57 story building in SF tilting- this will not end well
- Thread starter MAGA MAN
- Start date
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
its obvious who to blame.......its leaning to the left........
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
???.....actually, as a non-engineer its pretty obvious to me why its leaning more at the top than at the base also......the farther the arc gets from the base, the more exaggerated its going to become......
cawacko
Well-known member
I am not an engineer either. What I know from following this case is they didn't build into the bedrock, but other buildings haven't done that either and not had this problem. The building developers blame the development going up next door for messing with their building. My buddy works for a REIT which owns a building a couple of blocks away and prior to this he was negotiating a tie back agreement with a group building adjacent to his building. After hearing this story it took on a whole new meaning.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
a) They used to?
b) We don't need their validation.
I understand. Sometimes it seems like a discreet conversation between two.
But it may often not be.
There are other posting members that will read and decide.
AND
There may be more non-posting members ("lurkers") than you may suspect.
They are (we are) your audience as well.
Tell the truth!
You needn't squabble. You needn't bicker.
But why not correct errors of fact?
We're two weeks from a U.S. presidential election. The leading candidates include one of the most qualified, and perhaps the least qualified candidates ever to seek the office with major party endorsement.
Why would you consider withholding correction on errors of fact a legitimate option?
Would you want one of your countrymen to do that to you?
"Truthmatters" you know.
TELL IT !! Don't be a hypocrite, preaching one thing, but doing another.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
Why weren't the piles driven down to bedrock as they should be on any high-rise structure?
Corporate greed.
Follow the money.
Corporate greed.
Follow the money.
Another 7 inches might not have done it.
How much deeper would they have had to go to reach bedrock?
A foot?
A mile?
Bedrock is OBVIOUSLY the superior option.
How much would it have added to the cost per square foot?
1%?
10%?
100%?
1,000%?
If ever I learned ANYTHING in my decades in high tech industry:
Absolutely EVERYthing in engineering is a compromise!
Absolutely EVERYTHING!
I defy ANYone to cite a single refutory example.
How much deeper would they have had to go to reach bedrock?
A foot?
A mile?
Bedrock is OBVIOUSLY the superior option.
How much would it have added to the cost per square foot?
1%?
10%?
100%?
1,000%?
If ever I learned ANYTHING in my decades in high tech industry:
Absolutely EVERYthing in engineering is a compromise!
Absolutely EVERYTHING!
I defy ANYone to cite a single refutory example.
cawacko
Well-known member
Who are you talking to?
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
The Transbay Joint Powers Authority, which is building the $4.5 billion Transbay Transit Center next door to the Millennium, blames the building’s structural shortcomings on the developer not using what are called “end bearing piles,” which would have reached down 200 feet into the bedrock. Instead, it rests on more than 900 “friction piles” between 60 and 91 feet in length driven into the dense mud that lies beneath fill dumped into the bay more than a century ago...
But San Francisco’s other tall buildings that use friction piles have steel frames, rather than concrete, and therefore are far lighter than the Millennium Tower, according to Transbay Joint Powers Authority.
On Friday the transbay authority released a report by the engineering firm ARUP, showing that the Millennium Tower is four to five times heavier than any other building in the area with a similar foundation, including 100 First St., 199 Fremont St. and 555 Mission St.
Building weights are measured in kips — 1,000 pounds — per square foot of pressure on the soil below. The tower at 555 Mission, for example, is 487 feet tall compared with 645 for the Millennium, but it exerts 2.4 kips per square foot while the Millennium exerts 11.4 kips.
“While a foundation with shallow piles may have been appropriate for other, much lighter high-rises, it was clearly not appropriate for the Millennium Tower,” the TJPA report stated.
The issue of whether the Transbay district’s squishy fill could support a heavy residential building came up in 2004 when the city fought developer Jack Myers’ plan to build a 53-story tower at 80 Natoma, which also abuts the Transbay Transit Center.
Myers wanted to use a combination of mat slab and friction piles, which he said was more than adequate to support the building. But Maria Ayerdi-Kaplan, who was then the director of the TJPA, objected to the project because, she said, the foundation was inadequate and would have interfered with the underground train route coming into the transit center. At the time, Ayerdi-Kaplan said she pushed the developer to go to bedrock, but he refused.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Sinking-Millennium-Tower-s-developer-built-9278364.php
91 instead of 200 Feet.That's the difference in pile depth to bedrock. This building is five times heavier than other structures that have successfully used friction piles.
The contractor used laws written for steel frame high-rises and applied them to a heavier reinforced concrete structure.
He pocketed the savings that came from not going to bedrock with the supporting piles.
Follow the money.
He is probably a republican.
But San Francisco’s other tall buildings that use friction piles have steel frames, rather than concrete, and therefore are far lighter than the Millennium Tower, according to Transbay Joint Powers Authority.
On Friday the transbay authority released a report by the engineering firm ARUP, showing that the Millennium Tower is four to five times heavier than any other building in the area with a similar foundation, including 100 First St., 199 Fremont St. and 555 Mission St.
Building weights are measured in kips — 1,000 pounds — per square foot of pressure on the soil below. The tower at 555 Mission, for example, is 487 feet tall compared with 645 for the Millennium, but it exerts 2.4 kips per square foot while the Millennium exerts 11.4 kips.
“While a foundation with shallow piles may have been appropriate for other, much lighter high-rises, it was clearly not appropriate for the Millennium Tower,” the TJPA report stated.
The issue of whether the Transbay district’s squishy fill could support a heavy residential building came up in 2004 when the city fought developer Jack Myers’ plan to build a 53-story tower at 80 Natoma, which also abuts the Transbay Transit Center.
Myers wanted to use a combination of mat slab and friction piles, which he said was more than adequate to support the building. But Maria Ayerdi-Kaplan, who was then the director of the TJPA, objected to the project because, she said, the foundation was inadequate and would have interfered with the underground train route coming into the transit center. At the time, Ayerdi-Kaplan said she pushed the developer to go to bedrock, but he refused.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Sinking-Millennium-Tower-s-developer-built-9278364.php
91 instead of 200 Feet.That's the difference in pile depth to bedrock. This building is five times heavier than other structures that have successfully used friction piles.
The contractor used laws written for steel frame high-rises and applied them to a heavier reinforced concrete structure.
He pocketed the savings that came from not going to bedrock with the supporting piles.
Follow the money.
He is probably a republican.
Last edited:
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
Friction piles are a cheap ticking time bomb. A budget alternative designed for lightweight structures making them a temporary, constantly sinking structure.
Bedrock pile driving is expensive unless the bedrock is close to the surface like under Manhattan.
It is also the only truly reliable way to build high rise structures.
The skyline of Manhattan's tall buildings is an echo of the bedrocks profile. The tallest buildings were built in midtown where the bedrock is only a few meters below grade .
Building a heavy, reinforced concrete structure 57 stories tall using friction piles into mud was an irresponsible thing to do.
We now see why.
https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2015/07/the-manhattan-skyline-why-are-there-no-tall-skyscrapers-between-midtown-and-downtown/