Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[BasqueArch]

Rust scale and rust on the WTC1,2 primed steel

Rust and rust scale on primed steel at the WTC1,2. From fireproofing inspections.​

Originally Posted by C7
But this does point out that the hypothesis in the letter is dumb. There was no rust to flake and melt because the columns had a coat of primer to prevent that.

It takes a while for iron oxide to form in an appreciable amount. The amount of rust is minute when they primer.

There is no mention of primer in the letter. Whoever wrote it is uninformed and grasping at straws.

Wrong.

I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high. The red circle and date was the Port Authority's response to the missing fireproofing. This resulted because the steel had not been properly prepared at the time of the initial spray application. Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel (photo 4). of the rust, indicating that the rust existed at the time the fireproofing was applied.

The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts. This is a defect that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM adhesion and cohesion quality assurance test, had this standard existed at the time of construction......

Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.

The steel was primed and rusted.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html

 

[Sunstealer]

All low alloyed or plain carbon steels develop mill-scale during the rolling process at the rolling mill due to the temperatures at which the steel is formed into shape by rolling. Mill-scale is the formation of iron oxide on the steel's surface and is typically 1mm thick or less.

This layer is detrimental to the steel for a number of reasons but primarily because the oxide scale is incoherent with the parent metal due to a large difference in atomic lattice parameters. (that's why rust on steel flakes off but oxide on aluminium and titanium and most other metals doesn't) Effectively what this means is that it flakes off exposing fresh steel underneath which then rusts. If you paint over mill-scale then the paint is essentially worthless because the mill-scale will spall (technical term for flaking) taking the paint with it thus losing any corrosion protection.

Mill-scale also causes problems when welding - you don't want brittle, sharp particles of mill-scale in the weld because this is detrimental. This is one of the reasons why ship builders used to leave steel from the rolling mill out in the open so that it would "weather", i.e. the mill-scale would fall off through handling, temperature differences etc, which is where we get the traditional term "weathered steel" from. After this had happened the steel can then be used to weld after the usual grinding of the surfaces to be welded.

Mill-scale is removed from the steel at the rolling mill by one of 2 or 3 methods Iirc; via mechanical stress, thermal stress or acid pickling. An oxide layer is still present but that layer is more coherent with the parent metal and will not flake off as readily. That layer is much thinner.

There is no way to stop rust on construction steel exposed to the elements and that's why protection is needed. Paint is the cheapest option. It is also more economical and easier to apply paint in a controlled environment prior to assembly depending upon the building specifications obviously. In this instance primer paint has one use and that is to protect the steel from corrosion. It has no factor regarding resistance to elevated temperatures (and by that I mean above normal parameters in the building specifications). Paint is so thin that even if it ignites and burns at a temperature as low as 100°C it is not going to have any effect whatsoever on the mechanical properties of the steel. Fire-proofing is what protects the steel. If the fire-proofing is compromised either through it's removal or the fire burning past it's rating then the steel has far more problems than a thin layer of paint burning on it's surface.

LaClade primer paint was applied to the trusses in the factory via an electro-static process which has been detailed in this thread.

So what happens to steel that's been painted with primer paint when it's subjected to higher temperatures above normal? Well we know this because steel has been studied for over 100 years. NIST also carried out experiments and for this purpose it doesn't matter which type of primer paint is applied it's what happens to the steel's surface that counts.

Effectively what we are seeing here is the spallation (flaking off) of the steel's oxide layer taking the paint with it due to thermal stress differences between the oxide layer and the steel underneath. It's essentially like the spalling of mill-scale and one can argue that the thickness of the oxide layer has increased due to the elevated temperature of 650°C which isn't far from the AC₃ temperature.

It's clear from the above photo that paint is peeling from the surface and thin flakes of oxidised steel are being liberated from the steel's surface. These flakes are very thin with large surface to volume ratios just like steel wool.

Hydrocarbons when burnt will produce CO and CO2. It is well understood that Carbon will reduce iron oxides below the melting point of Fe and below the oxide melting temperature. Mankind has been using this process since the Iron Age. Anyone who has looked into Iron production will know this.

See Bloomery.

In operation, the bloomery is preheated by burning charcoal, and once hot, iron ore and additional charcoal are introduced through the top, in a roughly one to one ratio. Inside the furnace, carbon monoxide from the incomplete combustion of the charcoal reduces the iron oxides in the ore to metallic iron, without melting the ore; this allows the bloomery to operate at lower temperatures than the melting temperature of the ore. As the desired product of a bloomery is iron which is easily forgeable, nearly pure, and with a low carbon content, the temperature and ratio of charcoal to iron ore must be carefully controlled to keep the iron from absorbing too much carbon and thus becoming unforgeable. Because the bloomery is self-fluxing the addition of limestone is not required to form a slag.

In effect a steel's surface, no matter whether it's structural steel or conduit or wire or whatever, subjected to a fire; whose fuel is a hydrocarbon such as jet fuel and office furnishings will undergo this same chemical reaction at the temperatures at which such a fire is capable of producing.

The production of "iron rich micro-spheres" in such a situation is to be expected. The only reason that these by-products are argued over by truthers is the fact that such by-products were identified in environmental studies.

We also have environmental studies from coal and municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators that operate below the temperatures required to melt pure Fe. Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings.

There is absolutely no reason to use therm*te to explain such phenomena.

 

[alienentity]

Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise

Wrong again...

And again:



ETA and again

 

[riptowtan]

Wrong again...

And again:



ETA and again

Wow. I didn't know a simulation like this existed. Thanks for posting this! This will make a great visual aid when debating truthers.

 

[Christopher7]

The steel was primed and rusted.

http://images.pennnet.com/articles/fe/cap/cap_111461.jpg

http://images.pennnet.com/articles/fe/cap/cap_111460.jpg

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html

Thank you for the info. These problems were no doubt corrected on an ongoing basis but your point is made that there was rust on some of the columns.

However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.

 

[Christopher7]

All low alloyed or plain carbon steels develop mill-scale during the rolling process at the rolling mill due to the temperatures at which the steel is formed into shape by rolling. Mill-scale is the formation of iron oxide on the steel's surface and is typically 1mm thick or less.

1mm = 0.04 inches

Hydrocarbons when burnt will produce CO and CO2. It is well understood that Carbon will reduce iron oxides below the melting point of Fe and below the oxide melting temperature. Mankind has been using this process since the Iron Age. Anyone who has looked into Iron production will know this.

See Bloomery.

In operation, the bloomery … reduces the iron oxides in the ore to metallic iron, without melting the ore; this allows the bloomery to operate at lower temperatures than the melting temperature of the ore.

iron oxide becomes metallic iron at roughly 1250°C, almost 300 degrees below iron's melting point of 1538°C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting

Iron ore:
magnetite (Fe₃O₄), hematite (Fe₂O₃), goethite (FeO(OH)), limonite (FeO(OH).n(H₂O)) or siderite (FeCO₃).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore

Melting point of magnetite/Iron oxide (Fe₃O₄) 1538^oC - 2800^oF
http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/msds/598-iron-oxide-fe3o4

Melting point of iron oxide/rust (Fe₂O₃) 1566^oC - 2850^oF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(III)_oxide


Iron must melt and then be atomized to produce iron spheres.

The bloomery process does NOT melt the iron in the ore and therefore it cannot produce iron spheres.

The production of "iron rich micro-spheres" in such a situation is to be expected.

Wrong, as noted above.

We also have environmental studies from coal and municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators that operate below the temperatures required to melt pure Fe. Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings.

Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion, and comprises the fine particles that rise with the flue gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

Fine particles[FONT=&quot]: [/FONT]Particulates – also known as particulate matter (PM), suspended particulate matter (SPM), fine particles, and soot – are tiny subdivisions of solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid.


Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

 

[beachnut]

...
Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

Thus, no micro-spheres in the dust. Final Quixotic statement?

"my name... prepare to die", from laughter ; you live in a fictional world.

10 years, no clue office fires make micro-spheres, and these are found in the dust. When you get a PhD in fire science, will you retract your delusions?

 

[leftysergeant]

However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.

Balderdash. There were super-heated, oxygen-poor gases from the combustion of Class A fuels. Much of this was conducted up the chimneys formed by the opening up of the core. When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively.

 

[Christopher7]

Balderdash. There were super-heated, oxygen-poor gases from the combustion of Class A fuels. Much of this was conducted up the chimneys formed by the opening up of the core. When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively.

Source?

 

[beachnut]

Source?

fire science

It happens in my wood stove...

 

[leftysergeant]

Source?

I cannot believe you could be this ignorant and actually have the years of experience that you claim to have in the building trades.

I hardly have time here to give you the entire course in Fire Science 101. If you have evidence to show that any of the principles that I identify for you are in error, please do so. Most of them are as basic and time-tested as Newton's laws of thermodynamics.

Steel looses its strength, thus its ability to support loads, at temperatures in the range of 1000 F.

A fire in flash-over excedes temperatures of 1000 F.

Thus, we can draw certain conclusions based on what we can observe.

Flammable gases generated by the heating of Class A and Class B fuels in a fire will, after a certain concentration is achieved, cease to burn, but will, upon the introduction of oxygen, or the escape of these gases into an oxygen-rich environment, re-ignite, sometimes explosively, resulting in a phenomenon called "backdraft."

The combustion of flammable gases will release more energy than will the combustion of the solid from which these gases are derived because no energy is absorbed in initiating the combustion.

We have observed that the fires were in flashover. We have observed that fire protection measures within the structures had been compromised.

Everything else that I have stated follows from these statements. We can, for example, conclude that the blasts in the basement and lobby were the result of hot, flammable gases meeting a supply of oxygen at locations where elevator doors were standing open. Because this is going to be random in any building of this type and size, secondary blast damage from backdraught will be random.

Don't just stand there and tell everybody that this is not so. Cite your sources that it is not. As it stands, we are now in a situation where a carpenter is telling veteran fire fighters that he has a better understanding of fire science than they have.

I might point out, as well, that turds like DRG and MacQueen do the same thing.

They are speaking outside their areas of competency, through their trousers.

DRG is the hardest of the lot to excuse, since he has spent most of his adult years blathering about how people come to believe what they believe. I must, therefor, conclude that his is as competent to discuss theology as S. Jones showed himself to be with his pathetic paper "Behold My Hands."

Uncle Fetzer is even less respectable because his work is all about the way that the human mind processes data to acquire knowledge, yet he fails to notice the holes in Judy Woo-woo's scribblings or the fact that she fell for "the Hutchison Effect."

 

[BasqueArch]

Thank you for the info. These problems were no doubt corrected on an ongoing basis but your point is made that there was rust on some of the columns.

However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.

Wrong again. You don't read or comprehend well. From the same post you reference:

The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts.

The inspections were "non-destructive", meaning limited to what was visible without removing coverings. The porous fireproofing absorbs moisture like a sponge, exacerbating the corrosion of the steel.

.......Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion, and comprises the fine particles that rise with the flue gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

Fine particles[FONT=&quot]: [/FONT]Particulates – also known as particulate matter (PM), suspended particulate matter (SPM), fine particles, and soot – are tiny subdivisions of solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid.


Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

Why would the same microspheres created by thermxte not fly away in the smoke.

Sunstealer and RJ Lee are right. You and Jones are wrong.

Sunstealer: Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings.

Existing evidence proves ferrospheres (and many other microspheres) and volatile lead are produced at less than 1200C, less than the melting point of iron and its oxides and less than the vaporization temperature of lead, and collected in the fly ash as shown in my previous incinerator link.

There is no evidence that thermxte was used to produce ferrospheres and volatile lead.

 

[leftysergeant]

So, the SFRM was falling off by itself and the primer appears not to have been applied in a fully-competent manner. Sunstealer mentions that mill scale does not hold paint especially well. It appears to me, from the photo shown elsewhere of paint peeling from the steel that the steel in the towers was not very well descaled.

We might also stop here and re-address the mechanisms by which primer would be removed from the steel during the fire or the collapse.

Heat will clearly cause the epoxy to oxidize or eveporate. Abrasion during the collapse will scrape some of it loose.

POUNDING will dislodge some of the paint. Certainly, every structural element in the building was subject to considerable pounding, thus accounting for the bits of La Clede primer being beaten loose from the trusses. When you pound on stee hard enough to dislodge paint, you are going to dislodge some of the mill scale as well.

 

[Oystein]

So, the SFRM was falling off by itself and the primer appears not to have been applied in a fully-competent manner. Sunstealer mentions that mill scale does not hold paint especially well. It appears to me, from the photo shown elsewhere of paint peeling from the steel that the steel in the towers was not very well descaled.

We might also stop here and re-address the mechanisms by which primer would be removed from the steel during the fire or the collapse.

Heat will clearly cause the epoxy to oxidize or eveporate. Abrasion during the collapse will scrape some of it loose.

POUNDING will dislodge some of the paint. Certainly, every structural element in the building was subject to considerable pounding, thus accounting for the bits of La Clede primer being beaten loose from the trusses. When you pound on stee hard enough to dislodge paint, you are going to dislodge some of the mill scale as well.

BENDING of steel members will induce tensions that can break up an oxidized surface. The floor trusses, being thinner, would have experienced more bending than the columns, and also possibly more pounding and grinding.

 

[Sunstealer]

iron oxide becomes metallic iron at roughly 1250°C, almost 300 degrees below iron's melting point of 1538°C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting

Wow I suppose you ought to inform the people who wrote this paper that they are wrong then.

http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/engineering/issues/muh-02-26-1/muh-26-1-5-0012-2.pdf

Effect of Temperature

Reduction experiments of the composite pellets were carried out at 900, 950, 1000, 1050 and 1100°C with different coal consumption ratios. Figures 2 and 3 show the effect of temperature on the degree of reduction
for Cfix / Fe total ratios of 0.17 and 0.38. As seen in the figures, the amount of reduction increases, for both Cfix / Fe total ratios, as the temperature increases.

As seen in Figure 3, a reduction period of approximately 60 minutes is satisfactory to reach a reduction degree of 0.7 at 1100°C, while it takes 110
minutes to reach the same degree of reduction at 900°C. A 22% increase in temperature reduces the reduction period about 45%. At the same temperature, on the other hand, for a degree of reduction of
0.5, a 22% increase in temperature causes a 67% decrease in time required for reduction. As seen, longer reduction periods are required at lower temperatures in order to reach the same reduction, and this period increases with the degree of reduction.

Reduction of iron oxides occurs either by carbon or by carbon monoxide, formed by the gasification of carbon. The reduction process carried out by the carbon is called "direct reduction":

FenOm + mC = nFe + mCO (2)

while the reduction process conducted with CO is
called "indirect reduction":

FenOm + mCO = nFe + mCO2 (3) mCO2 + mC = 2mCO (Boudouard Reaction)
(4)

The overall reaction involves a cyclic mechanism in which CO2 reduced as a result of the reduction of iron oxides gasifies carbon to generate CO, which
in turn produces CO2 through oxide reduction. The reduction and gasification reactions are thus necessarily coupled.

Now I know you won't accept this so lets try another one. Fancy contacting these people and telling them that they are wrong aswell?

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of the reduction of Fe2O3 in a continuous stream of 100% CO was conducted at temperatures ranging from 800 to 900 °C. X-ray diffraction analysis of solids identified the presence of iron, graphite and a carbide of iron as the products of reactions. A kinetic model based on the first-order irreversible rate kinetics was developed and fitted to the TGA data so as to estimate the rate constants for each reduction reaction. The reaction pathways considered in this analysis involved reduction of iron oxides, Boudouard reaction and iron-carbide formation. The rate parameters were calculated and compared with data reported in literature.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037838200400044X

Apology accepted C7.

Christ don't you get tired of being shown to be wrong on just about everything? You should have learnt by now that I can back everything I say with sources.

Accept that iron oxides can be reduced below 1000°C well within the temperature obtained in office fires. Stop being a martyr, you're making yourself look like a fool. Accept it and move on.

 

[ergo]

I'm confused. Isn't iron reduction a completely different chemical process than that required to produce metal-rich microspheres? What is the relevance of this discussion to the melting of iron or iron oxide into microspheres? What is the relevance of this to the melting or vaporization of lead and molybdenum?

Why does Sunstealer think he's now not only just debunked Chris7, but also apparently RJ Lee, Frank Greening and all of 9/'11 bedunkerdom?

 

[ergo]

BENDING of steel members will induce tensions that can break up an oxidized surface. The floor trusses, being thinner, would have experienced more bending than the columns, and also possibly more pounding and grinding.

Yeah, in the whole 0.16 seconds each floor had to experience all this "grinding".

 

[GlennB]

I'm confused.

Nominated.

 

[DGM]

I'm confused. Isn't iron reduction a completely different chemical process than that required to produce metal-rich microspheres? What is the relevance of this discussion to the melting of iron or iron oxide into microspheres? What is the relevance of this to the melting or vaporization of lead and molybdenum?

Why does Sunstealer think he's now not only just debunked Chris7, but also apparently RJ Lee, Frank Greening and all of 9/'11 bedunkerdom?

That's right, You're confused.

I think this is the first time you've admitted this. You're making progress.

 

[grandmastershek]

Yeah, in the whole 0.16 seconds each floor had to experience all this "grinding".

Yet another fantastic argument from incredulity. Klunkity klunk!