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 Griff
Can I not say the same of NIST? Can I repeat (or even them) this "simulation" in real life?
That's my point. Also, the point of if you had no other reference to the physical reality that the sky is blue...you would have to accept my paper that the sky is green. Because this painting is the only reference available.
There likely is no other data available on the construction of the building,
So, NIST just made it up?
I'm not sure who claims that nano-thermate causes explosive like blasts?
You know this as fact? Why have we been persuing these weapons for over 30 years then if they are unpracticle?
See this is where structural engineering comes into play. When designing, you have to look at all loads and what they do to a structure. This includes live, wind, dead, siesmic etc. loads. Then we design the structure for the maximum of these values. That includes bending, deflection, moment etc. So, when they say a member can withstand something, it means that that something is the ultimate and the other loads produce something less. Hence, if the wind load governs and the wind is not blowing that day, there is more capacity for other loads. Etc, etc.
Yes, I can. Because it wouldn't take an entire structure to show a few columns bending inward from trusses pulling on them. BTW, how much have we spent on the war in Iraq? How many full towers could have been built with that money? So, yes, it's possible.
I have always said I could be wrong in my convictions. See my signature about absolutes and people thinking they know everything.
Originally posted by exponent
It is clear your beliefs are relatively 'mainstream' so if you have time I would like to ask what alternative hypotheses you find plausible?
Originally posted by Griff
I have to wonder why Newton hasn't updated his blog? And also why this thread all of a sudden just died?
Exponent: I'm getting to your last post also. Just have been busy, but finally got 3 projects off my back today.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
I've even done calcs to verify it. newtonsbit.blogspot.com...
In a 600C fire, the Modulus of Elasticity will have reduced to approximately 0.3 of its original value, and the yield strength to 0.5 of its original value.
I see you haven't updated your blog yet as to this sentence. I have to wonder why you word this the way you do.
Wouldn't the correct way to say this be: If the steel becomes 600C.....?
And does that correlate to NIST's own findings?
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
www.aisc.org...
Scroll down to page 9. It is very clear the the reduction in modulus is 0.3 at 600C (or perhaps it 0.31 or so). Until proven otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and assume that AISC is correct.
I think that should answer both yours and Griff's questions. Remember folks, use real resources from actual real sources and you may actually find the truth!
CALCULATION 2: DIAPHRAGM DAMAGE, 500C FIRE
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
www.aisc.org...
Scroll down to page 9. It is very clear the the reduction in modulus is 0.3 at 600C (or perhaps it 0.31 or so). Until proven otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and assume that AISC is correct.
I think that should answer both yours and Griff's questions. Remember folks, use real resources from actual real sources and you may actually find the truth!
Only in the unconstrained condition does stiffness equal modulus of elasticity. Have you taken this into account? Or are the exterior columns considered unrestrained?
Also, have you taken into account the elongation of the element at 600C? What I mean is that stiffness = AE/L. Your graph shows the stiffness reduction factor. Does it account for the delta L caused by the element heating to 600C? Having a larger L at 600C would give a higher reduction factor for E (modulus of elasticity) at that temperature. Correct?
Maybe not a huge change but, It seems as though it would.
BTW, you say 500C in your blog anyway. But then use the reduction factors for stiffness at 600C? Maybe just a typo?
CALCULATION 2: DIAPHRAGM DAMAGE, 500C FIRE
newtonsbit.blogspot.com...
[edit on 9/20/2008 by Griff]
Originally posted by bsbray11
How many core columns would have to have huge sections cut completely out like that, to cause an initiation scenario? Or do we have enough data for that?
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
Not many.
You can see NIST (1-6D) for how they calculated this force.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Newtons.Bit
So when I ask how many would have to completely fail out of the 47, and you say "not many," what data are you basing that on? I know it has been estimated that only a few out of the 47 could be failed during impact, so it would have to be "not many" or else we would be stuck.
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
The NIST report. Try reading it. They give a pretty detailed analysis of how many columns were likely to fail for a number of different conditions.
Originally posted by Newtons.Bit
The NIST report. Try reading it.
...I asked if enough data is truly present. ... [T]here does not appear to a reliable and impartial source to refer to without appealing back to ... NIST
They give a pretty detailed analysis of how many columns were likely to fail for a number of different conditions.