PDA

View Full Version : A structural thought on tall buildings...


alex ballard
May 9th, 2005, 08:41 PM
I was looking over at the WTC development thread and was having some thoughts on 9/11. As it seems most people are hung up on the idea of a plane hitting a tall building, I had this thought:


One of the things that I was told was the contributing factor to the WTC's collaspe was the fact that outside the outer structural walls, there was basically no structural strength. My thinking is this: What if we had 3 ways of handling laterial stress:

Outer wall (ala WTC)
Inner Framework (ala older skyscrapers)
Core (a stronger version of the WTC's core)

Outer wall:
The WTC's outer wall handled the stress of the impact of the plane very well (considering). Why not have buildings that have strong outer walls, as opposed to sheets of glass. Not all buildings would have to look like the WTC of course. It could always be incased in a glass covering (to look like the FT, for instance). I was thinking something like lateral beams running up the building with beams rapping horozontally to tether the supports together. Then, crosses of steel are placed in the boxes to provide support. sort of drawing boxes with X's in them


Inner Framework:
The ESB was once hit by a plane too. It was able to escape major damage becuase it had a inner framework, as did most other skyscrapers of the time. I'm thinking that there should be a three-d grid of lateral and horozontial support beams to hold up the building. Sort of like a Knex set. This framework would then be connected to the outer wall and inner core of the building. The floors would have support trusses like the outer wall (remeber the boxes with X's in them pattern) and be built extra strong. Fire-proof plaster would wrap the colums as well.


Inner Core:
The inner core would also help to keep the building upright. It would be a tight web of steel with concrete incasing the walls. The elevators, stairwells and saftey/communications equipment would be within the core.






I'm not an engineer nor am I trying to waste server space. This is just a simple thought I had to try and to make buildings safer for people and to instill and sense of saftey. Any and all opinions would be greatly appreacted,

Gulcrapek
May 9th, 2005, 08:52 PM
It's all been thought of and used in different places.

ZippyTheChimp
May 9th, 2005, 09:07 PM
The ESB was once hit by a plane too. It was able to escape major damage
The plane that hit the ESB: B-25
Length: 51 ft
Weight: 25,000 lbls
Cruising speed: 230 mph, although it was probably going much slower since it was getting clearance to land.
Not fully loaded with fuel.

Plane that hit the WTC: Boeing 767
Length: 159 ft
Weight: 312,000 lbs
Cruising speed: 550 mph, and it was going full speed.
Fully loaded with fuel for a cross country flight.

alex ballard
May 9th, 2005, 09:18 PM
The plane that hit the ESB: B-25
Length: 51 ft
Weight: 25,000 lbls
Cruising speed: 230 mph, although it was probably going much slower since it was getting clearance to land.
Not fully loaded with fuel.

Plane that hit the WTC: Boeing 767
Length: 159 ft
Weight: 312,000 lbs
Cruising speed: 550 mph, and it was going full speed.
Fully loaded with fuel for a cross country flight.

That can be taken two ways:

1) ESB wouldn't be able to handle the crash of the Boeing 767 (which we haven't, and hopefully, will never confirm)


2) Considering the WTC basically applied 1/8 of all the structural support I'm talking about and still survived the impact, says that my plan has some merit to it.

ZippyTheChimp
May 9th, 2005, 09:33 PM
The way I take it is that you can't take the two events and draw any conclusions based on a comparison.