Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Reason is that the gravity force, accurately applied, can only deform one part locally ... and when that part is deformed the gravity force, accurately applied, will slip off and ... pouff it is gone. To accurately apply this force to another part and deform it, and so on (total collapse) is not possible.

How do you "accurately apply" gravity? Isn't gravity always applied?

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Sorry that I missed this thread adressed to me.

How peculiar. You were reminded of it often enough on other threads. I wonder why you missed it before.

Quote:

Evidently heat affects steel! I heat/cool steel regularly to, e.g. align it. I do not need any potential energy at all for that. Just heat/cool. OK, these are wavy steel plates, etc.

I never heat vertical columns under axial compression loads, though, except in model fire tests http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 ). It seems that a heated, vertical column under axial compression will slowly deform locally in different ways, depending on its transverse shape. No sudden collapse!


This local deformation of a heated part cannot evidently induce ruptures in adjacent, non-heated strutcure by brute forces and induce sudden 'collapse' of the latter, etc.

That's not correct, though, is it?

A beam will reach the point - slowly - where load exceeds capacity. This may be exacerbated by changing load paths arising from any deflections and the like.

Now, you may argue that we should see a very gradual failure of the structure, and you may be right about individual elements. Indeed that's what we see with the buckling of the facades as the additional loads transfer following internal failure.

However when these alternative load paths fail, through satraightforward overloading, it's not going to be gradual - is it?

In fact, you have no data whatsoever to support your theory, do you?

Quote:

A ship of mine was burning for a week in a cargo hold and a lot of steel was deformed but no collapses. And no ruptures.

Yes, well, that would be a ship - not a building. Electricians don'e design plumbing, and naval architects don't do buildings. Hopefully.

Quote:

It is very simple - gravity forces cannot cause total, global collapses of unheated multiple part steel low stressed structures even if applied very accurately!

Reason is that the gravity force, accurately applied, can only deform one part locally ... and when that part is deformed the gravity force, accurately applied, will slip off and ... pouff it is gone. To accurately apply this force to another part and deform it, and so on (total collapse) is not possible.

And where do the imposed loads on the failed elements go at this point?

Quote:

It is very easy to verify this phenomenon with tests. That is why no steel building ever collapses due to release of potential energy above and associated gravity forces.

This doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that steel framed buildings have not suffered collapse due to fires?

Quote:

However, tell that to FEMA and Nist and they collapse! Their trousers and knickers fall down. Quite embarrassing but censored for national security reasons. So, please, go on and believe that gravity forces applied above can cause total collapse of a steel structure of many parts. In reality it does not work, though.

Yet amazingly they pool the wool over almost the entire engineering and architectural communities. They even fool the likes of Arup and Edinburgh University into writing papers on the subject! Amazing!!!

By the way, you never responded about these papers either.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Architect

Yet amazingly they pool the wool over almost the entire engineering and architectural communities. They even fool the likes of Arup and Edinburgh University into writing papers on the subject! Amazing!!!

Never underestimate the devious power of the NWO!

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

How do you "accurately apply" gravity? Isn't gravity always applied?

Gravity is a force that attracts objects, e.g. all structural parts of the upper block of WTC1, towards the centre of the earth.

Take one column of the upper block! It is attracted to the centre of the earth by its gravity force. Fantastic, isn't it.

Now, when this column of upper block is still connected or applied to or put in position on a column of the lower block, the column of the upper block remains there. Guess why?

if you remove the column of the lower block, what happens to the column of the upper block? Right, the force of gravity attracts it to the centre of the earth. What happens? Do you know? Does it fall to the centre of the earth? No, it doesn't.

It is applied to the ground, that happens to be in the way between the starting point of the column and the centre of the earth, and it deforms itself and the ground when it is applied to the ground.

However, if the lose column is accurately applied to another column above the ground but below the lose column before it impinges the ground then it might deform that unlucky column. But only in one location. But it would be a miracle that the lose column is accurately applied to this other column. Small probabilty.

Try it yourself. Drill a little hole in your floor, dia 1 mm, and put a stick of spaghetti in it facing up. Take another stick of spaghetti and drop it from above on the stick of spaghetti facing up. Do this 1 000 000 times!

How many times is the dropped spaghetti accurately applied to the fixed spaghetti (and breaks it)? And how many times does the dropped spaghetti stick just miss and drops to the ground?

Pls advise me the result when you have done this simple test.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Architect

How peculiar. You were reminded of it often enough on other threads. I wonder why you missed it before.



That's not correct, though, is it?

A beam will reach the point - slowly - where load exceeds capacity. This may be exacerbated by changing load paths arising from any deflections and the like.

Now, you may argue that we should see a very gradual failure of the structure, and you may be right about individual elements. Indeed that's what we see with the buckling of the facades as the additional loads transfer following internal failure.

However when these alternative load paths fail, through satraightforward overloading, it's not going to be gradual - is it?

In fact, you have no data whatsoever to support your theory, do you?



Yes, well, that would be a ship - not a building. Electricians don'e design plumbing, and naval architects don't do buildings. Hopefully.




And where do the imposed loads on the failed elements go at this point?





This doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that steel framed buildings have not suffered collapse due to fires?



Yet amazingly they pool the wool over almost the entire engineering and architectural communities. They even fool the likes of Arup and Edinburgh University into writing papers on the subject! Amazing!!!

By the way, you never responded about these papers either.

I am truly amazed.
Heiwa cannot see the difference between the load paths of a continuous metal hull, immersed in water (so the load path steel at and below the waterline is never is going to exceed about 250 F (120C)) (Hint: The deck plates do not carry grav loads) which is evenly loaded as a pressure function, and a discrete set of columns at 250C-> 1000C, with no heat sink available, carrying grav loads of everything above them.

A mouse and an elephant--4 legs a tail, and a nose--they are the same thing, exactly! Right?

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Architect

1. Electricians don'e design plumbing, and naval architects don't do buildings. Hopefully.

2. Are you suggesting that steel framed buildings have not suffered collapse due to fires?

1. Strutural design is same for naval architects and building architects. Don't worry. Building architects put their steel structures on land, naval architects on the sea (a little more complex but feasible, thanks to Arkimedes). And according EU-legislation I can work in the building industry ashore. Doing it right now, actually.

2. Yes, steel structure buildings (where the loads are supported by steel columns, spandrels and horizontal beams) do not collapse due to normal fires. The sub-items may deform, crumple,sag or bend due to heat, and some local parts may rupture (rarely) ... but the total structure never totally collapse in 1 000 000's of pieces by their own weights and ever present gravity, like an avalanche. Never heard of! Except WTC1, 2 and 7 of course.

Thanks for the questions.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

I am truly amazed.
Heiwa cannot see the difference between the load paths of a continuous metal hull, immersed in water (so the load path steel at and below the waterline is never is going to exceed about 250 F (120C)) (Hint: The deck plates do not carry grav loads) which is evenly loaded as a pressure function, and a discrete set of columns at 250C-> 1000C, with no heat sink available, carrying grav loads of everything above them.

A mouse and an elephant--4 legs a tail, and a nose--they are the same thing, exactly! Right?

Don't be amazed. Think of off-shore structures with plenty of top side equipment fitted on steel decks/platforms on top of structure below. My biz.

The upper block of WTC1 33 000 tons but volume wise mostly air was very well supported by the lower structure fixed on the ground and the two could never crumple or crumble by their own weight due to fire. It is as easy as that.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

It is very simple - gravity forces cannot cause total, global collapses of unheated multiple part steel low stressed structures even if applied very accurately!

When did we introduce unheated / low stress into the equation?

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Minadin

When did we introduce unheated / low stress into the equation?

So, the columns of WTC1 and WTC2 were unheated and low stress, after the airplanes took out some of them and a huge fire was busily heating more of them?

ETA:
Anybody se a set of goalposts around here? I swore I saw them earlier/...

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Gravity is a force that attracts objects, e.g. all structural parts of the upper block of WTC1, towards the centre of the earth.

Take one column of the upper block! It is attracted to the centre of the earth by its gravity force. Fantastic, isn't it.

Now, when this column of upper block is still connected or applied to or put in position on a column of the lower block, the column of the upper block remains there. Guess why?

if you remove the column of the lower block, what happens to the column of the upper block? Right, the force of gravity attracts it to the centre of the earth. What happens? Do you know? Does it fall to the centre of the earth? No, it doesn't.

It is applied to the ground, that happens to be in the way between the starting point of the column and the centre of the earth, and it deforms itself and the ground when it is applied to the ground.

However, if the lose column is accurately applied to another column above the ground but below the lose column before it impinges the ground then it might deform that unlucky column. But only in one location. But it would be a miracle that the lose column is accurately applied to this other column. Small probabilty.

Try it yourself. Drill a little hole in your floor, dia 1 mm, and put a stick of spaghetti in it facing up. Take another stick of spaghetti and drop it from above on the stick of spaghetti facing up. Do this 1 000 000 times!

How many times is the dropped spaghetti accurately applied to the fixed spaghetti (and breaks it)? And how many times does the dropped spaghetti stick just miss and drops to the ground?

Pls advise me the result when you have done this simple test.

What? You are not "accurately applying" gravity, it is a constant.

[cloudshipsrule]

Quote:

The upper block of WTC1 33 000 tons but volume wise mostly air was very well supported by the lower structure fixed on the ground and the two could never crumple or crumble by their own weight due to fire. It is as easy as that.

Well, DUH! That's why the terrorists didn't just start fires in the buildings. They flew fully loaded passenger jets into them hoping to make the buildings fail to some degree. What do ya' know? It worked!

So the lesson here is, a simple fire may or may not cause a steel structure to collapse (Unless it's a bridge of course.), but when you throw a passenger jet into the equation strange things happen. That about sum it up punk?

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Minadin

When did we introduce unheated / low stress into the equation?

The structure that collapses below the initiation zone is unheated and low stressed.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

So, the columns of WTC1 and WTC2 were unheated and low stress, after the airplanes took out some of them and a huge fire was busily heating more of them?

ETA:
Anybody se a set of goalposts around here? I swore I saw them earlier/...

The structure that collapses below the initiation zone is unheated and low stressed.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

What? You are not "accurately applying" gravity, it is a constant.

The gravity force that attracts the lose part of WTC1 will pull it to the centre of the earth unless it is accurately applied to something else in the meantime.

Gravity is not constant at all. It is a function of the masses involved. Basic!

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule

So the lesson here is, a simple fire may not cause a steel structure to collapse. That about sum it up?

Right! I edited your input to make it right.

Do not alter a quote without making the alteration very clear.

Posted By:Lisa Simpson

[cloudshipsrule]

You actually completely changed the meaning of my post, and you are actually completely wrong in your beliefs. Here's hoping you aren't actively working in an engineering field where you have any impact on any product/object which might eventually make it to market.

"Gravity is not constant."

You mean I've been wrong all these years using 32ft/s/s?

[cloudshipsrule]

Quote:

The structure that collapses below the initiation zone is unheated and low stressed.

You do mean low stresssed until being impacted by several thousand tons of falling building, right?

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

The gravity force that attracts the lose part of WTC1 will pull it to the centre of the earth unless it is accurately applied to something else in the meantime.

Gravity is not constant at all. It is a function of the masses involved. Basic!

So, how can you make calculations in physics if gravity is not a constant? Don't you use 9.81m/s^2?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Gravity is not constant at all. It is a function of the masses involved. Basic!

gravity on 9/11 for the WTC was essentially constant; you can use 9.81m/ss and come up with exactly what we saw on 9/11. lol

[cloudshipsrule]

Quote:

Gravity is not constant at all. It is a function of the masses involved. Basic!

