• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Common Feat - Destroying a Skyscraper

Status
Not open for further replies.
But why should we use the largest skyscraper rather than ones of different sizes? We could use it as the maximum upper limit of course, but otherwise it will give very exaggerated results.
 
Antvasima said:
But why should we use the largest skyscraper rather than ones of different sizes? We could use it as the maximum upper limit of course, but otherwise it will give very exaggerated results.
Click to expand...
I think he meant to use the materials for the destruction value, not literally use the Burj Khalifa for every calc.
 
Did Furudo really change their mind? When the thread was re-opened, I suggested using the ratio of steel from it, but they disagreed.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here's the comment.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
I think he meant to use the materials for the destruction value, not literally use the Burj Khalifa for every calc.
Click to expand...
Okay, so we use that building, but diminish the size to the average instead? Is it really very hard to find some building specifics for a more average sized skycraper, in New York for example, though?
 
Antvasima said:
Okay, so we use that building, but diminish the size to the average instead? Is it really very hard to find some building specifics for a more average sized skycraper, in New York for example, though?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, unless we can ask a construction engineer that works and lives there (Or one from Hong Kong, Tokyo or really, any city with a large number of skyscrapers) regarding the composition of building materials of a skyscraper, that seems to be the case, yes.
 
Hmm, that is very unfortunate. You would have to rescale the building material to a more average-sized skyscrapter though.
 
Antvasima said:
Hmm, that is very unfortunate. You would have to rescale the building material to a more average-sized skyscrapter though.
Click to expand...
I think that was the plan, yes?

Use the building composition percentages of the Burj Khalifa on a more average-sized skyscraper.

Though that'd still leaves behind one more problem.

We'd still need a mass value of the skyscraper to derive volume from for the materials percentages to be used. The percentage values on their own are useless.
 
Okay. I am afraid that I cannot help you with that part.
 
We've already had that information known and available for weeks...
Agnaa said:
Well, if the Burj Khalifa is a skyscraper with less steel than usual, we could probably use it as the low-end.

That means the calc would add 9.49% of the concrete's total weight, as the mass of steel involved, and calculate the destruction of that on top of the rest.
Click to expand...
We already have the concrete total weight with the calc that KLOL made.
 
Okay. That is good then.

So what do you currently need to do here?
 
I guess just add that to the current calc.
 
KLOL506 said:
Unfortunately, unless we can ask a construction engineer that works and lives there (Or one from Hong Kong, Tokyo or really, any city with a large number of skyscrapers) regarding the composition of building materials of a skyscraper, that seems to be the case, yes.
Click to expand...
Ik it ain't as trustworthy but how about asking around some architecture related subreddit? They seem to respond fast if the sub is active enough
 
Well...

Do we even have a standard for the base area to height ratio and the material hardness ratio to work with?

Any civil and structural engineering graduates able to help or just point out some easy to read handbooks?

Really thanks.
 
Jasonsith said:
Well...

Do we even have a standard for the base area to height ratio and the material hardness ratio to work with?

Any civil and structural engineering graduates able to help or just point out some easy to read handbooks?

Really thanks.
Click to expand...
How would that be incorporated into this calculation?
 
KLOL506 said:
I think that was the plan, yes?

Use the building composition percentages of the Burj Khalifa on a more average-sized skyscraper.

Though that'd still leaves behind one more problem.

We'd still need a mass value of the skyscraper to derive volume from for the materials percentages to be used. The percentage values on their own are useless.
Click to expand...
The problem with Burj Khalifa...is the fact it is a newer skyscaper.

Older, and thus most, skyscrapers have much more steel in them.
 
The Burj Khalifa being used is just a reference towards setting a baseline for "megatall" structures; which exceed 600m at least.
Megatall structures are a relatively modern form of building as well, which fits well with the material composition of Burj Khalifa.

I said nothing about using it for ALL skyscrapers, as most (and thus AVERAGE) skyscrapers, once again, have way more steel.
 
