Common Feat - Destroying a Skyscraper

[Agnaa]

It's the tallest manmade structure on Earth, that should already tell you why it's a massive outlier.

It's not that far away from the Empire State Building's steel percentage, both of which are lower than another example Furudo gave.

The Empire State Building weighs 331,000 metric tons, one would have to find the composition of all the materials of it first.

Do we really need to find all the materials? I think we'd just need the ones that are in substantial amounts, and have substantially different destruction values, both of which steel meets.

The average skyscraper is defined as being 100-150 m tall but there's no officially accepted definition, but the Empire State Building is well over 3-4x those values.

If you wanna find another example skyscraper that we can pull steel percentages from, that'd work fine with me.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

It's the tallest manmade structure on Earth, that should already tell you why it's a massive outlier.


The Empire State Building weighs 331,000 metric tons, one would have to find the composition of all the materials of it first. And even then, it's way too tall to be considered average.

The average skyscraper is defined as being 100-150 m tall but there's no officially accepted definition, but the Empire State Building is well over 3-4x those values.

The size/mass of the skyscraper isn't what matters here, rather the ratio of materials.
Which yes, does fluctuate from building to building, though I disagreed with the ratios for Burj Khalifa because it isn't really "the average skyscraper".

Also, the Burj Khalifa is one of the newer skyscrapers, which utilizes more aluminum as well.
While older skyscrapers use more structural steel and concrete. So it's also a matter of "when it was built" which also defines what materials it is made of.

 

[KLOL506]

It's the tallest manmade structure on Earth, that should already tell you why it's a massive outlier.

It's not that far away from the Empire State Building's steel percentage, both of which are lower than another example Furudo gave.

Well, it's 500K metric tons so you'd need to find the percentage compositon of all the values that make it up.

The Empire State Building weighs 331,000 metric tons, one would have to find the composition of all the materials of it first.

Do we really need to find all the materials? I think we'd just need the ones that are in substantial amounts, and have substantially different destruction values, both of which steel meets.

For maximum accuracy it is preferred if all the materials in the building are counted for.

The average skyscraper is defined as being 100-150 m tall but there's no officially accepted definition, but the Empire State Building is well over 3-4x those values.

If you wanna find another example skyscraper that we can pull steel percentages from, that'd work fine with me.

Doubt most buildings even have a weight listing given to them in the first place, so percentage composition values would be even harder to find for them.

I'd normally ask @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan about it but uh... he's been inactive as of late.

 

[KLOL506]

The size/mass of the skyscraper isn't what matters here, rather the ratio of materials.
Which yes, does fluctuate from building to building, though I disagreed with the ratios for Burj Khalifa because it isn't really "the average skyscraper".

Also true, which is why we need to find the skyscraper that is average enough to meet the common feats standards.

Also, the Burj Khalifa is one of the newer skyscrapers, which utilizes more aluminum as well.
While older skyscrapers use more structural steel and concrete. So it's also a matter of "when it was built"

Usually when they destroy a skyscraper it wouldn't be of the modern nature, but of the more classic "steel and concrete" composition, so there's that too.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Usually when they destroy a skyscraper it wouldn't be of the modern nature, but of the more classic "steel and concrete" composition, so there's that too.

Which is why I disagreed with Burj Khalifa, due to it being more modern (Also the fact it is huge).

Instead, I suggest something older, like the Empire State Building which was opened in 1931, or Willis/Sears Tower, which finished construction in 1973.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

It's the tallest manmade structure on Earth, that should already tell you why it's a massive outlier.

It's not that far away from the Empire State Building's steel percentage, both of which are lower than another example Furudo gave.

The Empire State Building has like, twice the amount of steel composition tho- (In a ratio, not raw weight)

Roughly 1/6 of the Empire State Building's weight is steel

 

[Agnaa]

Well, it's 500K metric tons so you'd need to find the percentage compositon of all the values that make it up.

As I quoted, Furudo says that some sources say it has 55k tons of steel, and others say it has 39k tons, but neither of these sources were linked so I can't evaluate which is more reliable.

