FC: Pat Farrell on "architectural implications" of WTC attack

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Tue Sep 11 2001 - 17:59:04 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Website for attack survivors created; mailing list for DC news"

    [Also see John Young's note below. --DBM]
    
    ***********
    
    Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:31:48 -0400
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    From: Pat Farrell <pfarrellat_private>
    Subject: Architectural implications of WTC attack
    
    Hi Declan,
    
    I've written up a small article on politics and technology of architecture
    relating to today's WTC destruction. I wrote it because I see all the
    mass media hand wringing and wailing as missing the key point.
    A pointer to it in politech, or feel free to take it all if you think 
    anyone would be
    interested.
    
    URL is http://www.pfarrell.com/rants/archtower.html
    I'll paste the whole text in the postscript, it isn't too long.
    
    Thanks
    Pat
    
    
    
    
    Pat Farrell                     pfarrellat_private
    http://www.pfarrell.com
    
       ============ pasted article =============
    
    
    <p>
    The attack and destruction of the NYC World Trade Centers
    was clearly a political act, and it used a technical approach unique to the
    construction of the World Trade Center buildings.
    This article deplores this act of terrorism, but will leave
    analysis of the politics and techniques of the attacks alone, and focus on the
    impact of the attack on architecture and cities themselves.
    
    <p>
    
    Cities exist where they do for any of a number of reasons,
    but their site usually owes a large amount to trading and transportation.
    Traders stopped in New York because of its central location in the colonies and
    its wonderful port. Consumers, merchants, and manufacturers liked the proximity
    of each other, and a great city grew. Similarly, office buildings sole purpose
    is to facilitate human interaction. Office buildings allow easy walking and
    communications between parts of an organization or business. Transportation for
    goods, workers, and consumers, is easier when they are located in close
    proximity. Prior to the acceptance of personal cars, the only way to accomplish
    this was central locations. The natural result is great cities with lots of
    transportation, offices, markets tightly packed together. Getting the required
    density requires that the city grow upwards.
    
    <p>
    
    Very tall buildings are hard to build, not only for the
    obvious strength and safety reasons, but also because needed services (i.e.
    elevators, plumbing, wiring, stairs, air-conditioning ducts) require increasing
    amounts of overhead as the building gets taller. In addition to bigger beams
    and columns, tall buildings need more elevators, bigger pipes, etc. than short
    campus-style buildings. As building height increases, these overhead items grow
    faster more quickly than the usable floor space, making very tall buildings
    hard to justify economically. Making very tall buildings make business sense
    requires a significant architectural and engineering effort.
    
    <p>
    The World Trade Centers existed because of their architecture and the
    supporting engineering. Unlike other skyscrapers, the exterior walls of the
    World Trade Centers were load bearing.
    [See <a href="http://www.enr.com/new/A0816.asp">for a brief discussion</a>].
    The whole building was a vertical truss, and
    the interior was column free. Without this design, it is unlikely that the WTC
    could have been built on that site. The architecture enabled the existence of
    the building.
    
    <p>
    
    As we saw in the painful to watch news footage of September
    11, 2001, when the load bearing walls were damaged, the whole structure became
    unstable and collapsed.
    
    <p>
    
    Simply telling the engineers to make the building stronger
    is not a viable answer. Of course they could make it stronger, add redundancy,
    or both. But at the cost not only of the material and labor to add the
    strength, but at the cost of substantially increasing the overhead of the
    building itself. If the building's internal overhead becomes larger, the
    economics of the project quickly disappear. There are hard numbers of dollars
    behind the decisions not to build buildings bigger than the Empire State
    Building up until the WTC towers, and if the WTC architecture is not feasible
    or acceptable, then the density it enables will not be possible.
    
    <p>
    
    The implications for the city are huge. Successful public
    transportation requires that large numbers of commuters go to the same place at
    about the same time. Similarly, the density of people is what enables the
    wonderful shops, markets, theaters and clubs of New York. The lack of density
    is a direct cause of the decline in quality of life.
    
    <p>
    
    <p>The attacks on the World Trade Centers caused a horrible
    loss of individual human lives today, and there is a significant chance it will
    cause a significant loss of life of the city in the future.
    
    <p>
    
    ***********
    
    Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:25:30 -0700
    From: John Young <jyaat_private>
    
    The '45 Empire State Building crash is oft studied in architectural
    and structural engineering to learn why the building withstood the
    hit. The plane was a B-24, I believe, but in any case a much smaller
    craft than the ones which hit the WTC and the Pentagon. The '45
    plane's engines did penetrate the building, shooting out the far side
    and falling to the ground and killing passersby, but most of the plane
    remained inside the structure for it was made of far more fragile
    materials than a building. A relative small amount of damage was
    done to the structure of the building though fire was devastating,
    especially from flaming gasoline cascading inside.
    
    The fireball that shot from the second WTC tower hit, opposite
    where the jetliner penetrated, blew out windows and perhaps part
    of the latticework exterior structure. Flaming fuel probably
    cascaded down the shafts of elevators and ductwork and
    stairwells whose fire-protection enclosures would have been
    destroyed by the explosive crash and ballistic heavy plane
    parts. These fuel flames, and fires started from them,
    would have weakened interior structural support beyond
    protection provided by code-required fireproofing. Once
    the interior structural supports were weakened, and
    the exterior lattice lost its integrity collapse was inevitable.
    
    I modify my first evaluation to speculate that the interior
    supports appear to have given way before the exterior lattice
    (whose girdle of closely-space columns and thin vertical
    windows between gave the buildings a unique look compared
    to use of large panes of glass elswhere)  The lattice amazingly
    contained the interior collapse and the whole mess dropped
    vertically, almost, as newscasters report, as if executed by a
    demo expert.
    
    I did not expect the Twin Towers to collapse. To suffer terrible
    fires and localized interior damage but not total collapse. The
    first was unbelievable, and as I said, I thought only the portion
    above the crash fell. Then the smoke cleared momentarily
    to show the totality. Then the second tower, collapsing in a
    near-perfect copy of the first. The sudden dropping of the
    floors above the crash, that impacting load overpowering
    the remaining system, and the straight drop collapse, neither
    tower falling much to the side, indicated what had happened.
    
    Close-ups of the exterior show the latticework bridging the
    crash penetrations, reminding of sales pitches from the
    19th Century when cast-iron manufacturers promoted
    their architecture with structural compoments missing
    with no apparent destabilization -- the load automatically
    shifting to remaining components. Their prognostications
    failed at the first intense fire which overheated and cracked
    the cast iron, sometimes collapsing more quickly than
    predecessor masonry bearing wall and wood floor system
    composites.
    
    Humbling news: My daughter is safe and sound. She heard the
    first crash and saw the tower blazing on the way to work and
    thought it was merely (!) a fire. Her office remained at work
    unaware of what had happened, and was happening, without
    TV or radio, until telephoned from overseas headquarters
    which ordered everyone home. At first the office dismissed
    the alarm, saying, hey, this is New York, no problema, we
    have work to do, our customers come first, sure that would
    impress the venal bastards. Then someone was sent
    outside to check reality.
    
    ***********
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 11 2001 - 18:48:20 PDT