Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

[rwguinn]

Calling all Civil, Mechanical, and structural engineers:

How many of you consider "yielding" to be a non-failure?
As in "It yields but doesn't fail" WTF, O?

Thought so...

 

[Newtons Bit]

Calling all Civil, Mechanical, and structural engineers:

How many of you consider "yielding" to be a non-failure?
As in "It yields but doesn't fail" WTF, O?

Thought so...

Only in special detailed lateral systems. But that's just beams and braces, not the columns. If columns yield, say bye bye to structure.

 

[funk de fino]

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.

Guess you dont know much about engines either?

 

[DGM]

Guess you dont know much about engines either?

He's never seen whats left when you throw a rod a 10,000 RPM.

 

[Heiwa]

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.

On the contrary! In many steel structural designs when tested with extra load sub-parts may yield and the load is redistributed to adjacent areas. No collapse! Example - bracket toes fitted between two beams. The toe part yields but the rest of the bracket is strong enough to transmit the load. No big deal. One of the beauties of steel design. Always a large margin up to the rupture stress!

 

[Heiwa]

Only in special detailed lateral systems. But that's just beams and braces, not the columns. If columns yield, say bye bye to structure.

If the column yields it will plastically deform and can still be stable. Evidently the local deformation of one column will cause load re-distribution to adjacent column so the structure is still safe. It is called redundancy.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

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.

Umm...yes they do. I've actually evaded a jet-engine turbine blade with mere centimeters when the engine crashed and threw blades around the egnine room (Ah, well to tell the truth only one blade escaped, but still). There wasn't much left of the interior of the engine after that.

Something like this, ableit smaller:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...89&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

I would imagine "structural collapse" would be an appropriate label.

Then just for the fun of it, here is a hot rod engine that goes up.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3637905519243800653

Rocket engine going up:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...497&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

Dragster:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...97&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4


Then again, you can't really compare engines to buildings, can you.

 

[Belz...]

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.

You're comparing jet engines to 110-storey skyscrapers ?

Why would I expect an engine to collapse structurally ? And how does this mechanism relate to the towers ?

Do you know anything about anything, Heiwa ?

 

[westprog]

I concur. The only person that believes that Heiwa's calculations are "solid" is Heiwa. Everyone else knows that they are crap.

Actually, his calculations look OK - it's just that there is no physical basis for them. That should be taken as read, but we still get so many theories based on mistakes (like centigrade for fahrenheit) that it's worth pointing out.

Heiwa is arithmetically sound. His physics and engineering are hopeless.

 

[Architect]

If the column yields it will plastically deform and can still be stable. Evidently the local deformation of one column will cause load re-distribution to adjacent column so the structure is still safe. It is called redundancy.

[Sighs again]

I see that absolutely nothing has changed in the 24 hours I've been away.

I find it amusing, Heiwa, that you now refuse to respond to my posts....presumably for the same reason you stopped answering Newton's Bit (i.e. highlighting the ludicrous flaws in your "theory").

But turning to this latest gem, redundancy has to be designed in. What eveidence do you have that the level of redundancy incorporated was sufficient to tramsit the differing load paths following the impact/fires and can you please show us your calculations proving that the capacity was adequate.

And I mean structural calculations, not billiard ball analogies.

 

[Minadin]

If a column plastically deforms how in the world would it be able to remain "very stable"? There are going to be horizontal components to the vectors that weren't included in how the column was originally designed to take a load.

If the adjaecent structure takes on the load that the deformed column can no longer carry, it's being applied in a less than optimal way, compared to how it was designed. And, if the adjaecent structure that's being asked to carry these extra eccentric loads is also compromised in any way, such as heat weakening or deformation, you've got a potential for a major problem.

 

[Heiwa]

But turning to this latest gem, redundancy has to be designed in. What eveidence do you have that the level of redundancy incorporated was sufficient to tramsit the differing load paths following the impact/fires and can you please show us your calculations proving that the capacity was adequate.

And I mean structural calculations, not billiard ball analogies.

Impact? There was no impact! There were 280+ columns in the fire zone and Nist suggests they buckled in some manner to initiate a global collapse of structure below even if there is no evidence for that.
No buckled columns from the fire zone have been retrieved. Videos show that the structure above the relevant columns disintegrates before any columns in the fire zone buckle.
So there is no impact of any load from above on undamaged structure below.
But Nist suggested the opposite + that the structure above is rigid.
Nist has later retracted the suggestion and talks about floors dropping down.
However, if a load drops on an intact structure below, evidently the intact structure below reacts. As shown in calculations in my paper the intact steel structure reacts as a spring; it is compressed and then pushes the load back up again.
No collapse.
If the spring is overloaded then it will break; but in only one location. As the spring is then broken, the load will not be applied any longer but drop beside the spring. No collapse.
Nist seems to suggest that the spring is first broken at the top, the load is re-applied to the rest of the spring and breaks it again at the new top, and so on until the spring is in 1000's of pieces = global collapse.

Actually - the structure below is not one spring! It is 280+ springs spread around over 4000 m² of which the springs occupy 5 m²! Each column acts as a spring with a load on top and it is very unlikely that 280+ springs break say each 70 times. The loads will drop beside the springs - plenty of space! 3995 m² between the springs and plenty of free space outside.

That is one aspect of redundancy - to allow a drop load to fall beside the load carrying structure, when local failure develops due overload, to avoid further collapse.

 

[peteweaver]

Heiwa, redundant structure only goes so far.


Once enough damage to the primary structure is done, the secondary redundant structure cannot support the load either, and will suffer a bending moment, when bending moments occur, the load which had been supported FALLS, becoming a dynamic load. The structure below the dynamic load, had not been designed to arrest the shock from a dynamic load, and the bolts holding that together shear.


In the diagram below, the I beam on the right has failed because fire has softened it, the load compressing on it would cause further deformation of it, until it gave way.

The beam on the left would become as deformed as the one on the right, due to effect of heat + load.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, redundant structure only goes so far.


Once enough damage to the primary structure is done, the secondary redundant structure cannot support the load either, and will suffer a bending moment, when bending moments occur, the load which had been supported FALLS, becoming a dynamic load. The structure below the dynamic load, had not been designed to arrest the shock from a dynamic load, and the bolts holding that together shear.


In the diagram below, the I beam on the right has failed because fire has softened it, the load compressing on it would cause further deformation of it, until it gave way.

The beam on the left would become as deformed as the one on the right, due to effect of heat + load.

So what initiated the deformation of the first column of 280+ columns? It was originally only compressively stressed to <30% yield at ambient temperature and could not buckle? Aha, it was heated so it buckled. Fair enough. What temperature? 800°C. OK. So it transmitted its load to an adjacent column that was also heated 800°C, etc. And that initiated the global collapse of the structure below!

To initiate something is not just to begin something, it is also to set a plan working, or to admit or introduce somebody into a society or to give instructions. An initiate is often a person initiated into a secret society. After an initiation, i.e. being aquainted with the rules of the secret society at some ceremony, you are an initiate. Sometimes I wonder why the word initiation is used in connection with the WTC1 collapse. Why not say start or beginning? Because those words are less mysterious?

Or ... does anybody believe that the release of potential energy started the collapse? So what started the release of potential energy?

Aha - 280+ strong columns buckled simultaneously due heat. Or one column failed due to heat and like dominoes all the others fell very quickly ... and disappeared! Not seen anywhere - too quick for the eye - ... but then potential energy was released, i.e. the weight above carried by the 280+ columns started to move down. Free fall? Was it possible?

No, it was the mysterious initiation! The 280+ columns in the fire zone just disappeared. Mysteriously. Do not ask why? It is magic. Part of the show! Or plan. Free fall! Don't think! Believe!

And then the free falling rigid weight - must be rigid but actually very soft - from above the magically disappeared columns impinged or impacted or hit ... instantaneously - the structure below. Not seen of course - again too quick for the eye ... but a result of the initiation.

And BOUF - the steel structure below globally collapsed. The elusive shock wave, you know started! It initiated 1000's of ruptures of the 280+ load bearing columns below and everything else. None heated. All only stressed <30% yield. Simultaneously. Or progressively at almost free fall speed. The shock wave that carried energy and momentum and generated violent motion ... never seen before and after 911.

Don't be any more inquisitive! This is the NWO modern physics. Do not try to mix it up with old fashioned physics.

 

[Architect]

So what initiated the deformation of the first column of 280+ columns? It was originally only compressively stressed to <30% yield at ambient temperature and could not buckle? Aha, it was heated so it buckled. Fair enough. What temperature? 800°C. OK. So it transmitted its load to an adjacent column that was also heated 800°C, etc. And that initiated the global collapse of the structure below!

Your lack of expertise in this field and incredulity are not substitutes for structural analysis. The collapse mechanism is well understood and centres around deformation of the external envelope due to lack of restraint following failure of the floor ties.

To initiate something is not just to begin something, it is also to set a plan working, or to admit or introduce somebody into a society or to give instructions. An initiate is often a person initiated into a secret society. After an initiation, i.e. being aquainted with the rules of the secret society at some ceremony, you are an initiate. Sometimes I wonder why the word initiation is used in connection with the WTC1 collapse. Why not say start or beginning? Because those words are less mysterious?

Your limited grasp of the finer nuances of English, and in particular technical phrases, is not my concern. Initiation is the appropriate terminology. Any qualified structural engineer would be aware of that.

Or ... does anybody believe that the release of potential energy started the collapse? So what started the release of potential energy?

Aha - 280+ strong columns buckled simultaneously due heat. Or one column failed due to heat and like dominoes all the others fell very quickly ... and disappeared! Not seen anywhere - too quick for the eye - ... but then potential energy was released, i.e. the weight above carried by the 280+ columns started to move down. Free fall? Was it possible?

Again, incredulity in lieu of structural analysis. Consistency appears to be one of your strong points.

No, it was the mysterious initiation! The 280+ columns in the fire zone just disappeared. Mysteriously. Do not ask why? It is magic. Part of the show! Or plan. Free fall! Don't think! Believe!

Again you fail to grasp the nature of the collapse mechanism. This in turn is founded upon your failure to understand the nature of an inter-relationship between the elements which comprised the essentially composite nature of the WTC design. Failure of the outer envelope is, in itself, sufficient to cause rapid progressive collapse.

And then the free falling rigid weight - must be rigid but actually very soft - from above the magically disappeared columns impinged or impacted or hit ... instantaneously - the structure below. Not seen of course - again too quick for the eye ... but a result of the initiation.

There are other threads here adressing the calculations necessary to demonstrate the ongoing collapse and I suggest you avail yourself of these. This thread is for you to support your claim that steel is magically resistant to fire; a claim you have wholly failed to substantiate.

And BOUF - the steel structure below globally collapsed. The elusive shock wave, you know started! It initiated 1000's of ruptures of the 280+ load bearing columns below and everything else. None heated. All only stressed <30% yield. Simultaneously. Or progressively at almost free fall speed. The shock wave that carried energy and momentum and generated violent motion ... never seen before and after 911.

Resorting to cliches and soudbites in lieu of technical analysis seems a particularly poor way for a qualified engineer of any description to argue his corner.

Don't be any more inquisitive! This is the NWO modern physics. Do not try to mix it up with old fashioned physics.

Yes, yes.....all the engineers in the world are wrong except you. You've made this point before. Now, how about some substantive technical analysis?

 

[Architect]

(cough)

 

[peteweaver]

Well said Architect.

 

[Belz...]

Impact? There was no impact!

Huh ?

 

[Architect]

Hiewa has been on several times today, but is avoiding this thread like a bad smell......which isn't surprising given the critical analysis of his theories.

 

[Heiwa]

Your lack of expertise in this field and incredulity are not substitutes for structural analysis. The collapse mechanism is well understood and centres around deformation of the external envelope due to lack of restraint following failure of the floor ties.

Collapse mechanism well understood? Nist could not produce any 'failed' columns from the initiation zone that would have started a collapse; just said they 'buckled' someway! But how? Bending, twisting, crumping up? And what happened to the two end supports of every 'failed' column in the initiation zone? Ripped apart, twisted apart?
That heat can affect a horizontal steel beam is well known; it sags due to its own weight and load on top - and it might break in the middle or at the ends ... and the load may drop off.
How heat affects a vertical steel column is less well known. It depends on the cross section and slenderness ratio of the column. In the WTC1 case you would expect every core column just to crumple up (being compressed) when heated enough but no such effect was seen. And what happens to the load above then? Does it free fall?
Evidently not. The load is used to crumple up the column! Basic actually and easy to show in a model test; http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 .