you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Typically, in construction, one would wrap steel in concrete. But the concrete isn’t for vertical structural integrity. Just because concrete is used in construction doesn’t mean the buildings weren’t nearly identical to every other steel building ever constructed that never collapsed. It’s in the reports.

This is very basic level logic and honestly a bizarre question.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

concrete is great in compression. Vertical structural integrity is concrete's forte.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is correct.

Concrete performs poorly under tension. Steel reinforcement is added to improve it's tensile performance.

This can be a problem for structural longevity. The water which is trapped in concrete will eventually rust the steel. Steel expands when it rusts, and applies tensile forces to the concrete, and damages it from within.

So, I doubt that the support columns were encased in steel. The architects/engineers would easily identify this failure mode, and
Unless it was intentionally designed in (which is unlikely).

The concrete foundation is almost certainly reinforced concrete, as it should only see compression force.