It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do NIST's computer models meet the International Building Codes?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Let's look at the criteria for the "International Code Council Performance Code For Buildings and Facilities" to find out.


APPENDIX E

USE OF COMPUTER MODELS

This appendix gives guidance regarding qualifications and information that should be provided when undertaking computer modeling. More specifically, the appendix requests that computer program data be submitted as part of the documentation. Also, limitations
and applicability of the model must be included as part of the documentation. Finally, the scenarios used to run the particular
model must be justified.
This is an area along with the analysis of individual performance-based designs and methods where organizations such as evaluation
services may have a role. The model is only as good as the input selected and the specific application of the model. Very often,
inappropriate and unrealistic input data is used
, and models often have very specific application limitations. Therefore, simply
because a model has been reviewed does not mean that enough information has been provided for the specific application to be
accepted.
The criteria used to approve the model must be very specific in order to provide guidance to the code official or outside
reviewer
as to what specifically about the model has been reviewed. These criteria will provide a clear understanding of what additional
review of that specific application of the model may be necessary.


Personally, I feel NIST has failed.


Edit: Sorry for not supplying a link. You have to pay for the IBCs and it would probably be considered pirating if I supplied a link to them (if there even is one). I bought my copy, that is why I can copy and paste it.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by Griff]




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Personally, I feel NIST has failed.

You're not the only one, Griff.

NIST's computer model is a classic case of garbage in = garbage out.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


It amazes me that NIST wants to change the International Building Code (IBC) but yet, fail to adhere to the current code themselves.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I'm taking it by the defening silence that the NIST apologists have nothing to apologize for in this regard?

Why should we listen to NIST and change codes that they don't even adhere to themselves?



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I am not the only one concerned with these new code changes.


BOMA, other representatives of the commercial real estate industry, and many code and safety experts opposed these code changes. BOMA argued that the need for an additional stairway in particular was not demonstrated by NIST and other proponents, and, given current fire statistics, is not well founded. A full cost/benefit analysis necessary to document the societal impact of these sweeping changes was not performed as part of the NIST study, as was repeatedly urged by BOMA and many other groups. This change was also opposed by the ICC technical committees with oversight of egress requirements in the ICC codes. Building construction experts noted during the ICC public hearings that proponents for this change did not demonstrate the need for the stairwell in actually contributing to the safe evacuation of a building - a particular concern in view of comments by the fire service during the hearings.


www.buildings.com...



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

posted by Griff
Personally, I feel NIST has failed.


posted by tezzajw
You're not the only one, Griff.

NIST's computer model is a classic case of garbage in = garbage out.


posted by Griff
I'm taking it by the defening silence that the NIST apologists have nothing to apologize for in this regard?

Why should we listen to NIST and change codes that they don't even adhere to themselves?

You will get no argument from me.

NIST is actually employed as cover-up artists. They fit the evidence and the science to their pre-conceived objectives. NIST dishonestly set up their computer models and could not simulate a tower collapse until they had sabotaged their own computer simulations by degrading the strength of the tower by a large percentage. NIST only modeled to the beginning of the collapse, ignoring the chance of explosives.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'm taking it by the defening silence that the NIST apologists have nothing to apologize for in this regard?

Pretty much. You've failed to demonstrate what NIST is required to do and have simply begged the question.


Why should we listen to NIST and change codes that they don't even adhere to themselves?

Do you really need me to answer this for you? We should listen to NIST because their research indicates there may be weaknesses inherent in some structures which have not been thoroughly explored. We should listen to them to try and prevent the loss of life.

Whether their recommendations are adopted or not is another matter, they were in the case of WTC1+2 but there is more debate over WTC7.

SPreston, I assume when NIST did the calculations for explosive yield in WTC7 you also disagree with this? So you disagree with NIST when they try to take into account explosives and when they don't?



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
We should listen to NIST because their research indicates there may be weaknesses inherent in some structures which have not been thoroughly explored.


Well, since plenty of professionals are rejecting NIST's findings, I'd say again, why should we listen to them?


The National Council of Structural Engineers
Associations (NCSEA) formed an ad-hoc joint
industry committee to review these proposals.
In addition to structural engineers representing
NCSEA, this committee includes representatives
of ASCE/SEI, AIA, ACI, AISC, PCA,
PCI, SJI, TMS and other industry associations.
This committee found that the proposals
developed by TRB were vague, unenforceable,
created undue liability on the part of design
professionals and did little to address the
disasters that occurred on 9/11.
The ad hoc
committee was successful in convincing ICC to
reject these proposals at the September 2006
code hearings
, However, the proponent of these
proposals has resubmitted them for
consideration at the final hearings, to be held in
May 2007 in Rochester, NY.


www.bsces.org...

So far, I have found that the ICC has rejected some of the recommendations by NIST. BOMA is greatly against them. And now the NCSEA which comprises members of ASCE/SEI, AIA, ACI, AISC, PCA,
PCI, SJI, TMS and other industry associations.

So again. If all these professionals are rejecting NIST's findings, why should we listen to them?

[edit on 11/10/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Well, since plenty of professionals are rejecting NIST's findings, I'd say again, why should we listen to them?

That's simply not true though is it? There are only a very small number of professionals rejecting NISTs findings, there are however quite a larger number rejecting NISTs recommendations.

It is not hard to get these things correct and if uncorrected your statement above is wildly misleading.


So far, I have found that the ICC has rejected some of the recommendations by NIST. BOMA is greatly against them. And now the NCSEA which comprises members of ASCE/SEI, AIA, ACI, AISC, PCA,
PCI, SJI, TMS and other industry associations.

Did you read the document you linked? The specific recommendations rejected were those proposed by the TRB, not directly by NIST. Even so you again mislead in the below statement:


So again. If all these professionals are rejecting NIST's findings, why should we listen to them?

(bolding mine)

Please show me where they reject NISTs findings in any manner.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
That's simply not true though is it? There are only a very small number of professionals rejecting NISTs findings, there are however quite a larger number rejecting NISTs recommendations.


Since NIST's recommendations are directly related to their findings, I used them interchangeably. However, I can see your point even though I believe you are splitting hairs.


Did you read the document you linked? The specific recommendations rejected were those proposed by the TRB, not directly by NIST.


Since the TRB recommendations are directly from NIST's recommendations, I see no difference.


Since August 2005, when the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) published
its report on the 9/11 collapse of New York’s
World Trade Center Towers, the International
Code Council (ICC) and others have been
struggling to develop provisions based on
NIST’s recommendations. In support of this
effort, ICC members formed the Terror-
Resistant Buildings Committee (TRB)
to
develop specific code change proposals and
submit them for adoption into the International
Building Code (IBC).


[edit on 11/10/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Disgusting for an engineer that at the very root of his job, is charged with protecting the life of those that use the buildings he may help design.....

I thought that architects designed buildings?

Griff is a structural engineer, not an architect.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I thought that architects designed buildings?


Ouch. Actually, we both do in conjuction with each other. But, yes, the architect comes up with the idea of how the building should look etc. and we make sure that it works.


Griff is a structural engineer, not an architect.


Although true, I have never claimed to design new buildings. Especially skyscrapers. I inspect existing buildings that sometimes include skyscrapers. Gotta love Local Law 11 time.


That's when I get to ride the skyscrapers in NYC.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Since NIST's recommendations are directly related to their findings, I used them interchangeably. However, I can see your point even though I believe you are splitting hairs.

I don't believe I am splitting hairs. There's a large difference between believing that an extra stairwell is not required and believing that fire was not responsible for the collapse of the buildings. It's important to understand that these professional organisations don't dispute NISTs findings.


Since the TRB recommendations are directly from NIST's recommendations, I see no difference.

I'm afraid that I can't see your point here, you can't use recommendations developed by an ICC subgroup to criticise the NIST report. Especially because the criticisms were partially to do with the poor quality of their recommendations.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Reply to exponent.

I can see your point with both statements.

Also, I have found that the NIST doesn't have to follow the ICC codes.

Here's the e-mail I recieved this morning from the ICC.


The following Federal Agencies Reference the I-Codes:



Architect of the Capitol
Department of Defense
General Services Administration
National Park Service
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Forest Service
Veterans Administration


************
Manager, Codes
International Code Council
Chicago District Office
4051 W. Flossmoor Rd.
Country Club Hills, IL 60478
**************


Obviously, I got rid of his personal information.

I guess that settles this argument then?



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I can see your point with both statements.

Also, I have found that the NIST doesn't have to follow the ICC codes.
...
I guess that settles this argument then?


I guess so, I have no objection to the discussion about proper modeling procedure though. I think that a lot of people don't understand what experimental verification NIST had available and they often expect more than is possible.

Do you have any criticisms of NIST's modeling process? What would you change if you could?



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Do you have any criticisms of NIST's modeling process? What would you change if you could?


I would like to see their failed tests and parameters of said tests. Other than that, I really can't blame NIST for their narrowly focused investigation.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Well - Lets wait for the Answer.... I just emailed this to www.ae911truth.org...
linking them to this page... hopefully, we will get some more grounds ...
like what we got isn't like 500% more than what the law requires... more is always good in the truth business of criminal prosecution



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
AE911Truth.ORG

reply to this boards question...?

Quote
I don't know, I'll ask the Team if anyone has the answer.
JS....
UnQuote

So, I guess we are in a wait and see mode until the review...



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The reply button is still not working for me?

Anyway, thanks BornPatriot for asking them the question.

On a side note, I have contacted them about the blueprint issue of my other thread also. So, we'll see what they say.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join