@ GUrich - WTC Core Columns

[psikeyhackr]

I have downloaded the images of the first basement core columns. I have only calculated the weight of one so far, the heaviest.

The picture is from this site:

911research

The site mentions 56 tons and 54 tons and the dimensions are somewhat different from Lon Waters'.

CC501A000 52"x5 triple box
2 * 52 * 5 + 2 * 12 * 5 + 39 * 5.75 = 520 + 120 + 224.25 = 864.25 sq.in.

iron is 491 lb/cu.ft. 54 tons = 220 cu ft = 880 sq in * 36 ft
1 cu.ft. = 1728 cu.in. 53.04334375 tons/36 ft.= 1.473 tons/foot

My calculations came up with 53 tons. But that picture shows a base plate on the end. That base plate could account for more than a ton of difference. I presume all of the columns had to have base plates but that is the only picture I have ever seen of one. So my calculations for the B6 level would be off by the weight of the plates on all of the core columns or I could try for some guestimate based on the size of the column.

Do you have any suggestions?

psik

 

[A W Smith]

And those column base plated in turn beared on a steel grillage

seen seven minutes into this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857&hl=en

 

[psikeyhackr]

Thanks,

I've seen that video but didn't remember that. I presume those grillages were below the floor of B6 and buried in concrete. I won't try to include them in my calculations.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Here is the data on the 52" columns.

CC504A000   52"x2.9 box        0.6858 tons/foot

CC1005A000  52"x3.0 box        0.6956 tons/foot

CC1004A000  52"x3.3 box        0.7034 tons/foot

CC505A000   52"x3.4 box        0.7279 tons/foot

CC503A000   52"x4.4 box        0.9734 tons/foot

CC507A000   52"x4.6 box         1.021 tons/foot

CC502A000   52"x4.8 box         1.045 tons/foot

CC1007A000  52"x4.9 box         1.068 tons/foot

CC506A000   52"x5   box         1.091 tons/foot    

CC1003A000  52"x5 trplTH box    1.153 tons/foot

CC501A000   52"x5 triple box    1.473 tons/foot

psik

 

[Alferd_Packer]

And the purpose of all this is?

 

[GregoryUrich]

I have downloaded the images of the first basement core columns. I have only calculated the weight of one so far, the heaviest.

[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/col-base.jpg[/qimg]

The picture is from this site:

911research

The site mentions 56 tons and 54 tons and the dimensions are somewhat different from Lon Waters'.

CC501A000 52"x5 triple box
2 * 52 * 5 + 2 * 12 * 5 + 39 * 5.75 = 520 + 120 + 224.25 = 864.25 sq.in.

iron is 491 lb/cu.ft. 54 tons = 220 cu ft = 880 sq in * 36 ft
1 cu.ft. = 1728 cu.in. 53.04334375 tons/36 ft.= 1.473 tons/foot

My calculations came up with 53 tons. But that picture shows a base plate on the end. That base plate could account for more than a ton of difference. I presume all of the columns had to have base plates but that is the only picture I have ever seen of one. So my calculations for the B6 level would be off by the weight of the plates on all of the core columns or I could try for some guestimate based on the size of the column.

Do you have any suggestions?

psik

Unfortunately there is very little information regarding the foundation. I have estimated the base plates, the grillages and concrete pads in my article. Again I wonder if you have read the whole article where everything is presented systematically.

I didn't spend alot of time on the basement or foundation because the weight lower down has little or nothing to do with the collapse dynamics. I.e. observations from the videos indicate that the collapse progressed from the initiation floors downward (floor 97-98 in WTC1). My impression is that the upper part was nearly completely destroyed early on in the collapse, suffering repeated impacts with the lower part as it fell.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I see you have a table on the basement columns.

You say this:

4.3.4 Amount of External Column Steel
As described in the introduction, the steel contracts included 6,800 tons for external box columns, 3,400 tons for bifurcation columns and 27,900 tons for external columns (prefabricated panels). The external box columns were used below floor 6. The bifurcation columns were used between floors 6 and 9. The prefabricated panels included spandrels. It is unclear if the other steel contract values for box and bifurcation columns included spandrels but it is assumed that they did.

ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD January 1, 1970

The largest contract for fabrication of structural steel is held by Pacific Car and Foundry Co., of Seattle. It is $21.79 million for 55,000 tons of steel for the towers' bearing wall panels from the ninth floor up.

In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square, made up of plate up to 3 in. thick and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

You have a table with this information:

Structural component         Weight (short tons)       Weight per tower
external columns w/ spandrels       55,800              27,900

Now the problem is those 5,828 panels. The NIST report has a picture of a tower showing 19 panels across. I haven't found a picture or specification but it should be 33 panels up. That would give 19*33*8=5016 panels used on the twin towers. Which leaves 812 panels unaccounted for, unless my figures are wrong. Were any of the other WTC buildings 3, 4, 5 or 6 made to look like the towers on the outside? That would explain where those other panels went but that would mean the weight went with them. I think it is totally absurd that the NIST doesn't tell us the exact number of each type of panel and where they were on the towers. What does it matter that 14 were in the original design if only 12 were used. Why give us irrelevant details and not the important ones.

That only weight I have seen for a wall panel is 22 tons and this is the only place I have seen it stated that that was the heaviest. So what was the exact weight of the other 11? Like that wasn't documented somewhere.

We should not have to go digging up information and interpolating and extrapolating to figure things out about a world famous building designed in the 1960s.

Here is a picture of WTC5:

Could those be the same kind of wall panels as on WTC1 and 2?

That would make sense to cut costs.

psik

 

[adoucette]

Now the problem is those 5,828 panels. The NIST report has a picture of a tower showing 19 panels across. I haven't found a picture or specification but it should be 33 panels up. That would give 19*33*8=5016 panels used on the twin towers. Which leaves 812 panels unaccounted for, unless my figures are wrong.

Not all of the panels were 3 stories tall.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Not all of the panels were 3 stories tall.

I know they had to have odd sized panels to create the staggered effect. They wouldn't want all of the joints on the same level. But a difference of 812 panels? That is enough to make a 10 story building with the same cross section as the towers. Those narrow windows on WTC5 look similar to 1 and 2. A different cladding on the outside would change the shade of the columns.

psik