|
What are the 5 types of building construction?
•TYPE 1: FIRE RESISTIVE. Walls, partitions, columns, floors and roofs are noncombustible. •TYPE 2: NONCOMBUSTIBLE. Walls, partitions, columns, floors and roofs are noncombustible but provide less fire resistance. •TYPE 3: ORDINARY. •TYPE 4: HEAVY TIMBER. •TYPE 5: WOOD FRAME. Building Types
Low-rise Building Housing colonies Homes Airport Terminals Highways/Roads Industrial Estate Bridges Ports Art Galleries Bank Buildings Castles Cathedrals Commercial Buildings Exhibition and Exposition Factories Gardens Government Buildings County/City Halls Hotels Hospitals Large Houses Small Houses Landscapes Libraries Monasteries Multi-Family Housing Museums Multi purpose building Mosques, Churches, Temples, Gurduwara (Multi purpose) Offices Parks Palaces Plazas and Piazzas School and Academic Skyscrapers Theaters Town and City University building Villas
Mogul Ancient Egyptian Ancient Greek Ancient Roman Medieval Gothic Islamic Architecture Hindu Architecture Romanesque Traditional Japanese Renaissance Baroque Victorian Romantic Art Nouveau Richardsonian Kashmiri Arts and Crafts Neo-Classical Art Deco Early Modern Prairie Style Bay Area Regional Modern Expressionist Modern Deconstructivist Modern Corporate Modern Post Modern High Tech Expressionist Vernacular African Vernacular Neo-Vernacular
Brick Concrete Curtain Wall Fabric & Tensile Geodesic Glass Light Wood Frame Steel Timber
Alpine Temperate Mild Temperate Cold Temperate Warm Temperate Hot Temperate Subtropical Tropical
Hill or Cliffside Mountain Context Riverside Rural Small Town or City Suburban Urban Village Context Waterfront
Courtyards Domes Stairways Vaulting A Range of Rooms Can you make me wiser? How? Can you make us wiser? How? The world is composed of various materials. The materials science and engineering serves as ground for all technology branches such as electronics, energy, communication, environment, and healthy engineering. Construction materials are the most widely used materials and their usage is the largest in tonnage in the world. Through the history of human civilization, many materials have been used in the construction of buildings, bridges, roads and other structures. The focus of our study is on modern construction materials including concrete, steel, wood, bituminous materials as well as polymers and fibrous composites. Among these materials, concrete will receive the most attention in this course, for two reasons. First, the civil engineer is responsible for designing the concrete he/she uses and for ensuring its long term performance. On the other hand, steel and wood products are designed by material and mechanical engineers, who supply them to us according to our specifications. Second, concrete (reinforced concrete) is the most widely used construction material in the world. For any civil engineer, a good knowledge of concrete behaviour is essential. Besides concrete, steel and wood are the other two most commonly used construction materials in the world. Soil is also an important construction material, but it is covered in a separate course. Masonry (bricks and blocks) are widely used in building walls. Since they are not the primary load carrying components, we will not discuss them here. In buildings, many non-structural materials are also employed. These include floor and wall coverings, tiles, glass, insulation materials, sealants etc. Most of them are specified for aesthetic purposes by the architect or the interior designer. They will not be studied in this course. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN Construction materials and structural design are two closely related fields. To design a building or a bridge, we often starts with a given structural form. Once the loading on the structure is determined, structural analysis allows us to obtain the moments and shear forces in each of the members. We then choose member sizes to ensure that failure or excessive deflection will not occur. Moreover, in case failure occurs, we want it to be gradual, rather than sudden and without warning. In order to perform this task, two questions need to be answered. First, how can one relate the maximum stress and deflection of a member to the applied moment and shear as well as the member size and material stiffness. The answer to this question is provided by the theories in mechanics of materials. Second, what is the strength (or maximum stress capacity) and stiffness of the material, and what is its failure mode. The answer lies in the study of the behaviour of construction materials. In reality, the stress-strain relation of a material often determines the structural form. For example, due to the high compressive strength but low tensile strength of natural stone, historical stone structures are built in the arch form. With the development of high strength steel, cable suspended and cable stayed bridges are designed. The fact that structural form is affected by material behaviour is usually taken for granted, since we have sufficient experience with materials like concrete, wood and steel to prescribe the structural form. When new materials (such as fiber reinforced composites) are introduced, civil engineers should come up with new structural forms which would take full advantage of the materials. In recent years, due to the infrastructure decay problem in many developed regions, the long term performance of structures has become an important concern. In other words, we are interested in knowing how the stress-strain relation may change with time. For example, under chemical attack and repeated loading from the traffic, would the strength of concrete or steel be reduced over time. Under sustained loading over many years, would the stiffness of polymers becomes a lot lower, hence leading to excessive deflection. These are important issues to be addressed and will be one of the major foci of discussion throughout the course. Besides the mechanical properties, physical properties and chemical properties of construction materials are also important. The weight of materials governs the dead load on a structure. Its porosity governs water and gas penetration that affects material durability. The chemical properties govern the likelihood of chemical reaction and deterioration under various environments, and are clearly important in the study of long term performance of materials. Before closing of the introduction chapter, let’s mention the fact that construction materials are always evolving. Forty years ago, concrete of 50 MPa is considered high strength. Today, 50 MPa concrete can be easily produced anywhere and 130 MPa concrete has been employed in the construction of high rise buildings. Thirty years ago, polymeric composites are only commonly used in the aerospace industry. Today, composite reinforcing bars are commercially available, at a price only slightly higher than epoxy-coated steel (which is widely used in bridges - the epoxy coating is to provide corrosion protection). With knowledge developing at an ever-increasing rate, business/contractors/administration/engineers of this generation will likely encounter new construction materials in their career. How, then, can a sound judgement be made regarding the use of such a material? The answer lies again in the behaviour of the material. With a good understanding of the physical basis of material behaviour, factors that may affect it and its relation to structural behaviour, we will be able to ask the right question about any new material, and perform the right tests to assess its applicability. The second chapter will provide a concise summary of mechanical properties of materials. This will provide a background for the understanding of material behaviour in general, and be helpful in the study of specific construction materials in the later chapters. Bricks & Tiles Bathroom
SINKS & VANITIES BATHROOM MIRROR CABINETS & SHELVES SHOWER TILES & GROUT TOILETS, TUBS & SHOWERS
Ceiling Items Cement Products 33/43/53 grade cement (50 kg packing) Plaster of Paris dry distemper and paints HDPE water storage tanks from 100 to 200 liters expanded polythene sheets used for flooring and packing PVC conduit pipes and fittings PVC pressure pipes Why Precast Concrete? Cement spun pipes for drainage management Cement poles Cement jalis Cement tiles Doors Windows Klins Steel tubular poles Steel trusses Grills Bridges and gates Decorative veneered and non-decorative plywood Blackboards Flush doors Wooden door and window shutters Wooden paneling and ceiling Khatumbandi ceiling Pre-fabricated huts and structures Chemical & Plastic Items Floor Items Hardware Accessories Marble & Stone Products Metal & Stainless Products Partition Wood Items Water Resistance Building Material Fire Proof Building Material Paint & Surface Coatings Roofing Materials Moveable Screens Ceramic Materials Bathroom Sanitary Equipment Materials Kitchen System Equipment Materials Sauna Bath Equipment Heat-Barriers Materials Wall Coverings Building Stone Building Board Acoustic Building Elements Decoration Materials Plumbing Supplies Architectural Ironmongery Prefabricated building Materials Silicone (Modified Phenolic Adhesive) Toilet Partition and Accessories Others High-rise Building. The structure is formed from 10 bundled square tubes, each 75 feet wide with no columns between the core and perimeter. Two of the tubes are 50 floors high, two are 66 floors, four are 90, and two are 110. - Twenty-eight acres of black anodized aluminum panels and approximately 16,100 bronze-tinted windows form the tower's facade. - The lobby floor is decorated with metal tiles in a stylized design based on the bundled tube structure. - 2.5 million cubic feet of concrete were used during construction. Low-rise Building. Housing colonies. Homes. Bridges. Ports. Overview Buildings Designers select concrete for one-, two-, and three-story stores, restaurants, schools, hospitals, commercial warehouses, terminals, and industrial buildings because of its durability and ease of construction. In addition, concrete is often the most economical choice: load-bearing concrete exterior walls serve not only to enclose the buildings and keep out the elements, but also carry roof and wind loads, eliminating the need to erect separate cladding and structural systems. While steel construction can be advantageous in regions where local market conditions and traditions favor it, concrete is the most cost-effective choice throughout much of the South and West-regions with strong masonry traditions. Concrete often is used in low-rise construction in Florida, where the material's ability to weather hurricanes and tornadoes, and its resistance to insects, are valued. Four methods of concrete construction are commonly used to create load-bearing walls for low-rise construction: tilt-up, precast, concrete masonry, and cast-in-place. Although precast and concrete masonry construction historically have been the standard for low-rise construction, in recent years builders have increasingly used tilt-up construction techniques to erect low-rise commercial buildings quickly and economically. Tilt-Up Tilt-up is particularly well suited to warehouse and shopping center construction, because contractors can form the windowless, unarticulated wall panels quickly and economically. Tilt-up can also be used for buildings with windows and other architectural features. Using tilt-up techniques, builders set the steel reinforcing and pour the concrete walls in a horizontal position at the building site. Workers then lift and tilt the walls, which average about 5.5 inches (14 cm) thick, into place with a crane to create the building. In many cases, tilt-up construction results in a lower first cost than alternative building systems: ready mixed concrete is usually locally available, and special labor skills are not required. No additional interior or exterior finish is required. The concrete panels can be created with a wide range of surface colors and textures, using exposed aggregate, concrete form liners, pigments, and other techniques to create a desired appearance. Tilt-up concrete is most commonly used for one-story buildings, but its use in multi-story low-rise office and warehouse buildings is growing. Precast Precast construction is appropriate for structures in which the concrete pattern can be repeated; the more times a concrete shape or panel can be repeated, the greater economy can be achieved. Precast construction also offers the advantage of factory control: concrete strength, appearance, and quality can be tightly monitored and regulated. Load-bearing precast wall panels-often used for low-rise schools, hotels, hospitals, and manufacturing facilities-can either be mass-produced in standard molds at precast plants, or can be formed in molds custom-designed for individual projects. These panels are usually prestressed and often contain a layer of rigid insulation. Precast concrete is commonly used for prison construction because precast systems are economical to construct and the material is largely impenetrable and damage-resistant. Continued improvement in concrete strength in the past decade has been a major factor in the development of taller buildings in the United States and throughout the world. New structural systems—including high-strength concrete—created either from concrete alone or with a composite system that includes both concrete and structural steel are partly responsible. These systems enable skyscrapers to resist the enormous wind and earthquake loads imposed along their height and allow these structures to support the vertical loads created by gravity, the weight of the building, and its occupants. A major advantage of concrete construction for high-rise buildings is the material's inherent properties of heaviness and mass, which create lateral stiffness, or resistance to horizontal movement. Occupants of concrete towers are less able to perceive building motion than occupants of comparable tall buildings with non-concrete structural systems. As a result, concrete has become the material of choice for many tall, slim towers, including many squeezed into narrow building lots in New York City in recent years. Engineers deemed concrete to be the only viable structural option for the structures—including City Spire on West 56th Street, with its slenderness ratio of 10 to 1—to withstand anticipated wind loading. The first reinforced concrete high-rise was the 16-story Ingalls Building, completed in Cincinnati in 1903. Even 50 years later, concrete buildings rarely exceeded 20 stories. Concrete high-rise buildings were not economical to lease because the massive columns needed for their support left too little rentable floor space. Greater building height became possible as concrete strength increased. In the 1950s, 5000 psi (34 MPa) was considered high strength; by 1990, two high-rise buildings were constructed in Seattle using concrete with strengths of up to 19,000 psi (131 MPa). Ultra-high-strength concrete is now manufactured with strengths in excess of 21,750 psi (150 MPa). While the United States witnessed the construction of millions of square feet of office space in high-rise buildings during the 1980s in cities such as New York and Chicago, high-rise construction fell off sharply in the 1990s. In 1985, 3.1 million tons of cement were used in U.S. high-rise construction, while in 1995 only 421,000 tons were required. Asia Has Highest Concrete Until recently, the world's tallest buildings were in the United States, but in 1993, the tall building construction boom shifted to Asia with the erection of the 1207 ft (368 m) Central Plaza office tower in Hong Kong. Two major high-rises in Asia are the 1371 ft (418 m) Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai, China, and the 1378 ft (420 m), twin Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. These monumental towers use composite structural systems, combining vertical components such as cores, columns, and shear walls of concrete that have strengths of up to 11,600 psi (80 MPa) with structural steel horizontal members to resist lateral and vertical forces. The two tallest concrete buildings in the United States were completed in Chicago in 1989. Both the 969 ft (295 m), 311 South Wacker Building and the 920 ft (276 m), Two Prudential Plaza Buildings took advantage of 12,000 psi (83 MPa) high-strength concrete in the fabrication of cast-in-place, steel-reinforced columns and walls at the buildings' lower levels to support the total dead and live loads of the structures. The middle and upper levels of the buildings, where total accumulated forces are lower, were constructed with concrete in strengths ranging from 4000 psi (27.6 MPa) to 10,000 psi (69 MPa). Resisting Earthquakes The ability of any structure to withstand an earthquake—whether it is a concrete high-rise, a steel bridge, or wood-frame house—hinges on whether the structure was properly designed, detailed, and constructed to resist the lateral or side-to-side loading created by the shaking of the earth. The design community's understanding of how to best deal with this shaking generally improves significantly in the aftermath of each major earthquake because engineers have the opportunity to observe and learn from the way existing structures perform. This hard-won knowledge often leads to revisions in design and construction procedures that are incorporated into building codes, which govern future construction. Contrary to popular belief, a structure's likelihood of surviving an earthquake depends more on how well the structure is engineered than on what type of material is used to build it. During a severe earthquake that struck Kobe, Japan, on January 17, 1995, concrete buildings and steel buildings in the downtown area of the city shared comparable fates: just 4.9 % of concrete buildings and 5.3 % of steel buildings collapsed. The majority of the more than 5,000 deaths and 34,000 injuries caused by the earthquake occurred as a result of the widespread collapse of traditional one- and two-story, wood post-and-beam houses. These structures—with weak walls of bamboo or thin wood and heavy ceramic tile roofs—relied on structural connections created with interlocking pieces of wood, rather than with nails or other positive connectors. The earthquake-induced shaking caused these connections to fail, and the buildings collapsed, killing and injuring occupants. Two-Pronged Approach To successfully withstand earthquake-induced forces, structures such as bridges, elevated roadways, and high- and low-rise buildings constructed in areas of seismic activity must be engineered with a two-pronged approach. One structural system is needed to resist gravity or downward forces, to hold the structure up under normal circumstances, and another is required to resist lateral or sideways forces generated during an earthquake. Sometimes a single structural system can satisfy both criteria: high-rise buildings can be supported by a concrete frame system detailed to resist both gravity and seismic loads. In other cases, designers use the frame to support only the gravity load, and add shearwalls—walls designed to resist sideways or in-place forces and provide lateral rigidity—to resist earthquake-induced motion. The choice of structural systems available for the construction of high-rise buildings in regions of high seismicity is much more limited than that available in non-seismic regions. To protect the life and safety of occupants, U.S. building codes governing seismic design reflect a strong column, weak beam philosophy. Because the vertical columns are more critical to the stability of a structure than are the horizontal beams, engineers are required to design the columns to be 120 % as strong as the beams. As a result, in the event of strong earthquake shaking motion, the beams are damaged instead of the columns, so that the building will remain standing. One structural attribute that engineers have come to understand during the past 30 years as being critical to effective seismic design is ductility: the ability of a structural member, or a connection between structural members, to bend in response to earthquake-induced forces while simultaneously continuing to support the loads it was designed to carry. Ductility a Key The ductility of concrete columns can be increased by including horizontal or transverse steel reinforcing as well as vertical steel. Lack of ductility in columns, beams, and connections has been blamed for the most serious damage to major buildings and transportation structures that occurred during recent major earthquakes. Non-ductile concrete and steel columns supporting the Hanshin expressway near Kobe—designed before 1971 when Japanese Building Standard Law was modified to require ductility in structural elements and connections—contributed to a spectacular failure of the elevated roadway. In response to failures of non-ductile columns on bridges and roadways during the Northridge earthquake, which shook the Los Angeles area on Jan. 17, 1994, and the Loma Prieta earthquake, which struck near San Francisco on Oct. 17, 1989, the California Department of Transportation has undertaken a retrofit program of non-ductile columns. Contractors are jacketing these columns with thin sheets of steel or carbon fiber materials to confine the concrete and increase column ductility. Detailing of connections with seismic forces in mind has also emerged as an important design consideration in recent years. After the two recent California quakes, for example, bridge engineers changed the requirements for the connection between adjacent concrete box girders that support bridges, increasing the seat width, or the area of overlap between the two sections, from about 6 in. to more than 20 in. (15 cm to 38 cm). Engineers have also begun to require much more substantial ties between separate structural members, such as box girders or beams. Structural members are now being linked by restrainers made of high-strength steel rods with steel plates at either end that are embedded in the concrete to keep the structural members from separating during an earthquake. Concrete Construction Engineering Handbook We take all the significant things into consideration, like water supply, good roads, electricity, Fire alaram systems, drainage system and parks. land is to be developed with good infrastructure, roads, hospitals and schools. private-public partnership. “Cross-subsidization has evolved more money, so we are able to develop good infrastructure. And in private-public partnership, You provide the land and the development is done by the private builders and then we sell it jointly. Buildings Are steel buildings an expensive option? What are the buildings made of? Are the buildings insulated? How secure is the steel building? What is the appearance of the buildings? Escalator Elevator |
|
Why you should not be inspired by the tallest buildings in the world? Most of the tallest buildings have flopped. Look at these examples. What is the profile of Shanghai Tower? Construction started: 1993. Opened: 2016. At night, half the tower fails to light up due to the lack of occupancy on June 1, 2020. Everyone is concerned about safety first. Why did Shanghai Tower fail? The most important issue is local fire officials’ safety concerns. The building has low occupancy rates. In 2018, the building was half empty. Only 30% of people who asked for occupancy moved in. People were reluctant to sign leases. The most important issue is local fire officials’ safety concerns. Operation costs increased. On May 1, 2020, the building was 1.5 billion dollars in debt. What is the tallest structure in the world? Burj Khalifa 100 Tallest Completed Buildings in the World by Height to Architectural June 1, 2020
Skyscrapers Throughout the history of architecture, there has been a continual quest for height. Thousands of workers toiled on the pyramids of ancient Egypt, the cathedrals of Europe and countless other towers, all striving to create something awe-inspiring. People build skyscrapers primarily because they are convenient -- you can create a lot of real estate out of a relatively small ground area. But ego and grandeur do sometimes play a significant role in the scope of the construction, just as it did in earlier civilizations. Up until relatively recently, we could only go so high. After a certain point, it just wasn't feasible to keep building up. In the late 1800s, new technology redefined these limits. Suddenly, it was possible to live and work in colossal towers, hundreds of feet above the ground. We'll examine the main architectural issues involved in keeping skyscrapers up, as well as the design issues involved in making them practical. Finally, we'll peer into the future of skyscrapers to find out how high we might go. The main obstacle in building upward is the downward pull of gravity. Imagine carrying a friend on your shoulders. If the person is fairly light, you can support them pretty well by yourself. But if you were to put another person on your friend's shoulders (build your tower higher), the weight would probably be too much for you to carry alone. To make a tower that is "multiple-people high," you need more people on the bottom to support the weight of everybody above. This is how "cheerleader pyramids" work, and it's also how real pyramids and other stone buildings work. There has to be more material at the bottom to support the combined weight of all the material above. Every time you add a new vertical layer, the total force on every point below that layer increases. If you kept increasing the base of a pyramid, you could build it up indefinitely. This becomes infeasible very quickly, of course, since the bottom base takes up too much available land. In normal buildings made of bricks and mortar, you have to keep thickening the lower walls as you build new upper floors. After you reach a certain height, this is highly impractical. If there's almost no room on the lower floors, what's the point in making a tall building? Using this technology, people didn't construct many buildings more than 10 stories -- it just wasn't feasible. But in the late 1800s, a number of advancements and circumstances converged, and engineers were able to break the upper limit -- and then some. The social circumstances that led to skyscrapers were the growing metropolitan American centers, most notably Chicago. Businesses all wanted their offices near the center of town, but there wasn't enough space. In these cities, architects needed a way to expand the metropolis upward, rather than outward. The main technological advancement that made skyscrapers possible was the development of mass iron and steel production (see How Iron and Steel Work for details). New manufacturing processes made it possible to produce long beams of solid iron. Essentially, this gave architects a whole new set of building blocks to work with. Narrow, relatively lightweight metal beams could support much more weight than the solid brick walls in older buildings, while taking up a fraction of the space. With the advent of the Bessemer process, the first efficient method for mass steel production, architects moved away from iron. Steel, which is even lighter and stronger than iron, made it possible to build even taller buildings. Giant Girder Grids The central support structure of a skyscraper is its steel skeleton. Metal beams are riveted end to end to form vertical columns. At each floor level, these vertical columns are connected to horizontal girder beams. Many buildings also have diagonal beams running between the girders, for extra structural support. In this giant three-dimensional grid -- called the super structure -- all the weight in the building gets transferred directly to the vertical columns. This concentrates the downward force caused by gravity into the relatively small areas where the columns rest at the building's base. This concentrated force is then spread out in the substructure under the building. In a typical skyscraper substructure, each vertical column sits on a spread footing. The column rests directly on a cast-iron plate, which sits on top of a grillage. The grillage is basically a stack of horizontal steel beams, lined side-by-side in two or more layers (see diagram, below). The grillage rests on a thick concrete pad poured directly onto the hard clay under the ground. Once the steel is in place, the entire structure is covered with concrete. The pieces of a skyscraper's spread footing This structure expands out lower in the ground, the same way a pyramid expands out as you go down. This distributes the concentrated weight from the columns over a wide surface. Ultimately, the entire weight of the building rests directly on the hard clay material under the earth. In very heavy buildings, the base of the spread footings rest on massive concrete piers that extend all the way down to the earth's bedrock layer. Making it Functional In the last section, we saw that new iron and steel manufacturing processes opened up the possibility of towering buildings. But this is only half the picture. Before high-rise skyscrapers could become a reality, engineers had to make them practical. The Empire State Building's 73 elevators can move 600 to 1,400 feet (183 to 427 meters) per minute. At the maximum speed, you can travel from the lobby to the 80th floor in 45 seconds. Once you get more than five or six floors, stairs become a fairly inconvenient technology. Skyscrapers would never have worked without the coincident emergence of elevator technology. Ever since the first passenger elevator was installed in New York's Haughwout Department Store in 1857, elevator shafts have been a major part of skyscraper design. In most skyscrapers, the elevator shafts make up the building's central core. Figuring out the elevator structure is a balancing act of sorts. As you add more floors to a building, you increase the building's occupancy. When you have more people, you obviously need more elevators or the lobby will fill up with people waiting in line. But elevator shafts take up a lot of room, so you lose floor space for every elevator you add. To make more room for people, you have to add more floors. Deciding on the right number of floors and elevators is one of the most important parts of designing a building. Building safety is also a major consideration in design. Skyscrapers wouldn't have worked so well without the advent of new fire-resistant building materials in the 1800s. These days, skyscrapers are also outfitted with sophisticated sprinkler equipment that puts out most fires before they spread very far. This is extremely important when you have hundreds of people living and working thousands of feet above a safe exit. Architects also pay careful attention to the comfort of the building's occupants. The Empire State Building, for example, was designed so its occupants would always be within 30 feet (ft) of a window. The Commerzbank building in Frankfurt, Germany has tranquil indoor garden areas built opposite the building's office areas, in a climbing spiral structure. A building is only successful when the architects have focused not only on structural stability, but also usability and occupant satisfaction. Wind Resistance In addition to the vertical force of gravity, skyscrapers also have to deal with the horizontal force of wind. Most skyscrapers can easily move several feet in either direction, like a swaying tree, without damaging their structural integrity. The main problem with this horizontal movement is how it affects the people inside. If the building moves a substantial horizontal distance, the occupants will definitely feel it. The most basic method for controlling horizontal sway is to simply tighten up the structure. At the point where the horizontal girders attach to the vertical column, the construction crew bolts and welds them on the top and bottom, as well as the side. This makes the entire steel super structure move more as one unit, like a pole, as opposed to a flexible skeleton. The Chrysler Building in New York City. For taller skyscrapers, tighter connections don't really do the trick. To keep these buildings from swaying heavily, engineers have to construct especially strong cores through the center of the building. In the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building and other skyscrapers from that era, the area around the central elevator shafts is fortified by a sturdy steel truss, braced with diagonal beams. Most recent buildings have one or more concrete cores built into the center of the building. Making buildings more rigid also braces them against earthquake damage. Basically, the entire building moves with the horizontal vibrations of the earth, so the steel skeleton isn't twisted and strained. While this helps protect the structure of the skyscraper, it can be pretty rough on the occupants, and it can also cause a lot of damage to loose furniture and equipment. Several companies are developing new technology that will counteract the horizontal movement to dampen the force of vibration. To learn more about these systems, check out How Smart Structures Will Work. Some buildings already use advanced wind-compensating dampers. The Citicorp Center in New York, for example, uses a tuned mass damper. In this complex system, oil hydraulic systems push a 400-ton concrete weight back and forth on one of the top floors, shifting the weight of the entire building from side to side. A sophisticated computer system carefully monitors how the wind is shifting the building and moves the weight accordingly. Some similar systems shift the building's weight based on the movement of giant pendulums. Vertical Variations As we've seen in the previous sections, skyscrapers come in all shapes and sizes. The steel skeleton concept makes for an extremely flexible structure. The columns and girders are something like giant pieces in an erector set. The only real limit is the imagination of the architects and engineers who put the pieces together. The distinctive chrome-nickel-steel crown of the 1,046-foot (319-meter) Chrysler Building is a classic example of art deco architecture. The earliest skyscrapers, built in the late 1800s, were very basic boxes with simple stone and glass curtain walls. To the architects who built these skyscrapers, the extreme height was impressive enough. In the period around 1900, the aesthetic began to change. Buildings got taller, and architects added more extravagant gothic elements, hiding the boxy steel structure underneath. The art deco movement of the 1920s, '30s and '40s extended this approach, creating buildings that stood as true works of art. Some of the most famous skyscrapers, including the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building (above), came out of this era. Things shifted again in the 1950s, when international style began to take hold. Like the earliest skyscrapers, these buildings had little or no ornamentation. They were made mostly with glass, steel and concrete. The 738-foot (225-meter) Chase Tower in Dallas is a good example of the innovative design of the 1980s. Since the 1960s, many architects have taken the skyscraper to new and unexpected places. One of the most interesting variations has been the combination of several vertical skeleton sections -- or tubes -- into one building. The Sears Tower in Chicago, the most famous example of this approach, consists of nine aligned tubes that reach to different heights. This gives the building an interesting staggered appearance. The Tallest Tower Ever since the first towering skyscrapers at the end of the 1800s, cities and corporations have been competing to build the world's tallest. Right now, there is some debate over who holds the record. Not everybody agrees on which structures should be considered. Traditionally, the architectural community defines a building as an enclosed structure built primarily for occupancy. This excludes a lot of extremely tall freestanding structures, such as Toronto's 1,815-foot (ft) CN Tower, from the running. Even within "traditional buildings," there has been controversy. For example, if you include rooftop antennas in the total height measure, the Sears Tower stands 1,730 feet tall. Without the antenna, it's only 1,450 feet tall. But, conventionally, decorative structures count toward height, but antennas do not. So who currently has the lead? That honor goes to Taipei 101 in Taipei, Taiwan. Although it has nine fewer stories than the Sears Tower -- Taipei 101 has 101 stories and the Sears Tower boasts 110 floors -- Taipei 101 is taller. It stands at an amazing 1,670 feet -- that's 220 feet taller than the Sears Tower and 187 feet taller than the previous winner, the Petronas Towers. Onward and Upward The "world's tallest" title passes regularly from skyscraper to skyscraper. This is one of the most competitive contests in construction. Architects and engineers heartily embrace the challenges of building higher, and corporations and cities are always attracted to the glory of towering over the competition. The current champ is the Petronas Towers in Malaysia (see sidebar in previous section). By all accounts, the skyscraper race is far from over. There are more than 50 proposed buildings that would break the current record. Some of the more conservative structures are already in construction. But the more ambitious buildings in the group are only theoretical at this time. Are they possible? According to some engineering experts, the real limitation is money, not technology. Super tall buildings would require extremely sturdy materials and deep, fortified bases. Construction crews would need elaborate cranes and pumping systems to get materials and concrete up to the top levels. All told, putting one of these buildings up could easily cost tens of billions of dollars. Additionally, there would be logistical problems with the elevators. To make the upper floors in a 200-story building easily accessible, you would need a large bank of elevators, which would take up a wide area in the center of the building. One easy solution to this problem is to arrange the elevators so they only go part way up the building. Passengers who want to go the top would take an elevator halfway, get off and then take another elevator the rest of the way. Experts are divided about how high we can really go in the near future. Some say we could build a mile-high (5,280 ft, or 1,609 m) building with existing technology, while others say we would need to develop lighter, stronger materials, faster elevators and advanced sway dampers before these buildings were feasible. Speaking only hypothetically, most engineers won't impose an upper limit. Future technology advances could conceivably lead to sky-high cities, many experts say, housing a million people or more. Whether we'll actually get there is another question. We might be compelled to build farther upward in the future, simply to conserve land. When you build upward, you can concentrate much more development into one area, instead of spreading out into untapped natural areas. Skyscraper cities would also be very convenient: More businesses can be clustered together in a city, reducing commuting time. But the main force behind the skyscraper race might turn out to be basic vanity. Where monumental height once honored gods and kings, it now glorifies corporations and cities. These structures come from a very fundamental desire -- everybody wants to have the biggest building on the block. This drive has been a major factor in skyscraper development over the past 120 years, and it's a good bet it will continue to push buildings up in the centuries to come. N.Y Buildings * 1 Astor Plaza (1969) * 1 Bankers Trust Plaza (1974) * 1 Bryant Park (2006) * 1 Central Park (2004) * 1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza (1971) * 1 Fifth Avenue (1929) * 1 Financial Square (1987) * 1 Liberty Plaza (1972) * 1 N.Y. Plaza (1969) * 1 Penn Plaza (1972) * 1 Rockefeller Plaza (1937) * 1 Seaport Plaza (1983) * 1 Times Square (1904) * 1 Wall Street (1931) * 1 World Financial Center (1986) * 1 World Trade Center (1972) * 1 Worldwide Plaza (1989) * 10 Columbus Circle (2003) * 10 E 40th Street (1928) * 100 Park Avenue (1949) * 100 U.N. Plaza (1986) * 100 William Street (1974) * 1001 Fifth Avenue (1979) * 101 Park Avenue (1985) * 101 West End Avenue (2000) * 11 Times Square * 110 East 42nd Street (1923) * 1133 Sixth Avenue (1969) * 1166 Sixth Avenue (1973) * 120 Wall Street (1930) * 127 John Street (1971) * 1270 Sixth Avenue (1932) * 130 Liberty Street (1974) * 135 East 57th Street (1987) * 15 Columbus Circle (1970) * 15 William Street (2005) * 1585 Broadway (1989) * 165 Charles Street (2005) * 17 State Street (1988) * 173 Perry Street (2002) * 1739 Broadway (2002) * 176 Perry Street (2002) * 2 Broadway (1959) * 2 Columbus Circle (1965) * 2 N.Y. Plaza (1971) * 2 Penn Plaza (1968) * 2 Times Square * 2 World Financial Center (1987) * 2 World Trade Center (1973) * 20 River Terrace (2003) * 20 Times Square * 200 Water Street (1971) * 211 West 56th Street (1982) * 22 River Terrace (2001) * 230 West 56th Street (2002) * 240 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place (2004) * 270 Greenwich Street (2004) * 275 Madison Avenue (1931) * 3 Times Square (2001) * 3 World Financial Center (1985) * 30 Broad Street (1932) * 30 Hudson Street (2003) * 300 Madison Avenue (2003) * 325 Fifth Avenue (2006) * 33 Maiden Lane (1986) * 34 River Terrace (1999) * 343 West 42nd Street (2002) * 345 Park Avenue (1969) * 350 West 50th Street (1989) * 383 Madison Avenue (2002) * 4 N.Y. Plaza (1969) * 4 Times Square (1999) * 4 World Financial Center (1986) * 40 Wall Street (1930) * 41 River Terrace (1999) * 425 Fifth Avenue (2002) * 48 Wall Street (1927) * 497 Greenwich Street (2004) 5-9 * 5 Times Square (2003) * 500 Fifth Avenue (1931) * 50 East 42nd Street (1916) * 501 West 41st Street (2002) * 505 Fifth Avenue (2005) * 505 Greenwich Street (2004) * 520 Madison Avenue (1982) * 55 Water Street (1972) * 59 Maiden Lane (1966) * 599 Lexington Avenue (1986) * 60 Wall Street (1989) * 601 Lexington Avenue (1977) * 63 Wall Street (1929) * 666 Fifth Avenue (1957) * 7 Times Square (2003) * 7 World Trade Center (1985) * 70 Pine Street (1932) * 712 Fifth Avenue (1990) * 731 Lexington (2004) * 745 Seventh Avenue (2001) * 750 Seventh Avenue (1989) * 77 Water Street (1970) * 777 Third Avenue (1963) * 80 South Street (2006) * 85 Broad Street (1983) * 845 UN Plaza (2001) * 860-870 U.N. Plaza (1966) * 88 Pine Street (1973) * 885 Third Avenue - Lipstick (1986) * 9 W 57th Street (1974) * 90 West Street (1907) A * Adams Building (1914) * American Brands Building (1967) * American International Building (1932) * American Radiator Building (1924) * American Standard Building (1924) * American Tract Society Building (1896) * Annenberg Building (1974) * AOL Time Warner Center (2004) * Arthur A. Schomburg Plaza (1975) * Astor Place (2005) * AT&T Building (1932) * (ex-)AT&T Building (1984) * AT&T Long Lines Building (1974) * Avalon Riverview (2002) B * Bankers Trust Co. Building (1962) * Bankers Trust Building (1974) * Bank of America Tower (2006) * Bank of Manhattan Building (1930) * Bank of New York Building (48 Wall St.) (1927) * Bank of New York Building II (1 Wall St.) (1931) * Barclay-Vesey Building (1927) * Bayard-Condict Building (1899) * Beekman Tower (1928) * Beresford Apartments (1929) * Bertelsmann Building (1990) * Bloomberg Tower(2004) * Bowery Savings Bank (1923) * Bush Tower (1918) C * Canada House (1957) * Candler Building (1914) * Carnegie Hall Tower (1990) * Carnegie Mews (1982) * CBS Building (1964) * Celanese Building (1973) * Central Park Place (1988) * Century Apartments (1931) * Chanin Building (1929) * Chase Manhattan Bank (1961) * Chatham Towers (1965) * Chemical Bank Building (1964) * Chrysler Building (1930) * Chrysler Building East (1952) * CIBC World Markets (2003) * Citigroup Center (1977) * Cities Service Building (1932) * City Bank Farmers Trust Co. Building (1931) * Citylights (1997) * Cityspire (1987) * Columbus Centre (2003) * Condé Nast Building (1999) * Confucius Plaza (1976) * Continental Center (1983) * Corning Glass Building (1959) * Crown Building (1921) D * Dag Hammarskjold Tower (1984) * Daily News Building (1930) * Deutsche Bank Building (1974) * Doubletree Guest Suites (1990) * Downtown Athletic Club (1930) * Durst Tower (1999) E * Eldorado Apartments (1931) * Empire State Building (1931) * Equitable Building I (1915) * Equitable Building II (1961) * Equitable Center (1986) * Ernst & Young National Headquarters (2003) * Essex House (1930) * Exxon Building (1971) F * Flatiron Building (1902) * Four Seasons Hotel (1993) * Freedom Tower (2006) * Fuller Building (1929) G * Galleria (1975) * GE Building (1933) * General Electric Tower (1931) * General Motors Building (1968) * Goldman Sachs Tower (2003) * Grace Building (1974) * Group Health Insurance Building (1931) * Gulf & Western Building (1970) H * Hearst Magazine Building (2006) * Helena (2004) * Helmsley Building (1929) * Helmsley Palace Hotel (1980) * Heckscher Building (1916) * Home Insurance Company Building (1966) * I * IBM Building (1983) * InterActiveCorp Headquarters (2006) * Interchem Building (1969) * International Building (1935) * Irving Trust Co. Building (1931) J * Jacob Ruppert Brewery Project (1975) * Javits Federal Office Building (1967) * J.P. Morgan Bank Headquarters (1989) K * Kent Building (1952) L * Lehman Brothers Building (2001) * Lefcourt Colonial Building (1930) * Lever Building (1952) * Lincoln Building (1930) * Lipstick Building (1986) * LVMH Tower (1999) M * Majestic Apartments (1930) * Manufacturers Hanover Trust Building (1954) * Marc (2004) * Marine Midland Bank (1967) * Marriott East Side Hotel (1924) * Marriott Marquis Hotel (1985) * Marriott Brooklyn * McGraw-Hill Building I (330 W 42nd St.) (1931) * McGraw-Hill Building II (1221 Sixth Ave.) (1972) * Met Life Building (1963) * Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. Tower (1909) * Metropolitan Tower (1988) * Milan (2004) * Millennium Broadway Hotel (1990) * Millennium Hilton Hotel (1992) * Milstein Tower * Mobil Building (1956) * MONY Tower (1950) * Morgan Stanley Building (1585 Broadway) (1989) * Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Plaza (2001) * Morton Square (2003) * Municipal Building (1914) * Museum Tower (1984) N * National Westminster Bank USA (1983) * Nelson Tower (1931) * New York Central Building (1929) * New Yorker Hotel (1930) * New York Hilton Hotel (1963) * New York Merchandise Mart (1974) * New York Palace Hotel (1980) * New York Times Tower (2006) * New York World Building (1890) * N.Y. Life Insurance Co. Building (1928) * N.Y. Telephone Co. Building (Midtown) (1974) * N.Y. Telephone Co. Building (Murray Hill) (1967) * N.Y. Telephone Co. Switching Station (Downtown) (1976) * N.Y. Telephone Co. Switching Station (W.Midtown) (1964) O * Olympic Tower (1976) * One Bryant Park (2006) * One Penn Plaza (1972) * Orion (2005) P * Pan Am Building (1963) * Panhellenic Hotel (1928) * Paramount Building (1927) * Paramount Plaza (1968) * Park Avenue Place (2004) * Park Avenue Plaza (1981) * Park Imperial (2002) * Park Lane Hotel (1971) * Park Row Building (1899) * Pennmark (2001) * Perry West (2002) * Philip Morris Inc. Building (1982) * Piaget Building (1978) * Pierre (1928) Q R * Random House Building (2002) * RCA Building (1933) * Realty Building (1907) * Ritz Tower (1925) * RKO Building (1932) S * San Remo Apartments (1930) * Seagram Building (1958) * Seward Park Houses Extension (1973) * Sheraton Centre (1962) * Singer Tower (1908) * Socony-Mobil Building (1956) * Solaire (2003) * Solow Building (1974) * Sony Building (1984) * South Park Tower (1986) * Standard Oil Building (1922) T * Taino Towers (1979) * Thames Twins (1905/07) * Time and Life Building (1937) * Time-Life Building (1959) * Time Warner Center (2004) * Times Square Tower (2004) * Times Tower (1904) * Time Warner Building (1947) * Tishman Building (1957) * Tribeca Park (1999) * Tribeca Pointe (1999) * Trinity Building (1905) * Trump Tower (1983) * Trump International Hotel & Tower (1997) * Trump Place * Trump World Tower (2001) U * (1 & 2) U.N. Plaza - Park Hyatt Hotel (1976) * Union Carbide Building (1960) * United Nations Secretariat (1950) * Universal Pictures Building (1947) * University Plaza (1966) * Uris Building (1972) * U.S. Courthouse (1936) * U.S. Plywood Building (1963) * U.S. Steel Building (1972) V * Victory (2002) W * Waldorf Astoria Hotel (1931) * Waterside (1974) * The Westport (2003) * Western Union Building (1930) * The Whitehall Building (1904) * Whitehall Building Annex (1911) * Woolworth Building (1913) * World Financial Center (1988) * World Trade Center (update structure) (1973) * W. R. Grace Building (1974) Illinois 860-880 Lake Shore Apartments, Chicago 1948-51 Mies van der Rohe, Architect Chicago Federal Center, Chicago 1974 Mies van der Rohe, Architect Chicago O'Hare International Airport - Part Redevelopment 2000-04 Murphy/Jahn Architects Crown Hall + IIT Masterplan, Chicago 1940- Mies van der Rohe, Architect Illinois Building Farnsworth House, Plano 1950 Mies van der Rohe, Architect Fordham Spire, Chicago 2006-10 Santiago Calatrava Architects The Ford House, Aurora, Illinois 1947 Bruce Goff Architect Frank Lloyd Wright Residence, 951 Chicago Avenue, Oak Park 1889 Frank Lloyd Wright Frederick C. Robie House, Chicago 1906 Frank Lloyd Wright HALO Headquarters, Niles 1998-2000 Murphy/Jahn Architects IBM Building, Chicago 1971 Mies van der Rohe, Architect Inland Steel Building, Chicago 1958 Skidmore Owings Merrill Architects John Deere Headquarters, Moline 1964 Eero Saarinen McCormick Tribune Campus Center - IIT 2003 Rem Koolhaas Architects / OMA Millennium Park Music Pavilion and Great Lawn - Gehry Partners Robie House, 5757 Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago - Frank Lloyd Wright Sears Tower, Wacker Drive, Chicago 1973 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill Chicago building The Sporting Club at Illinois Center 1987-90 Kisho Kurokawa Unity Church, 875 Lake Street, Oak Park 1904 Frank Lloyd Wright University of Chicago Hospitals - New Pavilion 2010 Rafael Vinoly Architects University of Chicago building image from Rafael Viñoly Architects 220107 Ward W. Willets House, Highland Park 1901 Frank Lloyd Wright William H. Winslow House, River Forest 1893 Frank Lloyd Wright 7 South Dearborn, by Skidmore Owings and Merrill, at Chicago, Illinois, 2000. Auditorium Building, by Louis H. Sullivan, at Chicago, Illinois, 1886 to 1890. Babson House, by Louis H. Sullivan, at Riverside, Illinois, 1907. Colmorgan House, by Bruce Goff, at Glenview, Illinois, 1937. Coonley House, by Frank Lloyd Wright, at Riverside, Illinois, 1908. Crow Island School, by Eliel Saarinen, at Winnetka, Illinois, 1939 to 1940. Crown Hall, by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, at Chicago, Illinois, 1950 to 1956. Deere West Office Building, by Roche-Dinkeloo, at Moline, Illinois, 1975 to 1976. Farnsworth House, by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, at Plano, Illinois, 1946 to 1950. Glessner House, by Henry Hobson Richardson, at Chicago, Illinois, 1885 to 1887. John Deere and Company, by Eero Saarinen, at Moline, Illinois, 1963. John Hancock Center, by Bruce Graham/ SOM, at Chicago, Illinois, 1970. Lake Point Tower, by Schipporeit & Heinrich from Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, at Chicago, Illinois, 1968. Lake Shore Drive Apts, by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, at Chicago, Illinois, 1948 to 1951. Marina City, by Bertrand Goldberg, at Chicago, Illinois, 1959 to 1964. Marshall Field Store, by Henry Hobson Richardson, at Chicago, Illinois, 1885 to 1887. McCormick Place, by C. F. Murphy Associates, at Chicago, Illinois, 1968 to 1971. Monadnock Building, by Burnham and Root, at Chicago, Illinois, 1889 to 1891. Reliance Building, by Daniel Burnham, at Chicago, Illinois, 1890 , extended to 14 floors 1894. Richard Daley Center, by C. F. Murphy Associates, at Chicago, Illinois, 1965. Robie Residence, by Frank Lloyd Wright, at Chicago, Illinois, 1909. Schlesinger and Meyer Department Store, by Louis H. Sullivan, at Chicago, Illinois, 1899 to 1904. http://www.qureshiuniversity.com//constructionmaterial.html |