|
World Trade Center - Some Engineering
Aspects
General | Structural
System | Why Did It Collapse | Other
Links
Last Update:
General Information:
Height: 1,368 and 1,362 feet (417 and 415 meters)
Owners: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
(99 year leased signed in April 2001 to groups including
Westfield America and Silverstein Properties)
Architect: Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting
Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington,
Skilling, Helle and Jackson
Ground Breaking: August 5, 1966
Opened: 1970-73; April 4, 1973 ribbon cutting
Destroyed: Terrorist attack, September 11, 2001
Back to top |
The Structural
System:
Yamasaki
and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the
relationship between the towers’ design and structure is clear. Faced
with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the
engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow
tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending
across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored
aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the
towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator
system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed
without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by
the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts,
engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the
reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a
traditional configuration would have required half the area of the
lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an
express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky
lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
(Taken from www.skyscraper.org)
The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M.
Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade
is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch
centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the
central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light,
economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most
efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not
transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in
most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior
columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of
office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated
trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to
the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall
against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."
Taken from www.greatbuildings.com
Typical Floor Plan of the World Trade Center:
A perimeter of closely spaced columns, with an internal lift
core. The floors were supported by a series of light trusses on
rubber pads, which spanned between the outer columns and the lift core.
Back to top
Why Did It Collapse?
Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering
(This is an initial suggestion,
originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent
changes) on one
possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)
|
The structural integrity of the World
Trade Center depends on the closely
spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses
span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each
floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and
tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from
buckling outwards.
After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most
observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.
It appears likely that the
impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter
columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire
system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.
However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been
gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As
the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been
initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any
combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot
enough to melt any of the steel, the
strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire,
while the
elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing
deflections.
|
|
Modern structures are designed to
resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as
fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires,
help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to
excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape
and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is
catastrophically damaged.
It is possible that the blaze, started
by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined
area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those
anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have
overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected.
It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were
severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material,
designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was
blown off by the blast at impact.
Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the
materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact
damage, would have
caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining
perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination.
Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the
perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these
possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete
collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.
Once one storey collapsed all floors above
would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would
gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting
in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns
at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50
floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to
fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater,
and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor
progressively "pancaked" to the ground.
(US readers note: storey
is the Australian/English spelling of story)
|
Sydney
Morning Herald graphic
adapted from the information
on this page.
The
only evidence so far are photographs and television footage.
Whether failure was initiated at the perimeter columns or the core is
unknown. The extent to which the internal parts were damaged
during the collision may be evident in the rubble if any forensic
investigation is conducted. Since the mass of the combined
towers is close to 1000000 tons, finding evidence will be an enormous
task.

Perimeter columns, several storeys
high, and still linked together, lie amongst all the debris on the
ground.
This photograph shows the south tower just as it is collapsing. It
is evident that the building is falling over to the left. The
North Tower collapsed directly downwards, on top of itself. The
same mechanism of failure, the combination of impact and subsequent fire
damage, is the likely cause of failure of both towers. However, it
is possible that a storey on only one side of the South Tower initially
collapsed, resulting in the "skewed" failure of the entire
tower.
While the ways the two towers fell were slightly different, the basic cause
is similar for both - a large number of columns were destroyed on impact,
and the remaining structure was gradually weakened by the heat of the fire.
Not much significance should be taken from the fact that one tower fell in
45 minutes and the other in 90 minutes. The gigantic
dynamic impact
forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the
floors below is very much greater than the static load they were
designed to resist. (Pictures taken from various news
sources on the Internet)
A small paper entitled
"THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND
9/11:A DISCUSSION ON SOME ENGINEERING DESIGN ISSUES" and presented at
the annual conference of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, is
available for download in PDF.
Back to top
Other Links
TenLinks
(http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/special/wtc/index.htm)
and ICivilEngineer
(http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php)
have a wide selection of articles collected from the world on engineering
aspects of the WTC.
The best and most complete source of information on the towers is the official FEMA report, given at
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
Back to top
Please direct any comments on this WTC
webpage to Tim Wilkinson
|