Did you test this using pizza boxes and sponges?
Oh, and how is your article for the Journal of Engineering Mechanics going? You told me that you have a 100% chance of getting published. So when is this going to happen?
A Question for Heiwa - WTC Safety Factors
- Thread starter Architect
- Start date
-
- Tags
- safety factors wtc
Did you test this using pizza boxes and sponges?
Oh, and how is your article for the Journal of Engineering Mechanics going? You told me that you have a 100% chance of getting published. So when is this going to happen?
Paper walls of pizza boxes buckle prior to paper ripped apart. It is difficult to crush down pizza boxes with other pizza boxes.
Sponges deform elastically almost 90% prior getting plastically affected.
Neither pizza boxes nor sponges are rigid. Only WTC 1 top part C is assumed by various authorities to be rigid. My experiments with pizza boxes and sponges are to show that also part C was similar in structure.
JEM article was handed in Feb. 3 2009. I haven't heard from ASCE since. I have spotted some typing errors in the article to be corrected when ASCE comes back.
Thanks for asking.
The simplest interpretation of the Factor of Safety is
FoS = Strength of Component / Load on component
Applied to WTC 1 columns we know the strength of them with given boundary conditions and we know the static load on them. As described in my articles FoS > 5 for wall columns and FoS = 3 for core columns. Pretty strong columns.
If you apply a dynamic wind load effect on the wall columns, FoS=3 is likely.
It seems that all who have read my articles now concur that it is not columns contacting columns that should happen when upper part C drops on lower part A but that these columns, or rather their stub ends, contact floors.
You do not need IQ = 100 to grasp that the columns then punches holes in the floors and that the interface C/A changes. The floors of part C have holes in them!
However, NIST and similar experts (!) of various universities suggest that a column stub end (previously part of an intact column with FoS=3) does NOT punch a hole in a floor of upper part C! No, the thin floor applies a big load on the column and the column buckles, bends, fractures again and again and again. Reason being that the part C floor is assumed to be rigid.
In my articles I show that the part C floor is not rigid. I try to be helpful. I could recommend NIST to, e.g. push a typical WTC 1 column against a floor in its office (the floor of the NIST office is simlilar to the floor in WTC 1) but I do not do that! Why punch hole in the NIST office floor? What would the government say? Destroying government property!
FoS = Strength of Component / Load on component
Applied to WTC 1 columns we know the strength of them with given boundary conditions and we know the static load on them. As described in my articles FoS > 5 for wall columns and FoS = 3 for core columns. Pretty strong columns.
If you apply a dynamic wind load effect on the wall columns, FoS=3 is likely.
It seems that all who have read my articles now concur that it is not columns contacting columns that should happen when upper part C drops on lower part A but that these columns, or rather their stub ends, contact floors.
You do not need IQ = 100 to grasp that the columns then punches holes in the floors and that the interface C/A changes. The floors of part C have holes in them!
However, NIST and similar experts (!) of various universities suggest that a column stub end (previously part of an intact column with FoS=3) does NOT punch a hole in a floor of upper part C! No, the thin floor applies a big load on the column and the column buckles, bends, fractures again and again and again. Reason being that the part C floor is assumed to be rigid.
In my articles I show that the part C floor is not rigid. I try to be helpful. I could recommend NIST to, e.g. push a typical WTC 1 column against a floor in its office (the floor of the NIST office is simlilar to the floor in WTC 1) but I do not do that! Why punch hole in the NIST office floor? What would the government say? Destroying government property!
Do not try to derail the thread. Address the issues raised in the OP and discuss general issues about collapses elsewhere.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Cuddles
Last edited by a moderator:
No, Heiwa, you have failed to demonstrate the safety factors are 5 and 3. We would expect detail calculations based on global structural design, supported by evidence of design codes. Moroever, you then have to explain why the demand to capacity ratios are actually several order of magnitude less.
Please also stop trying to derail this thread with discussion on wider collapse issues. This thread is solely for you to justify your hitherto unsupported assertion that FoS is at least 3.
Please also stop trying to derail this thread with discussion on wider collapse issues. This thread is solely for you to justify your hitherto unsupported assertion that FoS is at least 3.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Wow Architect....you seem to have friends in high places. As a matter of interest what do you suggest the FOS values were for the core and perimeter columns under a static loading ?
Last edited:
Me - derailing this friendly and lively discussion about what I write in my sceptical article where I provide info about an element (cross area, material, yield stress, buckling stress, &c) + the details about the loads acting on this element and then I conclude the element is pretty strong with FoS 3 or 5 or what the result may be. If you do not agree, copy/paste my incorrect info in the article and propose corrections via PM.
But the objective om my article is not to verify the FoS of an element but to explain something else, e.g. that hitting a solid column against a floor will, in my humble opinion, damage the floor and not the column, regardless of FoS. It seems persons starting disussions about FoS used in my articles are trying to divert attention from the real purpose of my articles.
Suggest this is the end of this thread.
But the objective om my article is not to verify the FoS of an element but to explain something else, e.g. that hitting a solid column against a floor will, in my humble opinion, damage the floor and not the column, regardless of FoS. It seems persons starting disussions about FoS used in my articles are trying to divert attention from the real purpose of my articles.
Suggest this is the end of this thread.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
It's just that it seems to me that if the Fos of the core for instance had been 1.5 ,3 or 4 would not have made all that much difference. At only Fos=1.5 the normal static load of say 400,000 tons could have been increased to 550,000 tons and still left an intact building with a reasonable margin of safety.
