The new rules being purposed to the sturctural design of tall buildings makes me begin to question if such buildings will still be economical in the future. For example, NIST and several other government agencies just purposed to require that buildings over 4 stories tall include a load of 288 psf to exterior walls.
2006-09-25 05:53:53 · 7 answers · asked by Cadair360 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Engineering
Here is a more detailed description. New issues are going to have to be dealt with when engineering a large building. Some of these will include increasing the forces buildings are designed for and increasing the ability for people to use the stairways. If the building has to be stronger, this not only increases its cost, but also reduces the amount of usable space the building provides. Having more stairways will also reduce the office space in the building. It is already difficult to provide adequate room for vertical transportation systems and still have enough floor space to make the building economical. All of these changes will increase the cost of the building and decrease the income provided by the building.
Many of the purposed changes that are responses to 9/11 have not been included into the building code yet, so buildings being currently built are not necessarily good evidence of the future.
2006-09-25 09:46:57 · update #1
Absolutely not. New York City alone has had about a dozen new amazing skyscraper, either in the planning stages, under construction, or already finished. The amazing thing about these skyscrapers is that they are considered Green Buildings; amazing new technology implemented to save energy, make the structure stronger and safer. If New York City is still building while being a major target for terrorist the only course for the rest of the country is to follow suit.
2006-09-27 16:51:14 · answer #1 · answered by cam1560 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, we had a really cool one in Austin recently. The Frost Bank Tower, which definitely constitutes a skyscraper. It is an efficient way to put a lot of usable space in a small footprint. Just because two planes crashed into the Towers and brought them down does not mean that the entire way of construction will change. I imagine materials may be developed to make them stronger, but reality will demand that the skyscraper remains a viable solution.
2006-09-25 06:04:26 · answer #2 · answered by Curelover 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WTC7 was brought down by explosives. Any change NIST makes won't solve that problem.
The arguments in the Popular Mechanics hit piece mentioned by the poster below were destroyed by this article:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
2006-09-25 06:00:36 · answer #3 · answered by Joe C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nah, I think that they will just require better fireproofing and better fire escapes.
As for the "urban myth" mentioned by the guy above me that the WTC was brought down by explosives, that story has been debunked by "Popular Mechanics" magazine already.
2006-09-25 06:01:29 · answer #4 · answered by Randy G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Q33 NY was not the planes flight number. If this is wrong I'm dubious about the rest too. Change NYPD to wingdings and see what you get.
2016-03-27 09:01:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
We all know that the collapse waqs by controlled demolition, which worked perfectly.
So there is no need to modify the structural design to allow for improved controlled demolition.
2006-09-27 02:10:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not sure about this, but aren't the new buildings being built to replace the twin towers taller than they were ? Could you please respond by adding to your question ?
2006-09-25 06:22:53 · answer #7 · answered by 6.1fishbob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