OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[JSanderO]

Mr Butz,
I did read/ skim much of the report... lots of the addenda... but perhaps you want to link to the money quotes for readers.

What is high temp "column creep"?

A quick google shows no articles written before the event or back in the 70s when the towers were designed.

Did you learn about high temperature column creep in engineering school?

This was written about it in 2011:

"One of the critical factors affecting the strength of steel columns at elevated temperatures is the influence of material creep. Under fire conditions, steel columns can exhibit creep buckling, a phenomenon in which the critical buckling load for a column depends not only on slenderness and temperature, but also on the duration of applied load. Although material creep and consequently the phenomenon of creep buckling can significantly impact the safety of steel columns subjected to fire, they have received relatively little research attention, and are not currently explicitly considered in code-based design formula for columns at elevated temperatures, such as those in the Eurocode 3 or in the AISC Specification.


Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171(401)254"

 

[WilliamSeger]

I sense that Leslie Robertson understands what happened. You can see it in his expression when he discusses the tragedy. I don't even think he is in a political position to do say anything other than ....he was just doing his job... which he was.

But historians have no obligation other than to tell the truth about what happened.

And here we see why being misled by ROOSD should be an issue.

 

[JSanderO]

Mr Butz,
I did read/ skim much of the report... lots of the addenda... but perhaps you want to link to the money quotes for readers.

What is high temp "column creep"?

A quick google shows no articles written before the event or back in the 70s when the towers were designed.

Did you learn about high temperature column creep in engineering school?

This was written about it in 2011:

"One of the critical factors affecting the strength of steel columns at elevated temperatures is the influence of material creep. Under fire conditions, steel columns can exhibit creep buckling, a phenomenon in which the critical buckling load for a column depends not only on slenderness and temperature, but also on the duration of applied load. Although material creep and consequently the phenomenon of creep buckling can significantly impact the safety of steel columns subjected to fire, they have received relatively little research attention, and are not currently explicitly considered in code-based design formula for columns at elevated temperatures, such as those in the Eurocode 3 or in the AISC Specification.

Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171(401)254"

++++

But you do and you are an engineer so YOU can do some maths...

Which columns do you think experienced high temperature column creep? Do you need the column specs? Here ya go:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120429170736/http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

Which do you think would "occur" first?

a - high temperature column creep
b - buckling of the bracing beams?
c - shearing of the beam splices
d - elongation of the core bracing beams (displacement laterally or shearing of connections)

Or do this happen simultaneously?
Where in the core do you expect to find high temperature column creep?
How do you determine the fuel load?
Was the fire proofing knocked off of the OOS trusses and or the core steal columns and braces?

What is your initiation vision?

 

[Newtons Bit]

It is possible to build a mechanical floor with a mass deversion system that could shed, a falling mass the problem is the weight, the restricted access, and the cost.
I built a model of such a device.

And what happens when the collapse starts just below this mass diversion system?

 

[JSanderO]

And here we see why being misled by ROOSD should be an issue.

Excuse me?

Being misled? What is the "mislead" about ROOSD? Be specific.

Readers are waiting for answers about high temperature column creep and whether you learned about it in engineering classes or whether you think Leslie Roberston considered it or the firm who designed the fire protection suppression systems.

You're a math guy... do you consider the columns under normal / static conditions to be slender? too slender? The unbraced length was less than 12'.

I am going to assume you can't calculate high temperature column creep in the WTC core columns. Can you confirm or deny this? I can't and was hoping some of the engineers on this forum could. Mr Bit? Basque? Ryan? (oops he's gone)...Mr Beachy.... anyone wanna take a shot at high temperature column creep calcs?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Mr Butz,
I did read/ skim much of the report... lots of the addenda... but perhaps you want to link to the money quotes for readers.

What is high temp "column creep"?

A quick google shows no articles written before the event or back in the 70s when the towers were designed.

Did you learn about high temperature column creep in engineering school?

This was written about it in 2011:

"One of the critical factors affecting the strength of steel columns at elevated temperatures is the influence of material creep. Under fire conditions, steel columns can exhibit creep buckling, a phenomenon in which the critical buckling load for a column depends not only on slenderness and temperature, but also on the duration of applied load. Although material creep and consequently the phenomenon of creep buckling can significantly impact the safety of steel columns subjected to fire, they have received relatively little research attention, and are not currently explicitly considered in code-based design formula for columns at elevated temperatures, such as those in the Eurocode 3 or in the AISC Specification.


Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171(401)254"

Try reading it again. This time with some comprehension.

its not possible to have a "vision" of what's going on, IMHO. For something this complex, it would be necessary to do an Ansys analysis or fea. There are just too many things going on to be able to do it in your head.

It's fine to be curious and to propose alternatives. But to defend your thoughts and to criticize others work to the degree that you do shows a level of Dumning-Krueger Syndrome that I've rarely seen before.

 

[beachnut]

Excuse me?

Being misled? What is the "mislead" about ROOSD? Be specific.

Readers are waiting for answers about high temperature column creep and whether you learned about it in engineering classes or whether you think Leslie Roberston considered it or the firm who designed the fire protection suppression systems.

You're a math guy... do you consider the columns under normal / static conditions to be slender? too slender? The unbraced length was less than 12'.

I am going to assume you can't calculate high temperature column creep in the WTC core columns. Can you confirm or deny this? I can't and was hoping some of the engineers on this forum could. Mr Bit? Basque? Ryan? (oops he's gone)...Mr Beachy.... anyone wanna take a shot at high temperature column creep calcs?

You want the 1D math, or what? It is sad MT makes fun of science, and models.
There is no purpose to study the collapse, "we" have knowledge of the structure and what it takes to destroy it. If you wish to study the flood, then do it, but keep it to yourself, stop the tons of BS which would destroy any building listening to you or reading MT book.

There is no purpose, and the BS you now hide behind is the initiation.

You could have avoided not understanding why the WTC collapsed at the speed it did by doing a simple momentum model, and come up with 12.08 seconds in a few minutes, thus avoiding being on the Patriots who question 911, and x-AE911T disciple.

oops model means nothing, except MT collected the same photos we all have, the same videos we all have and studied gravity collapse which he said was an illusion - is it still an illusion; no it is a obsession so he can make weak personal attacks on others with an off topic conclusion, a lie.

In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.

The result of the oops model; more BS.
Where is the technical part of the oops model? I guess the t part of talk is confusing some.

What is the purpose of studying the collapse.
What is the conclusion of the oops model.
Why can't you summarize it.
Because this is easier.

Now off on a tangent of building reform, where you want the designers to anticipate any stupid thing man can come up with to destroy buildings...

Is three feet of sagging acceptable in a fire fought, where fires not fought due to a terrorists act is not acceptable when steel fails in fire as we all know it does? Is steel the super never fail stuff? In a fire, you do what? Say the building can't fall like Ross, or do you Run?

Better go on your reform for all buildings...

In 911 truth land this can't happen, steel can't fail in little office fires. Is this something you need to hunt down the structural engineer and put him on trial?
Wait, the building did not collapse, we can move back in tomorrow, your desk is at the low point of the sagging... one meridian plaza

What changes to code did the oops model come up with?

The ESB failed to stop a little plane, the WTC could stop the planes on 911 if they were going 180 mph, maybe 250 mph; the ESB would be smashed up in a 200 mph impact, with fires like the WTC; the WTC fire would be all over the side, plane falling to the ground; can you do the math?

 

[Major_Tom]

I think there is a lot of "revisionism" going on in history. I don't think anyone can dispute this. What seems to be the recurring theme... is that some special interest (person(s), corporation, industry, institution etc.) benefited or escaped responsibility or accountability.

It seems winning is more important than fairness, accuracy ethics. Winning is usually measured by power and material wealth.

Life goes on and not much is changing about how the world turns. Look at the lies which got us to attack Iraq and has anyone or group of institution been held accountable? It's more of a joke... except that probably hundreds of thousands of people and trillions of dollars of property were trashed. Did anyone or group benefit from Iraq or was everyone a loser?

So true, but for some reason when discussing 'trashed lives' some people refer only to counting the dead bodies (and they even do a poor job keeping count). When the living are also considered, and the physically and emotionally scarred, the numbers are staggering.

Sunder is no Richard Feyman!

No, he is not. He certainly isn't going to challenge institutional thinking.


On the question of mathematics which both you and Ozeco recently mentioned, earlier in the thread I quoted Richard Feynman on what he thought mathematics really was. My post was removed. I posted it again and my posts was again removed. Interesting.

He stated that "Mathematics is looking for patterns".


It is highly illuminating to look into quotes on the subject of mathematics by both Richard Feynman and Benoit Mandelbrot (father of fractal geometry).

In the case of Mandelbrot, a mathematician, he was ridiculed quite openly for suggesting fractal geometry is a type of mathematics. Some mathematicians referred to them as "pretty pictures" and nothing more when the ideas were first introduced. Look at some of these comments by Mandelbrot about his early experiences with the existing academic 'establishment' of his day....


Mandelbrot:


'Until a few years ago, the topics in my Ph.D. were unfashionable, but they are very popular today."


"I was in an industrial laboratory because academia found me unsuitable."


"Smooth shapes are very rare in the wild but extremely important in the ivory tower and the factory."


"Unfortunately, the world has not been designed for the convenience of mathematicians."


"I always felt that science as the preserve of people from Oxbridge or Ivy League universities — and not for the common mortal — was a very bad idea."


"I think it's very important to have both cartoons and more realistic structures."


"For much of my life there was no place where the things I wanted to investigate were of interest to anyone."


>>>>>>>>>>>


The 'study of pattern' or 'recording of pattern' within the WTC collapse progressions is much more 'patterned' than anything the latter Bazant papers BV, BL, and BLGB could ever provide. Such trivializing of the WTC collapse progression processes as seen in BV, BL, and BLGB has resulted in a series of quite humorous and tragic instances of meme replication seen in academic papers, journalism, descriptions available on the internet, and also seen within WTC representations within popular culture.

I've documented a fair portion of those instances within part 6 of my book:

6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication.


It doesn't take a genius to see that many people have a history of being quite confused about the WTC collapse progression mechanisms if one would actually read what is written about them through multiple channels (including this forum).

 

[Major_Tom]

You want the 1D math, or what? It is sad MT makes fun of science, and models.
There is no purpose to study the collapse, "we" have knowledge of the structure and what it takes to destroy it. If you wish to study the flood, then do it, but keep it to yourself, stop the tons of BS which would destroy any building listening to you or reading MT book.

There is no purpose, and the BS you now hide behind is the initiation.

I love you, my friend.

I couldn't invent a character like you which expresses so much of what I write about if I tried.

 

[JSanderO]

Try reading it again. This time with some comprehension.

its not possible to have a "vision" of what's going on, IMHO. For something this complex, it would be necessary to do an Ansys analysis or fea. There are just too many things going on to be able to do it in your head.

It's fine to be curious and to propose alternatives. But to defend your thoughts and to criticize others work to the degree that you do shows a level of Dumning-Krueger Syndrome that I've rarely seen before.

I asked you to do an analysis of one column which experienced high temperature column creep.

I didn't ask or expect you to envision a complex process over time... one thing leading to another or two or three leading to another or two or three...

But you dodged the questions which you seem to do when I ask specific questions.

I know you think think fires weakened the structure and it collapsed. I agree!

But unlike you (apparently) I have some intellectual curiosity to understand the process... and less so the math. You seem averse to even tackle one single column failing from high temperature column creep.

I know you have to make assumptions about what was burning, how hot it was, how long it burned... and so on... MAKE your assumptions. NO problem. If the top collapsed from high temperature column creep then one good example might be extrapolated to enough columns to explain the collapse.

Go for it!

Do you think this requires an unbraced length of more than 12' for the a column on floor 95-98? or would the buckling occur for the less than 12'?

 

[JSanderO]

Beachy...
What am I hiding behind? Could you elaborate on that?

Can you do high temperature column creep analysis of a column? Do you think high temperature column creep caused the towers to collapse?

 

[beachnut]

So true, but for some reason when discussing 'trashed lives' some people refer only to counting the dead bodies (and they even do a poor job keeping count). When the living are also considered, and the physically and emotionally scarred, the numbers are staggering.






