Originally posted by wmd_2008
Here are some other facts for you, who do you think some of the best clients/customers of structural engineers are? the answer Architects !!!!
Architects will do anything to avoid structural calculations (even for things as trivial as house extensions) because they don't know as much as YOU
think they should know about the subject!
Hmm, well, true, but it's not strictly a case of Architect's avoiding it so much as Architects are not legally qualified to prepare structural
calculations at an institutional level. Legitimate Structural Engineering Consultancies, especially those involve in designing habitable structures
are bound by practices under the regulatory bodies of their respective institutions (IStructE as it is here in the UK). Architect's have a good
understanding of the design principles and even from a structural analysis view point, but their remit 99/100 times is far removed from these
elements. You'll never hear an architect getting involved with sub-structure or super-structure design unless the conceptual design cannot be
achieved through feasible solutions, or such designs require the assumptions being made through the Architect's consult. Ultimately, if their design
can be achieved structurally without alterations to their concept, they pretty much have zero involvement (unless you tell we need a deep slender
section across that opening, it's going to ruin your light array!)
NO ONE on either side KNOWS how much damage was done by the plane impacts YES EITHER side!
Precisely, no amount engineering can account for the millions of varying effects of the damage caused by either plane impact. It should be taken as
almost impossible to summise and account for in the design process. The fact is, no designer or computer model in the world could factor in the forces
of an aricraft impact with any degree of accuracy to replciate it's precise effect, only applied forces/conditions to each and every vertical (and
horizontal member) in an X-Y direction and magnitude would have been accounted in a realistic design environment, and let's not forget, they were not
simulated on a computer either like today, they were done by hand which is an exhausting process to say the least.
They will likely have factored in things such as failure of vertical/horizontal members due to buckling, torsion, shear and even fire etc but only to
a certain reasonable extent - the contract only affords so much in the design stages, and not only that, did they conceive that all truss connections
could fail at the same time on one entire floor? I just don't think it's plausible that they could have anticipated a fail-safe mechanism to
mitigate a likely collapse scenario given what happened.
In fact one inside job fan on here told me the steel had been tested to 2500f for several hours I posted back to him a graph to show at that
temperature its molten he didn't reply I wonder why.
Idiots will be idiots, even if it's to prove a point.
The dynamic load of the floors above imapct points falling produced loads way in excess of the dead load of the structure before the impact, videos
have been posted here to show that!
They show what appears to be that, but we don't know that for sure, although, it's very plausible. Referring to my earlier paragraph, they may well
have accounted for several floors stacking, but again, these scenarios are endless in possibles, probables and improbables, the design element affords
so much in the way of anticipating scenarios and I would have assumed the WTC Structural Engineers were competitive enough to win the contract, and by
doing so, everything is governed by time and money. I'm not implying that design is limited exclusively by it, but it's a case of how far do you
want to go? You could spend literally a lifetime designing for all sorts of possiblities on a structure, but you'd never get another job because the
thing would never get built.
I'll leave at that for now, at least I think it's relatively inoffensive for anyone reading that isn't acutely familiar with structural engineering