Scale Model of the WTC

[Oliver]

Einsteen, I'm not looking to for a scaled down version of the collapse. I'm only trying to put the height and weight of the towers in perspective.

With or without furniture and co?

 

[Bell]

With or without furniture and co?

Without I think. I think it would be rather hard to calculate the weight of all the furniture and other stuff inside the towers.

Using very average numbers, in HO scale the upper part of the WTC1 (15 stories) would be 0,73 x 0,73 meters wide and 0,65 meters heigh and weigh 103,5 kilos. But that's a very rough calculation.

 

[Architect]

Without I think. I think it would be rather hard to calculate the weight of all the furniture and other stuff inside the towers.

Using very average numbers, in HO scale the upper part of the WTC1 (15 stories) would be 0,73 x 0,73 meters wide and 0,65 meters heigh and weigh 103,5 kilos. But that's a very rough calculation.

No there should be average load figures available. But I'm off work so I don't have access to any of my books.

 

[Bell]

No there should be average load figures available. But I'm off work so I don't have access to any of my books.

Cheers, any input is welcome. Get well and back to work soon

 

[Architect]

Your big killer, in terms of load, is paper; files and so on weigh a surprising amount.

 

[einsteen]

Einsteen, I'm not looking to for a scaled down version of the collapse. I'm only trying to put the height and weight of the towers in perspective.

Yeah, that is indeed a matter of a third power in the case that you want to have a scale model with the same average mass density.

Of course this scale model then is much stronger than the real model

 

[ref]

I don't know if this helps, but this thread has some calculations and figures of weight.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4299

Edit: Eh, maybe not so helpful after all after further reading, but anyway

 

[MRC_Hans]

Scale models can only be made for looks. It does not make sense to scale weight. Likewise, you cannot scale structural strenght, because the weight follows the third power of the scale. Thus, if you take a perfectly strong structure and simply double it, it will probably collapse under its own weight.

There is a reason for the fact that after 3/4 of a century of building high-rise structures, they have only just doubled in hight. The structural challenge increases exponentially with hight.

Hans

 

[einsteen]

Exactly Hans.

This makes the question of the mass distribution (and strength) even more interesting, I really would see that function. Construction specialists possibly could tell it.