No, he is not. He certainly isn't going to challenge institutional thinking.


On the question of mathematics which both you and Ozeco recently mentioned, earlier in the thread I quoted Richard Feynman on what he thought mathematics really was. My post was removed. I posted it again and my posts was again removed. Interesting.

He stated that "Mathematics is looking for patterns".


It is highly illuminating to look into quotes on the subject of mathematics by both Richard Feynman and Benoit Mandelbrot (father of fractal geometry).

In the case of Mandelbrot, a mathematician, he was ridiculed quite openly for suggesting fractal geometry is a type of mathematics. Some mathematicians referred to them as "pretty pictures" and nothing more when the ideas were first introduced. Look at some of these comments by Mandelbrot about his early experiences with the existing academic 'establishment' of his day....


Mandelbrot:


'Until a few years ago, the topics in my Ph.D. were unfashionable, but they are very popular today."


"I was in an industrial laboratory because academia found me unsuitable."


"Smooth shapes are very rare in the wild but extremely important in the ivory tower and the factory."


"Unfortunately, the world has not been designed for the convenience of mathematicians."


"I always felt that science as the preserve of people from Oxbridge or Ivy League universities — and not for the common mortal — was a very bad idea."


"I think it's very important to have both cartoons and more realistic structures."


"For much of my life there was no place where the things I wanted to investigate were of interest to anyone."


>>>>>>>>>>>


The 'study of pattern' or 'recording of pattern' within the WTC collapse progressions is much more 'patterned' than anything the latter Bazant papers BV, BL, and BLGB could ever provide. Such trivializing of the WTC collapse progression processes as seen in BV, BL, and BLGB has resulted in a series of quite humorous and tragic instances of meme replication seen in academic papers, journalism, descriptions available on the internet, and also seen within WTC representations within popular culture.

I've documented a fair portion of those instances within part 6 of my book:

6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication.


It doesn't take a genius to see that many people have a history of being quite confused about the WTC collapse progression mechanisms if one would actually read what is written about them through multiple channels (including this forum).

This is your oops model, overflowing with BS.

There is no confusion of the collapse. Like you NIST, me, you, they, all have access to the video, photos, etc. Thus your model remains purpose free BS.

Your best work is "smart idiots", and "just plain idiots".

Did your model wake you up to drop CD, your "gravity collapse is an illusion" meme?

After all that work on the model, you conclude...

In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.

Which part of the model is technical? Watching the video?

Ending work with a lie, is very technical.

Beachy...
What am I hiding behind? Could you elaborate on that?

Can you do high temperature column creep analysis of a column? Do you think high temperature column creep caused the towers to collapse?

Can you?

Hiding behind this, a Gish gallop of tangential weak BS. How does creep work in the goal free study of a collapse?

looks like not much has changed...

"I am not satisfied with the explanation given. The explanation raises more questions than it answers."

Grasping on to BS to keep the lack of satisfaction going.
There is nothing wrong with improving safety in buildings; does a study of a collapse after initiation contribute? How does it, and how did this model make recommendation for change?

What is the purpose of the model for a collapse?
Please summarize the model conclusion?
Where is the technical stuff for the model?
When did you drop CD, was it due to the model?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Excuse me?

Being misled? What is the "mislead" about ROOSD? Be specific.

It appears to me you think Robertson should take the blame for designing a building with open office space, but neither you nor the guy who coined "ROOSD" can tell me why open office space is a design flaw. Apparently because of ROOSD, you imagine that a conventional grid with much stronger floor connections would have stopped a runaway collapse, and apparently you imagine that Robertson is ashamed for not having done that instead of OOS. But surely, history can hold him accountable, huh.

And then, you don't want to hear what's seriously wrong with your imaginary scenario? Yes, I do believe that you have been misled.

Readers are waiting for answers about high temperature column creep and whether you learned about it in engineering classes or whether you think Leslie Roberston considered it or the firm who designed the fire protection suppression systems.

You're a math guy... do you consider the columns under normal / static conditions to be slender? too slender? The unbraced length was less than 12'.

