MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:242]

[Kat Dorman]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

you know thats the debunker infamous opening line.

Probably because it's true in most circumstances. It's definitely true here. See why below.

What software are you using that allows that function without actually entering the nodes?

Wrong question. I'm using FBM software I wrote myself, but it doesn't need that function. I explained why it doesn't need that function already:

The way my model would handle this is simple: Sum the portion of the load formerly borne by the far wall and distribute it equally amongst all surviving members.

Earlier, I referred to it as "beancounting", which is what it is. THAT'S IT! You still don't understand that FBM is not FEA! Educate yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=fiber+bundle+model&hl=en


One instance to show I've already explained is quite sufficient. No, you don't get a copy of my code because you NEVER attribute source, even when asked. You can see any results you like, and this is the "data file" you so urgently must have:

#core
    rows = [500,600,700,800,900,1000]
    cols = (1..8)
    areas = [ 1.61,	0.98,	1.18,	0.86,	0.77,	1.17,	0.98,	1.61,
              0.55,	0.61,	0.57,	0.55,	0.55,	0.57,	0.61,	0.55,
              0.63,	0.63,	0.39,	0.16,	0.14,	0.37,	0.67,	0.58,
              0.55,	0.75,	0.42,	nil,	0.33,	0.32,	0.58,	0.58,
              0.55,	0.65,	0.57,	0.39,	0.36,	0.58,	0.58,	0.55,
              1.65,	1.02,	1.35,	1.21,	0.72,	1.23,	1.02,	1.65  ]
#perimeter
    rows = ["W","E","N","S"]
    cols = (1..59)
    area = 0.148

Embedded in the program code, it's simply a description of the columns and their normalized cross-sectional areas at that level. Capacities are assumed to be proportional to area.

I'm sure this information is quite useless to you, as would be anything offered no matter what it was.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

There are no strawmen, no dodges, none of that coming from me. I said I'd already explained it and I did. I'm not refusing anything except giving my source code to a person uniformly known to refuse giving credit to original sources. I wrote that code and it won't be appropriated for your uses, and I don't see how anyone can blame me for that.

You're either playing stupid, or not. I have my beliefs, which I'll refrain from voicing.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

Extensions of fiber bundle models (F. Kun, F. Raischel, R. C. Hidalgo, and H. J. Herrmann)

Load sharing rule After a fiber fails its load has to be shared by the remaining
intact fibers. The range and form of interaction of fibers, also called
load sharing rule, is a crucial components of the model which has a substantial
effect on the micro and macro behavior of the bundle. Most of the studies in
the literature are restricted to two extreme forms of the load sharing rule: (i)
in the case of global load sharing (GLS), also called equal load sharing (ELS),
the load is equally redistributed over all intact fibers in the bundle irrespective
of their distance from the failed one. The GLS rule corresponds to the mean
field approximation of FBM where the topology of the fiber bundle (like the
square lattice structure in Fig. 2a)) becomes irrelevant. Such a loading condition
naturally arises when parallel fibers are loaded between perfectly rigid
platens, like for the wire cable of an elevator. FBM with global load sharing is
a usual starting point for more complex investigations since it makes possible
to obtain the most important characteristic quantities of the bundle in closed
analytic forms [28, 22, 54, 53, 62]. (ii) In the other extreme of the local load
sharing (LLS), the entire load of the failed fiber is redistributed equally over
its local neighborhood (usually nearest neighbors) in the lattice considered
leading to stress concentrations along failed regions (see Fig. 1a)).

(emphasis mine)

Just substitute the word 'column' for 'fiber'.

As I already said, it's rules-based and extremely simple. No excuse to keep blathering on about 3D, horizontal forces, transfer mechanisms and so on. And, as I already said, the GLS method is more conservative towards survival of the structure than local redistribution. The simplicity is a virtue; by sacrificing precision and time metric, a gnarly problem for FEA can be solved in the blink of an eye. If an overly conservative approach - which is the imprecision in question - is satisfactory for your purposes (it is for mine), the tradeoff is excellent.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

Notice also this from the above quote:

The GLS rule corresponds to the mean field approximation of FBM where the topology of the fiber bundle (like the square lattice structure in Fig. 2a)) becomes irrelevant.

Ahem. Get it?

 

[ozeco41]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

Ahem. Get it?

I do - subject to my usual disclaimers about abstract modelling v explanations of the real event.

AND

...You're either playing stupid, or not. I have my beliefs, which I'll refrain from voicing.

For the record my opinion is that Koko's actual level of understanding of physics is a grade or two higher than the nonsense he routinely posts. Which therefore means that he comprehends my arguments whether:
1) Making my own explanatons which he ignores and/or ridicules; OR
2) Rebutting his parodies.

Notwithstanding his false denials in either situation.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

I do - subject to my usual disclaimers about abstract modelling v explanations of the real event.

Who am I preaching to? The choir. One person who gets it doesn't need to get it.

It is unfortunate the interesting aspects are buried in bull****. I don't say this is a model of the actual initiation, but that's how it's received. It's an instructional aid, for the love of all things sacred and cursed! A goodly part of the peanut gallery criticism is based in the idea that this is supposed to be a simulation of THE column failure mechanics. Thus, all sorts of irrelevant objections are leveled without any regard to purpose, scope, applicability and so on.

It's invalid because it doesn't account for the 3D lattice structure in load redistribution.

FALSE.

It's inaccurate because it uses a non-temporal rules-based load redistribution scheme.

TRUE.

Does the inaccuracy make it invalid? No, not for the purpose intended. The global mean, as stated before, is the most conservative approach that isn't prohibited by physical law. The non-temporal aspect also tends towards survival, making it safe to say that this errs on the side of survival generally. It's a bounding case, but that's somewhat incidental to the whole exercise. I apply damage artificially until it fails, and make no judgement about how that compares to some expectation of performance.

To repeat for koko's benefit... Listen to me now, and hear me forever: I make no claim one way or another about CD as a result of this exercise. It's to demonstrate the principles of cascading failure using an example culled from SanderO's WTC column failure scenario. Why is that useful? Because about three people I've run into on forums have any idea of the nature of cascading failure. It doesn't matter the cause, so it's a fruitful avenue for either side to explore.

What did I learn from it?

I had to damage the living **** out of those columns to induce failure.

Why, I'd think someone with a frothing bias for CD would be interested in hearing that. But they can't hear it over their own blubbering! Sure, I know, if it isn't a fully detailed FEA, it's crap, hahaha :lamo

 

[ozeco41]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

Who am I preaching to? The choir. One person who gets it doesn't need to get it.

Very few active these days with the requisite level of thinking skills. Go back to the early days of 911Forum - before my time. Several good brains. Whether or not we agreed we could at least get a reasoned discussion. Each doing as well as most for those days. Easy to look back from 2015 and disagree. I occasionally read my own historic postings. And I'm amazed how well most of them have stood the test of time. BUT some of the errors still embarrassing UNLESS you read it as a learning process.

It is unfortunate the interesting aspects are buried in bull****. I don't say this is a model of the actual initiation, but that's how it's received. It's an instructional aid, for the love of all things sacred and cursed!

And those who could benefit from the instruction don't recognise their need to learn. A "blind spot" scenario.

A goodly part of the peanut gallery criticism is based in the idea that this is supposed to be a simulation of THE column failure mechanics. Thus, all sorts of irrelevant objections are leveled without any regard to purpose, scope, applicability and so on.

The underlying issue is reasoning skill and reading comprehension. Then the inevitable multiple layers of denialism.

It's invalid because it doesn't account for the 3D lattice structure in load redistribution.

FALSE.

The whole "lattice" theme as injected by Koko is amusing if not frustrating. The "lattice" examples are kindergarten level explanations for lay persons. Of course they are valid - for that audience. But no way do they say anything meaningful about the actual WTC 9/11 collapses. Which is where I have posted all the outline frames of argument - for what actually happened.

It's inaccurate because it uses a non-temporal rules-based load redistribution scheme.

TRUE.

Yes - for the abstract instructional learn something about principles of physics modelling.

Does the inaccuracy make it invalid? No, not for the purpose intended.

My emphasis.

The global mean, as stated before, is the most conservative approach that isn't prohibited by physical law. The non-temporal aspect also tends towards survival, making it safe to say that this errs on the side of survival generally. It's a bounding case, but that's somewhat incidental to the whole exercise. I apply damage artificially until it fails, and make no judgement about how that compares to some expectation of performance.

Take care that the altitude of the concepts does not exceed the upper level of the target cranium (crania?). By a big margin.

To repeat for koko's benefit... Listen to me now,.... ..... Sure, I know, if it isn't a fully detailed FEA, it's crap, hahaha :lamo

Sadly all that has to be said. and repeated.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

Proverb,

You cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep...

 

[ozeco41]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

Proverb,

You cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep...

very appropriate.

 

[American]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

what did show in his demonstration?

his demonstration is hard empirical evidence, I dont care what he said, do you care about hard empirical evidence of the demonstration?

Just because you call it hard empirical evidence, doesn't make it so.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

Proverb,

You cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep...

you got a like fled, thats why I never engaged in deluding myself into thinking that there is a snowballs chance in hell that a debunker could ever escape their rabbit hole of denial.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

you got a like fled, thats why I never engaged in deluding myself into thinking that there is a snowballs chance in hell that a debunker could ever escape their rabbit hole of denial.

You GIFs are born of delusion.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

Whether or not we agreed we could at least get a reasoned discussion.

The whole "lattice" theme as injected by Koko is amusing if not frustrating. The "lattice" examples are kindergarten level explanations for lay persons. Of course they are valid - for that audience.

Top shelf! WTG!

you forgot to fill in the blank part...
Kokos "lattice" theme is amusing because: ___________

or as usual you expect everyone to share a timothy leary moment?


so since you are having so much fun trying to insult me only to wind up sticking your foot in or up your post, (which ever applies), and

since you are the self proclaimed engineering authority and the beacon of logic and reason,

how about: "you" point out the pros and cons of dormans FBM modeling AND

why it falls completely on its ass for providing even a reasonably accurate demonstration respecting the performance of the wtc. (hint there are several reasons)

I will give you reasonable time to answer, however if I have to answer for you, which is what I expect because I do not believe you know, that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that koko is several grades above of the skill levels you have shown in YOUR posts.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

"you" pointing out the pros and cons of dormans FBM modeling AND

why it falls completely on its ass for providing even a reasonably accurate demonstration respecting the performance of the wtc. (hint there are several reasons)

I will give you reasonable time to answer, however if I have to answer for you, which is what I expect because I do not believe you know, that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that koko is several grades above of the skill levels you have shown in YOUR posts.

Oh my, what a challenge. After I've just spent pages discussing details which include a good number of the limitations and shortcomings. Hint: copy and paste.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:

I've got a better idea. Why don't we go back to how this round got started. You said I was "dedicated to pretending that [SanderO's core failure scenario] happened." Still think that?