Devon Energy Center

[OKC@heart]

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...

[hipsterdoofus]

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

[Rover]

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.

[architect5311]

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.

[OUGrad05]

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.

concrete is irrelevant in the case of terrorist attacks

[architect5311]

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.

[architect5311]

"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.

[OKC@heart]

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.

[okcpulse]

"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.

[gen70]

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.

[OKC@heart]

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.co...om_tallest.pdf

[Richard at Remax]

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

[architect5311]

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.

[architect5311]

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.

[OKC@heart]

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

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.

[architect5311]

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?

[OKC@heart]

Nope, I am an Architect.

[Fly on the Wall]

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.

[OUGrad05]

"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.

[metro]

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

[architect5311]

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

Agreed.

[hipsterdoofus]

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

Yes!

[Fly on the Wall]

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.

[Fly on the Wall]

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.

[Insider]

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.