The influence of buckling

I couldn't be sure but I was pretty certain that this thread would probably end up somewhere abouts in this zone when I first posted in it. It kind of proves to me what I have come to realise which is that this forum is more about politics than it is about truth.

I'll cite that not a single one of you asked Chippy to qualify any of his opening post because it agreed with your worldview. When someone doesn't agree with your worldview the pack of baboons races in and destroys the thread with inane interjections on topics they simply will never have the intelligence or education to grasp.

It explains to me why Christophera has been under constant hammering by you clowns.

Thanks for the entertainment.
[derail]
I'd just like to point out that there's a handy "Ignore" function you can utilize to screen out the pack of baboons with their inane interjections. That way you can concentrate on the substantive objections to your assertions without all these pesky distractions.
[/derail]

:monooh: oo oo oo EEEE EEEE EEEE!
 
While it is entirely true that ductility will be greater in a heated column that certainly will not aid in the column's 'job' in supporting a load. All it will do is reduce the column's ability to fracture under load. There are indeed pictures(no I don't know where to find them now) that show columns that have been bent almost 180 degrees. That would be very difficult to accomplish without heating that portion of the column. What it also illustrates is that the load that caused this bending was not moving laterally a great deal which suggests that the collapse was not sliding away from the vertical axis at the time the column was bent.

Other columns show fracturing instead which would be consistent with a suddenly increased load on a column that is still relatively cool which would occur if enough heated columns started failing in quick succession.

The columns that fail need not all be on the same level and it is obvious to anyone who has read the NIST reports that the fires on each floor were worse at different loactions. The main cause of this being that the planes did not hit the buildings wings level. This put aviation fuel into one side of the building from the right wing at upper fire floors while putting aviation fuel into the other side of the building at lower fire floors. Fires progressed around the floors heating columns. Some of those would have foreshortened during the heating under load but cooled as the fire burned down in that area and progressed to other areas where it would heat other columns. These newly heated columns now have already been handed an extra load due to the foreshortening of the now cooled columns. Those now cooled columns will have regained their strength as they cooled BUT due to any deformation that occured during heating they no longer have the load applied through their vertical axis.

Now you increasingly have columns which are more prone to buckling due to their loads not being in line with their vertical axis and others that while still dimensionally intact are losing their strength. This is happening on various columns around the building even though it may be occuring at several different levels.

In the South tower this occurs along with the assymetric damage done to the columns by the plane's impact which immediatly caused a lean of the upper section. In the North tower the damage was much more symmetric as the aircraft hit more centrally and on the side which was parallel to the long horizontal axis of the core(South tower was hit on the short axis).IIRC

In the South tower the above heating damage is done which introduces a more pronounced lean but the angular momentum is actually small since the angular velocity is so small. A point is reached at which loads cannot be redistributed to stop further leaning and the building starts to rotate but simply cannot go very far before the columns at the hinge point fracture and the whole mass drops vertically about its CG (isn't it more proper to say center of mass?). It may still be rotating but is now doing so about its CG rather than at the hinge point and that CG is falling straight down. Since the CG did not move a signioficant percentage of the horizontal distance between it and the outer edge of the building , MOST of the mass is falling upon the lower section of the building.

In the north tower more columns had to undergo the heat stresses above since there was much less stress due to the upper section leaning(not to mention that the upper section is much smaller than in the south tower). On the other hand more fuel was dumped into this building than in the south tower since it hit more centrally and thus the fires were more widespread and since it was more central the fires were also more symmetrically dispersed about the vertical axis(though, again , on several levels).
Still, a point is reached at which redistribution of loads cannot occur fast enough to halt settling and columns fail in quick succession, cold columns perhaps fracturing , while hot columns bend while still attached to the floor above.

Now the falling debris crushes the flooring of further levels removing lateral supports of many columns which then buckle. while they buckle and are buffeted by falling debris they transmit shock along their length below the collapse point. This means that the sounds of collapse are heard by persons on the ground two ways. By the sound transmitted along the columns AND by sound that travels through the air to the ground. The former would reach the ground first since sound travels so much faster in steel than throiugh air and would appear to come from lower floors.
 
Last edited:
While it is entirely true that ductility will be greater in a heated column that certainly will not aid in the column's 'job' in supporting a load. All it will do is reduce the column's ability to fracture under load. There are indeed pictures(no I don't know where to find them now) that show columns that have been bent almost 180 degrees. That would be very difficult to accomplish without heating that portion of the column. What it also illustrates is that the load that caused this bending was not moving laterally a great deal which suggests that the collapse was not sliding away from the vertical axis at the time the column was bent.

Other columns show fracturing instead which would be consistent with a suddenly increased load on a column that is still relatively cool which would occur if enough heated columns started failing in quick succession.

The columns that fail need not all be on the same level and it is obvious to anyone who has read the NIST reports that the fires on each floor were worse at different loactions. The main cause of this being that the planes did not hit the buildings wings level. This put aviation fuel into one side of the building from the right wing at upper fire floors while putting aviation fuel into the other side of the building at lower fire floors. Fires progressed around the floors heating columns. Some of those would have foreshortened during the heating under load but cooled as the fire burned down in that area and progressed to other areas where it would heat other columns. These newly heated columns now have already been handed an extra load due to the foreshortening of the now cooled columns. Those now cooled columns will have regained their strength as they cooled BUT due to any deformation that occured during heating they no longer have the load applied through their vertical axis.

Now you increasingly have columns which are more prone to buckling due to their loads not being in line with their vertical axis and others that while still dimensionally intact are losing their strength. This is happening on various columns around the building even though it may be occuring at several different levels.

In the South tower this occurs along with the assymetric damage done to the columns by the plane's impact which immediatly caused a lean of the upper section. In the North tower the damage was much more symmetric as the aircraft hit more centrally and on the side which was parallel to the long horizontal axis of the core(South tower was hit on the short axis).IIRC

In the South tower the above heating damage is done which introduces a more pronounced lean but the angular momentum is actually small since the angular velocity is so small. A point is reached at which loads cannot be redistributed to stop further leaning and the building starts to rotate but simply cannot go very far before the columns at the hinge point fracture and the whole mass drops vertically about its CG (isn't it more proper to say center of mass?). It may still be rotating but is now doing so about its CG rather than at the hinge point and that CG is falling straight down. Since the CG did not move a signioficant percentage of the horizontal distance between it and the outer edge of the building , MOST of the mass is falling upon the lower section of the building.

In the north tower more columns had to undergo the heat stresses above since there was much less stress due to the upper section leaning(not to mention that the upper section is much smaller than in the south tower). On the other hand more fuel was dumped into this building than in the south tower since it hit more centrally and thus the fires were more widespread and since it was more central the fires were also more symmetrically dispersed about the vertical axis(though, again , on several levels).
Still, a point is reached at which redistribution of loads cannot occur fast enough to halt settling and columns fail in quick succession, cold columns perhaps fracturing , while hot columns bend while still attached to the floor above.
This is using more words, and incuding examples, of what I said above. Wordiness is unfair!:D
so far, the score is
logic & science 2
Billy Rhea 0
 
I'll cite that not a single one of you asked Chippy to qualify any of his opening post because it agreed with your worldview. When someone doesn't agree with your worldview the pack of baboons races in and destroys the thread with inane interjections on topics they simply will never have the intelligence or education to grasp.

I did attempt to clarify the OP by defining "column" and "beam". I also stated that without access to my reference library I could not provide exact definitions of terms and applicability of formulas.

You are the one who made an unsupported statement about "the ductility and toughness imparted into the structure by the heat" and left the calculations up to us. You expect us to prove your statement to ourselves? I am willing to listen to your explanation, but I fear that one is not forthcoming.

As I said before, I have a B.S. and an M.Eng. in civil engineering from an ABET accredited university. I am also a licensed professional civil engineer in four states. I have the intelligence and qualifications to grasp what you are saying. So far, it seems to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
As I said before, I have a B.S. and an M.Eng. in civil engineering from an ABET accredited university. I am also a licensed professional civil engineer in four states. I have the intelligence and qualifications to grasp what you are saying. So far, it seems to be wrong.

Seconded. Licensed civil engineer in 2 states, BSCE and MSCE from an ABET university as well. I specialized in construction materials and reinforced concrete design.
 
I did attempt to clarify the OP by defining "column" and "beam". I also stated that without access to my reference library I could not provide exact definitions of terms and applicability of formulas.

You are the one who made an unsupported statement about "the ductility and toughness imparted into the structure by the heat" and left the calculations up to us. You expect us to prove your statement to ourselves? I am willing to listen to your explanation, but I fear that one is not forthcoming.

As I said before, I have a B.S. and an M.Eng. in civil engineering from an ABET accredited university. I am also a licensed professional civil engineer in four states. I have the intelligence and qualifications to grasp what you are saying. So far, it seems to be wrong.

Rich Braggart!
at $250/year fior Texas, 50 for Colorado, 125 for New mexico--I settle for 1 license.
ETA:
Graduate of ABET accedited university (NMSU-not football team worth mentioning (yet), but in the top 10 research and graduate placement, anyway) and many years of Mechanical analysis (stress, acoustic, vibration, and loads)
 
Last edited:
I'm a consultant in the wastewater industry. My firm pays my licensing fees. I specialize in open channel hydraulics, but have always enjoyed structures.

Mr. Rea, would you please provide us with your qualifications? Otherwise, it just seems like you are dismissing those who don't "agree with your worldview."
 
Last edited:
I'm a consultant in the wastewater industry. My firm pays my licensing fees. I specialize in open channel hydraulics, but have always enjoyed structures.

Mr. Rea, would you please provide us with your qualifications? Otherwise, it just seems like you are dismissing those who don't "agree with your worldview."

My firm does too-that's me-But I don't do any outside consulting at the present, so the license is unnecessary--but is a "pre-prepared" position I have had to use in the past. I love the engineering, but play poorly at the political aspects (you'd never guess that from my attitude on this forum, now, would you?) and absolutely detest the insurance premiums.

ETA:
Open channel hydraulics--isn't that the part where you are supposed to say "S(t-enhanced water flows down hill?"
and the comma is still missing from your descriptor line up by the avatar...
 
Last edited:
No, I suggest you look up the terms strength and toughness in the engineering sense along with ductility if you want to understand what I said.
I know what those engineering terms mean, and I looked them up to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding. You said
Most people are happy to talk about the drop in strength from the heat but nobody talks about the ductility and toughness imparted into the structure by the heat.

I'll leave the calculations up to you!
I still don't have the foggiest idea what you mean, and I'd still appreciate an explanation. That's not asking a lot, is it? You can't expect an "idiot," "babboon," and "clown" like me to suss out your meaning, can you?
 
Open channel hydraulics--isn't that the part where you are supposed to say "S(t-enhanced water flows down hill?"
and the comma is still missing from your descriptor line up by the avatar...

It does indeed flow downhill, sometimes faster than we want or expect.

As for the comma, sometimes it's missing and sometimes it's not.
 
Speak english!

:confused: :boggled: :faint:

I'm not an engineer of any sort.

-Gumboot

Hydraulic jump is a pretty neat phenomenon. You have an open channel with water flowing in it. At the base of the channel, you suddenly insert a wall of a certain height. When that wall comes up, a wave forms approximately over the wall, then it travels backwards (against the flow of the water) some distance and settles on a spot. This shows that the wave has a lower velocity than the body of water. I saw this demonstrated back at school, and I still remember it like it was yesterday.
 
Hydraulic jump is a pretty neat phenomenon. You have an open channel with water flowing in it. At the base of the channel, you suddenly insert a wall of a certain height. When that wall comes up, a wave forms approximately over the wall, then it travels backwards (against the flow of the water) some distance and settles on a spot. This shows that the wave has a lower velocity than the body of water. I saw this demonstrated back at school, and I still remember it like it was yesterday.

yeah--what he said--if you google it, there's a neat animation at wikipedia...
What it really amounts to is that you get a standing wave downstream of an obstacle--not a reall problem always--i surmise--but it can become one when the flow volume decreases, and the wave then travels against the flow and slaps snot out of whatever the obstacle is...
Is that close? I had a really, really, hard time in my fluids classes...
 
Hydraulic jump is a pretty neat phenomenon. You have an open channel with water flowing in it. At the base of the channel, you suddenly insert a wall of a certain height. When that wall comes up, a wave forms approximately over the wall, then it travels backwards (against the flow of the water) some distance and settles on a spot. This shows that the wave has a lower velocity than the body of water. I saw this demonstrated back at school, and I still remember it like it was yesterday.


That's cool.

I hated science, generally speaking. But the one thing I loved was all the weird demonstrations that you got given. I still remember when our teacher put some Potassium into the school pool.

-Gumboot
 

Back
Top Bottom