It's just that I hope this queston is pertinent to the spirit of the argument and is not not just semantics. This kind of hread focussed on an individual poster may not be a good idea for the future.
Last edited:
Bill
You misunderstand, I think.
In the gravity driven collapse thread Heiwa quoted a supposed safety factor in excess of 300% as one of the reasons why the lower portion of the building would have arrested the upper fabric. The actual quote is in the OP.
There are a number of problems with this proposition, in particular the inter-related nature of the overall structure and the fact that any designed load paths will go out the window once failure occurs. It's not particularly relevant. Moreover, it's simply wrong. We know from the demand to capacity ratios that the slack was significantly less.
Rather than derail the main thread, where different topics and points are flowing fast, we've taken it into this separate one. It allows us to focus on a particular point at hand.
Now, consider Heiwa's posts against this backdrop. His method of calculation for the supposed FoS is wanting. He can't - or won't - quote any documentary source, such as design standards of the period, which might support 300% as a stated objective. He refuses to answer questions on demand to capcity ratio. Rather, he suggests the end of the thread.
Ask yourself, why is this? Do our posts make sense? Can you see the line of reasoning we're drawing out here? And why doesn't Heiwa address the substance of the question?
It's not a matter of semantics. What we have to do to understand the bigger picture is break it down into a series of manageable items, analyse the evidence, then draw the various threads back together. That's how we design these buildings in the first place, and it's how we understand failure modes.
ETA: There's a strong parallel here on the "hydrocarbon fires" thread. Those such as Bob who claim that fire cannot cause failure of steelwork have avoided the topic completely. If they're so sure that steel is inherrently fire resistant, then why their reluctance to participate? Let's talk through the specific issues.
You misunderstand, I think.
In the gravity driven collapse thread Heiwa quoted a supposed safety factor in excess of 300% as one of the reasons why the lower portion of the building would have arrested the upper fabric. The actual quote is in the OP.
There are a number of problems with this proposition, in particular the inter-related nature of the overall structure and the fact that any designed load paths will go out the window once failure occurs. It's not particularly relevant. Moreover, it's simply wrong. We know from the demand to capacity ratios that the slack was significantly less.
Rather than derail the main thread, where different topics and points are flowing fast, we've taken it into this separate one. It allows us to focus on a particular point at hand.
Now, consider Heiwa's posts against this backdrop. His method of calculation for the supposed FoS is wanting. He can't - or won't - quote any documentary source, such as design standards of the period, which might support 300% as a stated objective. He refuses to answer questions on demand to capcity ratio. Rather, he suggests the end of the thread.
Ask yourself, why is this? Do our posts make sense? Can you see the line of reasoning we're drawing out here? And why doesn't Heiwa address the substance of the question?
It's not a matter of semantics. What we have to do to understand the bigger picture is break it down into a series of manageable items, analyse the evidence, then draw the various threads back together. That's how we design these buildings in the first place, and it's how we understand failure modes.
ETA: There's a strong parallel here on the "hydrocarbon fires" thread. Those such as Bob who claim that fire cannot cause failure of steelwork have avoided the topic completely. If they're so sure that steel is inherrently fire resistant, then why their reluctance to participate? Let's talk through the specific issues.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Heiwa, in this thread, on why the question is irrelevant:
And yet, Heiwa, in another thread, on why the question is of critical importance:
So, Heiwa claims that the FoS is irrelevant, yet it's a central point in his argument as to whether collapse is arrested. He is continuing, therefore, to rely on a figure which he has repeatedly failed to justify. As Architect says, this is more than a point of semantics. It's a fundamental failure in Heiwa's line of reasoning, one that he is well aware of, and one that he continues to lie about.
Dave
And yet, Heiwa, in another thread, on why the question is of critical importance:
So, Heiwa claims that the FoS is irrelevant, yet it's a central point in his argument as to whether collapse is arrested. He is continuing, therefore, to rely on a figure which he has repeatedly failed to justify. As Architect says, this is more than a point of semantics. It's a fundamental failure in Heiwa's line of reasoning, one that he is well aware of, and one that he continues to lie about.
Dave
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Truther's arguments often jump from one point to another time and time again. They often contradict themselves when doing so. They can hold two opposing views at the same time without knowing it themselves. Cognitive Dissonance doesn't quite explain it because they have no uncomfortable feeling about the positions, because they simply don't realise they are doing it. Consistency is not a truther quality unless you consider stupidity.
I've yet to see a single coherent narrative of what a truther actually thinks happened on 9/11.
I've yet to see a single coherent narrative of what a truther actually thinks happened on 9/11.
It seems WTC 1 upper (and lower part) was so strong, as they, the designers in 1960's, had plans for another 20 storeys on top! I just verify as fitted dimensions of columns against calculated loads and find low stresses, FoS >3. Don't blame me! Result was a very strong structure. But it doesn't matter - an upper part of steel structure cannot crush down similar structure below from above only assisted by gravity. Quite basic, actually.
You should read my papers at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm . Explains everything quite clear!
It explains you are not very good at physics, structures, fire science, and logic. Your web pages are pure junk. 7 years and you can’t get published with your delusions.
You failed to provide any real answer so far, save posting your failed web site as if it was more than a collection of failed delusions.
Evidence that (a) this is true and (b) was carried through in the the final structural design?
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Are you mistaken, or lying?
How many times do you have to be told to put up or shut up? Show your math. Now.
Last edited: