×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

WTC, new study

WTC, new study

WTC, new study

(OP)
From today's NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/22/nyregion/22TOWE.html

"U.S. Announces New, Tougher Look Into Why the Towers Collapsed"

According to this article, "...Even as Dr. Bement announced the sprawling new effort [$23 million study by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology - formerly the National Bureau of Standards], however, he fended off questions about whether it would be hobbled by some of the same problems that hurt the earlier study, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers. The new investigation has not yet been granted the power to subpoena witnesses or documents like building plans — bits of basic information that the FEMA study often had trouble obtaining."

I was unaware that the ASCE study had any problems, other than what's usually encountered when one has to look for paper documents that are more than 30 years old. And why would anyone need to subpoena, say Meusser-Rutlege, for building plans? All this is news to me.

Thus, to the Eng-Tips community: a) as a cynical American, I am familiar with the New York Times' method of presenting the news, b) with that out of the way, I did not know that the ASCE (et al) study received harsh criticism - except from quacks and cranks, did I miss something? c) please read the aticle if you have a chance, I don't like ASCE-bashing or engineer-bashing in general.

RE: WTC, new study

I agree, Dave, and why do tax payers have to foot $23 mil for another study?  It's pretty obvious what happened, no?

RE: WTC, new study

Here are two links describing the criticisms:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/01/nyregion/01COLL.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/02/nyregion/02TOWE.html

The main item "criticized" was the state of our knowledge of building behavior during massive fires, and if there is something basic missing in our understanding that caused the collapse.  

Reading these articles, I would say that the word "criticism" gives the wrong connotation. Basically, the "critics" want the report to go deeper.  It explains the mechanism of failure, but does not study every component and its role in the failure, nor does it really expand our knowledge base regarding the behavior of buildings in events such as this.  The new study would include new fire tests, new computer models, review of the original calcs- a review of everything that could possibly help predict the behavior of buildings in such an event.

As I could never have imagined an event like this- sometimes I still can't believe it really happened- I can understand the need of some to study it without end, grasping for a way to keep something like it from ever occuring again.  But I don't necessarily agree with them.

I believe political (long-term) and security (mainly short-term, with a long-term component) approaches are the only way to avert horrific acts like this.  We as designers have done a good job providing the public with safe structures.  

While changes in our methods of design to improve a building's survivability are welcome, I believe that designing buildings to survive an attack from a jumbo jet full of fuel crashing into it it a futile, worthless endevour.  We should not live and work in fallout shelters.

RE: WTC, new study

Well, it is natural for the engineering community to use a disaster to propel further study of an issue.  This happened from Tacoma Narrows bridge and the Hyatt Regency Collapse.

So its not really criticism of ASCE but a desire to further our knowledge and do better.  I agree with this.

But an "organ" like the NYTimes will use this aspect of man's on-going trial and error response in engineering to lever its cranked up views of the world and further its politics.  

RE: WTC, new study

Hindsight is 20/20.  Let's not forget that you would have had to be clairvoyant to forsee the failure mode of the WTC.  The building withstood the impact from the planes (which was considered during the design phase) and withstood the fire for a fairly long time, long enough for the vast majority of people below the impact zone to escape.  

My understanding of what trapped those above the impact point is that the planes severed stairwells and fire protection lines.  Who amoung us could have forseen that?  I'm not going to fault the designers by applying hindsight.  Should we learn from this event, yes.  But that doesn't mean we make each building a fortress either. It doesnt' taken any brains to be a media critic, only a big mouth!

I agree with Mattman, it is still hard to believe that it really happened.  It is also hard to believe there are people that can have so little regard for human life.

That's my two cents.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources