Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
The core was a mere remnant that lasted only seconds. So a crush down is an absolutely appropriate description..
Click to expand...

How stupid. Crushed means crushed.

The core remaining in that photo wasn't wasn't crushed by the collapse as it is still standing in that photo.

:boggled:
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
So a crush down is an absolutely appropriate description..
Click to expand...

Maybe for describing what happened to the floors, but what about what happened to the perimeter and core columns? They were outside the floors not underneath. How were they "crushed"?
 
Newtons Bit said:
"Is it? I clearly say that the intact floors are just hanging on the columns; like pictures on a wall." This is the crux of Heiwa's lunacy. He thinks that the floors can hinge, and still support the entire weight of the floor (and maybe even their contents due to friction) and the columns, now unbraced and subject to extreme lateral forces, will not collapse.
Click to expand...

Reason why a floor can hinge around a column is that there is a third element between floor/column, i.e. a connection, in this case some bolts and an L-angle.

So if the floor fails due to overload, the load drops away, and the broken pieces of the floor with no load on hit hinge around the connection. Any bracing remains in place.

If connections on one side are broken due to overload, the load drops away and the floor hinges around undamaged connections, where bracing again remains.

In all cases you must analyze where the lose end(s) of the floor end(s) up. Probably on a floor below. The broken floor hinges down around the column connection and the free end contacts a floor below.

Evidently all connections of a floor cannot fail simultaneously due to overload. The floor is connected to four outer walls and to four sides of an inner core structure and there are plenty, say 700, bolted connections. I know NIST suggests that 6 floors suddenly come lose - 4200 bolted connections failed - but that is the usual NIST nonsense.

I have described it all in my famous paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . More to come in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics soon.
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
Ok. So where are the "crushed", "accordianed" core columns and perimeter columns?

How were they "crushed" when the core columns were set along the INSIDE of the concrete floors and the perimeter columns were aligned along the OUTSIDE edge of the floors?

I see Heiwa hasn't addressed his major contradiction about the "support elements" being between the floors and then being outside the floors.
Click to expand...

I don't think I said that the core or perimeter columns were 'accordeoned' ? Self-evidently the Core columns were removed by a means other than gravity. The perimeter column sections may have been sheared off or blown off or some of both.
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
Maybe for describing what happened to the floors, but what about what happened to the perimeter and core columns? They were outside the floors not underneath. How were they "crushed"?
Click to expand...

Damaged by Controlled Demolition, CD!
 
Heiwa said:
Damaged by Controlled Demolition, CD!
Click to expand...

Hey Heiwa!

Nice to see you.

Are you going to address your contradiction I pointed out to you or are you going to continue to ignore it?

What about my model I presented? Does it meet your requirements?
 
bill smith said:
I don't think I said that the core or perimeter columns were 'accoreoned' ? Self-evidently the Core columns were removed by a means other than gravity. The perimeter column sections may have been sheared off or blown off.
Click to expand...

No, I beg to differ. You said 100% of the building below the failure zone was "crushed". I want you to explain how the columns were "crushed".

Easy huh? Or maybe not...
 
Gamolon said:
No, I beg to differ. You said 100% of the building below the failure zone was "crushed". I want you to explain how the columns were "crushed".

Easy huh? Or maybe not...
Click to expand...
They were being removed somehow ahead of the collapse wave.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Damaged by Controlled Demolition, CD!
Click to expand...

Sorry Heiwa!

Bill clearly states he/she does not understand how 100% of the building below the failure zone could have been crushed. So he/she is assuming that the mass above is supposedly being explained as crushing the entire lower part of the building including the columns?

How is that possible to think that?

Can You explain maybe?

Thanks.
 
Gamolon said:
Sorry Heiwa!

Bill clearly states he/she does not understand how 100% of the building below the failure zone could have been crushed. So he/she is assuming that the mass above is supposedly being explained as crushing the entire lower part of the building including the columns?

How is that possible to think that?

Can You explain maybe?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The upper part cannot one-way crush down the lower part! See post #1.
 
Heiwa said:
Most of them! See you at The Heiwa Challenge thread! All your mistakes are already clarified there.
Click to expand...

Can't you just give me one? I mean you must know which ones I don't meet already.

Just point out one?
 
Gamolon said:
Removed meaning that the disappeared completely in an instant or removed meaning that they were not supporting the structure anymore?
Click to expand...

Yes...meaning that they were sequentially not supposrting the building any more.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
The upper part cannot one-way crush down the lower part! See post #1.
Click to expand...

Yes it can!

I proved it.

The truss connections are what took the brunt of the load and either sheared off or bent downward, not the columns silly! The perimeter columns were along the outside of the floor edge of the floors and the core columns were along the inside edge of the floor.

So your explanation is wrong.

See how easy that was?

:D
 
bill smith said:
Yes...meaning that they were sequentially not supposrting the building any more.
Click to expand...

Wow. So we agree then!

The upper mass came down upon the truss supports (not the columns since they were outside of the floors and not underneath as Heiwa wants us to beleieve) and since the columns were vertically much more robust and better able to hold a vertical load, the much weaker truss supports failed or sheared off under the huge load. Then it just continued on down breaking the subsequent floors and their truss supports.

Thanks Bill. I knew you'd come around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom