CHICAGO | 110 N Wacker | 817 FT | 56 FLOORS - Page 54

harryc · #**1061** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 12:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cdarwall

http://charlesdarwall.com/images/Pour2.jpg
<P>
http://charlesdarwall.com/images/Pour1jpg

Cdarwall · #**1062** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 1:31 PM**

r18tdi · #**1063** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 4:18 PM**

Second largest pour in Chicago you say? Which project was number one?

kolchak · #**1064** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Second largest pour in Chicago you say? Which project was number one?

Trump Tower I would think. Yes?

SteelMonkey · #**1065** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 4:46 PM**

^ I do believe at 5000 cu yards it was Trump. Vista was ~ 4000

Crazy that the Wilshire in LA was 21,200 cu yards and 17 feet thick.

kolchak · #**1066** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 4:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelMonkey

^ I do believe at 5000 cu yards it was Trump. Vista was ~ 4000

Crazy that the Wilshire in LA was 21,200 cu yards and 17 feet thick.

I remember going downtown to look at the Wilshire pour at like 5AM. Ridiculous! Somewhere I have pics.

Blahshead · #**1067** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 6:27 PM**

River crane is looking locked and loaded.

Fvn · #**1068** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 7:32 PM**

This is an impressive pour for Chicago... can't deny that...

But yes, of course, there are cities where a pour like this is nothing, Seattle seems to have pours this size or bigger every weekend... its crazy. But that's a whole different story.

San Francisco/Los Angeles/Houston/Miami also frequently have pours that are larger (Los Angeles more so I believe)

And yes, of course, some of the biggest concrete pours have happened outside of USA, like Russia, Middle East, Asia; yes I (and I'm sure others too) are aware...

But you really don't see pours this size all too often in Chicago so when one comes along naturally we get excited...

Kngkyle · #**1069** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 7:52 PM**

So what generally are the reasons that mat pours in Chicago aren't as large as seen in other cities? It's not like Trump Tower or Vista are small projects.. but when looking at mat pours they certainly look like it compared to SF/LA/Seattle projects. Is it due to earthquakes or is there something else causing the difference?

Fvn · #**1070** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 8:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

So what generally are the reasons that mat pours in Chicago aren't as large as seen in other cities? It's not like Trump Tower or Vista are small projects.. but when looking at mat pours they certainly look like it compared to SF/LA/Seattle projects. Is it due to earthquakes or is there something else causing the difference?

I think Chicago pours are generally smaller because the mat just needs to be for the elevator core whereas in Seattle/SF/LA they need to encompass the entire building due to I would guess seismic reasons. Also, a lot of buildings in LA/Seattle don't actually sit on deep foundations the only foundation is the mat, in SF it depends, some sit on deep foundations and a mat (Salesforce Tower) and others just sit on just a mat (400 Folsom). (Soil conditions vary quite a bit from block to block in SF)

jc5680 · #**1071** Posted **Sep 17, 2018, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelMonkey

^ I do believe at 5000 cu yards it was Trump. Vista was ~ 4000

Crazy that the Wilshire in LA was 21,200 cu yards and 17 feet thick.

150 Riverside was like 3600.

Honestly, I am not sure 110 would break the top 10 in Chicago.

bnk · #**1072** Posted **Sep 18, 2018, 1:09 AM**

I tried finding the cubic yard mat of the Sears Tower and couldn't find it. Anyone know? I did find 72,000 cubic yards of concrete, for the total building, nothing on the mat though. http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5

While looking I found that incredibly Chicago has been doing caissons for over a century.

https://www.chipublib.org/blogs/post...g-foundations/

SolarWind · #**1073** Posted **Sep 18, 2018, 1:48 AM**

September 17, 2018

Abuilder0430 · #**1074** Posted **Sep 18, 2018, 1:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

My guess is they’ll be dusting off a Favelle Favco M1280d that built 150 N Riverside and One World Trade Center alike, which climbs through the core; no crane base required.

150 had a Favco M760D.

Abuilder0430 · #**1075** Posted **Sep 18, 2018, 2:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blahshead

River crane is looking locked and loaded.

Looks like this is the "newish" Manitowic MLC300 Can anyone confirm? Whats the capacity on the barge? I knew the 888 on the ringer at 150 had at least 650,000# capacity. But that was over rated for Amtrak purposes.

harryc · #**1076** Posted **Sep 18, 2018, 2:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abuilder0430

Looks like this is the "newish" Manitowic MLC300 Can anyone confirm? Whats the capacity on the barge? I knew the 888 on the ringer at 150 had at least 650,000# capacity. But that was over rated for Amtrak purposes.

Yes a MLC300 . Not sure who had the bright idea of putting a crane, made by a submarine manufacturer, on a barge labeled Poseidon , all we need now is Shelly Winters.

PittsburghPA · #**1077** Posted **Sep 18, 2018, 5:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

I tried finding the cubic yard mat of the Sears Tower and couldn't find it. Anyone know? I did find 72,000 cubic yards of concrete, for the total building, nothing on the mat though. http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5

While looking I found that incredibly Chicago has been doing caissons for over a century.

https://www.chipublib.org/blogs/post...g-foundations/

Great find bnk. Given the history of Chicago highrise building techniques I'd love to hear/learn more about when they started using caissons. I feel like Chicago would have had to have been early adopters to this technology? If anyone is well versed in this please share.

Skyguy_7 · #**1078** Posted **Sep 18, 2018, 12:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

September 17, 2018

Wasting no time going vertical! Very nice.

And thank you Abuilder on the correction "150 had a Favco M760D."

Art Vandelay AIA · #**1079** Posted **Sep 18, 2018, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA

Great find bnk. Given the history of Chicago highrise building techniques I'd love to hear/learn more about when they started using caissons. I feel like Chicago would have had to have been early adopters to this technology? If anyone is well versed in this please share.

This is the best summary I've found. It's crazy how recently people were hand digging caissons. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/vie...context=icchge

bnk · #**1080** Posted **Sep 18, 2018, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay AIA

This is the best summary I've found. It's crazy how recently people were hand digging caissons. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/vie...context=icchge

Great find but holey shit, that job must have made working in the stock yards a breeze. Its also incredible how long this process was used, with some hand digging into the mid 1960's.

The method of installing Hand Dug Caissons was one of back breaking labor, common sense, and pure ingenuity_ The work was perfonned under the risk of soil collapse, and the potential inflow of water and methane gas. The conunon procedure involved tongue and groove wood lagging installed and braced by iron rings to line the shaft and support unstable soils. Shovels and air spades were used to dig the clay, and small "derricks" were set up over each caisson, with a tripod and airdriven winch to hoist up the well buckets of spoil and lift the workmen in and out of the shafts. Typical practice was to dig the clay ill increments of 5'-4", then the section would be lined with the lagging boards like the staves of a barrel. Each 5'-4" segment of the shaft was called a "set".

Usually a crew of 3 men would work as a team to excavate the typical hand dug caisson, which was a minimum of 48" in diameter, allowing at least one man to work efficiently within the shaft. The team consisted of a headman, the dumper and a hand miner. The team was expected to dig 16 feet, or three "sets" of lagging, per 8 hour shift. Additional hand miners would be added if the shaft was large enough for more than I miner. This process was repeated until the required bearing depth on the hardpan was reached.

to this

Rock caissons for the Trump Tower (90 stories) in 2005 were designed and installed at 250 tsf; two years later the Aqua Building (80 stories) was built with the same design. Both of these structures have 10ft. diameter rock caissons grouped beneath their cores; each of which has a capacity of 35,000K.
Foundations for the proposed ISO-story Chicago Spire were installed in 2008 in a very efficient circular layout of 34 ten-ft. diameter rock caissons with a design bearing pressure of 300 tsf and a capacity of 42,500K; these are believed to be the highest capacity single deep foundation elements ever installed in the U.S