DOCSLIB.ORG

Tall Buildings and Elevators

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tall Buildings and Elevators Tall Buildings and Elevators Historical Evolution of Vertical Communication Systems João Miguel Serras Delgado Valente Final Thesis for the Degree of Master in Civil Engineering Jury President: Prof. Doutor José Manuel Matos Noronha da Câmara Supervisor: Prof. Doutor João Carlos de Oliveira Fernandes de Almeida Vowel: Prof. Doutor João Sérgio Nobre Duarte Cruz I Tall Buildings and Elevators Historical Evolution of vertical communication systems Abstract This paper addresses the evolution of tall buildings in their relation with structural systems and vertical communication systems. The main proposition is to take the historical development of structural solutions and elevator solutions to understand how both these aspects have shaped tall buildings that are being built today. Whenever deemed relevant these aspects are accompanied by brief description of social and economic context that could contribute to a broader notion of the motives and restrains towards building tall. For the purposes of the above stated, there is an initial presentation on what a tall building is, how it can be defined and what aspects can contribute to that definition, afterwards a classification for the several systems will be presented. Then the history of tall buildings is broken down into several chapters that were found to carry significant relevance according to consulted bibliography; these chapters are defined in accordance with major changes in the paradigm for the conception of tall buildings. To further illustrate this distinction some short notes on relevant historical factors are given. Finally, conclusions are present regarding the parallels between structural development and technical evolution of vertical communication. Keywords: Tall buildings, skyscrapers, elevators, vertical communication systems I Aknowledgement I would first like to express my gratitude to Professor João Almeida for his support, guidance and encouragement through this long process. I also thank Professor Dario Trabucco, of Università IUAV di Venezia, for his much appreciated advice and reading recommendations which have contributed extensively to the development of this document. To Mr. Johannes Maasberg, of Jappsen Ingenieure, and Professor Mona Domosh, of Dartmouth Colledge, I would like to express my appreciation of their availability and willingness to help. Finally, I would like to thank my family, and I would like to thank my friends, and I would like to entertain the thought they know very well why. à minha família, .obrigado. III Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The importance of tall buildings ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 “How high is tall?”...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 The importance of vertical communication systems in tall buildings ......................................... 2 1.4 How the thesis is structured ........................................................................................................ 2 2 Structural Form .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Structural design strategies ......................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Role of the structural engineer ................................................................................................ 3 2.1.2 Explaining structural efficiency .............................................................................................. 4 2.1.3 Lateral loading ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Tall building structures ............................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Structural materials ................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Classification of Tall Building Structural Systems ................................................................. 8 2.2.3 Brief analysis of structural systems according to behavior ................................................... 14 3 Vertical Communication Systems ................................................................................................... 22 3.1 Building height criteria and elevator systems ........................................................................... 22 3.2 How elevators affect tall buildings ........................................................................................... 22 3.3 Discussing the service core ....................................................................................................... 24 3.4 Regulatory and safety aspects of elevators ............................................................................... 28 3.5 Evelator systems - current trends. ............................................................................................. 29 3.5.1 Basic elevator elements ........................................................................................................ 30 3.5.2 Elevator arrangements for tall buildings ............................................................................... 31 4 Historical perspective ....................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Relevant periods, how the chapter is structured ........................................................................ 39 4.2 Birth of the Skyscraper to New York zoning law of 1916 ........................................................ 41 4.2.1 Social and economic context ................................................................................................ 41 4.2.2 Relevant technology ............................................................................................................. 42 4.2.3 Building typology and Architecture ..................................................................................... 46 4.3 1916 to Second World War (WWII) ......................................................................................... 51 V 4.3.1 Social and economic context ................................................................................................ 51 4.3.2 Relevant Technology ............................................................................................................ 55 4.3.3 Building typology and architecture ...................................................................................... 57 4.4 Post WWII to 1970s energy crisis ............................................................................................. 60 4.4.1 Social and economic situation .............................................................................................. 60 4.4.2 Relevant technology ............................................................................................................. 62 4.4.3 Building Typology and Architecture .................................................................................... 69 4.5 After the energy Crisis .............................................................................................................. 73 4.5.1 Social and economic context ................................................................................................ 73 4.5.2 Relevant Technology ............................................................................................................ 74 4.6 Rise of an Environmental consciousness (1997) to the present day ......................................... 78 4.6.1 Social and economic situation .............................................................................................. 78 4.6.2 Relevant technology ............................................................................................................. 79 4.6.3 Building layout and architecture ........................................................................................... 82 5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 84 5.1 Tall building development and the economy ............................................................................ 84 5.2 Tall Building trends .................................................................................................................. 85 5.2.1 From North America to Asia ................................................................................................ 87 5.2.2 Building Use ......................................................................................................................... 88 5.2.3 Structural Material ................................................................................................................ 88 5.3 Elevators and Structures ........................................................................................................... 89 6 Bibliography...................................................................................................................................... 92 VI Table of Figures Figure 1 - CEB Bulletin D’Information Nº 209 – Vibration Problems in Structures
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PDF Download First Term at Tall Towers Kindle
    FIRST TERM AT TALL TOWERS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Lou Kuenzler | 192 pages | 03 Apr 2014 | Scholastic | 9781407136288 | English | London, United Kingdom First Term at Tall Towers, Kids Online Book Vlogger & Reviews - The KRiB - The KRiB TV Retrieved 5 October Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Archived from the original on 20 August Retrieved 30 August Retrieved 26 July Cable News Network. Archived from the original on 1 March Retrieved 1 March The Daily Telegraph. Tobu Railway Co. Retrieved 8 March Skyscraper Center. Retrieved 15 October Retrieved Retrieved 27 March Retrieved 4 April Retrieved 27 December Palawan News. Retrieved 11 April Retrieved 25 October Tallest buildings and structures. History Skyscraper Storey. British Empire and Commonwealth European Union. Commonwealth of Nations. Additionally guyed tower Air traffic obstacle All buildings and structures Antenna height considerations Architectural engineering Construction Early skyscrapers Height restriction laws Groundscraper Oil platform Partially guyed tower Tower block. Italics indicate structures under construction. Petronius m Baldpate Platform Tallest structures Tallest buildings and structures Tallest freestanding structures. Categories : Towers Lists of tallest structures Construction records. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Download as PDF Printable version. Wikimedia Commons. Tallest tower in the world , second-tallest freestanding structure in the world after the Burj Khalifa. Tallest freestanding structure in the world —, tallest in the western hemisphere. Tallest in South East Asia. Tianjin Radio and Television Tower. Central Radio and TV Tower. Liberation Tower. Riga Radio and TV Tower. Berliner Fernsehturm. Sri Lanka. Stratosphere Tower. United States. Tallest observation tower in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Print Version.Indd
    Eindhoven University of Technology MASTER Undergroundscraper from ant nests to architecture Liu, M. Award date: 2015 Link to publication Disclaimer This document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Student theses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the document as presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the required minimum study period may vary in duration. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain UNDERGROUNDSCRAPER from ant nests to architecture Mo Liu Undergroundscraper Graduation project Digital Architecture January 2015 Student: M. (Mo) Liu 0827301 ([email protected]) Tutor: prof.dr.ir. B. (Bauke) de Vries ir. M. (Maarten) H.P.M. Willems drs. J. (Johan) G.A. van Zoest Eindhoven University of Technology The Department of the Built Environment Architecture Design & Decision support systems UNDERGROUNDSCRAPER b ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is the result of the graduation pro- ey Heijkens, Guido le Pair, Marius Lazauskas, ject, Digital Architecture, in the Department of Arjan Kalfsbeek, Sebastiaan van Alebeek, Tom the Built Environment of Eindhoven University of Steegh and Maaike Bron.
    [Show full text]
  • PRESERVATION CHICAGO the New York Life Insurance Building
    2 0 0 6 PRESERVATION CHICAGO Chicago’s Seven Most Threatened Buildings The New York Life Insurance Building Address: 39 South LaSalle Street Date: 1894 Architect: William Lebaron Jenney Style: Chicago School Skyscraper CHRS Rating: Orange National Register: Not Listed Overview: George Orwell said in Animal Farm that all animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others. The same could be argued that in Chicago, depending on how much clout one has, some Landmarks are more equal than others. Based on some recent proposals for downtown skyscraper projects, a separate and unequal set of standards has revealed itself regarding how the Commission on Chicago Landmarks considers changes to existing Landmarked buildings and Landmark Districts. Case in point is the current redevelopment plan proposed for the New York Life Building, one of William LeBaron Jenney’s seminal early skyscrapers. History: William LeBaron Jenney revolutionized world architecture with the development of the first skyscraper, the Home Insurance Building in Chicago in 1884. His pioneering use of the steel skeleton frame, rather than the thick heavy masonry bearing walls that were then the norm, set the standard for modern high-rise construction that is still in use today. With the demolition of the Home Insurance Building in 1931, the New York Life Building became the last remaining example of Jenney’s early steel frame skyscraper construction and is the closest link with the ground-breaking technology of Jenney’s Home Insurance Building. Furthermore, the role of Chicago as the “insurance broker to the West” cannot be understated, and this building serves as a key link to that history.
    [Show full text]
  • Fractious Firsts Carol Willis, Founding Director, the Skyscraper Museum the Tallest Building in the World Today, the 828-Meter B
    Fractious Firsts Carol Willis, Founding Director, The Skyscraper Museum The tallest building in the world today, the 828-meter Burj Khalifa, as well as the one perhaps on its way to 1,000-meter height, Jeddah Tower, are bearing-wall structures – much like the first and tallest of New York’s early skyscrapers, the 1874 Tribune Tower. Thick walls (either of 19th-century brick and stone or 21st-century reinforced concrete) hold up these buildings – not a skeleton of steel, the major material and method of skyscraper construction for most of the 20th century. When the CTBUH organized the October 2019 conference “First Skyscrapers/ Skyscraper Firsts,” they fell victim to confirmation bias*. Implicit in the call for papers was a definition of “skyscraper” as a tall building constructed of steel. This was made clear in the initial emphasis on Chicago’s Home Insurance Building as the putative “first skyscraper.” When the steering committee adamantly rejected the proposal that vying presenters debate the priority of a single building in the history of the type, the conference title was adjusted to the plural: First Skyscrapers/ Skyscraper Firsts. This conceptualization is still a problem. The idea of a “first’ in the evolution of a building type that evolved from so many simultaneous forces and factors is unsound. Advances in technologies – whether the metal skeleton, passenger elevators in office buildings, or curtain walls – represent one aspect in the fairly sudden appearance of buildings of nine or ten stories in the early 1870s. But also key were the dynamics of urbanization – cities’ burgeoning populations and competition for expensive land and prime locations.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Planning Code
    Print San Francisco Planning Code ARTICLE 11: PRESERVATION OF BUILDINGS AND DISTRICTS OF ARCHITECTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND AESTHETIC IMPORTANCE IN THE C-3 DISTRICTS Sec. 1101. Findings and Purposes. Sec. 1102. Standards for Designation of Buildings. Sec. 1102.1. Designation of Buildings. Sec. 1103. Standards for Designation of Conservation Districts. Sec. 1103.1. Conservation District Designations. Procedures for Change of Designation and Designation of Additional Significant and Sec. 1106. Contributory Buildings. Procedures for Designation of Additional Conservation Districts or Boundary Change Sec. 1107. of Conservation Districts. Sec. 1108. Notice of Designation. Sec. 1109. Preservation Lots: Eligibility for Transfer of Development Rights. Construction, Alteration or Demolition of Significant or Contributory Buildings or Sec. 1110. Buildings in Conservation Districts. Applications for Permits to Alter, Permits to Demolish, and Permits for New Sec. 1111. Construction in Conservation Districts. Sec. 1111.1. Determination of Minor and Major Alterations. Sec. 1111.2. Sign Permits. Sec. 1111.3. Review by the Planning Department. Sec. 1111.4. Scheduling and Notice of Historic Preservation Commission Hearings. Sec. 1111.5. Decision by the Historic Preservation Commission. Sec. 1111.6. Standards and Requirements for Review of Applications for Alterations. Sec. 1111.7. Standards and Requirements for Review of Applications for Demolition. Sec. 1113. Standards of Review for New and Replacement Construction in Conservation Districts. Sec. 1114. Modification of a Decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. Sec. 1115. Appeal. Sec. 1116. Unlawful Alteration or Demolition. Sec. 1117. Conformity with Other City Permit Processes. Sec. 1118. Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions. Sec. 1119. Maintenance Requirements and Enforcement Thereof. Sec. 1120. Enforcement and Penalties. Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Properties Identification Report