Basically wrong!

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule

Basically wrong!

At the very core, he is correct--gravitational force is a function of the masses involved.
But when
M1=Earth
M2= anything on the Earth

M1 wins, and g is to all intents and purposes, a Constant, at 9.802 m/sec^2, 32.2 ft/sec^2, or 386.1 in/sec^2--your choice of units.


This is why I don't b'leev that Heiwa is an engineer. HE gets his basics confused with his reality...

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

2. Yes, steel structure buildings (where the loads are supported by steel columns, spandrels and horizontal beams) do not collapse due to normal fires. The sub-items may deform, crumple,sag or bend due to heat, and some local parts may rupture (rarely) ... but the total structure never totally collapse in 1 000 000's of pieces by their own weights and ever present gravity, like an avalanche. Never heard of! Except WTC1, 2 and 7 of course.

Thanks for the questions.

This building had a steel structure and the normal fire caused it to collapse.

Look at the parts with paint still on them, pulled and deformed by the collapse of the rest of the building.

Normal fires cause steel framed buildings to collapse, so as we know this we must look at the masses involved in the towers and see if the mass above the plane hits and weakened structure, was enough to destroy the part below when dropped on it due to this fire damage, in conjunction with the plane damage, and the force of gravity acting on it.

Show us your calculations as to why the collapse would have stopped.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

1. Strutural design is same for naval architects and building architects. Don't worry. Building architects put their steel structures on land, naval architects on the sea (a little more complex but feasible, thanks to Arkimedes). And according EU-legislation I can work in the building industry ashore. Doing it right now, actually.

You can work on whatever you like. However if you call yourself in an architect in the UK without having gone to the bother of actually being qualified as one, and studying all those pesky academic subjects which don't involve largely irrelevant subjects such as boats, then you will have committed a criminal offence.

Before you ask why this is, here's the proof:

Quote:

2. Yes, steel structure buildings (where the loads are supported by steel columns, spandrels and horizontal beams) do not collapse due to normal fires. The sub-items may deform, crumple,sag or bend due to heat, and some local parts may rupture (rarely) ... but the total structure never totally collapse in 1 000 000's of pieces by their own weights and ever present gravity, like an avalanche. Never heard of! Except WTC1, 2 and 7 of course.

Now, you're really squirming here.

You originally claimed that fire structures weren't susceptible to fire induced failure under normal conditions. Unfortunately for you, this is complete bollocks and I note with some amusement that you've not actually responded to any of the technical points put to you in the OP.

However not to be caught out in fantasy land, you now qualify your position. No structure has ever collapsed due to fire. Wellllllll, that's wrong too. Rather a few have, including a recent case in the UK which took out some firemen when the steel roof structure failed.

But now, wait a minute, now we've got another get out clause......it has to be like an avalanche. Incidentally, I've been in an avalanche and they look nothing like WTC. A big white wall with death written on it is, I believe, the phrase I used at the time.

What next......no steel framed building with the initials "WTC" has ever collapsed?

But this overlooks the fact that you've wholly failed to grasp the composite nature of the building's structure and hence analyse the impact on the collapse pattern.

Why would this be?


Just a minute, I know.......ah yes, it's because IT'S NOT A RUDDY BOAT!

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

The structure that collapses below the initiation zone is unheated and low stressed.

Um, I guess I'll agree that unheated steel is essentially fireproof, as long as it remains unheated. After all, that is rather the purpose of fire rated insulation in a steel structure - to keep the temperature down for as long as possible.

As far as the steel structure below the area of impact and fires in the WTC, I don't think that anyone here has argued that heating due to fire is the direct cause of that particular aspect of the collapse. (other pieces of steel and concrete floors and office contents slamming into them with a lot of momentum did the job there)

So, your contention is then that "the rest of the structure should have been resilient enough to withstand the impact of those many tons of debris from the impact area and above" then - not that "the structure in the impact zone shouldn't have failed due to fire / impact damage". Is that correct?

