WTC, new study

[DaveVikingPE]

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.

 

[LPPE]

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

 

[Mattman]

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.

 

[JAE]

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.

 

[jheidt2543]

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.