I believe you are confusing me with Mr. Butz, but for the record, I learned about creep buckling and several other things from Professor Bazant. It's a shame you haven't taken his online lecture series. I wasn't aware of creep on 9/11, but I did know that just because the towers survived the initial crashes, that didn't mean they were stable. My initial thought was that wind had triggered the collapses, but now I think that slow creep is a better explanation.

 

[JSanderO]

It appears to me you think Robertson should take the blame for designing a building with open office space, but neither you nor the guy who coined "ROOSD" can tell me why open office space is a design flaw. Apparently because of ROOSD, you imagine that a conventional grid with much stronger floor connections would have stopped a runaway collapse, and apparently you imagine that Robertson is ashamed for not having done that instead of OOS. But surely, history can hold him accountable, huh.

And then, you don't want to hear what's seriously wrong with your imaginary scenario? Yes, I do believe that you have been misled.



I believe you are confusing me with Mr. Butz, but for the record, I learned about creep buckling and several other things from Professor Bazant. It's a shame you haven't taken his online lecture series. I wasn't aware of creep on 9/11, but I did know that just because the towers survived the initial crashes, that didn't mean they were stable. My initial thought was that wind had triggered the collapses, but now I think that slow creep is a better explanation.

Hang on Sir... Mr. Roberston and partners own the design innovations. I never said anything about BLAME and I never said that this was an inadequate design. But I do assert that it led to a run away total collapse which I sense would not have happened with other design schemes... which I am sure would have been much more costly and not met the requirements of PANYNJ.

I can't even get anyone, it seems on this forum to give an opinion on where the grid design was more survivable.

Who do you think misled me?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hang on Sir... Mr. Roberston and partners own the design innovations. I never said anything about BLAME and I never said that this was an inadequate design. But I do assert that it led to a run away total collapse which I sense would not have happened with other design schemes... which I am sure would have been much more costly and not met the requirements of PANYNJ.

I can't even get anyone, it seems on this forum to give an opinion on where the grid design was more survivable.

Who do you think misled me?

I've told you at least once (probably many times) that a grid structure would be weaker than WTC design. The ESB in particular, with riveted connections would be particularly susceptible.

 

[JSanderO]

I've told you at least once (probably many times) that a grid structure would be weaker than WTC design. The ESB in particular, with riveted connections would be particularly susceptible.

Assuming the same connection type.... are you saying that a grided structure would completely collapse and a hull and core with long span column free would not? Or they both would collapse the same?

 

[beachnut]

Hang on Sir... Mr. Roberston and partners own the design innovations. I never said anything about BLAME and I never said that this was an inadequate design. But I do assert that it led to a run away total collapse which I sense would not have happened with other design schemes... which I am sure would have been much more costly and not met the requirements of PANYNJ.

I can't even get anyone, it seems on this forum to give an opinion on where the grid design was more survivable.

Who do you think misled me?

Why can't a other building collapse? Did you mean to imply CD can't work. Did you mean to say ESB can't have a gravity collapse if the upper section fails? How can you prove that BS? Source. Evidence. Data, etc please.

 

[JSanderO]

Why can't a other building collapse? Did you mean to imply CD can't work. Did you mean to say ESB can't have a gravity collapse if the upper section fails? How can you prove that BS? Source. Evidence. Data, etc please.

I don't mean to imply anything. I mean to suggest that grid schemes... the concept rejected for the twin towers might not collapse completely... UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES that Hull and Core would.

I don't know how to engineer CD except the few youtubes I've seen.

I see no evidence of CD on 9/11.

 

[JSanderO]

I am barely interested in this discussion at this point... it's like beating a dead horse.

Thank you very much!

 

[DGM]

Hang on Sir... Mr. Roberston and partners own the design innovations. I never said anything about BLAME and I never said that this was an inadequate design. But I do assert that it led to a run away total collapse which I sense would not have happened with other design schemes... which I am sure would have been much more costly and not met the requirements of PANYNJ.

JSanderO, Please read your statement 10 times to yourself and explain how you're not placing the blame on Mr Robertson. Unless your claiming the PANYNJ altered the design or constructions to fit their needs, the blame you suggest has only one place to go.