Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I understand. I wasn't proposing the entire collapse - I imagine the variables in such a scenario would be literally billions, beyond the processing power of modern computers.
I'm simply talking the initial moment of impact, when the upper intact section of each tower came in contact with the first floor of the lower intact section of each tower.
Essentially, I suppose, what I'm referring to is the collapse of the first intact floor, rather than the collapse of the 92 (WTC1) or 76 (WTC2) floors below that.
-Gumboot
Bazant & Zhou (2002) and Bazant & Verdure (2006) examine the energy requirements for collapse progression. A summary from the 2006 paper:
(His progressive collapse theory follows that intro.)The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4x larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account (Bažant and Zhou 2002a). This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou (2002a) to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story (or even 0.5 m). It was also observed that this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous. The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top.
Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that the WTC towers had to fall the way they did, due to gravity alone. However, a theory describing the progressive collapse dynamics beyond the initial trigger, with the WTC as a paradigm, could nevertheless be very useful for other purposes, especially for learning from demolitions. It could also help to clear up misunderstanding (and thus to dispel the myth of planted explosives).
Zdenek Bazant responds to G.P. Cherepanov's critique
Greening's paper on the Tower Collapses presents calculations that are mostly easy for a mathematical dummy like me to follow. (I do think he overestimates the mass of the upper portions of the buildings.)
On page 8 Greening calculates the kinetic energy of the upper portion of WTC 1 to be 23.4 x 10^8 Joules, with 3.3% of that lost to heat, and WTC 2 to be 48.4 x 10^8 Joules, with 6.7% lost to heat.
.