Brookfield Place Calgary | 247M - 56F | Construction

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Likely a dumb question but why is "fire retardant" required on steel? While steel could melt at high temperatures, it doesn't actually catch fire. Instead, is this an insulation to protect the steel somewhat from extreme temperatures, so that it stays just a pinch cooler and in such a scenario, doesn't fail catastrophically quite as fast?

If I were to guess, it would likely be a thermal protective coating, but I'm no expert like you guys. Using a fire retardant would actually be retarded.

I believe this is the case. Some actually react to high heat and swell into an insulating form.

[brookfield]

Originally Posted by suburbia

While steel could melt at high temperatures

This is crying for a "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by brookfield

This is crying for a "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme

This type of thing is precisely why insulation is required, and not fire retardant as Calgarian had suggested.

[WhipperSnapper]

Fireproofing, cement based, spray. Happy?





Of course, it's not really fire proof.

[MoXXon]

They coat steel columns with material to reduce heat absorption but it's not the same as fire retardant materials.

[jstarr]

gypsum based cementitious spray applied fire resistive material for structural steel framed buildings. applied to structural steel to keep below critical temperature ca. 540 °C

the tarps (prefabs) cover the floor levels that a currently at rebar stage (highest level) concrete floor pour (middle) and firestopping (bottom)

[Blue_Cypress]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I believe this is the case. Some actually react to high heat and swell into an insulating form.

Intumescent paint does. It is used where a painted finish is desired, usually for architectural reasons. Atriums, etc. Fire spray material used in steel construction typically consists of a bonding agent such as gypsum, a fiber such as fiberglass, asbestos, cellulose, etc,-- both of which have insulating aspects--and a fire retardant chemical. Nasty stuff. Structural steel stops being a wonderful structural material above 540 degrees.

[KoolKool]

If Brookfield were 300m and 249m

[KoolKool]

[TallBob]

^^ Nice.... Let's do it!!

[dbp]

If only....................................

[CorporateWhore]

Brookfield definitely has the right ingredients to be a nice 1000 footer.

You'd probably need a more aggressive transformation, but in my ideal world, it would be tall enough for the corner radii to converge into two half circles at the top (or if the design was a square footprint, attain a perfect circle).

[Design-mind]

Now the second tallest in Calgary, soon to be the tallest.

[KoolKool]

Nice finally surpass the Red tower . ..... again in my 3d works it's look goods on Calgary on Calgary skyline also stand out. if it's like 300m

[Design-mind]

Unfortunately we didn't even break the 250m mark.

[holhm22]

This time from Crescent Heights, yesterday. Sorry that you can't see much of the building from that perspective. Played around with a polarizer.

[KoolKool]

What thag picture look like its not even surpass the suncor yet.

[DoubleK]

It's two blocks further south than Suncor from that location.

[dbp]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

It's two blocks further south than Suncor from that location.

Correction: Brookfield Place is directly across the street diagonally from Red Square. In simpler terms it's immediately south and west from Suncor West; Brookfield Place being on the north east corner of it's block and Suncor being on the southwest corner of it's block. In short, not even one full block.
I too have noticed the apparent difference in height from crescent road yet there is so little distance between the two towers.

[The Fisher Account]