I do believe that some folks would be in disagreement with you as to how "low stress" the situation was, especially during the collapse.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Architect

<snip extremely polite, thourogh, and effective spanking>
Just a minute, I know.......ah yes, it's because IT'S NOT A RUDDY BOAT!

Why does it have to be brick-red color? Are brick-red boats easier to analyze?
I personally like Battleship grey, and even blue as a boat color...

[Architect]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Why does it have to be brick-red color? Are brick-red boats easier to analyze?
I personally like Battleship grey, and even blue as a boat color...

It's you language, mate, I'm just working with what you've got.....

...which, form a Gaelic perspective, is not nearly enough dh's and gh's.

[X]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Gravity is a force that attracts objects, e.g. all structural parts of the upper block of WTC1, towards the centre of the earth.

Take one column of the upper block! It is attracted to the centre of the earth by its gravity force. Fantastic, isn't it.

Now, when this column of upper block is still connected or applied to or put in position on a column of the lower block, the column of the upper block remains there. Guess why?

If you remove the column of the lower block, what happens to the column of the upper block? Right, the force of gravity attracts it to the centre of the earth. What happens? Do you know? Does it fall to the centre of the earth? No, it doesn't.

It is applied to the ground, that happens to be in the way between the starting point of the column and the centre of the earth, and it deforms itself and the ground when it is applied to the ground.

However, if the lose column is accurately applied to another column above the ground but below the lose column before it impinges the ground then it might deform that unlucky column. But only in one location. But it would be a miracle that the lose column is accurately applied to this other column. Small probabilty.

Try it yourself. Drill a little hole in your floor, dia 1 mm, and put a stick of spaghetti in it facing up. Take another stick of spaghetti and drop it from above on the stick of spaghetti facing up. Do this 1 000 000 times!

How many times is the dropped spaghetti accurately applied to the fixed spaghetti (and breaks it)? And how many times does the dropped spaghetti stick just miss and drops to the ground?

Pls advise me the result when you have done this simple test.

And what, exactly, is trying to drop a spaghetti onto another spaghetti supposed to prove?

[Architect]

Next, he'll be comparing the "meteorite" to a lasagne.....

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by [X]

And what, exactly, is trying to drop a spaghetti onto another spaghetti supposed to prove?

That we're almost as stupid as a typical twoofer?

[Crungy]

This month's issue of Structure magazine contains a couple of interesting fire related articles;

Reconsidering Fire Resistance Requirements for Tall Buildings
World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis

http://www.structuremag.org/issue.aspx

[Crungy]

Here's the SFPE guidlines for peer review.
http://www.sfpe.org/upload/peer_review_guidelines.pdf

Myself and many others eagerly await Heiwoo's paper.

[X]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

2. Yes, steel structure buildings (where the loads are supported by steel columns, spandrels and horizontal beams) do not collapse due to normal fires. The sub-items may deform, crumple,sag or bend due to heat, and some local parts may rupture (rarely) ... but the total structure never totally collapse in 1 000 000's of pieces by their own weights and ever present gravity, like an avalanche. Never heard of! Except WTC1, 2 and 7 of course.

Thanks for the questions.

"The sub-items may deform, crumple, sag or bend due to heat ... but the total structure never totally collapses ..."

If we assume structural element (your "sub-items") serve a purpose, that is, they hold a load, it is very reasonable to assume that the failure ("deform, crumple, sag or bend") may lead to a total failure of the building.

Think about it:

1) You have stated that sub-elements can fail due to fire.
2) You agree, I presume, that elements carry structural load.
3) So then you must agree that the failure of a sub-element must redistribute the load among the remaining elements.
4) Thus the remaining elements carry more load.
5) As more elements fail, the load on the remaining elements becomes greater.
6) At some point, the load will be too large for the remaining elements to bear.
7) When this happens, the structure will fail.

However, it seems that your reasoning is that the load can be re-distributed endlessly, without overwhelming the capacities of the remaining elements. Does this seem logical to you?


ETA: Sorry to keep popping in posts instead of dealing with everything together. It's just that each time I read through this, I find something new.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

So, how can you make calculations in physics if gravity is not a constant? Don't you use 9.81m/s^2?

9.82 at the North Pole and 9.80 at the Equator or whatever and 1.5 on the Moon and 3.1 on the planet Mars. 0 at a certain location between Earth and Moon, and so on.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

9.82 at the North Pole and 9.80 at the Equator or whatever and 1.5 on the Moon and 3.1 on the planet Mars. 0 at a certain location between Earth and Moon, and so on.

That's not really relevant to a discussion of structural collapses on Earth.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by [X]

1) You have stated that sub-elements can fail due to fire.
2) You agree, I presume, that elements carry structural load.
3) So then you must agree that the failure of a sub-element must redistribute the load among the remaining elements.
4) Thus the remaining elements carry more load.
5) As more elements fail, the load on the remaining elements becomes greater.
6) At some point, the load will be too large for the remaining elements to bear.
7) When this happens, the structure will fail.

1. Right
2. Of course
3. Right
4. Right
5. Right
6. Wrong
7. Not applicable

Imagine three subelements A, B and C of equal mass/density stacked on each other with C on top.

A carries B and B carries C and C carries nothing.

Imagine that C is weakened by fire! What happens to A and B. Nothing evidently because they are not weakened by fire.

Imagine that B is weakened by fire. What happens to A and C?

C may overload B but C and B will not overload A.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

1. Right
2. Of course
3. Right
4. Right
5. Right
6. Wrong
7. Not applicable

You realise that what you're saying is that when a structural element fails, the load it carried is in some magical manner is redistributed but also somehow - magically - vanishes into thin air, hence the altered load path cannot fail due to excess capacity and the structure cannot undergo progressive failure.


I mean, that's what you really think, is it?

[Smackety]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

1. Right
2. Of course
3. Right
4. Right
5. Right
6. Wrong
7. Not applicable

Imagine three subelements A, B and C of equal mass/density stacked on each other with C on top.

A carries B and B carries C and C carries nothing.

Imagine that C is weakened by fire! What happens to A and B. Nothing evidently because they are not weakened by fire.

Imagine that B is weakened by fire. What happens to A and C?

C may overload B but C and B will not overload A.

It may be because I am new here, but I cannot believe that this is the root of your argument. Are you saying that unless the fire starts in the basement, the building cannot possibly fail?

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

1. Right
2. Of course
3. Right
4. Right
5. Right
6. Wrong
7. Not applicable

Imagine three subelements A, B and C of equal mass/density stacked on each other with C on top.

A carries B and B carries C and C carries nothing.

Imagine that C is weakened by fire! What happens to A and B. Nothing evidently because they are not weakened by fire.

Imagine that B is weakened by fire. What happens to A and C?

C may overload B but C and B will not overload A.

You would be much more correct stating that A, B and C are of equal mass/density using interconnected parts as an assembly and not solid blocks.

By the way, nice to see that you realized that gravity is a constant.

[cloudshipsrule]

Quote:

9.82 at the North Pole and 9.80 at the Equator or whatever and 1.5 on the Moon and 3.1 on the planet Mars. 0 at a certain location between Earth and Moon, and so on.

Are you trying to say "When I said gravity wasn't constant, I was not reffering to the WTC collapse event."? (Because the gravitational differences you've just described here have nothing to do with the WTC collapse.)

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Smackety

It may be because I am new here, but I cannot believe that this is the root of your argument. Are you saying that unless the fire starts in the basement, the building cannot possibly fail?

He probably means "hull".