1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

[ElMondoHummus]

We need to keep in mind that some of the code changes are still ongoing. Architect already knows this, so he can go to sleep for my post (ditto any of the engineers here, plus Grizzly Bear), but: If you go to the ICC website, you can see what's happening:
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/NIST-WorldTradeCenterRecommendations.aspx

Back on Aug. 30th, they released a summary of what's been done so far:
http://www.iccsafe.org/newsroom/News Releases/08302011-NR-911.pdf

Note that two of the already implemented changes do indeed speak to measures to delay collapse:

• A higher standard for fire resistance in high-rise buildings more than 420 feet tall;
• More robust fire proofing for buildings more than 75 feet tall, which will be less likely to be dislodged by impacts or explosions

I'll let the local professionals in this forum go into further detail on those general points, but those changes are most definitely in response to findings out of the NIST report that are directly involved with the collapse initiations. Recall that NIST's stance is that the fireproofing dislodged, and that the initiating failures were the shiftings of the ever increasing eccentrically applied loads due to the fires compromising the damaged structures. That's exactly what NIST had been saying was the cause of the collapse, and that's exactly the thing that the ICC addressed.

Let's also understand that some of what's being discussed also has nothing to do with the collapse mechanism, but with occupant egress. Or, in other words, design that allows people to flee in an emergency. A building can't be designed that avoids collapse in any circumstance, so the sensible thing is to also take into account how to get people out in a hurry. It's not surprising that such discussion is taking up time and concentration in the professional consideration of the NIST findings.

Anyway, who else is willing to put to bed this notion that the NIST report hasn't had a professional impact? The professionals in this very thread are elaborating on it. And it's not hard to see what the ICC says either; all one has to do is go look.

None of what's been presented here by the conspiracy narrative advocates has been about legitimate criticism of NIST. All of it is simply about marginalizing the work in order to present an opposing and unsupported worldview as a legitimate alternative. It's time the truthers took a look at what the ICC as well as the relevant professionals (such as Arup) have said about the NIST report. Arup's statements could give them a lesson in what genuine criticism is, and it can also teach them that even the genuine, legitimate critics accept the basic findings

Anyway, enough said. There's no doubt that the findings are generally accepted, with criticism being about details (example: Quintiere's, and separately Arups', statements that the fireproofing remaining intact would not have avoided (or even delayed??) the collapses). Not the general thrust. Stating otherwise is ignoring reality.

 

[bill smith]

Some intersting posts on this subject in this thread..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7496404&postcount=1732 hyperlink

 

[Architect]

And if you follow the hyperlink in said post, you'll find that in addition to adopting more robust fire and structural standards for tall buildings generally, the ICC made the following decision:

The following are the nine model building and fire code change proposals consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes but will be considered for resubmission at a later date after being amended:

• Requiring buildings more than 420 feet high to be designed to survive a building contents fire to burnout without more than local failure of the structural frame.

• Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident.

Or in other words, they didn't refuse to adopt then but carried the current proposals forward for further consideration after review.

Do you read any of this stuff you link to???

 

[bill smith]

And if you follow the hyperlink in said post, you'll find that in addition to adopting more robust fire and structural standards for tall buildings generally, the ICC made the following decision:



Or in other words, they didn't refuse to adopt then but carried the current proposals forward for further consideration after review.

Do you read any of this stuff you link to???

Hi there Architect [wink]. There's more about the CBTUH and so on further up in that thread.

 

[Architect]

Feel free to post links to specific posts which you feel are of relevance in a 76 page thread.

 

[NoahFence]

If you had read my post you would know I simply asked for the name of the publication.

...And if given the name, you'd have looked it up and done the research yourself, right?

Uh huh.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I think you're b.s.'ing. The only question is on how many items.

Suddenly seems to have forgotten about that Eurocode stuff. A pity, because I intended to advertise my bridge in Brooklyn i'm going to sell to GlennB and/or Animal by pointing out the compliance with those norms.

 

[ergo]

Suddenly seems to have forgotten about that Eurocode stuff. A pity, because I intended to advertise my bridge in Brooklyn i'm going to sell to GlennB and/or Animal by pointing out the compliance with those norms.

Yes, I'm still trying to figure out how this passage

Confidential Reporting on Structural Safety director Alastair Soane adds that there have even been some changes to the Building Regulations as a result of 9/11. From December 2004, any designers of large and more complex Class 3 buildings have to undertake a “systematic risk assessment” that not only takes account of all normal events
that should be expected during the lifetime of the building, but also abnormal events. The same approach has been adopted in Eurocodes.

shows us what changes in the Eurocodes have been adopted specifically to address the phenomenon of "progressive collapse" in buildings.

It's almost as if Architect... doesn't. understand. the question.

 

[ergo]

Or in other words, they didn't refuse to adopt then but carried the current proposals forward for further consideration after review.

Translation from bedunkerspeak: They didn't adopt those changes. They may, possibly, in the future, but they apparently have seen no immediate need to, now ten years after 9/11.

What's weird is that right before stating this he still tries to back in some allusion to changes in "structural standards", which he still has not specified, nor even given an example of.

And if you follow the hyperlink in said post, you'll find that in addition to adopting more robust fire and structural standards for tall buildings generally, the ICC made the following decision:

So we're apparently still at the original observation that no code changes anywhere have been implemented to address the problem of "progressive collapse". Architect has only made cryptic mention of a supposed Eurocodes change to address something called "disproportionate structural collapse", but has yet to provide any evidence, and the first paper I found mentioning disproportionate structural collapse seems to be talking about something completely different than what NIST termed "progressive collapse" of the Twin Towers. So either Architect doesn't understand the question, or at least some Europeans think progressive collapse is something different from a top-down global collapse. (And who would blame them, since the top-down self destruction of a building defies basic principles of physics and engineering, and has never been seen in any other natural gravitational collapse.)

 

[beachnut]

The 1600 Gage nuts missed the independent studies done on 911. Structural engineering studies, fires safety studies, etc, which cost money! Gage's nuts, cult members, non-thinking drones donate money to Gage's failed movement, have not fessed funds to gain knowledge. The studies done have been used to make buildings better, 911 truth is spreading lies to make nuts nuttier.

A movement with research equal to 911 truth's pathetic efforts; Bigfoot.

 

[ozeco41]

Translation from bedunkerspeak: They didn't adopt those changes. They may, possibly, in the future, but they apparently have seen no immediate need to, now ten years after 9/11.

What's weird is that right before stating this he still tries to back in some allusion to changes in "structural standards", which he still has not specified, nor even given an example of.



So we're apparently still at the original observation that no code changes anywhere have been implemented to address the problem of "progressive collapse". Architect has only made cryptic mention of a supposed Eurocodes change to address something called "disproportionate structural collapse", but has yet to provide any evidence, and the first paper I found mentioning disproportionate structural collapse seems to be talking about something completely different than what NIST termed "progressive collapse" of the Twin Towers. So either Architect doesn't understand the question, or at least some Europeans think progressive collapse is something different from a top-down global collapse. (And who would blame them, since the top-down self destruction of a building defies basic principles of physics and engineering, and has never been seen in any other natural gravitational collapse.)

Stop clutching at straws ergo.

The reality is that, independent of any regulation changes, the high rise construction industry world wide is aware of the risks revealed by WTC 9/11.

No client getting a high rise built and no engineer or architect designing such a high rise will be unaware of 9/11 lessons. They will manage the risk of any new buildings taking cognisance of 9/11 events. How far they go, if it were not for regulations, would be a matter of where their business plans allocate the identified risks.

The role of regulation is to set a minimum standard for risk management - defining the lowest level of protection that all buildings must meet.

How much further they go, if in fact they do go further, is at the discretion of the owner/client as advised by architects and engineers and insurers and other risk managing experts. And don't forget the fourth group - the future tenants. They will be demanding to know what new, post 9/11, protections they have if they occupy a new high rise and owners will be keen to point to the extra precautions they have incorporated.

So stop clutching at straws and building strawman arguments. New regulations are only part of the picture.

 

[Architect]

Most Truthers know very little about technical issues and all the latest crop of postings from Bill and Ergo merely prove this, failing to understand (for example) technical terms such as dispropportionate structural collapse and apparently believing that complex documents like the Eurocodes or even the Building Regulations will state something along the lines of "Para 1.13.13: Gonna design your buildings to withstand aircraft impacts, eh?".

So, for example, the 2003-5 research programme for the English Building Regulations includes a programme - BD2463 Strategy for Enhancing the Robustness and Integrity ofTall Buildings - which looked at design of robust structures and the development of robust strategic guidance on the effective means of providing such robustness consistent with today’s society. As an aside BD2464 looked specifically at the robustness of structures in fires.

That revisions have been made to building standards is undoubted. Let's look again at the NCE article:

Confidential Reporting on Structural Safety director Alastair Soane adds that there have even been some changes to the Building Regulations as a result of 9/11. From December 2004, any designers of large and more complex Class 3 buildings have to undertake a “systematic risk assessment” that not only takes account of all normal events
that should be expected during the lifetime of the building, but also abnormal events. The same approach has been adopted in Eurocodes.

And then we've got an article which our resident truthers seem to be claiming says the changes recommended were not adopted by ICC. Like most truther quotes, however, it's selective:

Changes That Made the Cut:

The following are the 23 model building and fire code changes consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations now required by the I-Codes (changes displayed in italics are ones that were approved at previous ICC hearings and incorporated at the Minneapolis hearing into the 2009 I-Codes):

(snip)

• Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures

• A one-hour increase in the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings more than 420 feet high.

• Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.

• Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.

And on top of this they asked the draft regulations on progressive collapse/dispropportionate failure to be carried forward for review and presentation at a later date.

Somehow, however, Ergo and Bill manage to interpret this as "no changes to the codes".

 

[ozeco41]

...Somehow, however, Ergo and Bill manage to interpret this as "no changes to the codes".

So far out of their depth that they haven't a clue how far they are out of their depth.

 

[BasqueArch]

Translation from bedunkerspeak: They didn't adopt those changes. They may, possibly, in the future, but they apparently have seen no immediate need to, now ten years after 9/11.

What's weird is that right before stating this he still tries to back in some allusion to changes in "structural standards", which he still has not specified, nor even given an example of.

So we're apparently still at the original observation that no code changes anywhere have been implemented to address the problem of "progressive collapse". Architect has only made cryptic mention of a supposed Eurocodes change to address something called "disproportionate structural collapse", but has yet to provide any evidence, and the first paper I found mentioning disproportionate structural collapse seems to be talking about something completely different than what NIST termed "progressive collapse" of the Twin Towers. So either Architect doesn't understand the question, or at least some Europeans think progressive collapse is something different from a top-down global collapse. (And who would blame them, since the top-down self destruction of a building defies basic principles of physics and engineering, and has never been seen in any other natural gravitational collapse.)

This is a big bellyflop fail.

Since I had to type these by hand, the following is only a small partial list of the ICC adopted NIST changes:

Another reason that the adoption of new IBC codes is delayed is that plan review examiners have to be trained for the new code.

IBC 2009 has added a new Section 1614 – Structural Integrity, that wasn’t in IBC 2006.
This Section applies to high rise buildings only. A sampling:

Section 1614.3 Frame Structures commentary– “These provisions enhance the overall structural integrity and resistance of frame structures by establishing minimum requirements for tying together the primary structural elements.”

Section 1614.3.2.1 . Columns commentary –“The additional requirement for the tensile strength of column splices enhances the column’s performance in unforeseen events.”

Section 1614.3.2.2 Beams – (actual code) “End connections of all beams and girders shall have a minimum nominal axial tensile strength equal to the required vertical shear strength for allowable stress design (ASD) or two-thirds of the required shear strength for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) but not less than 10 kips (45kN). For the purpose of this section, the shear force and the axial tensile force need not be considered to act simultaneously.”

Beams commentary- “Providing the required tensile strength for all beam and girder connections provides some ability to carry transfer and/or redistribute load in the event there is loss of support. …”

Section 403 High Rise Buidlings
Section 403.2.4 Sprayed fire-resistant materials (SFRM) Commentary – “Recommendation 6 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) Report calls for the improvement of the in-place performance of the SFRM.” The code goes on about minimum bond strength of the SFRM.

So yes, these and other of 23 IBC 2009 code changes to high rise buildings are the direct result of the NIST WTC Report recommendations. I believe ergo claimed these changes in the codes were routine, not caused by the NIST report and therefore not evidence of support by the professional community of the NIST report. I'm not aware of any thermal structural expansion requirements in the new (2009) or future (2012) code, but structural connections have been strengthened as has SFRM to allow greater survivability of the structure in case of "unforeseen events."

The IBC 2012 code edition will be issued in May, 2011,with 17 additional NIST WTC related changes.

ergo ignored this when first posted the above.

As a result of its investigation of the WTC towers, NIST compiled a list of 30 recommendations to improve the safety of tall buildings, occupants, and emergency responders based on its investigation of the procedures and practices that were used for the WTC towers. The recommendations call for action by specific entities regarding standards, codes and regulations, their adoption and enforcement, professional practices, education, and training; and research and development. Additionally, as a result of the investigation of WTC 7, NIST has issued one additional recommendation and reiterated 12 of the recommendations from the WTC towers investigation.
Responding to the recommendations, the International Code Council (ICC) has adopted 23 code changes that were incorporated in the 2009 edition of the International Building Code and the International Fire Code. In addition, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) approved fifteen changes that were incorporated into the 2009 editions of the NFPA 5000 Building Code, the NFPA 1 Fire Code, and the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code. These far-reaching building and fire code changes will lead to future buildings—especially tall structures—that are increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall for occupants and emergency responders. NIST is continuing to work with the codes and standards bodies and the technical community toward implementing additional changes to codes and standards based on the recommendations of the WTC investigation.

http://buildingsonfire.com/investigation-of-the-world-trade-center-disaster
What are the chances ergo will ignore this second post also.

 

[ergo]

Since I had to type these by hand, the following is only a small partial list of the ICC adopted NIST changes:

Another reason that the adoption of new IBC codes is delayed is that plan review examiners have to be trained for the new code.

IBC 2009 has added a new Section 1614 – Structural Integrity, that wasn’t in IBC 2006.
This Section applies to high rise buildings only. A sampling:

Section 1614.3 Frame Structures commentary– “These provisions enhance the overall structural integrity and resistance of frame structures by establishing minimum requirements for tying together the primary structural elements.”

Section 1614.3.2.1 . Columns commentary –“The additional requirement for the tensile strength of column splices enhances the column’s performance in unforeseen events.”

Section 1614.3.2.2 Beams – (actual code) “End connections of all beams and girders shall have a minimum nominal axial tensile strength equal to the required vertical shear strength for allowable stress design (ASD) or two-thirds of the required shear strength for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) but not less than 10 kips (45kN). For the purpose of this section, the shear force and the axial tensile force need not be considered to act simultaneously.”

Beams commentary- “Providing the required tensile strength for all beam and girder connections provides some ability to carry transfer and/or redistribute load in the event there is loss of support. …”

Section 403 High Rise Buidlings
Section 403.2.4 Sprayed fire-resistant materials (SFRM) Commentary – “Recommendation 6 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) Report calls for the improvement of the in-place performance of the SFRM.” The code goes on about minimum bond strength of the SFRM.

...

The IBC 2012 code edition will be issued in May, 2011,with 17 additional NIST WTC related changes.

You typed these by hand from which document? Why are you guys so selective in what you source on this subject?

Let's see: May, 2011. That was five months ago! Bedunkers don't have the current changes?

The IBC is a model building code which has no legal status.

The only page you needed to refer us to was this one:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/code_changes_2008.cfm

The only changes relevant to changing structural codes possibly addressing "progressive collapse" (as opposed to addressing fire safety and evacuation) are these:

# Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.

# Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.

And I won't comment on these right now, but we've discussed them here before. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the specific requirements by real architects and engineers, ones who use their real names.

And given that the NIST reports are provably false, this does bring into question the relevance of their recommendations relative to what was already in place. If the specific requirements are a significant change, and not just minor common sense tweaks, or a codification of standards that were already in practice, then I agree that this is definitely something that can be pursued by AE911Truth if they aren't already.

 

[NoahFence]

Let's see: May, 2011. That was five months ago! Bedunkers don't have the current changes?

5 months ago IS current. Dude, you're getting slaughtered in this debate, as usual. Just get a new hobby.

 

[leftysergeant]

And given that the NIST reports are provably false, this does bring into question the relevance of their recommendations relative to what was already in place.

If the specific requirements are a significant change, and not just minor common sense tweaks, or a codification of standards that were already in practice, then I agree that this is definitely something that can be pursued by AE911Truth if they aren't already.

Trouble is that they are not qualified to investigate a so much as a dead armadillo on a blacktop road. They are taking issue with the findings of experts in the fields addressed, even if they lack knowledge of those fields themselves.

The pre-schoolers are taking over the university.

 

[Animal]

5 months ago IS current. Dude, you're getting slaughtered in this debate, as usual. Just get a new hobby.

In the world of building codes, 6 months is nothing. We just adopted the '09 codes here.

 

[timhau]

In the world of building codes, 6 months is nothing. We just adopted the '09 codes here.

Obviously, you're not a vewified awchitectuwal and engineewing pwofessional.

 

[Animal]

Obviously, you're not a vewified awchitectuwal and engineewing pwofessional.

LOL.....as marko would say.

Here in the states......once the new code is published by the ICC, then the state reviews it, makes their own changes, waits for public comment, has hearings etc and then gets around to adopting it. They never bother to inform the licensed professional in the state (it is not like they don't have our addresses) that a new code is adopted. I usually find out during a plan submission when a plan reviewer makes comments based on the new code.