NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS

[NewYorque]

The concrete core of 1WTC seems to be much more thick than the core in each one of the twin towers.
On the few pictures where you can see the inside structure of the former twin towers, it seems that those two towers had a very thin core. They were not prepared to endure what happened to them. I guess 1WTC would resist to a plane crash, however it would of course have terrible consequences.

[meh_cd]

Originally Posted by NewYorque

The concrete core of 1WTC seems to be much more thick than the core in each one of the twin towers.
On the few pictures where you can see the inside structure of the former twin towers, it seems that those two towers had a very thin core. They were not prepared to endure what happened to them. I guess 1WTC would resist to a plane crash, however it would of course have terrible consequences.

The original cores were just steel covered in drywall, so yes, I think the new 1 WTC would fare a bit better.

[nyc7]

Originally Posted by meh_cd

The original cores were just steel covered in drywall, so yes, I think the new 1 WTC would fare a bit better.

never knew that. Is that common for many skyscrapers of the magnitude of the original WTC towers?

[weidncol]

Originally Posted by nyc7

never knew that. Is that common for many skyscrapers of the magnitude of the original WTC towers?

Back then yes as the building code was not as high as it is today. If someone were to try and build a supertall today with a drywall core, it would be deemed structurally unsafe.

The new One WTC would most likely survive another attack like 9/11 (hopefully that will never happen) as it is overall built better. It has blast-resistant fireproofing, 3 foot thick concrete core and the steel is thicker. Also has better emergency exits and stairwells.

[nyc7]

Originally Posted by weidncol

Back then yes as the building code was not as high as it is today. If someone were to try and build a supertall today with a drywall core, it would be deemed structurally unsafe.

The new One WTC would most likely survive another attack like 9/11 (hopefully that will never happen) as it is overall built better. It has blast-resistant fireproofing, 3 foot thick concrete core and the steel is thicker. Also has better emergency exits and stairwells.

Thanks

[Roadcruiser1]

Remember that the concrete being used on the current One World Trade Center isn't normal household concrete. It's the heavy duty types that are only used in construction. One World Trade Center's concrete can take 16,000 pounds per square inch. It's not the strongest concrete in the world (some can take 59,000 pounds per square inch) though it's strong enough for One World Trade Center.........

[gothamite]

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Originally Posted by gothamite

Great picture, The Beekman always looks bigger from this angle because Beekman is located closer to the East River and One World Trade is further west as you can see in the picture above. Currect me if I am wrong buy this statement.

[weidncol]

Originally Posted by QUEENSNYMAN

Great picture, The Beekman always looks bigger from this angle because Beekman is located closer to the East River and One World Trade is further west as you can see in the picture above. Currect me if I am wrong buy this statement.

Correct. Beekman is a stub compared to One WTC

[Duck From NY]

Yesterday (phone pics)





...

the ferry vibrates a lot, unfortunately

[drumz0rz]

Originally Posted by nyc7

never knew that. Is that common for many skyscrapers of the magnitude of the original WTC towers?

When the original WTC towers were built, most skyscrapers didn't have a 'core'. Instead they followed a more traditional box frame construction.The towers were revolutionary in their concept of using a steel core with a load bearing outer frame and creating an open floor plan free of columns. Even the Willis Tower doesn't have a 'core' in the sense we all know now.

Now-a-days, most scyscrapers and pretty much all supertalls follow in this design, only the core is now super reinforced and they use alternative methods for the floors / outer columns. The collapse on 9/11, while tragic, did shed a lot of light on supertall construction and lead to an overall increase in safely and design of new towers.

Original WTC (exposed core):

Empire State Building (no core, steel frame construction):

Willis Tower (no core, tube frame construction):

New WTC (super core):

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by weidncol

Back then yes as the building code was not as high as it is today. If someone were to try and build a supertall today with a drywall core, it would be deemed structurally unsafe.

The new One WTC would most likely survive another attack like 9/11 (hopefully that will never happen) as it is overall built better. It has blast-resistant fireproofing, 3 foot thick concrete core and the steel is thicker. Also has better emergency exits and stairwells.

My understanding is that concrete cores aren't necessary for a structurally sound building. There are numerous other ways of engineering a building. However because of the large amount of concrete needed to support a supertall, putting it elsewhere would mean massive columns blocking views and complicating floor layouts. When this is considered alongside the value of having fireproof (concrete) stairwells, this is how we end up with most tall building now being designed with concrete cores. But from a purely structural standpoint, it doesn't have to be that way at all.

Edit: Another key factoid is that because concrete is weaker than steel, when using concrete for construction, vertical structural elements must be larger. Designing them as a unified core makes that mass less noticeable than if built as perimeter columns. Additionally, perimeter columns need tensile strength to survive wind sway loads. Because of this, it makes sense to use steel perimeter columns while the core can be done more cheaply with concrete. Well that and the advantage of fireproof stairwells.

[mrjoanofarc]

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

When the original WTC towers were built...

Thanks for the excellent overview, drumz0rz.

[asharmaearth411]

Follow the Recent Development and Progress at the New World Trade Center Site!

http://youtu.be/G1TGcJZSTPI

Significant Progress is being made at the WTC site everyday! Exclusive (Late December, 2013 - Early January, 2014 Update) Special.

| Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! |

[NYguy]

http://nypost.com/2013/12/24/skies-p...aboo-with-nyc/

[King DenCity]

^quite the epic shot! did u take this picture and is it from today?

[Streamliner]

Originally Posted by King DenCity

^quite the epic shot! did u take this picture and is it from today?

If you read the source link it seems to have been taken yesterday by a Paul Martinka.

I love these weather shots, it seems like we had a cool fog photo a few weeks ago as well. Maybe soon we'll see one from the observation deck in similar fog. That would be a cool shot.

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

If you read the source link it seems to have been taken yesterday by a Paul Martinka.

I love these weather shots, it seems like we had a cool fog photo a few weeks ago as well. Maybe soon we'll see one from the observation deck in similar fog. That would be a cool shot.

Agreed that would be cool, I cant wait till the Observation decks open, ah the views

[Nexis4Jersey]

NY Skyline 143 by stevensiegel260, on Flickr

[randy1991]

Merry Christmas everybody!