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.
Originally posted by Nutter
I can't believe we are going on with this. Jeez.
So, this shreaded inch or two that has already put most of it's energy toward crashing through the outer columns still had enough energy to slice through core columns?
Which "real world physics" is this coming from again? Who performed the actual "real world physics" simulation that this is animated after anyway?
A model of the North Tower (WTC-I) was built by the
civil engineering members of the team. It included all
structural elements as well as the concrete floors (Figure
10). All stories were modeled, including those under-
ground. The simulation restricted to the upper 20 floors
of the building, however with increased detail meshing
near the impact region so as to achieve high accuracy of
the results.
How did they get the correct information to do their FEA when everyone else is denied the information to perform a correct one?
Also. I can't believe you guys are still claiming "real world physics" when we all know that in the "real world" the towers deflected when hit and that is definately not shown in the Purdue simulation.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How can the core columns not move in the Purdue simulation of the north tower impact and yet the NIST provided empirical data in their 10,000 page report that the south tower moved 15 inches due to the impact? One of them has to be wrong. Since skyscrapers are designed to sway in the wind it is pretty certain the Purdue sim is wrong.
Well for a start, it's extremely unlikely that they included any columns above or below the impact zone in their simulation. That would massively slow it down and make working harder. It's common practise to focus only on the part that you care about, because that way you can increase grid density or use more complex elements.
For a second, Purdue didn't model office contents, so the momentum transfer was not as significant or as early as in reality.
All simulations are wrong to some extent, Purdue's sim shows that the plane would indeed penetrate walls and do significant internal damage, despite them not having the time or money to simulate office contents.
A model of the North Tower (WTC-I) was built by the civil engineering members of the team. It included all structural elements as well as the concrete floors (Figure 10). All stories were modeled, including those under- ground. The simulation restricted to the upper 20 floors of the building, however with increased detail meshing near the impact region so as to achieve high accuracy of the results.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You are contradicting yourself with quotes you sourced.
A model of the North Tower (WTC-I) was built by the civil engineering members of the team. It included all structural elements as well as the concrete floors (Figure 10). All stories were modeled, including those under- ground. The simulation restricted to the upper 20 floors of the building, however with increased detail meshing near the impact region so as to achieve high accuracy of the results.
If they simulated the levels underground then they had to take into account the mass so how did their simulation not get the deflection due to impact?
That makes them either more stupid than I thought or LIARS. So why haven't any other engineering schools caught this?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You are contradicting yourself with quotes you sourced.
You didn't read properly:
A model of the North Tower (WTC-I) was built by the civil engineering members of the team. It included all structural elements as well as the concrete floors (Figure 10). All stories were modeled, including those under- ground. The simulation restricted to the upper 20 floors of the building, however with increased detail meshing near the impact region so as to achieve high accuracy of the results.
If they simulated the levels underground then they had to take into account the mass so how did their simulation not get the deflection due to impact?
They didn't simulate the levels underground, just as they said right in the quote that you quoted.
That makes them either more stupid than I thought or LIARS. So why haven't any other engineering schools caught this?
Because your false dichotomy failed to include the chance that you didn't bother to read the whole paragraph before trying to quote it and use it in your favour?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
At best they are being ambiguous. What do they mean by the difference between modeling and simulating? What would be the point of modeling down to underground levels if they were only rendering the vicinity of the impact if they were not computin the effects of that mass and stiffness?
Nitwits often deliberately use ambiguous language so they can then play semantic games claiming they meant whatever is convenient at the time.
By not have the core columns move their SCIENTIFIC simulation is WRONG.
Originally posted by exponent
A model of the North Tower (WTC-I) was built by the civil engineering members of the team. It included all structural elements as well as the concrete floors (Figure 10). All stories were modeled, including those under- ground. The simulation restricted to the upper 20 floors of the building, however with increased detail meshing near the impact region so as to achieve high accuracy of the results.
Originally posted by Nutter
My question about the simulation of only 20 floors worth is how did they produce the correct amount of moment associated with the plane impact? Moment is force times distance to the centroid. The centroid of a 20 story building is 10 stories. The centroid of a 110 story building (+ 6 additional underground stories) is 58 stories.
That is a huge difference in moment created.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by Nutter
My question about the simulation of only 20 floors worth is how did they produce the correct amount of moment associated with the plane impact? Moment is force times distance to the centroid. The centroid of a 20 story building is 10 stories. The centroid of a 110 story building (+ 6 additional underground stories) is 58 stories.
It's even worse than you think, because the rotation was around the base of the towers, so it would be 20 storeys vs 110.
Agreed, but how much of the impact energy went into deflecting the tower that much? That's something I am happy to discuss. Why do you think it's such a serious issue compared to modelling the actual destruction at the top? What are your predictions for the model changes if capturing the momentum transfer was added?
The swaying of the tower? It's useful for determining model accuracy and energy transfer, but not for structural damage, which is precisely what Purdue were looking at.
Originally posted by exponent
They didn't use ambiguous language, they specified it explicitly, don't blame them for your mistake.
All simulations are wrong to some extent,
anyone other than a mathematician who tells you their results are perfect is probably an idiot.
A model of the North Tower (WTC-I) was built by the civil engineering members of the team. It included all structural elements as well as the concrete floors (Figure 10). All stories were modeled, including those under- ground. The simulation restricted to the upper 20 floors of the building, however with increased detail meshing near the impact region so as to achieve high accuracy of the results.
All stories were modeled, including those under- ground
The simulation restricted to the upper 20 floors of the building,
Originally posted by Nutter
We be thinking alike. I edited my post.
My questions are if the towers were designed for 100 mph winds in a hurricane, that produces a significant amount of moment at the base. Was this moment superceeded by the plane impact? I'm not sure as I haven't calculated the force the plane would have hit, the distance it hit, etc. Not to mention that if the plane hit at an angle or not straight on (WTC 2) that would significantly change the deflection, sway, and moment.
The peak amplitude of the movement in the north-south direction was determined to be 12 in. ± 1 in. at the 70th floor, which extrapolated to a value of 20 in. ± 3 in. at the roofline. Frequency analysis of the results revealed the fundamental north-south mode to have a period of 11.4 s, a torsional mode with a period of 5.3 s, and two higher frequency modes with periods of 3.9 s and 2.2 s. All periods were determined to an accuracy better than ± 0.1 s.
That is a contradictory statement.
The swaying of the tower absorbed some of the energy. Which is precisely what Purdue was looking at.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Those two statements are ambiguous. The underground stories were at least 80 stories away from the impact. How were they MODELED without being SIMULATED. If they had said RENDERED instead of simulated then I could understand it. Rendering is just producing the images. Modeling and Simulating are figuring out what happens.
ROFL
Purdue is a much of a joke as the NIST that can't specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.
Originally posted by exponent
What makes you say they were looking at energy consumption?
Like I said, surely you should criticise them much more harshly for not modelling the office contents?
Originally posted by Nutter
If they were modeling damage, then they had to model energy. Damage just doesn't happen without energy.
The addition of office contents and deflection would have produced a much closer to reality simulation IMO.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Those two statements are ambiguous. The underground stories were at least 80 stories away from the impact. How were they MODELED without being SIMULATED. If they had said RENDERED instead of simulated then I could understand it. Rendering is just producing the images. Modeling and Simulating are figuring out what happens.
Modelling is the process of recreation, simulation is the process of figuring out what happened.
ROFL
Purdue is a much of a joke as the NIST that can't specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.
The only joke here is that you think disagreeing with their wording discredits them.
That is by no means a reasonable or logical step to take.
A computer simulation, a computer model, or a computational model is a computer program, or network of computers, that attempts to simulate an abstract model of a particular system. Computer simulations have become a useful part of mathematical modeling of many natural systems in physics (computational physics),
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by Nutter
If they were modeling damage, then they had to model energy. Damage just doesn't happen without energy.
That's true, but you implied they were aiming to study energy consumption, wheras they seem to make it clear they were trying to create a high quality visualisation of the impact and resultant damage.
Sagging trusses will exert a greater horizontal force than those deflecting only at design requirements
Originally posted by exponent
- Fireproofing failure meant some trusses were unprotected or severely under-protected
- Unprotected or semi-protected trusses in fire will heat quickly
- Heated trusses will sag due to a variety of reasons
- Sagging trusses will exert a greater horizontal force than those deflecting only at design requirements
I look forward to comments on these.
IF the trusses heated up enough to expand (something else you need to prove before your hypothesis is excepted),....
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
en.wikipedia.org...
psik
This article is about computer model within a scientific context. For artistic usage, see 3d modeling. For simulating a computer on a computer, see emulator.
Originally posted by bsbray11
So you're saying the visualization was of first importance, and all the math and physics behind it was of secondary importance? I'm asking because the damage they're modeling is going to be just as inaccurate as whatever energies they were or weren't considering, and I doubt Nutter is alone in finding his priorities in the math and physics first.
What deflection of trusses at "design requirements" are you talking about?
The perimeter columns are where the relevant deflection must take place, and you would have to get around to showing how the spandrel plates would have resisted any deflection, which was a no-go for NIST. That's the real-life design that NIST's hypothesis is required to overcome.
Originally posted by ANOK
I already commented and you ignored it. If you are so intent on discussing these topics, why did you ignore my post on page 2 that addresses every point you wanted to discus? You're not even discussing them yourself.
I want to know why you and PLB, and probably others, think that sagging trusses put more force on the columns than non sagging trusses?
Where is your physics explanation for that?
Because here is the physics that proves you wrong...Steel when heated expands. IF the trusses heated up enough to expand (something else you need to prove before your hypothesis is excepted), then why did they not push the columns outwards?
Instead they SAGGED, which means they could do neither push out, nor pull in the columns, otherwise they would not have sagged they would have pushed out first (which if you think they could pull in, then they would also as easily push out).
No, building components are designed to do their work and have a large reserve, a safety factor, so that the component won't fail if their ability is exceeded.
Again your points of discussion are irrelevant, and ignore what is really important to the whole picture.
They don't put more force on the columns, they exert a force in a different direction. As they sag, they become somewhat like a chain hanging between the core and the outer wall.