    Section 106 Historic Properties Identification Report North Lake Shore Drive Phase I Study E. Grand Avenue to W. Hollywood Avenue Job No. P-88-004-07 MFT Section No. 07-B6151-00-PV Cook County, Illinois Prepared For: Illinois Department of Transportation Chicago Department of Transportation Prepared By: Quigg Engineering, Inc. Julia S. Bachrach Jean A. Follett Lisa Napoles Elizabeth A. Patterson Adam G. Rubin Christine Whims Matthew M. Wicklund Civiltech Engineering, Inc. Jennifer Hyman March 2021 North Lake Shore Drive Phase I Study Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v 1.0 Introduction and Description of Undertaking .............................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 NLSD Area of Potential Effects (NLSD APE) ................................................................................... 1 2.0 Historic Resource Survey Methodologies ..................................................................................... 3 2.1 Lincoln Park and the National Register of Historic Places ............................................................ 3 2.2 Historic Properties in APE Contiguous to Lincoln Park/NLSD ....................................................... 4 3.0 Historic Context Statements ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Otis Elevator Company
    www.PDHcenter.com www.PDHonline.org Going Up! Table of Contents Slide/s Part Description Going Down! 1N/ATitle 2 N/A Table of Contents 3~182 1 LkiLooking BkBack 183~394 2 Reach for the Sky A History 395~608 3 Elevatoring of the 609~732 4 Escalating 733~790 5 Law of Gravity Otis Elevator Company 791~931 6 A Fair to Remember 932~1,100 7 Through the Years 1 2 Part 1 The Art of the Elevator Looking Back 3 4 “The history of the Otis Elevator Company is the history of the development of the Elisha Graves Otis was born in 1811 on a farm in Halifax, VT. elevator art. Since 1852, when Elisha Graves As a young man, he tried his hand at several careers – all Otis invented and demonstrated the first elevator ‘safety’ - a device to prevent an with limited success. In 1852, his luck changed when his elevator from falling if the hoisting rope employer; Bedstead Manufacturing Company, asked him to broke - the name Otis has been associated design a freight elevator. Determined to overcome a fatal with virtually every important development hazard in lift design (unsolved since its earliest days), Otis contributing to the usefulness and safety of invented a safety brake that would suspend the platform elevators…” RE: excerpt from 87 Years of Vertical Trans- safely within the shaft if a lifting rope broke suddenly. Thus portation with Otis Elevators (1940) was the world’s first “Safety Elevator” born. Left: Elisha Graves. Otis 5 6 © J.M. Syken 1 www.PDHcenter.com www.PDHonline.org “…new and excellent platform elevator, by Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • EMPIRE BUILDING, 71 Broadway (Aka 69-73 Broadway, 1-5 Rector Street, and 51-53 Trinity Place), Borough of Manhattan
    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 25, 1996, Designation List 273 LP-1933 EMPIRE BUILDING, 71 Broadway (aka 69-73 Broadway, 1-5 Rector Street, and 51-53 Trinity Place), Borough of Manhattan. Built 1897-98, [Francis H.] Kimball & [G. Kramer] Thompson, architects; Charles Sooysmith, foundation engineer; Marc Eidlitz & Son, builders. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 21 , Lot 6, and the portions of the adjacent sidewalk on which the described improvement is situated. ' On September 19, 1995, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Empire Building and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No . 3) . The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. The hearing was continued to December 12, 1995 (Item No. 1) . The hearing was subsequently continued to January 30, 1996 (Item No . 1). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Nineteen witnesses spoke in favor of designation, including Councilwoman Kathryn Freed and representatives of Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger, the Downtown Alliance, New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, Municipal Art Society, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Historic Districts Council, Fine Alts Federation, and Landmarks Committee of Community Board 1. A representative of the mortgagee attended the first hearing but took no position regarding the proposed designation. No one spoke in opposition to designation. The Commission has received several letters and other statements in support of designation, including a resolution by Community Board 1. Summary The richly decorative, neo-classical Empire Building was commissioned in 1895 by the Estate of Orlando B.
    [Show full text]
  • Skyscraper Height
    Skyscraper Height Jason Barr∗ Rutgers University, Newark [email protected] Rutgers University Newark Working Paper #2008-002 Abstract This paper investigates the determinants of skyscraper height. First a simple model is provided where potential developers desire not only profits but also status, as measured by their rank in the height hi- erarchy. The optimal height in equilibrium is a function of the cost and benefits of building as well as the height of surrounding buildings. Using data from New York City, I empirically estimate skyscraper height over the 20th century. The results show that the quest for status has increased building height by about 15 floors above the non- status profit maximizing height. In addition, I provide estimates of which buildings are “too tall” and by how many floors. JEL Classification: D24, D44, N62, R33 Key words: Skyscrapers, building height, status, New York City ∗I would like to thank Alexander Peterhansl, Howard Bodenhorn, Sara Markowitz and seminar participants at Lafayette College for their helpful comments. I would like to acknowledge the New York City Hall Library, the New York City Department of City Planning and the Real Estate Board of New York for the provision of data. This work was partially funded from a Rutgers University, Newark Research Council Grant. Any errors are mine. 1 1 Introduction Skyscrapers are not simply tall buildings. They are symbols and works of art. Collectively they generate a separate entity—the skyline—which has its own symbolic and aesthetic importance. Despite the initial fears that the attacks of September 11, 2001 would cur- tail construction, skyscrapers continue to be built in large numbers around the globe (Economist, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Empire Building Designation Report
    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 25, 1996, Designation List 273 LP-1933 EMPIRE BUILDING, 71 Broadway (aka 69-73 Broadway, 1-5 Rector Street, and 51-53 Trinity Place), Borough of Manhattan. Built 1897-98, [Francis H.] Kimball & [G. Kramer] Thompson, architects; Charles Sooysmith, foundation engineer; Marc Eidlitz & Son, builders. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 21, Lot 6, and the portions of the adjacent sidewalk on which the described improvement is situated.1 On September 19, 1995, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Empire Building and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 3). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. The hearing was continued to December 12, 1995 (Item No. 1). The hearing was subsequently continued to January 30, 1996 (Item No. 1). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Nineteen witnesses spoke in favor of designation, including Councilwoman Kathryn Freed and representatives of Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger, the Downtown Alliance, New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, Municipal Art Society, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Historic Districts Council, Fine Arts Federation, and Landmarks Committee of Community Board 1. A representative of the mortgagee attended the first hearing but took no position regarding the proposed designation. No one spoke in opposition to designation. The Commission has received several letters and other statements in support of designation, including a resolution by Community Board 1. Summary The richly decorative, neo-classical Empire Building was commissioned in 1895 by the Estate of Orlando B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cornerstone and Abode of Our National Progress”: New York City's Skyscrapers As an American Story of Innovation and T
    History, Department of History Theses University of Puget Sound Year 2019 "The Cornerstone and Abode of Our National Progress": New York City's Skyscrapers as an American story of Innovation and Teamwork Meghan Hamel [email protected] This paper is posted at Sound Ideas. https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/history theses/34 “The Cornerstone and Abode of Our National Progress”: New York City’s Skyscrapers as an American Story of Innovation and Teamwork Meghan Hamel History 400 May 15, 2019 1 Imagine this: it is July 8th, 1900, 5:03 pm; and a man named Grant just finished his day working at the New York Stock Exchange. He walks down the stairs from the top floor, and emerges from the building where the warm sun hits his face. He looks back at the Stock Exchange Building and admires its Victorian architecture but has heard rumors that a bigger and better Stock Exchange Building was soon to replace the current building. Imagining this new building makes him excited for what is to come, for the building is to symbolize America’s strength in the global financial market. To begin his commute home, he walks through the somewhat crowded streets to the Brooklyn Bridge, where he rides the elevated railway across the bridge and to his house. Now picture this same day, but in 1931. The Stock Exchange Building is much taller. Grant needs to take an elevator down to the ground floor when he leaves work. He emerges between the tall Corinthian columns where no sun hits his face. The sun is instead blocked by several office buildings that tower hundreds of feet into the sky.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation List 422 LP-2380 BF GOODRICH COMPANY BUILDING, 1780 Broadway
    Landmarks Preservation Commission November 10, 2009; Designation List 422 LP-2380 B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY BUILDING, 1780 Broadway, Manhattan Built 1909; Howard Van Doren Shaw and Ward & Willauer, associated architects Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1029, Lot 14, in part, consisting of the land beneath 1780-82 Broadway On August 11, 2009, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a hearing on the proposed designation of the B. F. Goodrich Company Buildings and the proposed designation of the related Landmark site (Item No. 1). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with provisions of law. Six people testified in favor of designating 1780 Broadway and 225 West 57th Street, including representatives of the Historic Districts Council, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Municipal Art Society, and the Modern Architecture Working Group. Three representatives of the owner, as well as a representative of the American Institute of Architects New York Chapter, spoke in support of designating 1780 Broadway but opposed the designation of 225 West 57th Street. A representative of the Real Estate Board of New York spoke against designating both properties. The Commission also received a letter that supported the designation of 1780 Broadway and opposed the designation of 225 West 57th Street from City Council Members Melinda Katz, Daniel R. Garodnick, Jessica Lappin and Christine C. Quinn, as well as letters in support of designating both structures from Community Board 5 Manhattan, New York State Assemblymember Richard N. Gottfried, the Fine Arts Federation of New York, the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, the Howard Van Doren Shaw Society, the Friends of the Upper East Side, the West 54th-55th Street Block Association and several scholars.
    [Show full text]