HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 1:02 AM
gaetanomarano gaetanomarano is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 16
Lightbulb >>> Super Safe Skyscrapers >>>

.

I've a suggestion to build safer skyscrapers as explained in my latest article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/032supersafe.html

what do you think about?




.
__________________
gaetanomarano.it/articles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 1:52 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
again
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 49,239
This doesn't really belong in 'Highrise Proposals'. That section of the forum is for posting highrise proposals of real buildings that are in the process of moving towards construction. If you'd like to discuss this, it would be better to post it in the 'Buildings & Architecture' section instead. I've gone ahead and moved it there for you already.
__________________
Smoke marijuana, not Americans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 3:23 AM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 354
I don't think having an escape tower like that solves any problems.

Having the escapes in the center of the building makes them as close and accessible to everyone as possible. If you put it on the outside, then people inside the building will have to travel all the way to the other end of the building, navigating through the office maze. Also, if you're trying to protect the escape shafts, then it would logically make the most sense to put them inside the building, where they'll be the most protected.

Also, the extra engineering costs would probably be more worth while spent on more fireproofing, or just more stair shafts inside the building, or making the building itself structurally tougher.


And I can't say for sure, but the shock from airplanes hitting the buildings would probably damage the external escape anyway.




Also, the sensational writing of your article is not very respectable. It would be better to be more formal. Back things up with logical explanation, facts etc., instead of bold, colored, underlined, highlighted, italic, all caps, etc. If you saw a page like that, would you take it very seriously? Would you even read it? It probably took more time to format the text than it did to write it. And you seriously want to sell "veryeasyeuro.com" for 30,000 Euro? I could go buy a domain name (that makes sense) for 5 Euro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 5:18 AM
Strayone's Avatar
Strayone Strayone is offline
Keep It Weird
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,228
I had to do a double take when I saw the picture, I thought it was a comic gesture, it looks like a big band aid on the side of the building. Sorry just thought this was meant as a gag.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 11:03 AM
Tony's Avatar
Tony Tony is offline
Super Moderator / Sr. Committee
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 5,998
A mixture of useless, waste and paranoia.

Sorry.
__________________
Hunan, China 1 | Hunan, China 2 | Hong Kong | NYC 2 | NYC 1 | Florence | Venice | Rome | London | Paris


Flickr®
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 12:31 PM
gaetanomarano gaetanomarano is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasoncw View Post
...solves any problems...
no solution can solve ALL problems, just add safety

Quote:
...put it on the outside, then people inside the building will have to travel all the way to the other end of the building...
a single escape tower can (simply) duplicate an internal stair that always exists (to cover all scenarios)

Quote:
...extra engineering costs...
costs don't matter if we can have safer buildings

Quote:
...the shock from airplanes hitting the buildings would probably damage the external escape...
not if properly made, also, the WTC is th best example of how useful that idea could be, since the time before the crash of the towers was enough to save many peoples with an external escape tower (remember that both planes hit the center of the towers, not the center BETWEEN them)

Quote:
...the sensational writing of your article...
all my articles (great part of them about Space) have the same pop-art style, it's only the look of my website

Quote:
...would you take it very seriously...
since I've two counters on my pages I can track the visits, that, for Space pages, come (repeatedly, every week) from big space agencies, universities, aerospace companies, etc. (that, clearly, take my "bold & colors" pages very seriously...)

Quote:
...probably took more time to format the text than it did to write it...
no, 50% of the time is to write and correct the text, since english is not my mother language

.
__________________
gaetanomarano.it/articles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 12:39 PM
gaetanomarano gaetanomarano is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
A mixture of useless, waste and paranoia.
in the next decades the earth's population will grow of a pair billions more peoples and, great part of them, will live in much bigger cities, then, the skyscrapers (that are just a curiosity to-day) will grow from hundreds to hundreds thousands increasing the risk of accidents exactly like happened when commercial flights multiplies the number of passengers by millions per year, also, my idea is NOT only for skyscrapers, but for EVERY building (since, also the peoples that lives and work in a five-floors building, have the right to be saved in case of accident or fire)
.
__________________
gaetanomarano.it/articles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 1:57 PM
Kelvin's Avatar
Kelvin Kelvin is offline
Senior Slacker
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Freddy
Posts: 2,213
Not to put too fine a point on it, catastrophes such as the WTC attacks were more than just rare - they are even statistical anomolies. Skyscrapers are inherently safe given the miniscule per capita deaths they generate per year. Yes, the terrorist attacks at the WTC cost several thousand lives - but compare that the deaths on US roads over even one month or one year (approx 45,000 per year in US alone).

Building extraneous superficial structures or devices does not improve safety in a cost-effective manner. Improving the systems and means we use now will improve safety to a much higher degree for less cost.

One always has to balance the real risk with rational design - that's how realworld engineering works, not coming up with sensational and overworked plans that add needless expense.
__________________
Member of the SSPIA Senior Committee. Have a question? Go pester Tony.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 4:14 PM
gaetanomarano gaetanomarano is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin View Post
...WTC attacks were more than just rare...
you're right, but my suggestion is not for that contingencies
in China the "standard buildings" are skyscrapers and that will happen around the world in the next decades
build safer buildings (not only skyscrapers) with escape towers is like add more airbags to a car... a car may never have an accident, but, if it happens, more airbags may save the passengers
esternal escape towers are not the big problem you say if built as standard in all building like abs, airbags, etc. are in all cars to-day
.
__________________
gaetanomarano.it/articles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 6:53 PM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 354
So the question is, why is it safer to have the escape stairs on the outside vs. the inside.

First, emergency escapes are not flammable, and they're very strong (unless you have it suspended outside the building like yours). Inside the building, there's not a problem with the shaft getting damaged, the problem is getting people to the shaft.

The center of the building puts the shaft as close to everyone in the office as possible. It also allows for multiple entrances to the shaft. If you put it on the outside of the building, then the shaft is farther away from more of the office, and there is only one path to get there. If the fire started near the entrance to the external shaft, it would be useless. If a fire started near the entrance to the internal shaft, you just walk around the building and go to the other side, or use one of the multiple other shafts inside the building.

So having the shaft in the center of the building is safer than having it on the outside of the building.


Then there's the engineering side of it. I'm not an engineer, but I know that it would be expensive to have a 60 story stair well, connected to the other buildings (who are swaying in the wind), while things are expanding and contracting from the heat, and all of that kind of stuff. I'm sure it could be done.

But why not do it the cheaper and safer way instead?


That's assuming the disaster your planning for is just a fire. As far as that goes, skyscrapers are very safe as they are now.


If you want to think about Earthquakes, your external shaft is more prone to them than the building itself is.


If you want to think about airplanes, then the shock would damage the external shafts. Even if the airplanes don't hit the shafts, the shock would damage the shafts. I'm sure it felt like an earthquake in the building when they hit.



The people at NASA are probably visiting your site and making fun of it. You want to make the Orion less massive by cutting the top off it, because you think that they don't need it. If it wasn't needed, then the geniuses at NASA wouldn't have put it there. NASA spends massive amounts of time and money optimizing every aspect of everything they do. You don't even know how anything inside of the capsule works, or how much mass any of it has, or anything. How can you optimize it?

And you want to make the Space Shuttle safer by basically giving it an ejector seat. If there was an explosion, do you think that the ejector pod would be able to blast off fast enough to escape the explosion? Plus, making the cabin ejectable adds more weight and complexity which just makes the entire thing more dangerous in the first place. It's like adding an ejector seat to a car.

Having ideas is a great thing, keep on doing it, but after you have an idea, work with it, and try to see if it's actually practical. Go to university and learn physics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 9:10 PM
gaetanomarano gaetanomarano is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasoncw View Post
...why is it safer to have the escape stairs on the outside...
first of all the escape towers are good not only for a small number of skyscrapers but for every building
second, more security always is better than less
that's why to-day's cars have a dozen of airbags everywhere and other life saving devices
a $30,000 car could cost 3000+ dollars less without these devices, so, they may seem a waste of money
also, not all cars will action these devices in real accidents, but just a very little fraction of them (maybe 0.1% or less)
however,to-day, these (costly) rarely used (then "paranoic") devices are STANDARD on every good car
about costs, just think the (useless but very high) additional price of the structures to give to some buildings (like the Dubai's "sail") the original shape the architects have designed for them...
spend lots of million$ for the "shape" and save a few million$ for a further security structure, is like spend $5000 to pay an artist that paints your car, then drive it without the airbags, etc.
the number of mid-big buildings grows every day, so, it's not a bad idea to design them SAFER
of course, it's clearly better if they already have a good standard emergency structure

Quote:
If the fire started near the entrance to the external shaft, it would be useless.
if problems are so simple as you write, we would never had/will have just ONE death in (both) the past and future accidents ...unfortunately, things are not so simple....

Quote:
...it would be expensive...
costs doesn't matter since safety comes first

Quote:
...skyscrapers are very safe as they are now...
that's only a STATISTICAL ILLUSION due to the fact that big skyscrapers are a minuscule fraction of all buildings (a 0.00000000something of the total) but, in future, when the mid-big skyscrapers and 20+ floors buildings will become MILLIONS the risk of an accident will be similar to to-day's airline jets... not daily, but not s rare (and with hundreds dead everytime will happens)

Quote:
...about Earthquakes, your external shaft is more prone to them...
maybe, or maybe not... a simpler structure could be more "flexible" and may remains intact (however, that needs study and tests to know)

Quote:
Even if the airplanes don't hit the shafts, the shock would damage the shafts.
this is only the pessimistic view of a problem, also, there is no need of an attack to have an airplane that hit a building (just think at the recent airline accident in Brazil with the plane that's gone to an highway and a building)

Quote:
The people at NASA are probably visiting your site and making fun of it.
several thousands times? if you are right, then, they have nothing better to do...

Quote:
You want to make the Orion less massive by cutting the top off it, because you think that they don't need it.
as discussed in deep in some space forums and blog, I've not deleted the parachutes... ...and the cutted capsule CAN work since its Center of Gravity remains pretty close to the past full-cone shape, also, there are meny existing capsules (like the Soyuz) and many alternative CEV designs proposed by big aerospace companies (see them on astronautix.com) that use CEV shapes very different than a cone

Quote:
NASA spends massive amounts of time and money optimizing every aspect of everything they do.
NASA seem copy the Apollo project (since they have fear to fail with new designs) and last year/this year news say NASA is recalling many retired Apollo engineers to have some help...

Quote:
And you want to make the Space Shuttle safer by basically giving it an ejector seat.
the ejection seats was standard in the early Shuttle launches but can't save the crew at high altitudes

Quote:
...do you think that the ejector pod would be able to blast off fast enough to escape the explosion...
military airplanes and the Shuttle with ejection seats have pressure/fire sensors that start the ejection BEFORE the explosion... that's also the way the tower-LAS (Launch Abort System) works

Quote:
...adds more weight and complexity...
not for the complexity (there is a little jet fighter, F111 IIRC, that has it) nor need too much weight (a few tons from the 24 tons max cargo of the Shuttle)

Quote:
...see if it's actually practical...
my ideas ARE practical and CAN work
.
__________________
gaetanomarano.it/articles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 9:41 PM
Austin55's Avatar
Austin55 Austin55 is offline
__________
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 4,940
If a fighter flew into a building,It would explode
Yeah,it seems pointless,and,if it wereeffevtive, the why arent they everywhere? About the twins, why not just build a skybridge like the patronas?and are escape towers your only idea?nothing else?
I have to agree with everyone else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 10:24 PM
gaetanomarano gaetanomarano is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by austin55 View Post
...like the patronas...
no, my suggestion is to put it on all floors
Quote:
...are escape towers your only idea...
I don't know, but I've not found nothing similar on the web
.
__________________
gaetanomarano.it/articles
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:31 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.