As I've repeatedly said, if you can find some other examples to use, we can use them. I already said that I'd be okay with using the Empire State Building's ratio of 1/6th. A much older and shorter building with a ratio that isn't too far off the Burj Khalifa's.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
The Burj Khalifa being used is just a reference towards setting a baseline for "megatall" structures; which exceed 600m at least.
Megatall structures are a relatively modern form of building as well, which fits well with the material composition of Burj Khalifa.

I said nothing about using it for ALL skyscrapers, as most (and thus AVERAGE) skyscrapers, once again, have way more steel.
Click to expand...
I see. Forgive me for the misunderstanding then.

Which "average" skyscraper do you propose we use then? Anything within the 150-200 m range?
 
I'll say the Empire State Building.
It is one of the older skyscapers which roughly has 1/6 of its mass in steel.

Which seems reasonable and fair, considering there are some skyscapers that can exceed 34% of their mass in steel. (Looking at you, Willis/Seers Tower), which is more than twice the steel composition of the Empire State Building.

I'm gonna say it is structural steel, which has a density of 7,850 kg/m3.
 
Last edited:
If so, here would be the values:

Mass of a skyscraper: 222,500 imperial tons; 201,814,058.957 kg
Density of structural steel: 7,850 kg/m3
Density of reinforced concrete: 2,500 kg/3
Mass Ratio: 1/6 steel, 5/6 concrete

Mass of steel: 201,814,058.957 x (1/6) = 33,635676.493 kg
Mass of concrete: 201,814,058.957 x (5/6) = 168,178,382.464 kg

Volume of steel: 4,284,799,553.225 cm3
Volume of concrete: 67,271,352,985.639 cm3

Frag (Steel): 891,238,307,070.882 joules
Frag (Concrete): 672,713,529,856.387 joules
Total: 1.56395e+12 joules, or 373.793 Tons of TNT (8-A)

V. Frag (Steel): 2.43591e+12 joules
V. Frag (Concrete): 4.11701e+12 joules
Total: 6.55292e+12 joules, or 1.56619 Kilotons of TNT (Low 7-C)

Pulv. (Steel [Average of 655 J/c3]): 2.80654e+12 joules
Pulv. (Concrete): 4.10355e+13 joules
Total: 4.3842e+13 joules, or 10.4785 Kilotons of TNT (7-C)

I can't find a vap. value for concrete, but vap. for the steel alone is: 2.61e+14 joules, or 62.383 Kilotons (7-C+)
 
Last edited:
Furudo_Erika said:
If so, here would be the values:

Mass of a skyscraper: 222,500,000 kg
Density of structural steel: 7,850 kg/m3
Density of reinforced concrete: 2,500 kg/3
Mass Ratio: 1/6 steel, 5/6 concrete

Mass of steel: 222,500,000 x (1/6) = 185,416,666.66666 kg
Mass of concrete: 222,500,000 x (5/6) = 37,083,333.33333 kg

Volume of steel: 4,723,991,507.431 cm3
Volume of concrete: 74,166,666,666.667 cm3

Frag (Steel): 982,590,233,546 joules
Frag (Concrete): 741,666,666,667 joules
Total: 1.7242569e+12 joules, or 412.107289726 Tons of TNT (8-A)

V. Frag (Steel): 2.6855892e+12 joules
V. Frag (Concrete): 4.539e+12 joules
Total: 7.2245892e+12 joules, or 1.72671826004 Kilotons of TNT (Low 7-C)

Pulv. (Steel [Average of 655 J/c3]): 3.0942144e+12 joules
Pulv. (Concrete): 4.5241667e+13 joules
Total: 4.8335881e+13 joules, or 11.5525529159 Kilotons of TNT (7-C)

I can't find a vap. value for concrete, but vap. for the steel alone is: 2.8776525e+14 joules, or 68.7775452842 Kilotons (7-C+)
Click to expand...
Vaporisation energy of concrete
= Energy to decompose concrete into granite from room temperature + extra energy to vaporise those heated granite

Should be easier now to calculate.









Just... Speaking of actual civil and structural engineering, I realise the material density (or converse of hollowness) of real life buildings and structures can be far lower (I.e. they are hollower than expected).
 
