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.

 

A question for architects and engineers

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Is it possible for a modern high rise steel frame building to collapse due to fire, or is the building built in such a way, that even if all the combustible material would burn up, it still wouldnt be enough to sufficiently weaken the steel structure, because the ammount of combustible material is already factored in and the buiding built in such a way it can withstand all the material going up in flames?
edit on 12-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The only modern high rises to collapse from fire were the ones in new york.The only black boxes from airplanes that were never recovered were from the events of 2001.It is pretty clear .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The question is, how did the building collapse perfectly straight. The towers did not topple over or anything. since the planes hit the top part of the tower you would think that the side of the building that the plane hit would topple over. the way the building collapses seems like demolition. i am no scientist but thats the way it seems



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Or building seven had no airplane strike, and it still fell into its own footprint at next to free fall speed.
Somebody should check out that Shanghai building which burned for such a long time recently and see if it collapsed as no plane ran into it.....just fire.....



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
The towers were built specifically to "pancake" in the event of a floor collapse, so that the building doesn't topple over and destroy half the city. They were also designed with the idea of being able to handle a full 747 crashing into it. The pylons were built so that if one, even two, were taken out, it would not compromise the entire building.

My uncle worked for the Port Authority and worked directly on the plans for the towers. For the record, he has streets named after his family in New York. He worked directly with the architectural firm that designed the plans. At the time, they were considered "not conventional" for architectural design and introduced several new concepts that were considered "foreign" but were masterminded by Minoru Yamasaki. Even the steel was specifically rated to handle a certain melting temperature that was FAR above the threshold of any fire that could burn in the building.

I still don't understand why people think jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel in that building. There were many other things in the building that burn hotter than gas, and the builders knew that so they used steel that wouldn't collapse from fire. The day they collapsed, I talked to my uncle and the first thing he said was that it wasn't the planes that caused the towers to fall, but wouldn't say what could have done it even though he knew jet fuel wasn't the cause. In open air, jet fuel burns around 550C and the building has a mass of 1000 times greater than the plane moving at 500 mph, so the physics alone don't make sense. Even if the temperature of jet fuel were doubled for the sake of this argument, the steel is rated at 1500C, again, far above the temperature of the fires. Buildings are designed for fires, including the towers. This was all considered in the design and has been argued to death in countless threads and websites.

Hope this clarifies a bit.

~Namaste


edit on 12-1-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 

Exactly, NIST standard are quite clear for tall buildings...
Like in your other post, Delft University of Technology in Holland is offered up as one such building; yet reading this report even states that

4. Summary: The fire and subsequent collapse of a substantial portion of the Faculty of Architectural Building at the Delft University of Technology is significant in that fire-related collapse of structures is rare, with collapse of reinforced concrete structures even more so. This case is of particular interest since the fire started as any ordinary fire might – failure of an electrical appliance – and the fuel load in the building was not particularly high – yet the fire grew so rapidly that the fire department was unable to undertake successful fire control or extinguishing activities and a significant structural collapse occurred, resulting in the need to demolish the building for a total loss on the order of €100 Million.

So the building partially collapsed, after burning for ~6 hours longer than any WTC building (sans-747s
) and in the end had to be demolished by man-made means...


edit on 12-1-2011 by igigi because: .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
What I want to know is if modern high rise steele frame buildings need to be constructed in a way, that they do not collapse even if all the combustible material inside those buildings burns up.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


For your consideration on the subject: NIST: Fire Protection of Structural Steel in High-Rise Buildings.

First, it should be acknowledged that the American population has been well served by the design and construction industry regarding fire safety in high-rise structural steel buildings exposed to historical threats. As was noted in the workshop and was highlighted in the Engineering News Record article that covered the workshop (February 12, 2004, p. 15), in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.

NIST goes on to outline how new insight into building technologies may alleviate concerns of structurally damaged buildings due to fire...

EDIT: The section in the report labelled "Structural Fire Engineering" and " Performance-Based Design" should be enlightening as to the thought put into how a building should cope with fire.
edit on 12-1-2011 by igigi because: .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Well there is the Cardington fire test.

www.vulcan-solutions.com...

psik



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 

Hi Cassius.

Watch, in one of the 4 videos there:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a building burning all its "burnable", and it STAYs UP,
NEVER falling down ! !

Blue skies.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 


So explain how this building on fire fell down (or one wing of it did)

Delft School of Design - May 2008

www.liveleak.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


That fire burned for MUCH longer than any other fires recorded; and yet only one section collapsed.

Also: CALLED IT, even the same poster!


Like in your other post, Delft University of Technology in Holland is offered up as one such building; yet reading this report even states that

4. Summary: The fire and subsequent collapse of a substantial portion of the Faculty of Architectural Building at the Delft University of Technology is significant in that fire-related collapse of structures is rare, with collapse of reinforced concrete structures even more so. This case is of particular interest since the fire started as any ordinary fire might – failure of an electrical appliance – and the fuel load in the building was not particularly high – yet the fire grew so rapidly that the fire department was unable to undertake successful fire control or extinguishing activities and a significant structural collapse occurred, resulting in the need to demolish the building for a total loss on the order of €100 Million.

So the building partially collapsed, after burning for ~6 hours longer than any WTC building (sans-747s
) and in the end had to be demolished by man-made means...

edit on 12-1-2011 by igigi because: .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
if the modern building were built in the model of a skeletal supperstructure
which was intergally connected with the exterior (as in 1900s- 1950s high rises)
there will be no problem


its when the engineering uses only mathematical perimeters to define the structure
that the modern designers run into problems.... the best example being WTC 1 & 2
that used a 'unitized' theory with a back up being that the stresses would be
distributed among several unitized levels at the same time
(to wit: the 3 storie spacing pattern of the outer structual skin- which decreased
stresses to any one storie spread over 5 different levels)


Whoa! those were smart-fellers,
oops Both towers, each went into total collapse with only 3 levels damaged on one exterior wall
so i guess that only imbedded explosives were the only reason they pancaked ~ pffffft



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


Notice the Delfit building was a concrete AND steel reinforced structure, that collapsed. But it at least had water being thrown on it.

WTC7 burned for 7 hours before collapsing, and it was mostly steel. WTC1+2 were steel which had light steel trusses used as floor supports. The fireproofing was inadequate and destroyed in impacts. Ask a firefighter or look on a firefighting site and see what they say about light steel truss structures (any) and fires. You'd be shocked.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
A natural, uncontrolled, collapse cannot do this...



Anyone who can explain how the outer walls can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building, from an uncontrolled collapse, will also have to explain the new physical laws involved. They should also contact Demolition.Inc for a job.

Thedman was already debunked... www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why he thinks it still holds water is beyond me.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Anyone who can explain how the outer walls can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building, from an uncontrolled collapse, will also have to explain the new physical laws involved. They should also contact Demolition.Inc for a job.


Please show how it is that you determined that the ENTIRE, COMPLETE remains of the towers are wholly contained under those exterior wall panels and in that single photo. If not then all you have is a photo of the wall panels on top of some other debris.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 



Even the steel was specifically rated to handle a certain melting temperature that was FAR above the threshold of any fire that could burn in the building.

Why?. Not that is true, but even in your own make believe world - why would they? Were they designing an office building or a basic oxygen furnace?


I still don't understand why people think jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel in that building.

They don't. If you would occassionally exit your little make believe world you would probably find this out.


There were many other things in the building that burn hotter than gas, and the builders knew that so they used steel that wouldn't collapse from fire.

So it was an industrial warehouse, not an office building, huh?


The day they collapsed, I talked to my uncle and the first thing he said was that it wasn't the planes that caused the towers to fall, but wouldn't say what could have done it even though he knew jet fuel wasn't the cause.

That's the frist thing he said???? Not, Oh my God, all those poor people?


In open air, jet fuel burns around 550C and the building has a mass of 1000 times greater than the plane moving at 500 mph, so the physics alone don't make sense.

Not based on your understanding of physics.


Even if the temperature of jet fuel were doubled for the sake of this argument, the steel is rated at 1500C, again, far above the temperature of the fires. Buildings are designed for fires, including the towers. This was all considered in the design and has been argued to death in countless threads and websites.

Yes. It has. Unsuccessfully.


Hope this clarifies a bit.

Oh yeah.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Why would they build skyscrapers that do not collapse from fire? So that an out of control fire does not result in a total armageddon where skyscrapers fall left and right maybe?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Why would they build skyscrapers that do not collapse from fire? So that an out of control fire does not result in a total armageddon where skyscrapers fall left and right maybe?


Sorry, thats not a realistic design criteria. It also incorrectly implies that fire was the only cause of the collapse of the towers.

Think of other possible catastrophies, are they all considered in the design criteria? 8.8 earthquakes? Tsunamis?

Besides, the only way to design a building that is impervious to collapse with fire as a factor is to employ materials that are immune to the physical effects of energy. Please give a list of those materials when you get a chance.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join