Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[Sunstealer]

Standards (or the multitude of them) are the lifeblood, but also the bane, of any engineers life. Mix imperial and metric in with that too. Oh happy days!

 

[BenBurch]

The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!

 

[BigAl]

The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!

A complete set of double standards will be issued as soon as we can reduce the choices to two.

 

[Architect]

I'm afraid that I'm bumping this thread on the basis that we know that several members of the Truth Movement here question wholesale the susceptibility of steel structures to fire-induced failure, and they've all been strangely silent. I can't believe that people so confident would let this go by without them defending their position.

[cough]

 

[jaydeehess]

its slipping
<<bump>>

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm afraid that I'm bumping this thread on the basis that we know that several members of the Truth Movement here question wholesale the susceptibility of steel structures to fire-induced failure, and they've all been strangely silent. I can't believe that people so confident would let this go by without them defending their position.

[cough]

This thread would be a nice venue for them to elaborate upon the first time in history routine they seem to use so often. I see a number of area where thie OP and that subject intersect

 

[Architect]

Good point. We'd have to identify when the research/disasters started to come to light, track how it worked its way through the regulations over the years, look at increasing standards of fire resistance in response to ongoing developments, and arrive at the position today as broadly set out above.

That's quite a bit of work, mind. I'll ask around the office and see if anyone knows of a reference work on the subject.

 

[BenBurch]

McCormick Place fire was an important one for understanding the issues with all-steel construction.

 

[Sunstealer]

I booked marked this a couple of days ago - it should be helpful for reference.

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

 

[Gravy]

I'm afraid that I'm bumping this thread on the basis that we know that several members of the Truth Movement here question wholesale the susceptibility of steel structures to fire-induced failure, and they've all been strangely silent. I can't believe that people so confident would let this go by without them defending their position.

[cough]

Since you're lonely, I'll take a shot at it. This collapse of a steel structure was obviously induced by fire: THERMITE FIRE.

 

[Gravy]

Perusing my copy of Brannigan's "Building Construction for the Fire Service," I find this:

Ignoring the Problem

The potential for fire damage to steel buildings is not clearly understood. Often, unwarranted confidence is placed on the fact that the steel is non-combustible. A major insurance carrier found it necessary to conduct demonstrations of actual fires for plant managers in which the only fuel was the hydraulic oil in the presses. (p. 275)

 

[BenBurch]

Since you're lonely, I'll take a shot at it. This collapse of a steel structure was obviously induced by fire: THERMITE FIRE.

Have you shown Heiwa this?

Sort of destroys his whole argument.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Since you're lonely, I'll take a shot at it. This collapse of a steel structure was obviously induced by fire: THERMITE FIRE.

Funny most of that building looks like it's still there the next day.



What happened to the progressive collapse?

 

[Sunstealer]

He'll only miscount the number of floors and say the top bit was bigger than the bottom bit.

 

[BenBurch]

...
What happened to the progressive collapse?

If you would pay attention, this was not presented to SHOW that, and it takes only a room-temperature IQ to realize that this thread is about steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

SO, I have to insist that you stick to the OP, please.

Can you counter the example in the OP?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

If you would pay attention, this was not presented to SHOW that, and it takes only a room-temperature IQ to realize that this thread is about steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

SO, I have to insist that you stick to the OP, please.

Can you counter the example in the OP?

So it's not a relevant example of what is claimed to have happened to any three of the global collapses that occurred on 9/11.

Thank you.

See how Gravy never really debunks anything? lol

 

[BenBurch]

So it's not a relevant example of what is claimed to have happened to any three of the global collapses that occurred on 9/11.

Thank you.

See how Gravy never really debunks anything? lol

Buzz off unless you can comment on the OP.

 

[Gravy]

Have you shown Heiwa this?

Sort of destroys his whole argument.

He's well aware of it. This was big news last year. Everything we present destroys Heiwa's whole argument. I quickly put on ignore others who are this delusional, but I think that someone who claims to have engineering skills but flaunts his ignorance with every post deserves to be hammered.

 

[BenBurch]

He's well aware of it. This was big news last year. Everything we present destroys Heiwa's whole argument. I quickly put on ignore others who are this delusional, but I think that someone who claims to have engineering skills but flaunts his ignorance with every post deserves to be hammered.

I notice that none of these guys can say ANYTHING about the argument I made in the OP...

 

[jaydeehess]

So it's not a relevant example of what is claimed to have happened to any three of the global collapses that occurred on 9/11.

Thank you.

See how Gravy never really debunks anything? lol

yes it is a relevent example to bolster the global collapses on 9/11.

this clearly shows that steel can fail in a fire and lead to collapse.

the first significant difference between the example gravy posted and the towers or WTC 7 is construction. The building in the above video is clearly not a long span truss construction maening that there are columns fairly evenly spaced throughout the building rather than being concentrated in a central core

The Windsor is the same type of example. Steel failed and in that case both the post/beam construction and the concrete core columns arrested the collapses.

Furthermore, of course, in the case of the WTC towers we have multi-level fires all being started at the same time rather than the typical office fire for which such a multi-level involvement would take hours as opposed to seconds, AND the fact that the fire floors also suffered structural loss due to the fact that a large aircraft going several hundred miles per hour hit each of them. they started their instantaneous, multi-level office fire phases with the initial condition of several damaged and severed columns. Those are TWO conditions that you will not find occuring in any other office fire that has ever occured.

WTC 7 also started with physical damage BUT its major failing was in the assymettric placing of floor beams and girders which allowed for greater movement of those members due to thermal expansion. Thermal expansion is relevent to the OP. In fact I posted a few examples of thermal expansion causing railway tracks to warp sufficiently enough to cause derailments. Such expansion occured due solely to the rails being heated by the Sun.

Others here have posted about the effect of higher heat on steel. heat produced only by the burning of hydrocarbon fuels.


Your thoughts on this HI?