A little off topic, but perhaps the description for High 8-C should be changed. As it says "characters who can destroy large buildings such as skyscrapers", even though math says it is MUCH higher than High 8-C, even for frag.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
I'll say the Empire State Building.
It is one of the older skyscapers which roughly has 1/6 of its mass in steel.

Which seems reasonable and fair, considering there are some skyscapers that can exceed 34% of their mass in steel. (Looking at you, Willis/Seers Tower), which is more than twice the steel composition of the Empire State Building.

I'm gonna say it is structural steel, which has a density of 7,850 kg/m3.
Click to expand...
I am late, but the Empire State Building is over 400 meters tall.

Source in question: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/empire-state-building/261
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
If I not mistaken, don’t we need to factor in the height to destroy the entire building and not just parts of it being taken out and then fall apart?
Click to expand...
No, we just have to destroy the material that comprises the building. (Calcs for frag, v. frag, pulv, etc have like...NEVER used height in the calc. lol)
But to do that, we must find the composition of the building's materials; the ratio of steel and concrete.

Height is honestly only ever used for Potential Energy.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
No, we just have to destroy the material that comprises the building.
But to do that, we must find the composition of the building's materials; the ratio of steel and concrete.
Click to expand...
I gonna have to disagree here. When it comes to building destruction, we don’t tried specifically aim for destroying the material as well as the fact the material that made up the skyscrapers is what support the height of the skyscrapers as this also includes support pillars if memories served me right.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
I gonna have to disagree here. When it comes to building destruction, we don’t tried specifically aim for destroying the material as well as the material that made up the skyscrapers is what support the height of the skyscrapers as this also includes support pillars if memories served me right.
Click to expand...
I mean, even the sheer impact of a skyscraper toppling over is still quite high.

But this thread is for explicitly destroying the material that comprises it, not "destroying it" in general.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
No it doesn't lol.
The ENTIRE thread has ONLY been about destroying the material. Hell, even the new revision before this one has only been about material destruction.
Click to expand...
The OP did mentioned the size part in his initial questions.


  1. Why does this calc only give a melting value for the far higher estimate of skyscraper size?
  2. Why does this calc use two different estimates of skyscraper size, one of which is 29x higher than the other, without saying which one is the reference for this common feat? It has values almost 67x apart (with the highest frag one being 187x off what I think is most reasonable) despite meaning to be a common reference for a generic feat!
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
The OP did mentioned the size part in his initial question.


  1. Why does this calc only give a melting value for the far higher estimate of skyscraper size?
  2. Why does this calc use two different estimates of skyscraper size, one of which is 29x higher than the other, without saying which one is the reference for this common feat? It has values almost 67x apart (with the highest frag one being 187x off what I think is most reasonable) despite meaning to be a common reference for a generic feat!
Click to expand...
And when was size ever part of the new formula...? It wasn't. That's why it's ONLY material destruction now. Skyscrapers vary in height and mass WAY too much for size to be really be part of it.

Also please, you're distracting me.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
And when was size ever part of the new formula...? It wasn't. That's why it's ONLY material destruction now.

Also please, you're distracting me.
Click to expand...
Because the mass does included height and stuff for the building. After all, how do you get mass? The volume and density. Volume cover for the height x width x length.
 
Last edited:
So you are talking 2 sets of values:

One for minimal energy required in destroying the pillars to make a skyscraper crumble by itself, the other is the energy required to fragment the whole building in one go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Agnaa
References for Common Feats Re-organization
Replies
22
Views
1K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
Fallen_Angelicx
  • Locked
About Crushing Skulls
Replies
10
Views
1K
KingTempest
KingTempest
Armorchompy
Common Feat Removal - Digging up from the Underground
Replies
23
Views
2K
Armorchompy
Armorchompy
SeijiSetto
Earth-Quaking, But Literally
Replies
13
Views
1K
SeijiSetto
SeijiSetto
MaybeWantsToEdit
Can this calc be used?
Replies
6
Views
1K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Back
Top