The Heiwa Challenge

[Grizzly Bear]

Hewia,

<snip brevity>
And yet, for some reason, your drawing shows vertical, unsupported columns reaching upwards & downwards 15 stories... Thru debris ...

Curious.

Off-topic (or on depending on how this can be applied) - If you don't mind me asking as it's been a while since I've applied basic load capacity calcs for a simple generic column assembly. Would I be able to apply those calcs using the WTC column specifications? The cross-sectional area of the columns is mostly where my question is concerned since the columns used in the WTC weren't the standard ones that we calculated for when I took structures II. If not I can always use a basic calc I did in-class to demonstrate the principal Heiwa missed (as obvious as his flaws are).

 

[Newtons Bit]

Off-topic (or on depending on how this can be applied) - If you don't mind me asking as it's been a while since I've applied basic load capacity calcs for a simple generic column assembly. Would I be able to apply those calcs using the WTC column specifications? The cross-sectional area of the columns is mostly where my question is concerned since the columns used in the WTC weren't the standard ones that we calculated for when I took structures II. If not I can always use a basic calc I did in-class to demonstrate the principal Heiwa missed (as obvious as his flaws are).

The perimeter columns of the WTC near the location of failure were close to modern HSS 14x14x5/16
A = 15.7in^2
I = 739 in^4
S = 92.3 in ^3

Pn = 557k (from AISC LRFD 3rd, table 4-6 with an unbraced length, KL = 12’-4”)
Mn = 92.3in^3*46ksi = 4645 kip*in (Mn = maximum bending capacity)

 

[bill smith]

What would happen if you had 47 stacks of glued together sugar cubes standing on a table. The stacks would be lightly braced in position relative to each other. What then if you dropped a muslin bag containing three kilos of sugar cubes on top ?

 

[Heiwa]

2. I seriously think that rubble has mass and that due to gravity this rubble has weight. The floors can only support approximately their own self-weight and an additional 100psf. Which means that one floor can support, at most, rubble created from three floors above. Once a floor gets overloaded by three floors above, it collapses as well.

This is the NIST pancake theory that has caused LOL! So the way to destroy a structure is just to overload some elements? LLOL! You don't really know anything about structures and structural damage analysis, do you?

 

[Heiwa]

Hewia,

Regarding Newton's post above:



If you were the foreman on the job, and you were familiar with the VERTICAL assembly of the columns (4 x Ø1" bolts in the adjoining plates), how many 3 story tall assemblies would you allow your crew to stack with ONLY those 4 bolts holding the stack from falling over?

How many would you expect to stand, unsupported except by those 4 bolts) on a breezy day (say wind gusts to 15 knots)?

How many would you expect to stand with wind gusts of 500 knots (as some estimates have suggested from the expulsion of 4 million cubic feet per second of debris laden air, and an avalanche of solid debris?

And yet, for some reason, your drawing shows vertical, unsupported columns reaching upwards & downwards 15 stories... Thru debris ...

Curious.

Stupid, off topic questions! The Heiwa Challenge structure part A is supposed to carry part C, etc. Then drop C on A. Do your calculations first, design the structure and ask your foreman to work according to specification to get it together. No hanky panky, please!

 

[Newtons Bit]

This is the NIST pancake theory that has caused LOL! So the way to destroy a structure is just to overload some elements? LLOL! You don't really know anything about structures and structural damage analysis, do you?

This is quite hilarious, Heiwa. Not funny, "ha ha", but funny, "oh god this guy is a complete moron" funny. NIST did not develop the "pancake theory". The NIST report shows an extremely detailed analysis of global column failure from damage and fire. The FEMA report, which you seem to be incorrectly (as usual) alluding to, came up with the "Pancake theory", a theory on collapse initiation, which ultimately proved incorrect, that thermal expansion of the floor trusses caused them to slip their bolts, and then subsequent cooling caused them to pancake on top of each other, thus starting the collapse.

By the way, how many buildings have you designed or worked on the primary load bearing system? I've done over 100. I actually do know something about structures, and 9/11. Designing buildings is my profession, I get paid to do it. You, on the other hand, can't even distinguish a collapse initiation theory from a collapse progression theory. That's rather sad.

I won this argument, conclusively. And to further expound on that fact, let's both agree that the major scientific bodies of the world conclude that WTC1&2 collapsed due to airplane damage, fire and gravity. Which then forces us to conclude that your "Heiwa Challenge" is satisfied. Your "Heiwa's Axiom" is also thus also disproved by the direct proof of the WTC1&2 collapse.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The perimeter columns of the WTC near the location of failure were close to modern HSS 14x14x5/16
A = 15.7in^2
I = 739 in^4
S = 92.3 in ^3

Pn = 557k (from AISC LRFD 3rd, table 4-6 with an unbraced length, KL = 12’-4”)
Mn = 92.3in^3*46ksi = 4645 kip*in (Mn = maximum bending capacity)

Thanks for the specs man. I owe you...

 

[tfk]

Off-topic (or on depending on how this can be applied) - If you don't mind me asking as it's been a while since I've applied basic load capacity calcs for a simple generic column assembly. Would I be able to apply those calcs using the WTC column specifications? The cross-sectional area of the columns is mostly where my question is concerned since the columns used in the WTC weren't the standard ones that we calculated for when I took structures II. If not I can always use a basic calc I did in-class to demonstrate the principal Heiwa missed (as obvious as his flaws are).

.
Griz,

When you're doing quick calcs, the first thing to do would be to try to identify the real failure mode.

To me, that means that the issue of the strength or size of the columns is virtually inconsequential. They could be made of unobtianium, infinitely strong, infinitely stiff.

The most common failure mode is the snapping of the various retaining bolts, with each 3 story, 3 column assembly having four bolts (tensile failure) in the bottom plate and about 6 bolts (shear failure) to cross trusses at each floor, and some retainers to the Wye connectors for the rebar tensioning (that I haven't looked at. Make your best guess as to the failure mode).

Evidence shows that additional failure modes were the hanger welds shear, and the bolts "pulled thru" the holes in the hangers. But, if these failures happened, they happened at stresses & energies that were less than that required for bolt snap or shear. So, using the bolt shap or shear is gonna be a conservative, over-estimate for the real forces required. The practical advantage of this approximation is that the bolt tensile & shear capacities are readily available.

If you want to do a force analysis, this is all you need. You don't need to consider the forces of welds or bolts to adjacent column assemblies, because those are undergoing the same destruction in the global collapse.

The energy calc (how much each component can absorb before failure) would be interesting. But you already know (without any calcs) that this is gonna be several orders of magnitude less than the energy absorbed by the structure during the descent. So, while it may be interesting, it would be hard to describe it as useful...

tom

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The only reason I bring up the calculations for column load capacities is for a very generalized point since the basic idea applies whether you consider the column as a continuous entity or as an assembly of connected components. But yeah, :\ short of that with everything you and Newton have been discussing this wouldn't have much use at this point. The failure points as you elaborated weren't the columns themselves, rather the connections that held it all together.

 

[Heiwa]

This is quite hilarious, Heiwa. The NIST report shows an extremely detailed analysis of global column failure from damage and fire.

?? Applied energy exceeding the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure? LOL!

But it is the whole purpose of The Heiwa Challenge. Design a structure A that cannot absorb the strain energy applied by a part C of it. If you have designed 100+ structures (and got paid), have a go at The Heiwa Challenge! No pay, though. Just honour!

 

[Heiwa]

.
Griz,

When you're doing quick calcs, the first thing to do would be to try to identify the real failure mode.

...

The energy calc (how much each component can absorb before failure) would be interesting. But you already know (without any calcs) that this is gonna be several orders of magnitude less than the energy absorbed by the structure during the descent. So, while it may be interesting, it would be hard to describe it as useful...

tom

Good ideas. Identify the real failure mode ... modes. But do not forget the energy calc ... calcs, because any structure so far presented in The Heiwa Challenge runs out of energy.

 

[Newtons Bit]

?? Applied energy exceeding the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure? LOL!

But it is the whole purpose of The Heiwa Challenge. Design a structure A that cannot absorb the strain energy applied by a part C of it. If you have designed 100+ structures (and got paid), have a go at The Heiwa Challenge! No pay, though. Just honour!

As you didn't bother to read my post, I'll just post it again. Hell I'm not even sure what the hell you're even responding to. It surely wasn't what I wrote.

This is quite hilarious, Heiwa. Not funny, "ha ha", but funny, "oh god this guy is a complete moron" funny. NIST did not develop the "pancake theory". The NIST report shows an extremely detailed analysis of global column failure from damage and fire. The FEMA report, which you seem to be incorrectly (as usual) alluding to, came up with the "Pancake theory", a theory on collapse initiation, which ultimately proved incorrect, that thermal expansion of the floor trusses caused them to slip their bolts, and then subsequent cooling caused them to pancake on top of each other, thus starting the collapse.

By the way, how many buildings have you designed or worked on the primary load bearing system? I've done over 100. I actually do know something about structures, and 9/11. Designing buildings is my profession, I get paid to do it. You, on the other hand, can't even distinguish a collapse initiation theory from a collapse progression theory. That's rather sad.

I won this argument, conclusively. And to further expound on that fact, let's both agree that the major scientific bodies of the world conclude that WTC1&2 collapsed due to airplane damage, fire and gravity. Which then forces us to conclude that your "Heiwa Challenge" is satisfied. Your "Heiwa's Axiom" is also thus also disproved by the direct proof of the WTC1&2 collapse.

Are you going to own up to the fact that you don't understand the difference between the Bazant model of collapse progression, the NIST model of collapse initiation and the FEMA model of collapse initiation?

Are you going to own up to the fact that WTC 1 & 2 already satisfy your Heiwa Challenge?

Are you going to own up to the fact that "Heiwa's Axiom" self debunks?

 

[tfk]

Stupid, off topic questions! The Heiwa Challenge structure part A is supposed to carry part C, etc. Then drop C on A. Do your calculations first, design the structure and ask your foreman to work according to specification to get it together. No hanky panky, please!

.
Gee, I find myself taking a patronizing, bemused satisfaction from your assessment of my question as "stupid". Clear evidence that you don't want to answer the question.

Now that you've had your temper tantrum, on what basis do your defend the first set of drawings in Section 1.3 on your WTC Collapse page?

How do the columns stay intact?
How do the concrete & truss floor assemblies collapse & tilt downward & stay intact?

BTW, I would love to discuss the germane points of the Heiwa Challenge. I HAVE discussed, in post after post, details of the Heiwa challenge.

It is YOU that refuses to discuss them.

Let me know when you're ready to BEGIN the discussion...

tom

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
Gee, I find myself taking a patronizing, bemused satisfaction from your assessment of my question as "stupid". Clear evidence that you don't want to answer the question.

Now that you've had your temper tantrum, on what basis do your defend the first set of drawings in Section 1.3 on your WTC Collapse page?

How do the columns stay intact?
How do the concrete & truss floor assemblies collapse & tilt downward & stay intact?

BTW, I would love to discuss the germane points of the Heiwa Challenge. I HAVE discussed, in post after post, details of the Heiwa challenge.

It is YOU that refuses to discuss them.

Let me know when you're ready to BEGIN the discussion...

tom

He's pretty crazy. I honestly think that he expects us to spend $1000's of our own money to prove him wrong. And then afterwards, he'll forget the Heiwa challenge ever existed and move on to something else.

 

[tfk]

He's pretty crazy. I honestly think that he expects us to spend $1000's of our own money to prove him wrong. And then afterwards, he'll forget the Heiwa challenge ever existed and move on to something else.

.
I honestly don't think "crazy".

I think that he's become enthralled with the prospect of "celebrity to the technically ignorant". And find that position preferable to "laughingstock to the informed".

You see this sort of thing all the time amongst doctors (even real doctors, at some distant point in their past) who start selling laetrile, coral calcium, vitamins to cure AIDS, etc. They are perfectly willing, for some strange reason, to accept the status of pariah within their own profession in exchange for pop guru status.

I've seen a bunch of those guys up close, and it appears to me that most of them do it because:

1. they like celebrity, and there's zero chance of that occurring thru talent within their old profession.

2. they're looking to hook up with some attractive neophytes. (Plural emphasized.)

3. they're tired of "working for a living", and the guru gig has lots of perks.

As old PT said, "tell 'em what they want to hear".

tk

 

[Heiwa]

Are you going to own up to the fact that WTC 1 & 2 already satisfy your Heiwa Challenge?

Do they - I thought they have been destroyed? Anyway, produce another structure that satisfy The Heiwa Challenge. And do the test. Maybe just copy/paste one of your 100 designs?

 

[tfk]

The only reason I bring up the calculations for column load capacities is for a very generalized point since the basic idea applies whether you consider the column as a continuous entity or as an assembly of connected components. But yeah, :\ short of that with everything you and Newton have been discussing this wouldn't have much use at this point. The failure points as you elaborated weren't the columns themselves, rather the connections that held it all together.

.
Griz,

A working example. Have you ever put together one of those "build-it-yourself" bookcases?

You get the following pieces:
(2) 16" x 6' x 1" thick wood (expensive) or particle board (cheap) side walls
(1) each 16" x 3' x 1" thick top & bottom, and fixed middle shelf
(1) 3' x 6' x 1/16" thick cardboard backing piece
(30) brads for the backing piece
(4) 16" x 3' x 3/4" shelves
(16) clip hangers

What is the piece that gives it stability? The 1/4" thick cardboard backing & the brads. Without these, the whole thing collapses into a parallelogram.

So, calculating the loads that the 1" thick sides could sustain is both pointless and, for those who flaunt it when others have pointed out its irrelevance, deceptive.

tom

 

[Heiwa]

.

on what basis do your defend the first set of drawings in Section 1.3 on your WTC Collapse page?

1. How do the columns stay intact?
2. How do the concrete & truss floor assemblies collapse & tilt downward & stay intact?

tom

You refer to my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ?

1. The columns stay intact as they are stronger than any other elements they encounter, e.g. when damaging the floors.

2. The floor assemblies are locally damaged/broken away from their end connections (by columns) and the two resulting floor parts (the undamaged parts) hinge down around the end connections. No real collapse - just local failure! This is a 2-D simplification. In 3-D many areas of the floors will not be damaged.

But evidently upper part C cannot drop on lower part A like that at WTC 1. In reality the columns between A and C may fail due to heat but A and C will never be disconnected - buckled columns will still connect them. So both A and C should remain undamaged!

Thanks for asking! How are you getting along with The Heiwa Challenge structure?

 

[Newtons Bit]

.
Griz,

A working example. Have you ever put together one of those "build-it-yourself" bookcases?

You get the following pieces:
(2) 16" x 6' x 1" thick wood (expensive) or particle board (cheap) side walls
(1) each 16" x 3' x 1" thick top & bottom, and fixed middle shelf
(1) 3' x 6' x 1/16" thick cardboard backing piece
(30) brads for the backing piece
(4) 16" x 3' x 3/4" shelves
(16) clip hangers

What is the piece that gives it stability? The 1/4" thick cardboard backing & the brads. Without these, the whole thing collapses into a parallelogram.

So, calculating the loads that the 1" thick sides could sustain is both pointless and, for those who flaunt it when others have pointed out its irrelevance, deceptive.

tom

I bought a bookshelf that was a self-assmebly thing much like this. I left halfway through building it and my brother threw away one of the cardboard backings (it had two). It's..er.. not too stable

 

[Newtons Bit]

Do they - I thought they have been destroyed? Anyway, produce another structure that satisfy The Heiwa Challenge. And do the test. Maybe just copy/paste one of your 100 designs?

What the :::?! How could a structure that satisfies the "Heiwa Challenge" NOT be destroyed? That's the whole point. It already happened.

And I'm sorry Heiwa, but the cheapest building I've done was over $2 million. If you would be willing to deposit that amount of money into an offshore bank account of my choosing, I'd gladly hire a contractor and produce another for you and you could perform whatever experiment on it that you wished.

Are you going to own up to the fact that you don't understand the difference between the Bazant model of collapse progression, the NIST model of collapse initiation and the FEMA model of collapse initiation?

Are you going to own up to the fact that WTC 1 & 2 already satisfy your Heiwa Challenge?

Are you going to own up to the fact that "Heiwa's Axiom" self debunks?