Once again:
"A simplified one-dimensional analytical
solution of the collapse front propagation will be presented. It
will be shown how this solution can be used to determine the
energy absorption capability of individual stories if the motion
history is precisely recorded. Because of the shroud of dust and
smoke, these histories can be identified from the videos of the
collapsing WTC towers only for the first few seconds of collapse,
and so little can be learned in this regard from that collapse."
you see, he would like to apply it to the WTC1 if the motion history was precisely recorded. That was his intention as he states, but he cannot because of all the dust and smoke.
The intention of these equations is to map the actual propagation front, just as he states.
Myriad, please show where Dr Bazant intends the equations to be used only as a best case scenario, rather than to map the actual collapse front of the actual building.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I watched Dr Benson apply it to the first few seconds of data over many, many posts. He tries to match real data of the real building to the equations, not some "best case scenario".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I asked: Myriad, in BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs.
Myriad answers: Dr. Bazant provided a rigorous explanation of that, in the analysis just before he stated the conclusion resulting from that analysis. The conclusion was: "So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up), made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused only an imperceptible difference in the results." If you read the part before that conclusion, you'll see the reasoning leading to that conclusion.
That is good advice. Did you do it? That is the part I wanted you to answer. Explain the reasoning behind why he believes significant crush up doesn't occur. (Hint; It has something to do with the columns in the upper block)
"A simplified one-dimensional analytical
solution of the collapse front propagation will be presented. It
will be shown how this solution can be used to determine the
energy absorption capability of individual stories if the motion
history is precisely recorded. Because of the shroud of dust and
smoke, these histories can be identified from the videos of the
collapsing WTC towers only for the first few seconds of collapse,
and so little can be learned in this regard from that collapse."
you see, he would like to apply it to the WTC1 if the motion history was precisely recorded. That was his intention as he states, but he cannot because of all the dust and smoke.
The intention of these equations is to map the actual propagation front, just as he states.
Myriad, please show where Dr Bazant intends the equations to be used only as a best case scenario, rather than to map the actual collapse front of the actual building.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I watched Dr Benson apply it to the first few seconds of data over many, many posts. He tries to match real data of the real building to the equations, not some "best case scenario".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I asked: Myriad, in BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs.
Myriad answers: Dr. Bazant provided a rigorous explanation of that, in the analysis just before he stated the conclusion resulting from that analysis. The conclusion was: "So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up), made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused only an imperceptible difference in the results." If you read the part before that conclusion, you'll see the reasoning leading to that conclusion.
That is good advice. Did you do it? That is the part I wanted you to answer. Explain the reasoning behind why he believes significant crush up doesn't occur. (Hint; It has something to do with the columns in the upper block)
Last edited:
