Posts: 162 Likes (Received): 2	Jesus, the original twins were HUGE. Thanks for sharing! And progress has really picked up a lot. Notice how the "slow" trolls have vanished? ..I so jinxed that.

November 22nd, 2009, 12:56 PM	#11750
westmc9th NYC=Amazing Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 252 Likes (Received): 0	http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1310/november21st.jpg

November 22nd, 2009, 03:46 PM	#11755
aceflamingo23 BANNED Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nashville, Tennessee Posts: 107 Likes (Received): 0	Who really cares where the cranes came from? Australia is an ally, so shouldnt that be ok?

November 22nd, 2009, 04:00 PM	#11756
SebaFun Uruguay país de ensueño Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fray Bentos - Las Toscas Posts: 36,347 Likes (Received): 1029	OMG Amazing progress.I love this tower __________________ ¡Orientales la Patria o la tumba!

November 22nd, 2009, 05:21 PM	#11758
DinoVabec Worldwide Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the clouds Posts: 5,789 Likes (Received): 136	If they use them, I guess they are good and safe enough... __________________ Visit world of architecture on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest New York - Miami - Chicago - Las Vegas - San Francisco - Los Angeles There are two rules for success: 1. Never tell everything you know. -Roger H. Lincoln

November 22nd, 2009, 05:48 PM	#11759
the sock Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,724 Likes (Received): 13	great close ups and comparisons with the old towers .some close ups of the new tower shows that alot of the beams dont have all the bolts put in but they have still built above ,is this safe ?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode