mechanics of progressive collapse: what did
DESCRIPTION
MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID AND DID NOT DOOM WORLD TRADE CENTER, AND WHAT CAN WE LEARN ?. ZDENĚK P. BAŽANT. Presented as a Mechanics Seminar at Georgia Tech, Atlanta, on April 4 ,2007, and as a Civil Engineering Seminar at Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
MECHANICS OFPROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID AND DID NOT DOOM WORLD TRADE CENTER, AND WHAT CAN WE LEARN ?
ZDENĚK P. BAŽANT
Presented as a Mechanics Seminar at Georgia Tech, Atlanta, on April 4 ,2007, and as a Civil Engineering Seminar at Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, on May 24, 2007
![Page 2: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Collaborators:Jialiang Le
Mathieu Verdure
Yong Zhou
Frank R. Greening
David B. Benson
SPONSORS: Specifically none (except, indirectly, Murphy Chair funds, and general support for fracture mechanics and size effects from NSF and ONR)
![Page 3: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
StructuralSystem
- framed tube
![Page 4: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Previous Investigations• Computer simulations and engrg. analysis at NIST — realistic,
illuminating, meticulous but no study of progressive collapse.
1. Northwestern (9/13/2001) — still valid 2. E Kausel (9/24/2001) — good, but limited to no dissipation
3. GC Clifton (2001) — “Pancaking” theory: Floors collapsed first, an empty framed tube later? — impossible 4. GP Cherepanov (2006) — “fracture wave“ hypothesis — invalid5. AS Usmani, D Grierson, T Wierzbicki…special fin.el. simulations
• Lay Critics: Fletzer, Jones, Elleyn, Griffin, Henshall, Morgan, Ross, Ferran, Asprey, Beck, Bouvet, etc.
Movie “Loose Change” (Charlie Sheen), etc.
• Mechanics theories of collapse:
![Page 5: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
11Review of Review of
ElementaryElementaryMechanics of Mechanics of
CollapseCollapse
![Page 6: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Momentum of Boeing 767 ≈ 180 tons × 550 km/h
Momentum of equivalent mass of the interacting upper half of the tower ≈ 250, 000 tons × v0
Initial velocity of upper half:
v0 ≈ 0.7 km/h (0.4 mph)
Assuming first vibration period T1 = 10 s:
Maximum Deflection = v0T / 2 ≈ 40 cm
Initial Impact – only local damage, not overallTower designed for impact of Boeing 707-320 (max. takeoff weight is 15% less, fuel capacity 4% less than Boeing 767-200)
(about 40% of max.hurricane effect)
![Page 7: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
13% of columns were severed on impact, somemore deflected
![Page 8: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Failure Scenario1. 60% of 60 columns of impacted face (16% of
287 overall) were severed, more damaged.2. Stress redistribution higher column loads.⇒3. Insulation stripped steel temperatures ⇒ up to 600oC→yield strength down -20% at
300oC,-85% at 300oC, creep for > 450oC. 4. Differential thermal expansion +
viscoplasticity floor trusses sag, pull ⇒perimeter columns inward (bowing of columns = buckling imperfection).
5. Collapse trigger: Viscoplastic buckling of hot columns (multi-floor) → upper part of tower falls down by at least one floor height.
6. The kinetic energy of upper part can be neither elastically resisted nor plastically absorbed by the lower part of tower ⇒ progressive collapse (buckling + connections
sheared.)
I. Crush-Down Phase II. Crush-Up Phase
a) b) c) d) e) f)
![Page 9: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Topplinglike a tree?
![Page 10: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
(The horizontal reaction at pivot) > 10.3× (Plastic shear capacity of a floor)
Possible ?
mg F
mgF8
3max
1H
mx
H1
m
x
MPF1
MPF1
h1
FP
Why Didn't the Upper Part Fall Like a Tree, Pivoting About Base ?
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
![Page 11: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
South tower impacted eccentrically
![Page 12: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Plastic Shearing of Floor Caused by Tilting(Mainly South Tower)
a b c d e
![Page 13: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
m
h Dynamic elastic overload factor calculated for
maximum deflection (loss of gravity potential of mass m = strain energy)
The column response could not be elastic, but plastic-fracturing
Elastically Calculated Overload
![Page 14: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
1 2
3
Can Plastic Deformation Dissipate the Kinetic Energy of Vertical Impact of Upper Part?
Only <12% of kinetic energy was dissipated by plasticity in 1st story, less in further stories
Collapse could not have taken much longer than a free fall
n = 3 to 4 plastic hinges per column line.
Combined rotation angle:
Dissipated energy:
Kinetic energy = released gravitational potential energy:
![Page 15: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Plastic Buckling
Fc ≥ Fs
…can propagate dynamically
Fc < Fs
… cannot
hL=2Lef
P1 P1
u
LL/2
P1MP
MPP1
Plastic buckling
Wf
Fc FsService load
Loa
d F
Axial Shortening u
00 0.5h h
Yield limit
h
F0
00 0.04h
F0
Elas
tic
Yielding
Plastic buckling
Expanded scale
Case of single floor buckling
F
Shanleybifurcationinevitable!
![Page 16: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
22Gravity-Driven Gravity-Driven Propagation of Propagation of
Crushing Front in Crushing Front in Progressive Progressive
CollapseCollapse
![Page 17: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Two Possible Approaches to Global Continuum Analysis
• Stiffness Approach homogenized elasto-plastic strain-softening continuum — must be NONLOCAL, with characteristic length = story height … COMPLEX !
• Energy Approach – non-softening continuum equivalent to snap-through*
— avoids irrelevant noise …SIMPLER !________________________
* analogous to crack band theory, or to van der Waals theory of gas dynamics, with Maxwell line
![Page 18: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
mg
F0
Fc
0
CrushingResistance F(u)
Wcλh
ΔFd
ΔFa
h
Crushing of Columns of One Story
Floor displacement, u
Cru
shin
g fo
rce,
F
ucu0 uf
ü = g – F(u) / m(z)
K < Wc
Internal energy : φ(u) =
Wb
Maxwell Line
Dynamic Snapthrough 1 2
3
Collapse arrest criterion: Kin. energy
One-story equation of motion::
Reha
rden
ing
Initial condition: v velocity of impacting block
Lumped Mass
Lower Fc formulti-floor buckling!
![Page 19: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
tzc
tzc
v1
v2 > v1vg-Fc/m
1
h
a) Front accelerates
h0
F0
Fcmg
F(z)
h
F0
mg
Fc
v1
Cru
shin
g fo
rce,
Fb) Front decelerates c) Collapse arrested
v
v2 < v1
time
Flo
or v
eloc
ity,
v
u
h
for Fc v1
v
u
u
g-Fc/m1
v
u
v2 >v1v
h
v1
for Fc
0
0
0
00 0
hu
v
0
v1
v1
W1 = K
mg
F0
zc
Fc
0
Real CrushingResistance F(z)
W1 = W2
u
λhΔFd
ΔFa
W1 = W2ΔFd
ΔFa
λh ΔFd
Deceleration
Acceleration
DecelerationAcceleration
Deceleration
λh
λhλhλh
Displacement
t tTime t
![Page 20: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
h h
Fc
a) Single-story plastic buckling L = h
Fc
Fc
Floor n n-1 n-2 n-3 n-4
Wc Wc
Fpeak
Fc
Fpeak
Fc
Fs Service load
Fc
Fpeak
b) Two-story plastic buckling L = 2h
c) Two-story fracture buckling L = 2h
Internal energy (adiabatic) potential : W = ∫ F(z)dz
Compaction Ratio, λ, at Front of Progressive Collapse
λh
2λh
Cru
shin
g F
orce
, F
Distance from tower top, z
Total potential = Πgravity - W
Mean Energy Dissipation by Column Crushing, Fc, and
energy-equivalentsnapthrough = mean crushingforce
![Page 21: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Mass shedding
Phase II
Collapse front
Crush-Down (Phase I of WTC)
Crush-Up (Phase II of WTC or Demolition)
Collapse front
2 Phases of Crushing Front Propagation
![Page 22: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
1D Continuum Model for Crushing Front Propagation1D Continuum Model for Crushing Front Propagation
C
A
z0
s0
z
H
B
B
y0 = z0C y
B
CB’
y η
ζ
r0 B’
B
z0C
Phase 1. Crush-Down Phase 2. Crush-Up
Fc
Fc’< Fc if slowerthan free fallPhase 1
downwardz
Δt
m(z)g
FcFc Fc
Fc
m(y)g
a)
b)
c)d)
e)
g)Crush-Down
Crush-Up
h)
i)
Can 2 fronts propagate up and down
simultaneously ? – NO !
s = λs0
λ(H-z0)
A
r = λr0 λz0
λH
λ = compaction ratio = Rubble volume within perimeterTower volume
zΔt.
m(z)v.
m(y)y.
yΔt.
μy2.z.
ζ
![Page 23: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Diff. Eqs. of Crushing Front PropagationI. Crush-Down Phase:
II. Crush-Up Phase:
fraction of mass ejected outside perimeter
Inverse: If functions z(t), m(z), (z) are known, the specific energy dissipation in collapse, Fc(y), can be determined
z(t)
y(t)
Intact
Compacted
Compaction ratio:
z0
z0
Criterion of Arrest (deceleration): Fc(z) > gm(z)
Buckling Comminution Jetting airResisting force
![Page 24: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
100
200
300
400
Variation of resisting force due to column buckling, Fb, (MN)
1 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
100
200
300
400
Variation of mass density, m(z),(106 kg/m)
Resistance and Mass Variation along Height
![Page 25: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Energy Potential at Variable Mass
Crush-Down
Crush-Up
Note:Solution by quadratures is possible for constant average properties, no comminution, no air ejection
![Page 26: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Collapse for Different Constant Energy Dissipations
Time (s)
Tow
er T
op C
oord
inat
e (m
)
Wf = 2.4 GNm
2
1.5
10.5
0
free
phase 1
phase 2
fall
λ= 0.18 , μ= 7.7E5 kg/m , z0 = 80 m , h = 3.7 m
fall arrested
(for no comminution, no air)
![Page 27: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Collapse for Different Compaction RatiosT
ower
Top
Coo
rdin
ate
(m)
Time (s)
λ= 0.4 0.30.18
0
transition between phases 1 and 2
Wf = 0.5 GNm , μ= 7.7E5 kg/m , z0 = 80 m , h = 3.7 m
freefall
(for no comminution, no air)
![Page 28: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Collapse for Various Altitudes of Impact
for impact 2 floors below top
5
20
55
Time (s)
Tow
er T
op C
oord
inat
e (m
)
(≈ 2.5 E7 GNm)
mg < F0,heated
freefall
phase 1phase 2
λ= 0.18 , h = 3.7 mμ= (6.66+2.08Z)E5 kg/mWf = (0.86 + 0.27Z)0.5 GNm
(for no comminution, no air)
![Page 29: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Crush-up or Demolition for Different Constant Energy Dissipations
Time (s)
Tow
er T
op C
oord
inat
e (m
) Wf = 11 GNm
65432
0.5
parabolic endfree
fall
λ= 0.18 , μ= 7.7E5 kg/m , z0 = 416 m , h = 3.7 m
fall arrested
asymptotically
(for no comminution, no air)
![Page 30: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Resisting force as a fraction of totalR
esis
ting
For
ce /T
otal
Fc
0 4 8 12
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0 4 8 12
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
FbFb
Fs
Fa
Fs
Fa
Fb
Fs
Fa
Fb
Fs
Fa
96 81 48 5 F 110 81 64 25 F 101
Time (s) Time (s)
Impacted Floor Number Impacted Floor Number
North Tower South Tower
Crush-down ends
Crush-down ends
110
![Page 31: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Fc /
m(z
)gResisting force / Falling mass weight
0 4 8 12
0.1
1
10
100
0 4 8 12
0.1
1
10
10096 81 48 5 F 110 81 64 25 F 101 110
Time (s) Time (s)
Impacted Floor Number Impacted Floor Number
North Tower South Tower
Crush-down ends
Crush-down ends
![Page 32: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
External resisting force and resisting force due to mass accretion
Res
istin
g fo
rce
Fc a
nd F
m (M
N) Impacted Floor Number Impacted Floor Number
Time (s)0 4 8 12
0
1250
2500
Fm
Fc
North Tower
96 81 48 5 F
Time (s)0 4 8 12
0
1250
2500
Fm
Fc
South Tower
81 64 25 F
![Page 33: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33 Critics Outside Critics Outside
Structural Engineering Structural Engineering Community:Community:
Why Are They Wrong?Why Are They Wrong?
![Page 34: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Lay Criticism of Struct. Engrg. Consensus1) Primitive Thoughts:
Euler's Pcr too high Buckling possibility denied Plastic squash load too high, etc. Initial tilt indicates toppling like a tree? — So explosives must been used !
Shanley bifurcation
No ! — horizontal reaction is unsustainable
No !No !
Like a Tree?
~4º tilt due to asymmetry of damage
~25º (South Tower)non-accelerated rotation about vertically moving mass centroid
Mass Centroid
Ft
![Page 35: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
South TowerNorth Tower
Video Record of Collapse of WTC Towers
2) Collapse was a free fall ! ? Therefore the steel columns must have been destroyed beforehand — by planted explosives?
![Page 36: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Tilting Profile of WTC South Tower
East
)cos1(2
1 H
tC
North
1
2
em
t
s Video-recorded(South Tower)
Initial tilt
H1
t
c
2
H1
![Page 37: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Comparison to Video Recorded Motion(comminution and air ejection are irrelevant for first 2 or 3
seconds)
Not fitted but predicted! Video analyzed by Greening
0 1 2 3
380
400
420
Tow
er T
op C
oord
inat
e (m
)
First 30m of fall
North Tower
Free fall
From crush-down differential eq.
Time (s)
0 1 2
400
410
420
South Tower(Top part large falling mass)
First 20m of fall
From crush-down differential eq.
Time (s)
Free fallNote uncertainty range
![Page 38: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
417 mH
T
8.08s 12.29s 12.62s
12.81s
Free fall
impeded by single-story buckling only
with pulverization
with expelling air
Most likely time from seismic record
From seismic data: crush-down T ≈ 12.59s ± 0.5s
-20 m0 m
Seismic rumble
Impact of compacted rubble layer on rock base of bathtub
Seismic and video records rule out the free fall!
North Tower
![Page 39: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Calculated crush-down duration vs. seismic record
Tow
er T
op C
oord
inat
e (m
)
Seismic error
a bc
0 4 8 12Time (s)
0
150
300
450
Free fall
with air ejection & comminution
Crush-down ends
with buckling only
South Tower
Calculationerror
0 4 8 12 16
ab
c
Seismic error
Time (s)
Calculationerror
0
150
300
450
North Towerwith air ejection & comminution
Free fall
Crush-down ends
with buckling only
Gro
und
Vel
ocity
(
m/s
)
Free fall Free fall
![Page 40: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
How much explosive would be needed to pulverize 73,000 tons of lightweight concrete of one tower to particles of sizes 0.01— 0.1mm ? • 237 tons of TNT per tower, put into
small drilled holes (the energy required is 95,000 MJ; 30 J per m2 of particle surface,
and 4 MJ per kg of TNT, assuming 10% efficiency at best).
(similar to previous estimate by Frank Greening, 2007)
3) Pulverizing as much as 50% of concrete to 0.01 to 0.13 mm required explosives! NO. — only 10% of kinetic energy sufficed.
![Page 41: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Comminution (Fragmentation and Pulverization) of Concrete Slabs
kt DDMDM )/()( maxSchuhmann's law:
Dtotal particle sizemass of particles < D
)(d
)( 3)(
min
DMD
DGDWK
D
D
ff
Energy dissipated = kinetic energy loss ΔK
density of particle size
Cum
ulat
ive M
ass
of P
artic
les
(M /
Mt)
1k
0.16mm = Dmin
Impa
ct sla
b stor
y
interm
ediate
story
Impac
t on g
round
0.012 mm = Dmin
0.01 0.1 1 10
10.12 mm
Particle Size (mm)
16 mm
![Page 42: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Kinetic Energy Loss ΔK due to Slab ImpactMomentum balance:
i iivmmvmv 21
Fragments
2max for (all )iv v i Kinetic energy loss:
2 21 2
1 1 ( )
2 2 imv m m v
2 2 [1 / ( )]
s
s
mz
h m m z
(energy conservation) total b aU W W Total:Concrete fragments BucklingGravitational
energy loss
m
v1
v2
Compacted layer
Comminuted slabs
Kinetic energy to pulverize concrete slabs & core walls
= ms concrete
Air
K
K
K K
K
![Page 43: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Fragment size of concrete at crush front
Max
imum
and
Min
imum
F
ragm
ent S
ize
at C
rush
Fro
nt
(mm
)
0 4 8 12
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Time (s) Time (s)
North Tower
Dmin
Dmax
96 81 48 5 F 110
Impacted Floor Number81 64 25 F 101 110
Impacted Floor Number
0 4 8 12
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Dmin
Dmax
South Tower
Crush-down ends Crush-down
ends
![Page 44: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Wf /
КComminution energy / Kinetic energy of
falling mass
0 4 8 12
0.1%
1%
10%
100%
Crush-down ends
Time (s)
North Tower
96 81 48 5 F 110
0 4 8 12
0.1%
1%
10%
100%
Crush-down ends
Time (s)
South Tower
81 64 25 F 110101Impacted Floor Number Impacted Floor Number
![Page 45: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Dust mass (< 0.1 mm) / Slab massM
d / M
s
0 4 8 12
0
0.5
1
0 4 8 12
0
0.5
1
Time (s) Time (s)
96 81 48 5 F 110 81 64 25 F 101110Impacted Floor Number Impacted Floor Number
Crush-down ends
Crush-down ends
North Tower South Tower
![Page 46: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Loss of gravitational potential vs. comminution energy
0 4 8 12
0
500
1000
0 4 8 12
0
500
1000
Ene
rgy
Var
iatio
n (G
J)
Comminution energy
Ground impact Ground impact
Comminution energy
Loss of gravitational potential
Loss of gravitational potential
North Tower South Tower
Time (s) Time (s)
![Page 47: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
4) Booms During Collapse! —hence, planted explosives?
If air escapes story-by-story, its mean velocity at base is va = 461 mph (0.6 Mach), butlocally can reach speed of sound
5) Dust cloud expanded too rapidly? Expected.
(va < 49.2 m/s, Fa < 0.24 Fc, pa < 0.3 atm)
1 story: 3.69 x 64 x 64 m air volume
200 m of concrete dust or fragments
Air Jets
Air squeezed outof 1 story in 0.07 s
a
h
![Page 48: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
North Tower Collapse in Sequence
Can we see the motion through the dust ?Can we see the motion through the dust ?Except that below dust cloud the tower Except that below dust cloud the tower was NOT breaking,was NOT breaking, nothing can be learned nothing can be learned !!
Note:• Dust-laden air jetting out• Moment of impact cannot be detected visually
![Page 49: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Moment of ground impact cannot be seen, but from seismic record: Collapse duration = 12.59 s (± 0.5 s of rumble)
Notejetsofdust-ladenair
![Page 50: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
9) Red hot molten steel seen on video (steel cutting) — perhaps just red flames?
7) Lower dust cloud margin = crush front? — air would have to escape through a rocket nozzle!
6) Pulverized concrete dust (0.01 to 0.12 mm) deposited as far as 200 m away? — Logical.
![Page 51: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
8) Temperature of steel not high enough to lower yield strength fy of structural steel, to cause creep buckling?
fy reduced by 20% at 300ºC, by 85% at 600ºC (NIST). Creep begins above 450ºC. Steel temperature up to 600ºC confirmed by annealing studies at NIST.
![Page 52: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
10) “Fracture wave” allegedly propagated in a material
A uniform state on the verge of material failure cannot exist in a stable manner, because of localization instability. Wave propagation analysis would have to be nonlocal, but wasn't “Fracture wave” cannot deliver energy sufficient for comminution.
pre-damaged, e.g., by explosives, led to free-fall collapse — unrealistic hypothesis, because:
9) Thermite cutter charges planted? — evidenced by residues of S, Cu, Zi found in dust? But these must have come from gypsum wallboard, electrical wiring, galvanized sheet steel, etc.
![Page 53: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
44How the findings can How the findings can
be exploited by be exploited by tracking demolitions tracking demolitions
![Page 54: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Proposal: In demolitions, measure and compare energy dissipation per kg of structure.
Use: 1) High-Speed Camera 2) Real-time radio-monitored accelerometers: Note: Top part of WTC dissipated 33 kJ/m3
![Page 55: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Collapse of 2000 Commonwealth Avenue in Boston under construction, 1971(4 people killed)The collapse was initiated by slab punching)
![Page 56: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, 1995(168 killed)
![Page 57: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Ronan Point Collapse
U.K. 1968
Reinforcing Bar
Floor slab
Weak Joints, Precast Members
![Page 58: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Hotel New World
Singapore 1986
![Page 59: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Generalization of Progressive Collapse
1) 1D Translational-Rotational--- "Ronan Point" typeAngular momentum and shear not negligible
2) 3D Compaction Front Propagation
Gas explodedon 18th floor
— will require finite strain simulation
25th floor
![Page 60: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Gravity-Driven Progressive Collapse Triggered by Earthquake
![Page 61: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
• All WTC observations are explained.
• All lay criticisms are refuted.
Download 466.pdf & 405.pdf from Bazant’s website: www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html
MAIN RESULTS
![Page 62: MECHANICS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE: WHAT DID](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081419/56812d96550346895d92b2e3/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
References• Bažant, Z.P. (2001). “Why did the
World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM News (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) Vol. 34, No. 8 (October), pp. 1 and 3 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001) (download 404.pdf).
• Bažant, Z.P., and Verdure, M. (2007). “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions.” J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 133, pp. 308—319 (download 466.pdf).
• Bažant, Z.P., and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?—Simple analysis.” J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 128 (No. 1), 2--6; with Addendum, March (No. 3), 369—370 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001, revised Oct. 5, 2001) (download 405.pdf).
• Kausel, E. (2001). “Inferno at the World Trade Center”, Tech Talk (Sept. 23), M.I.T., Cambridge.
• NIST (2005). Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. S. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), Gaithersburg, MD (248 pgs.)
Download 466.pdf & 405.pdf from Bažant’s website: www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html