Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[dtugg]

Heiwa, do you understand why nobody takes you seriously? I am not even sure if you are being serious when you post here. For your sake, I hope you are an elaborate troll. The implications otherwise aren't very good.

 

[alexi_drago]

Heiwa, do you understand why nobody takes you seriously? I am not even sure if you are being serious when you post here. For your sake, I hope you are an elaborate troll. The implications otherwise aren't very good.

There is no way that anyone who really thinks you can compare the behaviour of buildings to sponges, pizza boxes or ships is an engineer of any sort.

 

[MIKILLINI]

But I am happy to have found a new Heiwa type experiment that should convince my fellow engineers what happens when you drop a structure on a similar, but bigger piece, of structure. Try to destroy a sponge by dropping another sponge on it. Actually WTC1 upper part has all the charcteristics of a sponge (consisting of strong elastic columns, weak elastic floors and plenty of holes (air)), i.e. not very rigid and definitely not homogeneous.

Sponges???
Did you soak them in water to resemble extra weight of an office multiplied by the number of offices?

Or perhaps you only did this with dry sponges?

 

[leftysergeant]

But as already pointed out the upper part will slide off the spring as the columns will never meet at contact/impact and the upper part is not rigid - it compresses also. This is under the assumption that the upper part actually drops almost free fall and remains intact until and after 'impact'. Under this assumption, the upper part misses, I suggest that multiple local failures occur ... and that's it. No global collapse. Just floors getting entangled.

What entangles the floors? There are no columns under them to stop them. If the first impacxt of debris from above was sufficient to breal one floor loose from the perimeter columns (and it is my understanding of all that I have read of the NIST report that that was where they failed first,) then there will be more than enough energy to break the next floor, because there will be more than the original KE. You have not demonstrated an arresting or entangling mechanism or structure in the way of the collapse of the floors.

Making the unit distance one meter I get the unit force 0.5 GJ applied to every column in proportion to its cross area/total cross area. Just to get a feeling that the lower structure behaves like a sponge, i.e. it deforms in 3-D. Anybody doing structural analysis of WTC1 can verify how flexible WTC1 was.

The columns, other than those in the impacted area of the cores, which failed, are irrelevant to understanding the mechanism of global collapse. It's all about the floors.

But my sponge has not uniform properties everywhere. It is evidently less holes in it at the bottom, etc. No way another little sponge dropping from the sky can globally collapse my sponge, though.

I would tell you what a sponge more closely resembles, but then I would probably wind up suspended.

 

[terryfunk4life]

I just read this whole thread. MY BRAIN BURNS!!!!!!!!!

 

[BenBurch]

In my opinion, one thing makes all this nonsense about arresting the collapse of 1 & 2 moot; the narrowness of the shelf upon which rested the floor trusses.

As I see it, once you deform the shell sufficiently, you shear the 5/8" bolts and the floor trusses just fall off, and in falling some of their energy is transmitted laterally and further deforms the shell. It zippers apart.

 

[BenBurch]

I just read this whole thread. MY BRAIN BURNS!!!!!!!!!

I find a few ounces of fine whiskey helps.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hm, The total energy 1.12 GJ (or so - 1.22 GJ ?) is required to compress the spring 1.56 m. 0.61 GJ is applied from outside, 0.51 GJ (or so - 0.61GJ ?) is added during compression as the force applied is moving that distance (actually when the upper part is decelerating). After that any motion of the upper part is zero. Then the bounce starts! Just like children jumping in a bed.

Now you're just making up numbers. A spring of constant 0.5GN/m compressed 1.56m contains 0.61GJ in elastic energy, by simple arithmetic. You're deliberately ignoring over two-thirds of the potential energy released. I know this isn't a simple error on your part, because you've done the calculations for compression assuming 0.61GJ. To say that the compression produced by 1.12GJ is the same as the compression produced by 0.61GJ is simply lying. Your paragraph above is a blatant pack of lies, and you know it. Stop lying.

Thanks for considering my WTC1 spring constant C = 0.5 GJ/m reasonable.

Perhaps you'd like to point out where I suggested that it was reasonable. I'm simply pointing out that your own carefully biased assumptions, intended to demonstrate that the lower structure will survive, still predict failure unless you fudge the mathematics.

My opinion of you, still, is that you're a liar and a fraud. You could, of course, prove me wrong by revising your paper to (a) justify your assumptions, and (b) correct your maths. Honest people admit their mistakes, like I've done in the past. I predict that you won't do either, you'll just withdraw into your bizarre fantasy world where structures are infinitely strong.

Dave

 

[Bell]

Which of course brings up the question, as shown by the photos, of:

How can this:

(insert image of floors)

Stop this:

(insert image of the falling upper block)

Thanks for repeating the question, but Heiwa is not going to answer the question directly, because he knows that he can't explain it without contradicting his own claims. Heiwa cannot explain how the floor should stop the falling upper block.

 

[Bananaman]

Heiwa:

Pls read my article.

That's all you care about isn't it, Heiwa. Truth is unimportant to you. People reading your dribble does matter to you. God knows why. A psychologist would be in a better position to judge than me. Actually a psychiatrist would be even more appropriate.

When are you going to admit that your webpage (or whatever it is) with all your fantasies on it is far more important to you than facts?

Just wondering.

Bananaman.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Thanks for repeating the question, but Heiwa is not going to answer the question directly, because he knows that he can't explain it without contradicting his own claims. Heiwa cannot explain how the floor should stop the falling upper block.

Yeah, it's strange that the one thing he gets right - that the columns would miss each other - is the one thing he won't discuss.

All the endless blather about Bazant's paper, while interesting, is just an exercise that doesn't reflect what really happened.

 

[GlennB]

Heiwa:


When are you going to admit that your webpage (or whatever it is) with all your fantasies on it is far more important to you than facts?

You hit the nail on the head. I contacted one of the marine engineering journals where Heiwa claims to have published "many articles", and they found precisely one published letter (prior to moving to computer systems). After that there is one forum-style entry for Bjorkman which received one scathing reply. The journal has rejected the rest of Bjorkman's submissions, finding most of them libelous.

Heiwa is a fraud. Check out his CV at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm .

Investigate - for example - his role as "Speaker at international safety conferences and similar...". Google will get you there pretty quick.

The rest of his CV doesn't ring at all true. Where, for example, would a new graduate go into mandatory national service (apparently) and immediately become "specialized into converting merchant ships into mine layers" ? Yeah, but many "tweak" the ol' CV eh?

1977-78, he supposedly surveyed 100 damaged ships for Scandinavian Underwriters' Agency. That's 2 per calendar week pretty much. Is this the work of a serious marine accident investigator?

1980-2000 worked for VShips, Monaco, a company that he states was founded in 1984. D'oh !!

I see a ships' welder with delusions of grandeur.

 

[Bell]

I see a ships' welder with delusions of grandeur.

But can he weld 3" rebar on 4' centers?

 

[Drs_Res]

Only if it is c-4 coated rebar.

 

[beachnut]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9463

... Heiwa is not going to answer the question ...

He does not acknowledge gravity, why worry about your question. Soon he will be on ignore; like gravity is to him.

 

[tfk]

Sorry, steel structures do not collapse due to gravity and local failures - too much redundancy built into them.

Heiwa,

You've got a massive case of "circular illogic" working here.

You have attempted to use a definition to prove your conclusion.

BY DEFINITION, non-progressive failures do not progress from a single point to global failure.

BY DEFINITION, progressive failures do.

Are you truly saying that "progressive failures are unknown in large steel structures"?

Surely you are not that unknowledgeable about the world of large structures?

Surely someone has pointed out to you buildings such as the Sight & Sound Theater, McCormick Plaza, and the Windsor Towers. Surely you have heard about the massive building failures that happened as a result of the fire bombings of the cities of Dresden & Tokyo. Surely you have seen flaming oil derricks collapse.

All examples of progressive failure of large steel structures due to fire alone.

To be sure, these types of failures are extremely rare. It is a testament to the dedication of engineers who are acutely aware of single point failures in their designs, and eliminate as many as humanly possible.

How do engineers learn about failure modes? When things fail. It is the embarrassing, tragic nature of the business.

The failure of WTC7 pointed out a new failure mode that they hadn't known previously that was particular to designs like that building.

But it has been known for a long time that fire can and, in the absence of preventive measures, WILL take down steel buildings. Or do you think that they go thru billions of dollars per year in thermal insulation, sprinklers & other measures for the express purpose of protecting the steel from the fire for no reason?

Every once in awhile, as in the case of the Towers & WTC7, a failure progresses to total collapse. And whenever this does occur, your fundamental thesis is completely wrong. It DOES happen as a result of a single component failure. The LAST component before total collapse. Because all the other structural redundancies have already been compromised.

In the WTC7 collapse, there are thousands of components that failed without leading to total collapse. But the building did NOT reach an equilibrium. It was still IN THE PROCESS of total failure.

Loads were in the process of redistributing, metal was in the process of yielding, of creeping, of flowing, etc. Fires were in the process of heating new members.

And when that final collapse began, it DID begin as a direct result of a SINGLE component that failed - whatever it was, it might have been something as simple as a single bolt snapping.

