Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park

The first LEED Platinum Comercial High-Rise sits among the giants of #NYC

The Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park in midtown New York, designed by Cook + Fox Architects, is the first commercial high-rise to achieve LEED Platinum certification.

The 55-story, 2.2 million square foot project is a new addition to the towering blocks around Bryant Park in midtown and its dense context already challenges the role of the architecture. Cook+Fox establish a highly transparent corner entry, blending the public street with the private office building.

The form of the building deviates from its footprint, increasing the level of surface area exposed to day light and giving oriented views onto Bryant Park. Sustainable measures keep the building well insulated and protected from excess heat gain.

The design and high performance of this building is intended to set a new standard for commercial construction and for the office-work environment. By focusing on ways to emphasize daylight, fresh air and a connection to the outdoors, the architects redefine the parameters of the skyscraper as more than a glass box.

Maturity Concept of Concrete

Maturity Concept of Concrete
(if file is not opening then rename file to maturity.pptx)

Download :
http://www.ziddu.com/download/19766323/maturity.ppt.html

Reinforcement Detailing of Column Footings

Reinforcement Detailing of column footings

Download :

http://www.ziddu.com/download/19758203/ReinfDetailFootingCol.ppt.html

Curating Restlessness: Regulating Landscapes of Change

The research Proposal by Michael Ippolito from the California College of the Arts proposes a radical rethinking of architecture and landslides. The Marin Headlands is home to over twenty landslides. The most notable and fastest acting landslide in the Headlands is located on the Oceanside of the park between rodeo cove and Tennessee Valley. It is known as place that has been left behind and rendered a volatile wasteland. This wasteland has consumed many man-made structures including eight abandoned military buildings, and two roadways.

The DISPENS(FILTRATOR) proposal renders the existing landslide to be inhabited by an architecture that filtrates the landscape for scientist, students, and recreationist. There are three major components of the DISPENS[FILTRATOR] ; one: the harvesting zone that filtrates boulders, rocks, soil, and water into four different levels, two: the recreational zone that dispenses recreational mechanisms such as the stargazer, climbing cage, and nature watcher, and three: the collection zone (after life) where the mechanisms are collected and jumbled into an artificial habitat where plant and animal life can thrive.

The DISPENSFILTRATOR is an architecture that curates the environment and blurs the distinction between BUILDING, LANDSCAPE, and WASTELAND. This radical rethinking of architecture and landslides allows the populations that visit these kinds of sites to experience a heightened awareness of savvy inhabitance for increasingly dynamic landscapes.

Complex at the Centre of the Universe

Complex at the Centre of the Universe is pure brilliance!
The CGSociety and NVIDIA were running a competition called the NVArt: Art Space, which was designed to test the vision of artists form around the globe. The entries to this competition are awe-inspiring and grand and yet there could only be one winner. Complex at the Centre of the Universe, an entry from Poland, is majestic in its proportions and brilliant in its conception. Needless to say, it is the deserved winner. Staszek Marek is the man behind this remarkably imaginative formation and his eight years as a 3D modeler and sculptor in the industry are every bit reflected in the Complex at the Centre of the Universe. Turquoise waters surround a beautifully modeled city that itself has been placed on a pedestal as if by a higher being. Technological creations occupy the center stage and yet the concept is in harmony with nature; the model is replete with green parks and gardens. Mark Snoswell, one of the judges of the competition very aptly summarizes it as


The realization of this image is stunning in its scope and imagination with multiple levels of subtle detail that draw you into its world. The artist envisions this complex on a different planet altogether, perhaps one which is quite similar to ours. Or maybe at the back of his mind he has this designed for a time when water levels rise due to incessant warming. Either way this is a beautiful portrayal of a magnificent imagination.

National Museum of the Marine Corps

Architect: Fentress Architects Location: Quantico, Virginia, USA Contractor: Balfour Beatty Construction Project Year: 2006 Photographs: James P. Scholz, Ken Paul, Hedrich Blessing, Fentress Architects, United States Marine Corps and Marine Corps Heritage Foundation

The Great Wall of China

Originally built to protect the northern territories of China from invasions, the Great Wall has been rebuilt and maintained for more than 16 centuries. The wall stretches for 5,500 miles (8,851 km), including some natural defensive barriers such as hills and rivers.

Unlike many other fortifications at that time, bricks and stone were used in the construction of the Great Wall, instead of rammed earth. In the Juyongguan pass, the wall reaches 25.6 feet (7.8 meters) in height and 16.4 feet (5 meters) in width. In some other areas, the wall climbs steep slopes and is completed by watchtowers built up to 3,215 feet (980 meters) above the sea level. It is estimated that while building this amazing fortification, more than 1 million workers lost their lives.

The Great Pyramids of Giza, Egypt

The three pyramids famous worldwide are located in Egypt, on the outskirts of Cairo. Egyptologists say that these amazing pieces of architecture are approximately 4,500 years old and they are currently considered the oldest monuments constructed in dressed masonry.

The Great Pyramid, the complex’s largest structure, is 756 feet long and 450 feet high. For three millenniums, it was the highest structure in the world. 2,300,000 blocks of stone, each averaging 2 ½ tons in weight were used to raise this fascinating piece of architecture. Although the methods of constructions are still uncertain, it is strongly believed that stones used in construction were quarried in the surrounding areas and then dragged on special created sledges and ramps. Egyptologists estimate that approximately 200,000 people participated in the construction of the Great Pyramid, a record that was achieved only once in our known history.

Beijing worker risks his life to demolish part of a building

Sub-branches of Civil Engineering

Elements of Civil Engineering Question Bank

Elements of Civil Engineering Question Bank

Download :

http://www.ziddu.com/download/19617396/ECEQuestionBankVVP.pdf.html

Importance of Irrigation

Definition
– “the supply of water to crops and landscaping plants by artificial means”
• Estimates of magnitude
– world-wide: 544 million acres
• (17% of land 1/3 of food production)
Purpose
• Raise a crop where nothing would grow otherwise (e.g., desert areas)
• Grow a more profitable crop (e.g., alfalfa vs. wheat)
• Increase the yield and/or quality of a given crop (e.g., fruit)
• Increase the aesthetic value of a landscape (e.g., turf, ornamentals)

Download :

http://www.ziddu.com/download/19617080/IRRIGATION.pdf.html 

Concrete Forms Construction of Reinforced Concrete Walls

Reinforced concrete walls construction for building a house. The Wall-Ties & Forms concrete forming system is helping concrete contractors build quality concrete homes rapidly, and cost effectivly. More concrete forming videos available at www.wallties.com.

50 Strangest Structures of the World

50 Strangest Structures of the World

Cathedral of Brasilia - Catedral Metropolitana Nossa Senhora Aparecida - Brasilia , Brazil

Exterior View

Interior View

University of Semnan Auditorium and Library

The project is located in the Iranian city of Semnan, and acts as an extension of the existing university campus. Taking a pivotal role in the complex and acting as a vibrant social hub, the added structures are two separate buildings – an auditorium and a library. The buildings pertain to the same architectural articulation, while creating different spacial characteristics. The dynamic and welcoming spaces of the auditorium are juxtaposed with the calm environment of the library. The achitectural dialogue creates a academic context that encourages interaction and learning.

The project attempts to approach a monumental and memorable picture of academic library and auditorium. The woven and crossing hasps on the façade link volumes visually while triangular dark glass openings illuminate spaces and illustrate authentic play of light and shadow. These elements provide a quiet atmosphere while diminishing the sunlight radiation, particularly in the hot summer. The Auditorium complex includes a 1000 seats auditorium, and 100. 200 seats convention halls, ,a multi-functional hall and a foyer. The library includes reading cluster, informal sitting newspaper, multi-lingual storages, computer station, reference collection hall, offices, exquisite book area and etc.

Design of the RCC Concrete Plants

 

 

 

 

 

Automatic Feeding System

Dumpers or belts convey the coarse aggregates via feeding hopper and conveyor belts to the stock pile. From the stock pile the particular fractions are conveyed via conveying troughs onto the corresponding belts. Each specific grain size can be batched onto each belt. With these two belts the coarse aggregates are conveyed to the 150 m long cooling gallery.

The fine aggregates as well are conveyed via feeding hopper and belt to the stock pile. The fine aggregates are conveyed to the inline silo without being chilled.

Cooling of Coarse Aggregates

Water chillers produce large quantities of cold water at + 4 degree C. The cold water is sprayed via nozzles across the total length of the cooling gallery onto the rock grains greater than 5 mm. At the end of the cooling gallery we obtain a temperature of the graining of approx. + 7 degree C. The aggregates are dewatered at selected points. At the end of the cooling gallery dewatering screens dewater the material to a residual moisture of 2 %. This method is very effective because much water is accumulated in the coarse grain.

Water is then led into the sedimentation tank to have the flushed floating particles deposited. The cleaned water is now cooled again and added to the circuit.

Alternatively for other projects and according to the requirements the cooling of the aggregates can be effected in an aggregate cooling silo.

The particular cooled components are conveyed into separate compartments of the insulated inline silos. The sizes of the separate compartments of the inline silo have been dimensioned to take up the total capacity of the belt. It is important for safety requirements that each component can be conveyed via each belt into each compartment of the inline silo.

Production and Handling of Ice Flakes

Two containerized flake ice plants produce 24 hours continuously flake ice into both ice storage tanks. The requested ice is conveyed with screws from these ice storage tanks into the day tanks which provide the ice to the particular ice weighers for weighing. The requested ice can be supplied from each day tank into each of the 4 ice weighers.

Water Chillers

The water chillers have been containerized as well. They provide the cooling of the aggregates, the ice treatment and the requested mixing water for the concrete.

Storage and Transportation of Cementitious Materials

To guarantee a sufficient quantity of cement and pozzolan on site all in all 10 x 1000 t storage silos have been installed. Pneumatic cement blower systems provide the corresponding service silos – per plant 2 silos à 150 t – from these storage silos.

Concrete Batching and Concrete Production

To obtain the requested nominal plant capacity of 500 m³/h compacted concrete 2 twin plants with a total of 4 x3 m³ twin shaft mixers have been installed.

Each twin plant is equipped with an inline silo of 4 x 100 m³. From this inline silo the particular fractions are -according to the recipe – weighed additively on the weighing belt. All materials, such as aggregates, cement, pozzolan, admixtures, cold water and ice are weighed and conveyed into the mixer.

For a homogeneous mixing of the concrete Liebherr exclusively uses twin shaft mixers from internal production. These mixers stand out for short mixing times and short discharge times. Due to special wear plates these mixers have a very long durability. The maintenance works are reduced due to a central lubrication system.

Concrete Delivery System

Below each high performance mixer an especially developed rotary system has been installed which allows feeding the high speed belt and the dumpers as well which are filled from 2 mixers at the same time. The high speed belt has been equipped with a discharge point to provide further tipping of dumpers.

A Visual Tour of the World's Longest Sea Bridge

It only makes sense that the country that brought you the Great Wall of China is now home to the world's longest sea bridge. The 26-mile Jiaozhou Bay bridge, which was built over the course of four years for $1.5 billion, links China's eastern port city of Qingdao to an offshore island, Huangdao, according to theAP (the previous record-holder was the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in Louisiana). It is supported by more than 5,000 pillars, is expected to carry more than 30,000 cars per day, and opened for traffic on Thursday. China, which is already home to seven of the world's ten lengthiest bridges, according to The Telegraph, plans to finish an even longer sea bridge linking southern Guangdong province with Hong Kong and Macau by 2016. But enough words! A story like this needs visuals.

Here's a photo released by China's Xinhua news agency the day before the Jiaozhou Bay bridge opened:

Reuters gives us another view:

The photos are helpful, of course, but what would it be like to actually drive on this thing? The Telegraphtakes us on a breathtaking aerial tour:

CAUSES OF FAILURE OF FOUNDATIONS IN BUILDINGS

Causes of Foundation Failure in Buildings

Foundation failure can be attributed to several things. Most commonly foundation failure is caused by the movement of expansive and highly plastic soils beneath different sections of the foundation footings. This movement can be in the form of shrinkage, which causes settlement, or expansion, which causes heave. When dry conditions prevail, soils consistently lose moisture and shrink. When moisture levels are high, soils swell. Regardless of the nature of the movement, it will most likely manifest itself in the form of visible cracks in the foundation walls, exterior brick walls, or interior Sheetrock or plaster walls. Officially, any structure movement is known as differential settlement. 

foundation-failure-causes

In addition to expansive soils, subsurface peat, which has a low bearing capacity and deteriorates over time, can also cause differential settlement. Other soil types such as sand and silt also have lower than required bearing capacities.

Poor drainage from yard run-off and gutter downspouts discharging at the base of the foundation are among other causes. Excess moisture around the foundation can cause the soils to become over-saturated and lose “bearing pressure,” or the strength to support weight. When this happens, structures “settle” or sink into the ground.

If soil and water control problems weren’t bad enough, there is also the issue of transpiration. Transpiration is a fancy word for the process of trees and large plantings absorbing the water from the soils beneath and around your home. During an active season, roots extending beneath and around the footings of the house can remove moisture from the soil, causing it to become desiccated. Again, where expansive soils exist this removal of moisture will cause soil shrinkage and settlement. 

Plumbing leaks are another major contributor to foundation settlement. Inundating the foundation with water from your home’s pipes will cause foundation failure, as would poor drainage on the outside.

Poor construction sometimes causes settlement in homes, but only rarely.

Failure Analysis Of Mishap At DMRC On 12 July

It was 12th July 2009 which proved to be the darkest day in the history of DMRC. After achieving a milestone of providing a reliable and easy mean of transportation to the capital of India, it is now facing huge problems which are not only causing loss of human lives but also causing immense damage to the most reputed infrastructure organization of India. So far, this company has achieved every target ahead of schedule under the excellent guidance of Mr. Sreedharan.

