Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[BenBurch]

I touched upon this in another topic, but I think it deserves a topic of its own, so here it is.

One of the tiresome refrains of the third-string truthers who pass through here like meat through the sausage grinder is that a hydrocarbon fire can never make steel fail.

Now, we give them diagrams and charts and quote temperatures to them, none of which ever make any more impression upon them than a mosquito does upon a windshield, so I here present a real world example.

A technology that has nearly vanished from the world is the steam locomotive.

Since Stephenson's Rocket, boilers of steam locomotives, with few exceptions, have been on the same plan; A firebox surrouned by water with a grate below the fire to admit air and to release ash, with combustion gasses passing through a barrel-shaped boiler via multiple fire tubes to a smoke box where exhaust steam from the operation of the engine is blown up the stack to create a draft that sucks the combustion gasses from the firebox and causes air to come in through the grates to feed the fire.

At the top of the firebox, and subject to the most heating from the fire because heat rises, is the crown sheet. The crown sheet is attached to the top of the boiler shell by long stay bolts that keep the internal pressure of the boiler from deforming the sheet, which otherwise would have to be very thick and not very good at its job of transmitting heat into the water.

When the crown sheet of a boiler becomes dry, it is no longer cooled by the phase change of the boiling water, and very quickly heats to the temperature of the fire. As it does so, it loses much of its strength, softens and in spite of the stay bolts can be deformed by the pressure in the boiler to pull away from the stay bolts to ultimate failure.

When a crown sheet fails you have a boiler explosion. This is nearly invariably fatal to the operators of the engine and anybody nearby and can hurl the boiler off the frames of the locomotive some considerable distance.

And this is true no matter what fuel the locomotive consumes; Wood, Peat, Coal, or Oil.

But if we believed our volunteer sausages here, the last fuel should never have the capacity to damage a boiler under any circumstances. It should just not be possible for a oil fire to reach a heat sufficient to cause that steel to weaken and deform.

So, what are we to believe? That the truthers are correct that such a locomotive is universally safe with oil fuel and a dry crown sheet? Or the tragic history of railroading which includes several such failures?

(See http://books.google.com/books?id=RZQ...um=1&ct=result for one such failure.)

If indeed such failures happen, and they do, then the truthers are proven 100% wrong on this topic.

[Architect]

I'm not sure if restrictin ourselves to hydrocarbon fires is particularly worthwhile. Let's widen the scope to consider the impact of all normal fire loadings on structural steelwork.

In this respect I'm going to repost my previous comments in respect of the Truther belief in the inherrently fire resistant qualities of steel. Apologies for thos who've ploughed through them already, although I note in passing that no Truther has ever posted a substantive rebuttal of any of the points made.


Testing Criteria

Firstly, the lay reader may be interested to learn that there are, of course, formal standards to test the fire performance of structural steelwork.

The general procedures used for determining the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of structure are specified in BS476 series. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant parts are:

Part 20 Method of determination of the fire resistance of elements of construction (general principles)

Part 21 Method of determination of the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of construction

Whilst BS 476 Part 20 is concerned with general principles and covers requirements which are common to the other parts of BS 476, the BS 476 Part 21 fire resistance testing covers load-bearing elements of construction, such as steel beams, columns or walls, whilst BS 476 Part 22 fire resistance tests are intended for non load-bearing elements of construction.

European fire testing standards have also been published. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant part is presently ENV 13381-4 “Test methods for determining the contribution to the fire resistance of structural members Part 4: Applied protection to steel members”. This standard makes reference to the EN 1363 Series of standards which contain general information about conducting fire resistance tests. However, as all the procedures for assessing fire protection are currently specified in ENV13381-4, it is this standard which is generally referred to.

Performance of Steel in Fires

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate. The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire. Including creep explicitly within analytical models, is complex. For simple design methods, it is widely accepted that the effect of creep is implicitly considered in the stress-strain-temperature relationships.

For those who require further information or, as the case may be, persuasion regarding the actual performance of steelwork under such conditions we are fortunate that a predictably large numbers of leading bodies have looked at the issue in depth.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/..._meetings.html (http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/..._meetings.html)

http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm (http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm)

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm (http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm)

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...rts/KLewis.pdf (http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...rts/KLewis.pdf)

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts in the final link, which have obvious implications for the structure of any steel framed building exposed to fire conditions.

Practical Implications - Design Codes and Building Regulations

The fire design codes BS 5950-8, Eurocode 3 Part 1-2 and Eurocode 4 Part 1-2 provide the framework for designers to calculate the temperature at which a given steel member will fail in a fire situation. These design methods incorporate more realistic estimates of the applied load during a fire and include the effects of non-uniform heating through and along the member. The design methods are based on either fire
resistance, which is a measure of an element to withstand given criteria in a standard furnace test, or natural fires where the size of the fire compartment, available combustible material, characteristics of the compartment boundaries andair supply are considered.

The requirements and calculations so arising are necessarily complex.

As the reader might anticipate, because structural steelwork is at risk of failure in a fire building regulations also introduce fireproofing requirements.

The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf) - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.corusconstruction.com/leg...s_section1.pdf (http://www.corusconstruction.com/leg...s_section1.pdf) . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html (http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html) .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz (http://www.building.govt.nz/))

Summary

It is recognised through empirical analysis across a recognised series of standards that structural steelwork weakens significantly under normal fire conditions, and as a consequence codes require additional protection through (for example) the incorporation of passive fire protection systems.

[MrQhuest]

Here is a question.

If hydrocarbons can not heat steel enough to allow it to become malleable, how was steel used before the invention on an arc furnace?
I mean, I seem to recall something about a trade known as blacksmiths who were pretty good at making things out of steel after heating it in a wood/coal fire. So next time someone says that fire cannot melt/deform steel, just throw them a horseshoe as you laugh at them and walk away.

MrQ

[T.A.M.]

lol...

a better question.

If hydrocarbon fires cannot make steel fail, then why on earth waste all that money on fire proofing the steel?

TAM

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by MrQhuest

Here is a question.

If hydrocarbons can not heat steel enough to allow it to become malleable, how was steel used before the invention on an arc furnace?
I mean, I seem to recall something about a trade known as blacksmiths who were pretty good at making things out of steel after heating it in a wood/coal fire. So next time someone says that fire cannot melt/deform steel, just throw them a horseshoe as you laugh at them and walk away.

MrQ

or wave this at them

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[funk de fino]

Or show them this

[AJM8125]

Can't we just throw horseshoes at them?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Can't we just throw horseshoes at them?

Well, they are dumb as an iron stake, that's for sure, but I can't advocate violence.

[twinstead]

Sheesh. Everybody knows that ancient horse shoes were made of aluminum. SHILLS!

[peteweaver]

SS Sultana sank in 1865 because of a boiler explosion. According to twoofer science, explosion = bomb, as no fire would be able to weaken the metal.

[Sunstealer]

Isn't it strange how they have avoided this thread?

[thebestodb]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Isn't it strange how they have avoided this thread?

That's because there isn't much to discuss on this topic. If you take this topic and start taking it to the next step and start calculating the shear and ductile failures due to heating then we might get some interesting conversation going.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by thebestodb

That's because there isn't much to discuss on this topic. If you take this topic and start taking it to the next step and start calculating the shear and ductile failures due to heating then we might get some interesting conversation going.

Feel free!

[twinstead]

Hey. That's not fair. I barely know what the word ductile means!

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Hey. That's not fair. I barely know what the word ductile means!

It's a tile in the shape of a duck.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Hey. That's not fair. I barely know what the word ductile means!

[truther] the ability to act like a duck, (stupid debunker) [/truther]

[twinstead]

Ah, that must have something to do with "if it LOOKS like a duck, and WALKS like a duck..." It all makes sense now

[A W Smith]

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Isn't it strange how they have avoided this thread?

The Truthers always avoid this particular topic when it goes into technical detail. Remember, steel is meant to be amazingly fireproof. No steel framed building has ever failed due to fire. Well, except the towers. But they don't count.

[Wolrab]

Fools, I just put some water (hydro) and than a piece of charcoal (carbon) on a piece of steel and nothing happened. Then I tried lemons, cheese, wool, and pizza boxes, The wool and pizza boxes got soggy, but the lemons and cheese were unscathed.

[thebestodb]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Fools, I just put some water (hydro) and than a piece of charcoal (carbon) on a piece of steel and nothing happened. Then I tried lemons, cheese, wool, and pizza boxes, The wool and pizza boxes got soggy, but the lemons and cheese were unscathed.

You forgot to add the onions.

[Wolrab]

Doh!

[jaydeehess]

Well one thing we do know is that a fusion reactor can warp steel. At least one that is 96 million miles away.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...ts/R/Railroads

Quote:

14 ARE IN HOSPITAL AFTER DERAILMENT
AP
Published: Sunday, August 7, 1988

Thirteen passengers and an employee of Amtrak remained hospitalized today after a 12-car train derailment that was blamed on tracks warped by near-100-degree heat.

The train, en route from Chicago to Seattle, was traveling at 79 miles an hour when it derailed Friday, injuring 162 passengers and one crew member. The accident toppled at least five of nine passenger cars and threw passengers from their seats, the authorities said.

OMG 100 degree F heat!!11eleventy!11 and no fire in sight

[Unsecured Coins]

did the NTSB check for therm*te?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins

did the NTSB check for therm*te?

They'd have found it if they had!

Its how they make field welds to track, and that is why Thermite was invented!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

They'd have found it if they had!

Its how they make field welds to track, and that is why Thermite was invented!

Yup, and it takes 10 lbs of thermite to make one weld in a piece of track.

[Architect]

This continues to be a strangely Truther-free zone. I wonder why?

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

Originally Posted by Architect

This continues to be a strangely Truther-free zone. I wonder why?

Heiwa's still attempting to work out a viable testing scenario involving two spoons, some string and an old 8-Track cartridge cassette of The Starland Vocal Band's Greatest Hits, I imagine.

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by J. Wellington Wimpy

Heiwa's still attempting to work out a viable testing scenario involving two spoons, some string and an old 8-Track cartridge cassette of The Starland Vocal Band's Greatest Hits, I imagine.

"Rubbin' sticks and stones together makes the sparks ignite" Hey, at least there's a heat source!

[tsig]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

They'd have found it if they had!

Its how they make field welds to track, and that is why Thermite was invented!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It was thermite or a full blown open-hearth furnace those are the only way you can melt steel!!

I thought I was learning at the feet of a genius but it turned out to be just a pair of socks.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Yup, and it takes 10 lbs of thermite to make one weld in a piece of track.

So how long would it take their universal thermite spray-on device to administer enough spray-on thermite to cut through a WTC Steel beam?

TAM

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

So how long would it take their universal thermite spray-on device to administer enough spray-on thermite to cut through a WTC Steel beam?

TAM

The vertical beams probably could not have been cut through with any amount sprayed on. You could have cut through parts of the seats where a horizontal beam or truss was attached, but the first hole that formed would allow the molten mixture to fall through...

And wow, it would have looked like endless welding torches were at work in there, too. Thermite gives off a lot of light.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

The vertical beams probably could not have been cut through with any amount sprayed on. You could have cut through parts of the seats where a horizontal beam or truss was attached, but the first hole that formed would allow the molten mixture to fall through...

And wow, it would have looked like endless welding torches were at work in there, too. Thermite gives off a lot of light.

That's it!!!
Thermite was used to cut/weaken the truss seats allowing the floor pans to fail and impact lower floors which were also weakened resulting in the first few pancake collapses. That would mean that NIST got the collapse sequence RIGHT, even if they attributed a different cause to it.
Now just how to explain how the rows of sparklers on every floor were not seen,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmm

This also means that perhaps WTC 7 could be brought down in the exact sequence that NIST spells out BUT that therm*te was the cause of the initial loss of lateral support for column 79 by using it to cut the beams and griders.

You're onto somthing Ben

[Sunstealer]

I did some calculations in one of the threads recently showing how much liquid iron, in volume and weight, would be produced from a litre or 2.1Kg of thermite. I asked the truthers to estimate how much liquid metal/steel/iron they thought had been present.

Oddly not a single one of them acknowledged the post or tried to put a very rough figure on the amount of molten steel. I think stoichiometry frightens them. I haven't done the calculation to see how much steel would be melted by 1kg of liquid iron but I bet it would show that tons of thermite would be required for even the horizontal components let alone beams. It's a waste of time - a) they wouldn't understand b) they just dismiss it.

[BenBurch]

Nice cut-away photos (with legend) of a traction-engine boiler;

http://www.herculesengines.com/Steam...tion/index.htm

These are just like the boilers on smaller railway locomotives, and indeed some traction engines were sold with railroad wheels for use in logging and as a shunting engine for small industries that wanted to spot and marshall rail cars rather than paying for their connecting railroad to do it for them.

EDIT: One difference is the lack of a bottom grate. There was a door with a vent in it at the bottom of the firebox to admit air, and the ash had to be shoveled out. This was important in farm use as you didn't want to start the field full of dry wheat on fire!

[BenBurch]

Lots more on the net about this than I imagined!

http://gesswhoto.com/rice-hill.html

and

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/SIR9605.pdf

[Architect]

We're going to be a long time for any of the "amazing fireproof steel" boys to arrive, Ben.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Architect

We're going to be a long time for any of the "amazing fireproof steel" boys to arrive, Ben.

Oh, for sure, but this is an interest of mine. Not only have I been kicking around steam engines since I was 3, but I knew a guy slightly who died when his traction engine suffered a crown sheet failure.

[jaydeehess]

Further to enviromental temperature warping steel rails
page 4-22
bolding mine

Quote:

Expansion and contraction of the rails caused by changes in temperature or seasonal extremes are
of great concern to this sector. The rail industry routinely inspects all 120,000 miles of track
about twice weekly. However, the first occurrence of the fall-winter season when the air
temperature drops below freezing produces rail contraction that can cause gaps and misalignment
in the track. This greatly increases the number of track warning signals and the potential for
derailment, malfunction of track sensors and signal sensors, and signal damage. Rail contraction
continues as the temperature drops further. These conditions pose a risk to personnel (crew and
passenger) safety and risks to freight and property. Mitigation actions include increased
inspections of track and sensors; repair as necessary; slowing, stopping, delaying, or rerouting
trains; and preparations for response to HAZMAT incidents. Similarly, increasing air
temperatures produce rail expansion, which can cause “kinks” in the track beyond a certain
temperature. The seasonal thresholds are the first occurrence of air temperatures in the spring at
70–75 °F, and 90 °F. When air temperatures exceed 90 °F, additional track inspections are
prescribed.

If a mere 90 degrees air temp plus direct sunlight can warp a steel rail how can CT's be suprised at building steel deformation?

[Architect]

Can you provide a link to a YouTube video for that?