Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
I've heard people say that about Trump, but frankly, I don't understand that argument. In fact, I understand that Trump was also supposed to be steel, but they switched simply because the price of steel went up beyond their projections. However, I am certainly not an authority on high-rise engineering, so any corrections are welcome.
|
it was a couple of years ago at a lecture adrian smith gave at the AIC about trump tower and other super-talls he's worked on (jin mao, burj dubai). he said that they went with concrete instead of steel on trump because the tower was so narrow that it would sway to much for residents' comfort if they went with steel. apparently the inherent weight/mass of a concrete structure better resists wind sway in narrow suppertalls, thus negating the cost of an expansive tuned mass dampering system to counteract the building sway that would have occured had they gone with a steel structure.
as for waterview, it's even skinnier than trump. i'm sure that they could have done this with steel, but it probably would have meant an expensive tuned mass damper at the top of the structure. in fact, waterview is
SO narrow that i'm surprised it won't need one even with the concrete structure they're employing.