432 Park ave. - NYC
432 Park ave. - NYC
(OP)
Just got back from a trip to NYC. How amazing!
Anyhow, I was researching the structure of 432 Park Ave. and Wiki says its core is only 30' x 30'. Seems kind of spindly for a 1400 ft. tall building. Are they somehow using the exterior concrete walls to help provide stability?
Anyhow, I was researching the structure of 432 Park Ave. and Wiki says its core is only 30' x 30'. Seems kind of spindly for a 1400 ft. tall building. Are they somehow using the exterior concrete walls to help provide stability?






RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
My research indicates that you're both right. It's a perimeter moment frame tube coupled to the core at each of the five, two storey open levels. That coupling must be done by way of some manner of outrigger but I've yet to find a good picture or description of that. My hotel was near there and, when we'd leave for the day, I'd stare into those open levels looking for a wall or truss to satisfy my curiosity. Maybe Bookowski or one of the other natives can enlighten us.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
Link
Easy googling results for the curious.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
www.medeek.com
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
I can get behind the superstructure design for these things but still find the foundation overturning design aspects to be astounding.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
Drifts must be quite high but the tmd would take out the acceleration so in theory you don't freak out.
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
Have to pay more attention to anchorage though. Usually not thought of as much for concrete but when you're getting much stronger in the links you'll need anchorage capable of transferring that force to the walls and even may need to be beef up the walls (especially locally) so that you don't have a strong beam-weak wall mechanism. Would assume that's not nearly as big a concern in New York. Steel columns could be embedded in walls for that reason or could be there simply because you need a whole column's worth of welded bars and/or studs to get your force transferred. Our office has done that when transferring load between steel and concrete elements where the forces were just so large that we used embedded steel shapes to help us spread the load transfer out over a larger area.
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
I see both steel plate and wf used around here. I've never fully mentally resolved the plate only option, I see people using that to resist the shear and the concrete beam to resist the flexure w/out any consideration of the interaction. Since the shear and moment are two parts of the same this doesn't make sense. I'm sure it can be detailed but needs some thought. I stick with the wf.
Here's an example of one of their outriggers. This is from a dd level set so maybe this became more sensible down the road. Looks a bit sketchy as shown. If you can't read it that is a 14x550 embedded at the right! The detail where the wf turns into rebar....
RE: 432 Park ave. - NYC
That screenshot looks similar to what we've done when marrying steel to concrete with a large force transfer. Just a lot to transfer in one spot so we'd embed structural steel to help spread the load transfer out over a bigger area.