Subject:
|
Re: Building speculation (was: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2001 05:31:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
864 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> The suggestion was not that the concrete would've survived the fire, but less
> of the building would've been directly involved in the fire, and maybe that
> little bit extra surviving support may have stopped the catastrophic collapse.
I'd say they're all wet. A building of that form factor and height HAD to be
at least as much steel as it was. Increasing the concrete ratio would mean
the building would not be able to hold up its own weight. This general
theory has been known since the time of Sullivan and the Flatiron Building.
You've got a mass fraction problem here in that the compressive (when used
in columns) strength of concrete per unit of mass is lower, so you have to
use more concrete. To increase the ratio of concrete on the upper floors,
pretty soon the entire lower floors are one solid pillar of concrete. And
that's even with the innovations in the way the floors themselves were done.
> > Mafia? Come on ROSCO.......
Actually not an unrealistic assumption at all. Steel can be sample tested
and the steelmaking process is way more controlled. It's not the PRICE
that's the problem, it's cutting the materials with sand to increase the
profit margin, and it's factual that large cities do have this problem. That
is VERY hard to inspect for, hence highways tend to be somewhat overdesigned
to compensate.
It may be hard for a UNION man to admit it, but many of the trade unions are
mob controlled or mob influenced as well. Not YOUR union of course. :-)
> Not my suggestion. I, too am skeptical about that, however I'd be interested >to
> know whether or not he was correct about American skyscrapers using more
> structural steel than in Australia, and if so, why? Note also that they were
> built in 1966, factors affecting building techniques may have been different
> than they are now.
I'm betting they probably are when viewed in the aggregate (ouch! Sorry
about that). But probably not as pronouncedly when you examine buildings of
similar height... Taller buildings, I assert, will necessarily have a higher
steel fraction.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
