How can I recreate a building collapse similar to the trade towers collapse using a scale model?

[Gerrard]

Anders Bjorkman has put out an open contract for a 1 million euros to create a scale model simulation of the trade tower collapse. I’ve been trying to recreate it but unsuccessful so far. How do I create a pancake collapse? 
 

 

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

How do I create a pancake collapse?

build a scale model. 

 

I can only imagine an architect couldnt be bothered. 

[swansont]

Not everything scales, so a naive scale model likely won’t work in any meaningful way.

e.g. mass scales with volume, but if support strength scales with area (or any power other than 3), then a scale version of a support beam won’t behave the right way.

You could potentially do it with a model, but not a scale model.

[MigL]

To re-create the collapse, not only do you need to build it to scale, but the properties of the materials used need to be appropriate for the masses involved. Otherwise you will not have the mass to cause the floor-by-floor collapse exhibited by the actual buildings.
And you need to be able to vary those material properties in response to the selective heating of the burning aviation fuel.

It is not as simple as building a scale model.
It is an extremely complex problem and I don't think anyone will be claiming the million Euros.

Unless of course, they do a half-a*s job of the simulation, and then use those results to claim that the towers were brought down by the Government, with explosives on each floor ( Out of sequence ? ).
Exactly what's needed, more misinformation to feed conspiracy theorists.

EDIT: X-posted with Swansont
 

Edited February 2, 2020 by MigL

[Strange]

This Anders Borkman:

Quote

Heiwa Co, a beautifully frothing green ink website by Anders Björkman, "shows" that atomic bombs do not work, that peaceful nuclear power stations do work and of course also that the Moon landings and September 11 attacks were faked

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_denial

I think I would be sceptical that his million euros exists

[Gerrard]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

This Anders Borkman:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_denial

I think I would be sceptical that his million euros exists

An open contract is legally binding when one starts to carry it out and that includes one asking how to do it in this forum. If he doesn’t pay, the court will force him. 

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not everything scales, so a naive scale model likely won’t work in any meaningful way.

e.g. mass scales with volume, but if support strength scales with area (or any power other than 3), then a scale version of a support beam won’t behave the right way.

You could potentially do it with a model, but not a scale model.

How can you do it with just a model?

[dimreepr]

rito, and thats legal talk...

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

An open contract is legally binding when one starts to carry it out and that includes one asking how to do it in this forum. If he doesn’t pay, the court will force him. 

Great. Are you going to share the money with the people on this forum who help you?

[MigL]

You could do it with a digital ( computer ) model, where all the needed parameters, and their response to stresses could be programmed.

[Gerrard]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

You could do it with a digital ( computer ) model, where all the needed parameters, and their response to stresses could be programmed.

Computer model won’t be accepted. 

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

Great. Are you going to share the money with the people on this forum who help you?

Only if the help contributes to winning the challenge 

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

Computer model won’t be accepted. 

Of course not.

And I'm sure excuses would be made to reject any model that demonstrated the truth.

41 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

Only if the help contributes to winning the challenge

That's a yes then. (I'm not sure if it is legally binding, but ...)

More seriously, you haven't said what your current level of understanding of the problem is. I think people need to know that to understand what sort of help you need.

Do you have a degree in materials science and/or structural engineering? Or mechanical engineering? Or some experience in the construction industry? Have you built models in Lego or Meccano? Have you made a start on the problem? How far have you got? 

(I wonder if this should be in Homework Help?  )

[studiot]

I was student working at the Building Research Establishment (BRE as it was called then) when the Ronan Point collapse occurred.
 

I remember how the tests that were done then in the structures lab, colloquially known as 'the cathedral'.

Edited February 2, 2020 by studiot

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

How can you do it with just a model?

You make the model to simulate the forces and stresses, rather than to scale. 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course not.

And I'm sure excuses would be made to reject any model that demonstrated the truth.

That would be a reason to specify a scale model.

[studiot]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

You make the model to simulate the forces and stresses, rather than to scale. 

There are other ways to 'scale'.

[Gerrard]

I started out using paper structure. The material of construction can be anything as long as the density is consistent throughout the structure. Also there is a mast in the top. 
I tried burning the top area, but that didn’t work.
I made one with denser wood. divided the section into two parts, the small top part and the large bottom part. I dropped the small part from 3.7 meters into the big part. (It was said that the section burned out and the top of the building collapsed on the bottom part). That didn’t work. I tried cheating and dropped the wood onto the bottom part made of paper. That also didn’t work.

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Gerrard said:

I started out using paper structure.

I made one with denser wood.

Do you think either of those accurately reproduces the mass, strength (tensile, compressive, shear), rigidity, and other attributes of a real building?

[John Cuthber]

5 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

I tried cheating

Define "cheating"

If this

5 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

The material of construction can be anything as long as the density is consistent throughout the structure

is true then whoever set the conditions is cheating

 

[Gerrard]

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Define "cheating"

If this

is true then whoever set the conditions is cheating

 

Any ideas? Why criticize? Why no constructive ideas?

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

Any ideas? Why criticize? Why no constructive ideas?

I think you need to first answer Strange's questions about your background. As is, your question is akin to asking "does anyone have any ideas on how I can perform brain surgery without causing any problems?" There is no place to begin.

Perhaps if you asked something more specific, like how to determine the temperature at which the steel used in the WTC begins to deform, someone could assist. As people have pointed out, the problem is incredibly complex. You cannot ask such a broad question and expect any meaningful help.

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

Any ideas? Why criticize? Why no constructive ideas?

I think that warning you that you are being set an unrealistic and impossible goal to ensure that you fail (and hence implicitly support the false claims being made) is pretty constructive.

[John Cuthber]

24 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

Any ideas? Why criticize? Why no constructive ideas?

Sorry, I thought the idea and constructive suggestion, though implicit, were obvious enough.

Don't waste your time on this.

If the organisers say it has to be made from materials with consistent densities (even though the real thing wasn't) then they are setting you up to fail.

I have  no qualms about criticising them.

[studiot]

48 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

Any ideas? Why criticize? Why no constructive ideas?

I have already told you how such a task was achieved in the past.

However   implementing that method is likely to eat up most of the prize money.

 

I seem to remember that Ronan point was a pefabricated panel construction,

whereas the twin towers, I believe, were post and beam type of construction.

 

 

[Gerrard]

how About a steel structure where the welds are very weak? And then heat the steel with a blow torch to weaken the steel? 
 

a million euros is a lot of money. Why would eat up most of the of the money?

i have access the welders and mills. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I have already told you how such a task was achieved in the past.

However   implementing that method is likely to eat up most of the prize money.

 

I seem to remember that Ronan point was a pefabricated panel construction,

whereas the twin towers, I believe, were post and beam type of construction.

 

 

How was such a task achieved in the past?

has someone already make a model of something similar 

[Strange]

47 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

how About a steel structure where the welds are very weak? And then heat the steel with a blow torch to weaken the steel?

Maybe a 1:1 scale reproduction of the building. (And the cause of the collapse.) I can see that easily costing a lot more than €1M.

48 minutes ago, Gerrard said:

has someone already make a model of something similar 

Computer models are widely used in modern design. Perhaps supplemented, occasionally, with physical models. 

You are being taken for a ride by someone who has only proposed the (probably impossible) challenge so they can say, "see it never happened". Why pander to this sort of conspiracy theory? I would bet a million euros that the money does not exist and no one will ever win it. You would be better off buying a lottery ticket (which I often describe as a "tax on stupidity").

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Gerrard said:

 

has someone already make a model of something similar 

That's what I said.