Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

[Minadin]

^[1]Not to be confused with Invisicrete^tm

Invisicrete has been invented. I don't know where you would get it and you can't use it for structural work. Interior novelty (neat-o effect) product only.

 

[Heiwa]

1. There's no need for X to disappear like magic. It's merely necessary for X to slip sideways a tiny bit.

2. The building wasn't a solid structure. If the connection between X and A fails, then X will be able to slide through A without much difficulty.

3. It's fascinating to visualise Heiwa's theory of what should have happened. The supports give way, the building drops down, each component lands neatly on the corresponding piece one floor down, the steel compresses and then bounces back, and the entire structure sits there safe and sound. Just put the fire out, do a bit of refurbishment and you could move straight back in.

1. So why would X suddenly slip sideways? 260+ columns connected to both A above and B below.

2. According US/British 'experts' (Bazant/Seffen) A was solid while B was not! Why would the connections (260+) between A and X suddenly fail? A crushed down on X? Distance between A and X is 0. Difficult to crash, don't you agree?

3. Much more fascinating are the official fantasies about, first, a solid upper block coming free falling down and, as an alternative, second, only the 6-11 lower floors of the upper block decided to fall down.

You haven't read my article, have you? The upper block breaks up, or is compressed 20-25 meters, before anything else happens.

Why on earth would an upper block, undamaged, not affected by any fire, just full of smoke, disintegrate before it could do all what FEMA, Nist & Co suggest it did?

 

[tsig]

1. Yes.

2. Did it? According my observations the damned thing (A) breaks up before it even impinges it (B).

3. So X was blown away? By gravity? Or CD? Pls clarify.

4. Thanks for the advice. I only use basics from my university (a very good one).

5. See 3.

6. To advance knowledge a little discussion doesn't harm.

PS. Study my article and propose improvements/corrections in a civilized manner. No need to mentally collapse.

In order to advance knowledge you need some.

Why did they need 47 columns if each one of them is unbreakable?

 

[Heiwa]

Erm, Heiwa, disregarding all the rest of the wrong stuff in your point here, even you should know that steel loses strength when heated. Standard structural steel loses half of its strength at about 550°C (that's 50%).

You can look this up easily.

Quite irrelevant actually - except that steel is affected by heat and deforms accordingly as shown in my article. Gradually. No sudden losses of strength at any temperature. Try my model test http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm#6 starting at ambient temperature. It doesn't matter if the temperature is 300°C or 800°C - the upper block (the water tank) does not come free falling down at any temperature when heating the columns.

The individual steel columns adapt themselves to any temperature and the complete structure (260+ supporting columns) adapts itself accordingly (load re-distribution). No sudden collapse will ever occur. Has never occured.

That's the beauty of a multiple support (many columns) steel structure in a tower. It cannot globally collapse due to fire.

It needs assistance for global collapse. CD?

 

[Heiwa]

Why did they need 47 columns if each one of them is unbreakable?

Easier to manufacture and more economical. Only one core column would be pretty bulky. But it could be done. But it is not optimal, you know.

More questions? I rather prefer somebody trying to debunk the facts of my article.

 

[X]

Easier to manufacture and more economical. Only one core column would be pretty bulky. But it could be done. But it is not optimal, you know.

But why does it have to be bulky?
You've said before that steel will not fail.
So why couldn't they just stick up one thin column?

Unless, of course, steel has a finite load-carrying capacity...

 

[DGM]

Easier to manufacture and more economical. Only one core column would be pretty bulky. But it could be done. But it is not optimal, you know.

More questions? I rather prefer somebody trying to debunk the facts of my article.

The problem with that is your article does not pertain to building structures and observed realities. Criticism of your article is simply ignored by you. Stick to trying to convince children, adults are laughing at you.

 

[Minadin]

Quite irrelevant actually - except that steel is affected by heat and deforms accordingly as shown in my article. Gradually. No sudden losses of strength at any temperature. Try my model test http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm#6 starting at ambient temperature. It doesn't matter if the temperature is 300°C or 800°C - the upper block (the water tank) does not come free falling down at any temperature when heating the columns.

I'm done arguing with you if you don't think it matters if the yield strength of the steel is 90% of capacity (300°C) or 20% (800°C) because there's simply no way you could ever even attempt to try and support that argument honestly.

You're wrong, and there's a whole lot of easily accessible, verified information on the internet and in the library of every architect, structural engineer, and fire marshall on the planet that confirms it without a doubt.


For those of you who are actually interested in what sort of concerns there are related to various types of construction in a fire and what the pro's and con's of each are, try this interesting article:

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/bsi/87-5_e.html

It's got some interesting things to say when it comes to steel structure that are 100% in disagreement with anything Heiwa is saying here. For instance:

Both the yield stress and modulus of elasticity of steel, the two material properties most important in determining load-carrying capacity, decrease considerably with increasing temperatures (Figure 5).12 At a temperature of 593 ° C,these values will have fallen by at least 40% compared to ambient room temperature levels, meaning that the strength of the steel member will be barely sufficient to resist applied loads (assuming normal safety factors).

A heavy steel column can absorb considerable heat and not reach its critical temperature before 30 to 40 minutes of exposure to a fully developed fire. On the other hand, open web steel joists and other lightweight types of steel construction may fail within five to ten minutes of exposure to the same fire.

If the structural member is axially restrained against displacement (as a column is), the expansion due to heat will be translated into thermal stresses that will increase the overall stress level in the member and cause an earlier collapse. Without axial restraint, a steel member will expand and could set up eccentric loading of adjacent structural members by displacing one of their ends

(bolding mine in the above quotes)

I could go on, but they tend to frown on posting more than snippets of copyrighted stuff. You'll have to just check out the article for yourself.

 

[Heiwa]

But why does it have to be bulky?
You've said before that steel will not fail.
So why couldn't they just stick up one thin column?

Unless, of course, steel has a finite load-carrying capacity...

Who is suggesting that steel will not fail? I have in my paper calculated that the WTC1 core columns floors 94-98 will not buckle due to compression! They will yield before that as they are arranged with horizontal supports. And yielding is plastic deformation and need not be buckling. Do not suggest that I say anything else than what I state in my paper. Try to be factual, not fallacious.

Reason why they didn't stick up one super strong core column and connected all floors to it was probably that it was easier and less costly to stick up 47 core columns - still quite strong - and connect the floors to those. And arrange lifts, toilets, etc in the core.

 

[DGM]

Heiwa:
Why do you not take into consideration the role the hat trust would play in redistributing the load of the deformed/damaged parameter columns?

 

[Belz...]

Quite irrelevant actually - except that steel is affected by heat and deforms accordingly as shown in my article. Gradually. No sudden losses of strength at any temperature. Try my model test http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm#6 starting at ambient temperature. It doesn't matter if the temperature is 300°C or 800°C - the upper block (the water tank) does not come free falling down at any temperature when heating the columns.

So, what ? Fires cannot possibly lead to structural failures ?

 

[Heiwa]

I'm done arguing with you if you don't think it matters if the yield strength of the steel is 90% of capacity (300°C) or 20% (800°C) because there's simply no way you could ever even attempt to try and support that argument honestly.

You're wrong, and there's a whole lot of easily accessible, verified information on the internet and in the library of every architect, structural engineer, and fire marshall on the planet that confirms it without a doubt.

What's the problem? That I am right? We both agree that steel is affected by temperature/heat. My understanding is that this inherent weakness of steel will not cause sudden collapse ... at any temperature, because long before any 'collapse' the multi-columns/beams/spandrels steel structure will deform - gradually - and find a new equilibrium = no collapse. That's the beauty of steel construction.

Try my model test - link above - and see that there is no sudden, magic loss of strength at any temperature leading to anything supported - in the model by 4 columns, in WTC 1 by 260+ columns - free falling - when the supports are heated.

And as there is no sudden loss of load carrying capability of a steel structure, the WTC1 collapse cannot be caused by the upper block free falling down - not seen on any videos anyway.

Use your eyes and your brains! Do not just believe.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:
Why do you not take into consideration the role the hat trust would play in redistributing the load of the deformed/damaged parameter columns?

You mean the hat trusses? At the roof? On which the WTC1 mast was fitted?

They are very useful! Remove all columns of a wall down below and that wall may hang on the hat trusses. And the hat trusses will transmit that load to the core and the other walls, if strong enough. If not, the wall may fall down = local collapse. The breakage will be in the connection between the wall and the hat truss.

 

[Heiwa]

So, what ? Fires cannot possibly lead to structural failures ?

Take an engine. It is running hot. A part breaks for any reason ... and that's it. The engine does not structurally collapse for that ... but it will not run any more. Same with WTC1.

 

[Heiwa]

The problem with that is your article does not pertain to building structures and observed realities. Criticism of your article is simply ignored by you. Stick to trying to convince children, adults are laughing at you.

??? The article is 100% about building steel structure and observed realities of WTC1. Comments have been highly appreciated, children likes it and no adult has been laughing. Come on, why do you invent things without any knowledge what so ever?

 

[DGM]

You mean the hat trusses? At the roof? On which the WTC1 mast was fitted?

They are very useful! Remove all columns of a wall down below and that wall may hang on the hat trusses. And the hat trusses will transmit that load to the core and the other walls, if strong enough. If not, the wall may fall down = local collapse. The breakage will be in the connection between the wall and the hat truss.

Nice non-answer. Stick to ships and children (not too close to children)

 

[DGM]

Heiwa:
Your paper is based on perfect column to column even distribution of loads after collapse. Do you really think that could happen in the real world?

 

[tsig]

Take an engine. It is running hot. A part breaks for any reason ... and that's it. The engine does not structurally collapse for that ... but it will not run any more. Same with WTC1.

You have soared beyond the realm of reason where pigs fly. If pigs fly thru hickory smoke do they taste like bacon?

 

[tsig]

You mean the hat trusses? At the roof? On which the WTC1 mast was fitted?

They are very useful! Remove all columns of a wall down below and that wall may hang on the hat trusses. And the hat trusses will transmit that load to the core and the other walls, if strong enough. If not, the wall may fall down = local collapse. The breakage will be in the connection between the wall and the hat truss.

No hat has ever had a hernia so you entire thesis is refuted.

It was all in your head.

 

[X]

Who is suggesting that steel will not fail? I have in my paper calculated that the WTC1 core columns floors 94-98 will not buckle due to compression! They will yield before that as they are arranged with horizontal supports. And yielding is plastic deformation and need not be buckling. Do not suggest that I say anything else than what I state in my paper. Try to be factual, not fallacious.

Reason why they didn't stick up one super strong core column and connected all floors to it was probably that it was easier and less costly to stick up 47 core columns - still quite strong - and connect the floors to those. And arrange lifts, toilets, etc in the core.

You are.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3434170&postcount=204

Once steel reaches the yielding point (plastic), it has failed. At that point, it will not do a very good job of supporting a load. The load will fall. Not settle.


Anyway, I'm still waiting for the evidence asked for in the OP:

On the debunkers thread, Heiwa has suggested that one of the underlying flaws in the NIST collapse report is the steelwork would be inherrently resistant to heat-induced failure under typical fire conditions.

The purpose of this thread is to provide Heiwa with an opportunity to post the evidence for this quite remarkable claim.

And one final point: For the ease of us reading your posts, may I suggest you use the multi-quote function?
Thanks.