Twisted high-rise 2

[EEJaime]

All,
Just a general question that came to mind as I was reading today of a high rise residential tower that opened in Dubai, where each floor has a 1.5 degree twist from the floor below. this results in a total of 90 degrees of twist top to bottom. Quite a striking structure. It struck me that the connections floor to floor must be quite different from a normal vertical load transfer connection. Is there large lateral components to the loads as these connections get further skewed as the twist increases?

Just a curious non-structural engineer admiring advances in engineering.

Regards,
EEJAIME

 

[RareBugTX]

Agree with Cracker 100%. I think that innovative, aesthetically pleasing structures not only are more challenging and hard to solve for SE's, but also help develop the profession by requiring more of their abilities and creativity to solve them. I am against bashing other professions. They have their challenges and duties. Most SEs that I know are respectful and value other views on a problem.

 

[EEJaime]

All,
My OP was not at all disparaging of any profession. I was admiring the innovation and the SE's abilities to make such a different and seemingly unlikely structure a success. It has been my privalege to work on a few projects which pushed the envelope of applied engineering in many fields.

I was simply asking you structural experts about the types of connections and was somewhat surprised to find out this was basically a concrete structure. I think it's a great looking building. My schooling is in aerospace engineering and I have always sought the most efficient, elegant solutions to the problem at hand. This design just seems so many miles out of the box that I anticipated some immensely different structural design.
Regards
EEJaime

 

[BadgerPE]

EE

I don't think anyone was being critical of your OP. Myself especially.

 

[hokie66]

Whether or not you like the architecture is a matter of taste. Sometimes, they can grow on you. Sometimes, not.

 

[msquared48]

I guess what bothers me here is that in the Aerospace industry, new concepts are tested in the lab, and on the aircraft with limited human risk before the public becomes subjected to the implications of the new concept.

In structural engineering for a new design/concept for a major structure as this, the test is not in the lab, other than wind tunnel or shake tables, and primarily the numbers from our calculations are used to construct the building that is immediately occupied by the public. Therefore, he risk to the public is much greater, in my humble opinion, due to an inherent lack of actual load testing. There are examples of structures that were constructed and failed due to unanticipated loading situations. We cannot always anticipate all the load cases, but when we forget the one causing failure, people can die.

Many will disagree here, but I will assert that new innovative, but inherently risky designs such as this one, should have a different "testing" scenario. I have not answers here, only concerns. One example of this is Galloping Gertie, which tested the limits of the bridge structure as an airfoil. Luckily, no one was killed there. A second example was the lack of redundancy in the Twin Towers that contributed, in part, to the catastrophic failure and the loss of many lives. There are other examples.

We, as structural engineers, just have one hell of a lot of responsibility when you stop and really think about it.

OK. I will get off the soap box now. I have my flack suit on...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[RareBugTX]

Wooo

http://www!!

Im astonished. Lack of redundancy knocked down TT's. Not a chance! Their redundancy was overwhelming. Kudos to the SE's that designed them. Something else was necessary to level them. Now, how about WTC 7. Lack of redundancy too.... Mmm maybe it was the dust. Nevermind.

 

[frv]

Yeah, m^2, I gotta agree with Rarebug on this one. There was an enormous amount of redundancy in the twin towers. Otherwise, they would have collapsed upon impact after, you know, there was a two-story hole in the building. Yet there they stood valiantly until the fire overwhelmed the interior members, which then led to progressive collapse. That is completely different than not having redundancy.

 

[msquared48]

Sorry guys, but I cannot agree here. But that's another topic for another day.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering