• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST Wind Driven Fire Studies

NYCEMT86

Graduate Poster
NYCEMT86
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
1,091
Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. (Article here)

Well I completely forgot that the complete studies were released in early 2009 and I haven't seen them posted here, so I figure you guys would enjoy the information provided.


Both studies are in PDF

NIST Lab Test

NIST 7 Story Building Experiment
 
NYCEMT86 said:
Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. (Article here)

Well I completely forgot that the complete studies were released in early 2009 and I haven't seen them posted here, so I figure you guys would enjoy the information provided.


Both studies are in PDF

NIST Lab Test

NIST 7 Story Building Experiment
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with 911?
 
vinniem said:
It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added.

It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Well your ignorance towards fire science is pretty blatant. I suggest you read both entire studies before making such comments.
 
NYCEMT86 said:
Back in 2008 the FDNY, Department of Homeland Security, NIST, and a few other major city Fire Departments conducted tests to study the effects of fire under heavy wind conditions. (Article here)

Well I completely forgot that the complete studies were released in early 2009 and I haven't seen them posted here, so I figure you guys would enjoy the information provided.


Both studies are in PDF

NIST Lab Test

NIST 7 Story Building Experiment
Click to expand...

NYCEMT86: Would you say that these experiments would be a rough simulation of the stack effect induced in the main towers? It seems to me that it would be no better than a very rough modeling given that a wind driven fire would be more of a "push" of air towards the fire, whereas stack effect would be more of a "pull". But I'm a layman, not a firefighter or fire researcher; for all I know, the end results may indeed be equivalent, despite the difference I see. Anyway, is stack effect the similarity that applies to the towers fires?
 
ElMondo,

Yes, In my opinion, it would, But, not so rough. It's actually very simmilar in my opinion. I have only briefly scanned the report, and will spend the weekend reading them. I hadn't seen these, so they are certainly facinating.

Of course, a fire the size that we saw on 9/11, it creates its own stack effect so to speak. It also exaggerates the normal stack effect present in the towers.

But, at that altitude, the winds alone will help to fan the fires. Couple that with the stack effect normally present, and its a raging inferno of hell.
 
vinniem said:
It is a test conducted on a 7 storey building with a wind of 20mph added.

It has NOTHING to do with 911 whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, what is that muffled sound I am hearing coming before that locked door?

Vinnie's not gonna take it, never did and never will!

Say, vinnie, I never got around to welcoming you to the site, you've been here a couple of weeks and already you are a super moderator making value judgments on something you have not read and declaring them irrelevant.

You know, you could NOT post on something you don't understand, try it, it is fun!
 
funk de fino said:
Were there no fires in the buildings on 911?
Click to expand...

Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought.

Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved.
 
bill smith said:
hort-lived local fires Funk.After that nothing that couldn't be put out with two lines.
Click to expand...


Hey Bill, are you still stuck on Chief Palmer's transmission? Chew on this topic I wrote a while ago then get back to me.



ElMondoHummus said:
NYCEMT86: Would you say that these experiments would be a rough simulation of the stack effect induced in the main towers? It seems to me that it would be no better than a very rough modeling given that a wind driven fire would be more of a "push" of air towards the fire, whereas stack effect would be more of a "pull". But I'm a layman, not a firefighter or fire researcher; for all I know, the end results may indeed be equivalent, despite the difference I see. Anyway, is stack effect the similarity that applies to the towers fires?
Click to expand...


It would be a combination of both pushing and pulling. With any sized fire, it strives on oxygen (along with fuel and heat) so it does create its own vacuum that will drawn in more oxygen. With the size of the fires that we can clearly see in the photos and videos of the exterior of both towers there would be a large vacuum or pulling as you described it, on those fire floors. The pushing obviously would be from the high winds that the towers themselves created.


This vacuum can be seen more clearly during a backdraft.

Backdraft



ETA:

I removed the egg experiment because it wasn't the best example out there.
 
Last edited:
vinniem said:
Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought.

Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved.
Click to expand...

Google "Fire convection currents" for me, and report what you find.

PS. It won't be what you think.
 
vinniem said:
Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought.

Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved.
Click to expand...
Yes, they needed to build 110 story buildings and crash planes into them, otherwise absolutely nothing learned from this will apply.

They also need to build another 110 story building, rig it with explosives, and bring it down so we can do a comparison.

Then do it all again using fricken' sharks with lasers.

Otherwise, no one will ever know what really happened. And Baby Jeebus will cry. You don't want to make Baby Jeebus cry, do you?
 
vinniem said:
Yes there were big fires in 110 storey buildings, 1000 feet in the air, with little or no wind, and the fires were unfought.

Perhaps you could explain how that relates to these 20mph wind tests on a 7 storey building on fire with no planes involved.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you also want to expound on how cancer research involving rats or artificial joint research involving sheep are also inapplicable to medical treatments on people, given that no humans are involved.

You should not make foolish statements like that. Modeling in science involves identifying the relevant elements and modeling those instead of obsessing over modeling inapplicable elements. What are the important elements for modeling high-rise fires? To me as a layman, I'd imagine wind speed (if you've never been to the top of the Twin Towers - for the record, I have, back in the 70's - then you may not realize the constant wind that is experienced at that height), pressure, and fuel load. You don't need a 110 story tower to model pressures and wind velocities; fans and proper design can do that for you (engineers and firefighting folks here: Feel free to expand on or correct what I've written if needed).

Instead of putting your effort towards taking the opposite stance of "debunkers" at every turn, how about you evaluate evidence and models on their own merits? I'm not any sort of fire researcher or engineer, yet I in 5 seconds was able to come up with a possible application of these studies to the Twin Towers, and NYCEMT86 - who's had firefighter training, BTW - validated it. Start with reality instead of an imperative of negation next time; you might learn something.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Perhaps you also want to expound on how cancer research involving rats or artificial joint research involving sheep are also inapplicable to medical treatments on people, given that no humans are involved.

You should not make foolish statements like that. Modeling in science involves identifying the relevant elements and modeling those instead of obsessing over modeling inapplicable elements. What are the important elements for modeling high-rise fires? To me as a layman, I'd imagine wind speed (if you've never been to the top of the Twin Towers - for the record, I have, back in the 70's - then you may not realize the constant wind that is experienced at that height), pressure, and fuel load. You don't need a 110 story tower to model pressures and wind velocities; fans and proper design can do that for you (engineers and firefighting folks here: Feel free to expand on or correct what I've written if needed).

Instead of putting your effort towards taking the opposite stance of "debunkers" at every turn, how about you evaluate evidence and models on their own merits? I'm not any sort of fire researcher or engineer, yet I in 5 seconds was able to come up with a possible application of these studies to the Twin Towers, and NYCEMT86 - who's had firefighter training, BTW - validated it. Start with reality instead of an imperative of negation next time; you might learn something.
Click to expand...
Nuh-uh! No way!

And you're a big meany head, too!
 
ElMondoHummus said:
...Snip...

You should not make foolish statements like that. Modeling in science involves identifying the relevant elements and modeling those instead of obsessing over modeling inapplicable elements. What are the important elements for modeling high-rise fires? To me as a layman, I'd imagine wind speed (if you've never been to the top of the Twin Towers - for the record, I have, back in the 70's - then you may not realize the constant wind that is experienced at that height), pressure, and fuel load. You don't need a 110 story tower to model pressures and wind velocities; fans and proper design can do that for you (engineers and firefighting folks here: Feel free to expand on or correct what I've written if needed).

...Snip...
Click to expand...

You explained it well. The one good thing about fire is that you can manipulate it so much that you can achieve the general effect that you want during training or even research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom