This puts any of our challenges into perspective

[saveasteading]

"  it’s a steel frame building, so it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localised collapse.   "

 

Wishful thinking perhaps, or some words to keep the shareholders and banks happy?

 

Steel buildings can collapse. There is an inherent ability for them to crumple and come to some sort of stability if there is a localised failure. But I don't think this was designed for back in 1960.

in Europe we have to design to prevent "disproportionate collapse" ie one failed element, eg from a gas explosion, would cause only local damage.

see Ronan Point 1968 

 

 

34 minutes ago, ProDave said:

the collapsed columns were likely not reinforced properly and could not support the weight above

That's a fire officer... 

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

see Ronan Point

There is a great documentary about RP. One of the contractors still found it funny how they got paid more to put less bolts in. Wankers.

 

8 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

"disproportionate collapse"

Wish I had known that was a 'thing when I was studying engineering. It would have been a hard sell in some companies I have work for, but the opportunity to build models and then destroy them would be great.

[ProDave]

I was surprised at the total collapse of the twin towers of 9/11.  I would have expected the fire compromised floors might just have collapsed down leaving the largely undamaged floors above and below intact.  I can only guess that when one floor collapsed, the momentum of the structure above put too much force on the floor below when it "landed" on it and so a chain of events started.