You mean the 9th? Today's the 10th. :tiphat:

oops!

does anyone know where the steel will be made? and will it be brought in a few pieces at a time or will it be stacked at the site?

does anyone know where the steel will be made? and will it be brought in a few pieces at a time or will it be stacked at the site?

Do you mean, where the steel will be fabricated?

Is the structure going to be steel or concrete? I would assume a concrete structure.

Plainsmen --- it must be a conspiracy, Rosie O'Donnell says its impossible, without pre-detonation, for floors to pancake and (by the way) for heat to melt metal! LOL

Unless I was mistaken I thought it is going to be a steel structure and that is why it will go up faster than a concrete one

Unless I was mistaken I thought it is going to be a steel structure and that is why it will go up faster than a concrete one

I am not sure which sturctural system is being used on this tower, but if they are doing Concrete it would be doing well to see two floors per week, certainly not four simply from a forming and pouring standpoint. If what has been suggested is true (4 floors per week) then this suggests that it might be a steel structure.

Again I would like to hear from someone like RWB or Anonymous or Planman to know for sure.

Wow, at 4 floors per week (steel construction?) it should top out in what, 7 months......I doubt it.

A concrete structure would go perhaps one floor per week, which seems to fit the construction schedule.......IMO

But someone on the inside please chime in concrete or steel?

There will be steel beams and columns.

wow, so OKC will have a new skyscraper near topped out by the beginning of the next NBA season. ...

OMG, should do wonders for tv nights to show a growing big city.

Concrete can be done faster than one floor per week. On a project that I did in Austin, TX, residential highrise, but much lower, but with a larger floor plate we got to the point where we were doing two floors per week, but that was pushing it. I am less familiar with the time involved in steel highrise construction as all of the highrise projects I have done have been concrete.

Steel will come out of the ground on Jan. 1, and it will go up 4 floors a week.

This is where it was posted at 4 floors per week, but I would still like to hear that from someone who is seeing the plans and knows the schedule. We already know the first part of the prediction was not correct based on what we see in the hole. Granted I also know how these things get said and there was a source at one point but then it gets "upgraded" over time and from person to person. So hence the request from those in the know...

If they do concrete - I hope they are more careful than they were with the ole parking garage...that stuff just fell from a couple floors up! :-O

I work with high rise construction as a supplier of products. Generally, once the pouring begins, they will do at least one floor per week, but I don't know of many at the rate of two floors each week. Maybe if environmental conditions are perfect and the floorplate not too big.

From what I've seen with highrise construction, it seems the logical way to go is concrete. With 9/11 and the destruction of the steel structured World Trade Center Twin Towers and our own Murrah Building, any building is a target for terrorism in this day and age. Concrete (steel reinforced) is going to give you a more terrorist resistant structure.

I keep hearing steel structure here, but haven't heard anything really solid.
Just curious............

Here is an image of the Pinnacle under construction in Nashville, now complete, also a Pickard Chilton-Kendall Heaton highrise, as you can see concrete structure.
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/Pinnaclefromconstructioncam1-18-09.jpg

From what I've seen with highrise construction, it seems the logical way to go is concrete. With 9/11 and the destruction of the steel structured World Trade Center Twin Towers and our own Murrah Building, any building is a target for terrorism in this day and age. Concrete is going to give you a more terrorist resistant structure.

I keep hearing steel structure here, but haven't heard anything really solid.
Just curious............

Here is an image of the Pinnacle under construction in Nashville, now complete, also a Pickard Chilton-Kendall Heaton highrise, as you can see concrete structure.
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/Pinnaclefromconstructioncam1-18-09.jpg

concrete is irrelevant in the case of terrorist attacks

If they do concrete - I hope they are more careful than they were with the ole parking garage...that stuff just fell from a couple floors up! :-O

The parking garage is a precast concrete structure, meaning, it's like a kit of parts, if you will. The columns, beams and slabs are cast off site (can be cast on site) and brought to the site and erected piece by piece.

If the tower is a concrete structure, it will be a poured in place concrete steel reinforced structure using formwork making it an integrated structure.

"concrete is irrelevant in the case of terrorist attacks", by OUGRAD05

Really? The Murrah Building was a steel structure designed to resist gravity, lateral, live and dead loads. The explosion was at ground level and blew upward, which the Murrah was not designed to resist. A concrete steel reinforced building would not have had that magnitude of damage.

The twin towers are another story, the heat of the jet fuel on fire compromising the integrity of the steel to failure........all I'm saying is that a concrete structure is more resitant to these forces. I have worked on several government projects where ATFP (Anti-Terrorism Force Protection) is required, one protective system used are hardened blast proof concrete walls.

OUGRAD05, go take a close look at the new Federal Building for some "concrete" evidence.

Where as there is validity to each of those arguments, each structural system has its strengths and weaknesses. Not wanting to get into comparisons (because each has its application) and true terrorist attacks are a reality that should be considered, the reality is that it is a very small consideration. Regardless of the principle of the matter it comes down to money. It will be the system that will perform financially the best with considerations given to maximizing floor area, labor and time involved in erecting it, how regionally available all of the components are etc...these are all of the decisions that factor in. The only exception to this is if for some reason it becomes a requirement of the facility, as in the case of the GSA.

Concrete as a material is brittle and does not take to deflection without the steel reinforcing. However even concrete if a portion of the structure experiences a local failure with its impact and weight in motion can easily exceed its ability to resist the impact load and you will have what you saw on a small scale with the parking garage. A failure that can grow to become a global (total failure). An example would be an explosion with enough force to cut through several columns on one area of a floor.

"concrete is irrelevant in the case of terrorist attacks", by OUGRAD05

Really? The Murrah Building was a steel structure designed to resist gravity, lateral, live and dead loads. The explosion was at ground level and blew upward, which the Murrah was not designed to resist. A concrete steel reinforced building would not have had that magnitude of damage.

The twin towers are another story, the heat of the jet fuel on fire compromising the integrity of the steel to failure........all I'm saying is that a concrete structure is more resitant to these forces. I have worked on several government projects where ATFP (Anti-Terrorism Force Protection) is required, one protective system used are hardened blast proof concrete walls.

OUGRAD05, go take a close look at the new Federal Building for some "concrete" evidence.

Actually, the Murrah Federal building WAS concrete steel reinforced. The problem was the steel reinforcement was not tied in between the support columns and floor supports, and that was because regulations did not require the reinforcement to be tied.

Take a close look at the images. Floors and columsn were concrete/steel. However, the rest of your argument stands in that the building wasn't designed to handle an upward blast.

One thing or another the, Devon tower will not be built from concrete and re-bar completely. Any structure built to the height that this structure will be built, will require steel columns and beams.

One thing or another the, Devon tower will not be built from concrete and re-bar completely. Any structure built to the height that this structure will be built, will require steel columns and beams.

Hey Gen70, the tallest building in the world happens to be concrete with rebar reinforcing. The steel is in the reinforcing and the beams and columns are concrete as well.

See the link below from the architect behind the Burj Dubai.

http://cantilever.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/som_tallest.pdf

I think I might be the only one who thinks the Burj Dubai is woeful looking

Actually, the Murrah Federal building WAS concrete steel reinforced. The problem was the steel reinforcement was not tied in between the support columns and floor supports, and that was because regulations did not require the reinforcement to be tied.

Take a close look at the images. Floors and columsn were concrete/steel. However, the rest of your argument stands in that the building wasn't designed to handle an upward blast.

I stand corrected on the Murrah structural system.......thanks.

One thing or another the, Devon tower will not be built from concrete and re-bar completely. Any structure built to the height that this structure will be built, will require steel columns and beams.

IMO this floor plate footprint looks much easier to do with a concrete structural system.........the height isn't a factor.

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/DevonFloor.jpg

IMO this floor plate footprint looks much easier to do with a concrete structural system.........the height isn't a factor.

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/DevonFloor.jpg

Where did you come across the floor plans? I would love to get a set of those...

The graphic convention (which sometimes can mislead) certainly suggests concrete as well as shear walls for the core of the building which is consistant with a concrete structural system. I will be highly suprised if it were to be infact a steel structure, based on what I am seeing here. The S-series sheets would confirm it.

Just happened upon this plan image........no connections.

But agreed what we see at the core, columns and floor plate slab edge extending or cantilevering somewhat, as well as all the ins and outs, seem to spell concrete.

OKC@Heart R U a structural engineer by trade?

Nope, I am an Architect.

Seems like I read elsewhere once that this building would be of a "core and outrigger" design. I'm not a engineer so I'm not sure how this design differs from older designs or what the advantages are over those previous methods of building tall structures.

I tried to find something on Wikipedia about this, there is a reference to it under the subject "Tube Structure" that states this design has been steadily replaced beginning in the 1990's by the core and outrigger design. But the link to "core supported" structure has no article yet written.

If anyone can elaborate I think that would interesting to read.

"concrete is irrelevant in the case of terrorist attacks", by OUGRAD05

Really? The Murrah Building was a steel structure designed to resist gravity, lateral, live and dead loads. The explosion was at ground level and blew upward, which the Murrah was not designed to resist. A concrete steel reinforced building would not have had that magnitude of damage.

The twin towers are another story, the heat of the jet fuel on fire compromising the integrity of the steel to failure........all I'm saying is that a concrete structure is more resitant to these forces. I have worked on several government projects where ATFP (Anti-Terrorism Force Protection) is required, one protective system used are hardened blast proof concrete walls.

OUGRAD05, go take a close look at the new Federal Building for some "concrete" evidence.
You're exactly right, my point was that far more goes into designing a terrorist resistant structure than simply concrete, in fact concrete has major drawbacks of its own when something happens that it was not designed for. Murrah building was either concrete or stone, can't remember now and it got blown to bits.

Flying a 737 into anything is going to cause massive damage...

I think I just misunderstood what you were saying, I took it to mean concrete was a failsafe, it is not. Terror resistance must encompass the entire design process. :)

I'm pretty sure it's going to be made out of millions of legos.

.............Terror resistance must encompass the entire design process. :)

Agreed.

I'm pretty sure it's going to be made out of millions of legos.

Yes! :bow:

This is a test to see if/how the image insert code works. An image of the construction site taken on the 11th. Is the only way to insert an image is to load from the OKCTALK user albums or load from another web site? No direct upload from the desktop computer?

Below should be an image of the eastern side of the construction site. There appears to be some old piers exposted in a circular pattern - like stone henge or something.

http://www.okctalk.com/members/fly-on-the-wall-albums-pictures-picture151-devon-east.jpg

Well the image insert code seems simple enough to use. I had stitched three of the images into a panoramic view, but am not sure how to insert larger resolution images as others have done. When uploading to this website's image albums there appears to be a resolution limit in place. As it is, even these shots have been shrunk down so it's harder to see details.

It's fascinating watching these heavy equipment operators; it's like the machines become an extension of their bodies. This tracked excavator operator was loading trucks at a furious pace, then stops and moves a coil of cable with the scoop as easy as I would operate a spoon. It's amazing they don't crash into each other - it all seems well choreographed.

http://www.okctalk.com/members/fly-on-the-wall-albums-pictures-picture154-devon-west.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/members/fly-on-the-wall-albums-pictures-picture153-devon-south.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/members/fly-on-the-wall-albums-pictures-picture152-devon-looking-down.jpg

There appears to be some old piers exposted in a circular pattern - like stone henge or something.

These are not old piers, they are more of the same piers that were installed around the entire site. They are actually erecting walls using these piers as we speak so they can dig deeper.

Please send the images to Pete or someone so they can be posted for us.

These are not old piers, they are more of the same piers that were installed around the entire site. They are actually erecting walls using these piers as we speak so they can dig deeper.

Oh, well that makes more sense then. I couldn't understand why the old structure would have a pattern like that. At the same time I took these I was watching a worker using a tracked hydraulic jack hammer to remove some piers at and just below grade closer to the east garage and assumed they were left over from the old structure.

Oh, well that makes more sense then. I couldn't understand why the old structure would have a pattern like that. At the same time I took these I was watching a worker using a tracked hydraulic jack hammer to remove some piers at and just below grade closer to the east garage and assumed they were left over from the old structure.

None of the pictures that you mentioned that you posted have become visible on this thread. Please attach when you get a chance. Thanks!

None of the pictures that you mentioned that you posted have become visible on this thread. Please attach when you get a chance. Thanks!

There were there. Then when I just logged on again to post response they were gone. However, now I can see them again when I left and came back into the thread. Odd. I'll watch it and see if they disappear again.

There were there. Then when I just logged on again to post response they were gone. However, now I can see them again when I left and came back into the thread. Odd. I'll watch it and see if they disappear again.

They still aren't showing up!

They still aren't showing up!

OK, I think I know why. The pictures are pulled from the OKCTalk album and those pics still have a "waiting for moderator" approval tag on them. Once I cleared my browser cache and came in as a guest the pictures consistantly stayed missing. I'll see about using a third party web image service and load them in that way.

OK, I think I know why. The pictures are pulled from the OKCTalk album and those pics still have a "waiting for moderator" approval tag on them. Once I cleared my browser cache and came in as a guest the pictures consistantly stayed missing. I'll see about using a third party web image service and load them in that way.

I have had success just attaching them directly into the message, they come in as a thumnail but if you click on them they become full sized.

Testing an upload again.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac92/Fly_on_the_Wall_2010/Devon_East.jpg

Testing an upload again.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac92/Fly_on_the_Wall_2010/Devon_East.jpg

That one worked! Great image by the way exactly the area that I have been wanting to be able to see more detail on, Thanks!

Wow, it really gives you a much better sense of scale.

Cool, glad it worked. I am down in this area usually once a week, in fact will be today. I'll see if I can grab a shot of the work they are doing in that area today. Looks like they are forming today, more digging likely or something. I have a 13mp Canon I should try and lug down here, but for now these are just shots from a Palm Pre. Not the best but it shows enough to see what is happening.

We're not picky, just post whatever.

Taken today at around Noon. I'd be interested in knowing how wide this tower will be. The portion reflected in the image by the wall form must represent just the core of the building, correct?


http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac92/Fly_on_the_Wall_2010/CIMG0121.jpg

Great pics FotW!

An aerial from today:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/ATT00071.jpg

Here's a some comparison pics from last June and then in late October. I wish I had taken a better "before" picture before any of the construction started.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Mad_Monk/DevonTower/OfficeView.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Mad_Monk/DevonTower/IMG00065.jpg

So I'm guessing there are larger piers still buried at the center of the smaller piers arranged in the shape of a decagon?

Thanks for posting those. I drove by this morning and was surprised how deep that hole is even though I usually look at the Construction Cam at least once a day. That first picture really gives a great perspective.

An aerial from today:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/ATT00071.jpg

That's not the tower outline is it? That seems pretty small.

Taken today at around Noon. I'd be interested in knowing how wide this tower will be. The portion reflected in the image by the wall form must represent just the core of the building, correct?


http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac92/Fly_on_the_Wall_2010/CIMG0121.jpg

I would say you are correct, see previous page for image of typical floor plan.

Yes, I looked at the floor plans and compared to the image I took today. It's hard to gauge size from either without a scale or point of reference. On the floor plan I was guessing that the elevator shafts are about 10 feet wide, so the north-south axis of the elevator section, plus restrooms, etc, would be about 80 feet long.

On the site, the only thing I could gauge against is that white utility truck, which I would guess is about 15-16 feet long (?). Which would make the east-west width of that form ~75 feet or so. I'm just wagging though. Too bad that floor plan doesn't have a scale or higher detail; it looked like it had some measurements on it, but I couldn't tell for sure.

I would say you are correct, see previous page for image of typical floor plan.

Plus, in the picture above it looks like they are in the middle of pouring (and drilling) another large diameter pier outside of the forms that have been placed. Safe bet we're not looking at the full footprint of the tower.

Yeah the floor plan from the one on the last page is also misleading because I believe it is one of the upper floors as well which will have a decidedly different foot print than the ones above it. If you reference the original floor plans for the ground floor, (I believe there is one referenced either in this thread or the web cam one) You will notice that there is the core which will no doubt have shear walls that will enclose them but that will also be supported by piers. and then there is the lobby and circulation area that is an enclosed glass curtain-wall in circular form. Then outside of that you will see the largest structural columns that are carrying the floors above which have a larger footprint still.

They have been drilling some larger diameter piers since they started uncovering the ones with in the form/retaining walls. So I think that as was stated above, you are safe in assuming that they are not yet done placing all of the piers and there will be some more time involved prior to the mat being tied and poured.

Some sketchup perspective on the location and construction progress.....

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/DEVONTOWER-VIEW3.jpg

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/DEVONTOWER-VIEW35.jpg

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/DEVONTOWER-VIEW4.jpg

Bonus View
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/DEVONTOWER-VIEW7.jpg

Very nice!