Let us try understanding what went wrong on that disastrous day

On 12th July, 2009, while lifting segments of the superstructure, an accident happened in the Badarpur – Secretariat section near P-67. The pier cap of pier P-67 got collapsed causing subsequent collapse of the
(i) Launching Girder
(ii) Span between P-66 and P-67 which had got erected and pre-stressed, already
(iii) Segments of the superstructure for the span between P-67 and P-68.

The incident left 6 people dead and many injured.

Site Investigation
After visiting the site, following observations were noticed
1. The pier cap of affected pier (P-67) has sheared from the connection point of the pier and pier
cap. It is a cantilever pier cap. It was informed by the contractor and DMRC representatives that the support system for viaductwas initially designed as portal pier till the casting of the pier was over. The shop owners put up resistance against casting of the other leg of the portal and it was subsequently decided by DMRC that this would be changed to a cantilever pier, similar to P-68 which is still standing at site.

2. It was noticed that the prop support of the cantilever has failed from its connection to the pier.

3. The top reinforcement of the cantilever beam does not have any development length into pier
concrete. As learned from the sources, the top reinforcement of the cantilever beam had an “L”
bend of 500 mm only.

There is very nominal (or no trace) of shear reinforcement at the juncture.

4. The launching girder has fallen below with the failure of pier cap. Also, the span between P-67
and P-68 has fallen inclined, supported by the ground at one end and pier cap (P-68) on the
other.

5. The boom of the crane, used for lifting the launching girder on 13 July, 2009, has failed in bending
and shows clear sign of overloading.

Analysis 
i. The pier (P-67) was initially designed as a leg of a portal frame and subsequently changed to support cantilever pier cap.

ii. The same method was followed for P-68 and P-66.

iii. The alignment of track here is in curvature and gradually leaves the median of the road to align on one side of the road.

iv. The longitudinal reinforcement of the pier was protruding by around 1500 mm beyond top of pier.

v. The top reinforcement of pier cap was 36 mm in diameter and had a development length of 500 mm. only as an “L” from the top. There was insufficient bond length for the structure to behave like a cantilever beam.

vi. During launching operation of the launching girder itself, this pier cap developed crack and work was stopped for couple of months. During this period, the cantilever pier cap was grouted in crack areas and further strengthened by introducing prop or jacketing.

vii. However, the behavior of the structure changed due to introduction of this jacket and the cantilever pier cap remained no more cantilever.

viii. The segments of superstructure for the span between P-66 and P-67 was erected and launched and the prop beam / jacketing could sustain the load to that extend.

ix. During the launching of superstructure segments between P-67 and P-68, only 6 segments could be lifted and the whole system collapsed when seventh segment was hooked for lifting.

The sequence of failure is as follows:
a. The support of the prop / jacket got sheared from its connection due to inadequate section / welding.

b. The cantilever pier cap which was behaving as a simply supported beam due to introduction of prop / jacket started behaving like a cantilever beam suddenly after failure of the prop which it can not sustain ( It was inadequately designed). So, the so called “cantilever pier cap” collapsed.

c. The launching girder / span between P-67 & P-66 / the temporarily erected segments between P-67 and P-68, all got collapsed in one go.

Crane Failure
The launching girder was lifted by the cranes. However, it needed to be pushed little forward for
unloading it on the ground. So, all the cranes were asked to stretch there booms by some length.
During this operation, the 250 MT capacity crane on extreme left exceeded it’s capacity and the
boom failed and broke down. Since, there were unequal loading on the 250 MT crane by it’s side,
that also failed and broke down. The crane of 350 MT capacity didn’t broke but it toppled with it’s
base. The 400 MT crane remained intact.

Final overview 
a. It is concluded that the failure of pier cap occurred due to inadequate prop / jacket. This was coupled with failure of cantilever pier cap due to inadequate development length of top reinforcement of the cantilever pier cap.

b. The failure of the crane was a case of operational inexperience for such synchronized crane operation. The crane -1 did not have the requisite capacity for the extended boom length and radius. Once crane – 1 failed, the crane – 2 was loaded almost half of the launching girder amounting to around 200 MT. For the extension of boom and radius, it did not have the requisite capacity so it failed, too. The crane -3 was loaded more than it’s capacity. However, in this case the crane got toppled instead of boom getting sheared. The crane -4 did not undergo the severe loading due to failure of other 3 cranes and most of the loads got grounded by that time.

What it taught us?
a. Structural designs should be proof checked by experienced structural engineer.

b. Once failure observed, structure should be as far as practicable abandoned and new structure should be built up

c. More emphasis should be given on detailing of reinforcement to cater for connections and behavior of the structural components.

d. Any make-shift arrangement to save a failed structure should be avoided.

e. Reinforcement detailing in corbels, deep beams, cantilever structures should be checked as per the provisions of more than one type of Standards (both IS & BS should be followed).

f. Adequately experienced Engineer / Forman should be deployed for erection works.