For maximum accuracy it is preferred if all the materials in the building are counted for.

Yeah, if that can happen it'd be great, it just seems unlikely at this point.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

We actually do use 222,500 imperial tons for the calc in the References...which, believe it or not Willis/Sears Tower is that exact weight.
Willis/Sears Tower is ALSO 222,500 tons.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/sears_tower.html

Willis Tower Fun Facts | Fun Facts for Children

What do you know about Skydeck Chicago at Willis Tower? Learn all about one of the tallest towers in the world then plan your visit!

theskydeck.com

Amazon Sign-In

About Willis Tower

Information about visiting the tower, contact, and history.

www.willistower.com

Under this same link, it says it is 222,500 tons, and 76,000 of that is steel alone.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

So if we're ALREADY using 222,500 tons in the calc, why not actually USE a skyscraper that is that exact weight?

 

[Agnaa]

The Empire State Building uses less steel than that, despite weighing more.

With how variable this sort of thing seems to be, I'd rather use a low-end, rather than whichever building we first notice has the same total weight as our assumption.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Though, where exactly does the "222,500 tons" even come from?
"An average skyscraper"? ...Well, what IS "an average skyscraper"?

There's tens of, if not hundreds of thousands in the world of varying heights and weights, how exactly would you get an "average"?
That "222,500 tons" has to based on some sort of data/example

 

[Agnaa]

The source is 3 kinda shoddy links provided in the calc itself.

 

[Arceus0x]

tbh this should have a high rise building end as well

 

[Arceus0x]

The source is 3 kinda shoddy links provided in the calc itself.

shoddy like a melody in my head

ahem

Basically buildings become skyscrapers once they hit 150m

 

[KLOL506]

Links I found on google since there aren't any other links that discuss mass.

Maybe ask a construction expert and "waterboard" him over the average values?

 

[Furudo_Erika]

And again on why I disagree with the Burj Khalifa...
"It is a more modern skyscraper which uses different material ratios and newer materials such as aluminum"

The majority of skyscrapers use more steel and concrete due to being older. Which I rather use the majority as a data set than a very limited amount of elements.

 

[KLOL506]

And again on why I disagree with the Burj Khalifa...
"It is a more modern skyscraper which uses different material ratios and newer materials such as aluminum"

The majority of skyscrapers use more steel and concrete due to being older. Which I rather use the majority as a data set than a very limited amount of elements.

But... I'm not even recommending the Burj Khalifa be used tho

 

[Furudo_Erika]

But... I'm not even recommending the Burj Khalifa be used tho

I know, I'm just saying it is too modern of an example to be used.

Instead, I believe in using more of an average, especially if we're already using the implied "average weight of a skyscraper"
Which, a better average can be found by a larger data set; aka...older skyscrapers

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Also when people think of skyscrapers, they often picture a large building made of steel and concrete.

Also, due to the much larger number of older skyscrapers...odds are, if one gets destroyed, it is far more likely to be an older one made of more steel and concrete.

 

[Jasonsith]

As mentioned, dense cities like Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei and Hong Kong actually get a lot of skyscrapers.

Maybe we should focus on buildings there.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Maybe, though still older skyscrapers as they make up the majority of skyscrapers globally; thus it is much more likely if one of those are destroyed via much greater odds of being destroyed by probability.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Wikiwand - List of tallest structures in Tokyo

Tokyo is the most populated of Japan's 47 prefectures. In Tokyo, there are 53 buildings and structures that stand taller than 187 metres. The tallest structure in the prefecture is Tokyo Skytree, a lattice tower that rises 634 metres, which was completed in 2012. It also stands as the tallest...

www.wikiwand.com

Wikiwand - List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong

Hong Kong has over 9,000 high-rise buildings, of which over 4,000 are skyscrapers standing taller than 100 m (328 ft) with 554 buildings above 150 m (492 ft), according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. The tallest building in Hong Kong is the 108-storey International Commerce...

www.wikiwand.com

Wikiwand - List of tallest buildings in Taipei

This list of tallest buildings in Taipei ranks skyscrapers in the Taiwanese capital region of Greater Taipei by height, which includes the municipalities of Taipei City and New Taipei City, hereafter simply referred to as Taipei. As of March 2024, Taipei contains 35 buildings above 150 metres in...

www.wikiwand.com

Wikiwand - List of tallest buildings in Seoul

This list of tallest buildings in Seoul ranks skyscrapers in the South Korean capital city of Seoul by height. As of March 2024, this list contains 126 buildings that are 150 m tall or higher, of which only 82 are recognized by the Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

www.wikiwand.com

Here's lists for tall buildings

 

[KLOL506]

Maybe make both a classic and modern variant end?

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Maybe make both a classic and modern variant end?

That could work, I suppose.

It actually would help a lot if the setting is taking place in the past, present, or near future.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

According to this site, each glass panel in the Burj Khalifa weighs 362kg? And there's ~24,000 of them?
Well, that makes 8,688,000kg (8,688 tonnes) for glass.
(The "500,000 tons" likely refers to short tons, which Burj Khalifa is 500,000 short tons)

Could always make a more extreme end as well, I suppose. As like a baseline for "metatall skyscrapers"

 

[KLOL506]

According to this site, each glass panel in the Burj Khalifa weighs 362kg? And there's ~24,000 of them?
Well, that makes 8,688,000kg (8,688 tonnes) for glass.
(The "500,000 tons" likely refers to short tons, which Burj Khalifa is 500,000 short tons)

Nah, it says tonnes.

Could always make a more extreme end as well, I suppose. As like a baseline for "megatall skyscrapers"

MEGATALL

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Nah, it says tonnes.


MEGATALL

Yes, that's actually a term used for very tall structures, lol.
"Supertall" = 300m+
"Megatall" = 600m+

 

[Furudo_Erika]

There's only four completed "megatall" skyscapers:

Burj Khalifa at 828m in Dubai, UAE
Merdeka 118 at 678.9m in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Shanghai Tower at 632m in Shanghai, China
Makkah Royal Clock Tower at 601m in Mecca, Saudi Arabia

 

[KLOL506]

There's only four completed "megatall" skyscapers:

Burj Khalifa at 828m in Dubai, UAE
Merdeka 118 at 678.9m in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Shanghai Tower at 632m in Shanghai, China
Makkah Royal Clock Tower at 601m in Mecca, Saudi Arabia

Last one is an obvious no-no for reasons we can't say for safety reasons because of course.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Last one is an obvious no-no for reasons we can't say for safety reasons because of course.

Shanghai Tower is probably not the one to use either, as it's actually the heaviest, and thus is made of the most material; ~850,000 tons
I also can't find the weight of Merdeka 118 anywhere-

So, the only other option is Burj Khalifa I guess.

 

[Antvasima]

Last one is an obvious no-no for reasons we can't say for safety reasons because of course.

Do you refer to the conflict about it between the Saudi and Turkish governments?

 

[KLOL506]

Do you refer to the conflict about it between the Saudi and Turkish governments?

Worse. Imagine portraying anything being blown up in the holiest site of Islam (Not that it hasn't been done before in fiction but Mission Impossible only showed it as fake edited bombings to lure in a wanted criminal, anything more serious tho will pull up some serious heat)

 

[Antvasima]

Oh. Right. Good catch. Sorry about that and never mind then.

 

[Dereck03]

Bump... It's seems we need to finish this to continue with this another revision.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah...

 

[KLOL506]

Anybody figure out the right percentages to use yet?

 

[Agnaa]

I have no idea. I gave multiple suggestions but @Furudo_Erika was against them. Furudo gave multiple suggestions too.

Can some calc members just lay down a decision?

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the conclusions here so far, and which members should I call for in order to conclude this thread?

 

[KLOL506]

So what are the conclusions here so far, and which members should I call for in order to conclude this thread?

Furudo_Erika said we're pretty much left with using the destruction value of Burj Khalifa in lack of better options.