The point is that, between the time the fires started and the building collapsed, the building never achieved a true static equilibrium.

And this simple picture applies to every progressive failure that has ever occurred.

tk

 

[roundhead]

Heiwa,

You've got a massive case of "circular illogic" working here.

You have attempted to use a definition to prove your conclusion.

BY DEFINITION, non-progressive failures do not progress from a single point to global failure.

BY DEFINITION, progressive failures do.

Are you truly saying that "progressive failures are unknown in large steel structures"?

Surely you are not that unknowledgeable about the world of large structures?

Surely someone has pointed out to you buildings such as the Sight & Sound Theater, McCormick Plaza, and the Windsor Towers. Surely you have heard about the massive building failures that happened as a result of the fire bombings of the cities of Dresden & Tokyo. Surely you have seen flaming oil derricks collapse.

All examples of progressive failure of large steel structures due to fire alone.

To be sure, these types of failures are extremely rare. It is a testament to the dedication of engineers who are acutely aware of single point failures in their designs, and eliminate as many as humanly possible.

How do engineers learn about failure modes? When things fail. It is the embarrassing, tragic nature of the business.

The failure of WTC7 pointed out a new failure mode that they hadn't known previously that was particular to designs like that building.

But it has been known for a long time that fire can and, in the absence of preventive measures, WILL take down steel buildings. Or do you think that they go thru billions of dollars per year in thermal insulation, sprinklers & other measures for the express purpose of protecting the steel from the fire for no reason?

Every once in awhile, as in the case of the Towers & WTC7, a failure progresses to total collapse. And whenever this does occur, your fundamental thesis is completely wrong. It DOES happen as a result of a single component failure. The LAST component before total collapse. Because all the other structural redundancies have already been compromised.

In the WTC7 collapse, there are thousands of components that failed without leading to total collapse. But the building did NOT reach an equilibrium. It was still IN THE PROCESS of total failure.

Loads were in the process of redistributing, metal was in the process of yielding, of creeping, of flowing, etc. Fires were in the process of heating new members.

And when that final collapse began, it DID begin as a direct result of a SINGLE component that failed - whatever it was, it might have been something as simple as a single bolt snapping.

The point is that, between the time the fires started and the building collapsed, the building never achieved a true static equilibrium.

And this simple picture applies to every progressive failure that has ever occurred.

tk

"Fires were in the process of heating new members"


When i read goofy stuff like that, it makes me spit up the energy drink i am having a sip of.

Those fires were not hot, nor longlasting in any location in that building.

How any sane person can possibly believe a column so big that it is 7 tons per floor in mass(and a big guy couldnt even come close to wrapping his arms around its FIREPROOFED girth)it gives me the willies about the "critical thinking" going on around here

It makes me think of an apt comparison. Holding up a cigatette lighter at an indoor concert, and wondering if that small flame will bring the whole arena crashing down...........................

 

[DGM]

"Fires were in the process of heating new members"


When i read goofy stuff like that, it makes me spit up the energy drink i am having a sip of.

Those fires were not hot, nor longlasting in any location in that building.

How any sane person can possibly believe a column so big that it is 7 tons per floor in mass(and a big guy couldnt even come close to wrapping his arms around its FIREPROOFED girth)it gives me the willies about the "critical thinking" going on around here

It makes me think of an apt comparison. Holding up a cigatette lighter at an indoor concert, and wondering if that small flame will bring the whole arena crashing down...........................

Yet you have no clue (or at least can't explain in a logical manner) why you think what you think is true.

Your wrong and WE all know why. Education will do that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yet you have no clue (or at least can't explain in a logical manner) why you think what you think is true.

Your wrong and WE all know why. Education will do that.

Let the poor guy cling to his controlled demolition fantasy... autistic arguments deserve to be told to nothing but thin air

 

[johnny karate]

"Fires were in the process of heating new members"


When i read goofy stuff like that, it makes me spit up the energy drink i am having a sip of.

Those fires were not hot, nor longlasting in any location in that building.

How any sane person can possibly believe a column so big that it is 7 tons per floor in mass(and a big guy couldnt even come close to wrapping his arms around its FIREPROOFED girth)it gives me the willies about the "critical thinking" going on around here

It makes me think of an apt comparison. Holding up a cigatette lighter at an indoor concert, and wondering if that small flame will bring the whole arena crashing down...........................

And yet not a single member of the FDNY, fire professionals who witnessed these events firsthand, share your point of view.

Care to offer an opinion as to why?

Oh, that's right... you think it's because they're all cowards too afraid to tell "the truth".