officedweller
Senior Member
I guess that cornice gives an example of what the "ribs / veins" on the facade will look like.
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
C-mac
Senior Member
Alright, I have to know...what the hell is a transfer slab?
evandyk
Senior Member
Explainer: Transfer Slabs and Beams | UrbanToronto
In this week's Explainer, we look at transfer slabs and transfer beams, that allow buildings where columns and walls that move from floor to floor to stand up: if the load from above cannot be directly supported below it, the load must be safely transferred to another location.
BoomOne
New Member
A little off topic, but I don't think Sugar Wharf had 4.5 meter transfer slabs as the article states, it looked like mostly beams and a 600+ slab poured afterwards.
As for the first pour, it was over 900 cubic meters of concrete.
As for the first pour, it was over 900 cubic meters of concrete.
mburrrrr
Senior Member
Sugar Wharf ~9th and 12th floor transfer slabs were 4.6m.
The base was crazy thick too. Same depth, same shale, same tower height, assuming different engineer at sugar wharf vs pinnacle 1st tower. Just curious.
Who would have thought a concrete slab would be so interesting?
The base was crazy thick too. Same depth, same shale, same tower height, assuming different engineer at sugar wharf vs pinnacle 1st tower. Just curious.
Who would have thought a concrete slab would be so interesting?
Last edited:
BoomOne
New Member
You can see the yellow vertical forms that separate the individual beams, I would not consider it true 4.6m transfer slab.
mburrrrr
Senior Member
Ahh. Got it now.
FastidiousHack
New Member
For everyone's reference, a concrete truck carries about 8-10 cubic meters of concrete.
Full Metal Junkie
Active Member
Fascinating to see Canadian construction industry measure concrete in cubic meters. It's almost like we live in a metric country. How did we ever move away from measuring concrete in foot-yard freedom units?
wmedia
Senior Member
I was chatting to an architect on this very subject yesterday. He informed me that commercial construction is very much metric, but smaller residential is still stuck with imperial.
Oh, and you're only truly metric if you spell it "metres", not "meters". The latter is still horribly American (said in my strongest British accent!)
Full Metal Junkie
Active Member
bloody hell...
mburrrrr
Senior Member
2nd level windows NE corner
Terrible timing.
SE upper corner poured.
1 or 2 more pours to go? How did they physically separate/contain the pours?
That will be fun dismantling in 100-200+ years? What is the expected life span of a new super tall building like this?
Terrible timing.
SE upper corner poured.
1 or 2 more pours to go? How did they physically separate/contain the pours?
That will be fun dismantling in 100-200+ years? What is the expected life span of a new super tall building like this?
The Preservationist
Active Member
There is concrete surviving since Roman times, the key for any structure's longevity, is a solid foundation, to keep the structure dry, no exposure to extreme heat cycling and designing to ensure a lengthy fatigue life from wind loading. In most cases the fatigue life of the structure determines the ultimate life of the building. I believe the CN tower was considered during construction an overbuild design with a structure fatigue life of 300 years, (that's my memory from 50 years ago so I could be wrong here). I'm thinking for a residential concrete supertall, 150 years would be about right with heavy periodic maintenance, although I have to admit I've never worked on one so maybe some one else has some more info with the specifics here.
mininamib
Active Member
150 years doesn't seem that long, especially when you consider how old many of the houses in places like Europe, North Africa, and some parts of the Middle East (Yemeni "skyscrapers" in Shibam Hadramawt) are.
FastidiousHack
New Member
It's really hard to say how long our new skyscrapers will last, as modern reinforced concrete construction techniques haven't been around long enough. 100 year old concrete buildings today were designed and constructed much differently than buildings going up today.
There's a number of things that would warrant demolition. Freeze/thaw exposure, the salt for deicing, and just general time are all things that cause rebar corrosion. There's also the possibility of a design level wind or earthquake event, in which case the building would likely need to be demolished.
In the absence of those factors, let's say the structure is contained inside the envelope, GFRP bars are used, and no earthquakes - theoretically it would last "forever" (i.e. longer than humanity). The chances of nothing bad ever happening are pretty small, so people usually say somewhere between 100-200 years.
Ultimately, I'd expect these buildings to be torn down for social or financial reasons over structural. that is unless an earthquake hits Toronto. In which case I could rant for a while about design codes, structural performance, and the unpreparedness of our infrastructure for such events.
There's a number of things that would warrant demolition. Freeze/thaw exposure, the salt for deicing, and just general time are all things that cause rebar corrosion. There's also the possibility of a design level wind or earthquake event, in which case the building would likely need to be demolished.
In the absence of those factors, let's say the structure is contained inside the envelope, GFRP bars are used, and no earthquakes - theoretically it would last "forever" (i.e. longer than humanity). The chances of nothing bad ever happening are pretty small, so people usually say somewhere between 100-200 years.
Ultimately, I'd expect these buildings to be torn down for social or financial reasons over structural. that is unless an earthquake hits Toronto. In which case I could rant for a while about design codes, structural performance, and the unpreparedness of our infrastructure for such events.