Can burning jet fuel melt steel 2024?
I'll answer
Earn 20 gold coins for an accepted answer.20
Earn 20 gold coins for an accepted answer.
40more
40more
Harper Rodriguez
Studied at the University of Zurich, Lives in Zurich, Switzerland.
As an expert in the field of materials science and engineering, I've had extensive experience dealing with the properties of various materials, including steel, under extreme conditions. The question of whether burning jet fuel can melt steel is a complex one that involves understanding the properties of both materials and the conditions they are subjected to.
Firstly, it's important to clarify the nature of the combustion process. Jet fuel, typically kerosene-based, burns at temperatures ranging from 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. This is significantly lower than the melting point of steel, which is approximately 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. However, the melting point is not the only factor to consider when discussing the structural integrity of steel under fire.
The structural strength of steel is a function of temperature. As steel is heated, it loses its strength. This process is known as thermal degradation. The loss of strength is not linear and can vary depending on the specific alloy and its composition. At temperatures around 500 to 600 degrees Fahrenheit, steel begins to lose a significant amount of its structural strength. By the time the temperature reaches approximately 1100 to 1200 degrees Fahrenheit, the steel's strength can be reduced to about 50% of its original strength at room temperature.
The World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, a plane similar in size to the ones that struck on September 11, 2001. However, the design did not account for the intense fires that resulted from the impact and the subsequent burning of jet fuel. The fires caused by the jet fuel, combined with the materials inside the buildings, created a scenario that was far beyond what the buildings were designed to handle.
The collapse of the towers was not due to the steel melting but rather to the steel losing its structural strength. The heat from the fires caused the steel to expand and weaken, compromising the integrity of the building's frame. Additionally, the insulating materials that were meant to protect the steel from heat were likely destroyed in the initial impact, further exposing the steel to the intense heat.
It's also worth noting that the fires in the towers were not a uniform heat source. They were localized and intense, which could have led to uneven heating of the steel, further complicating the structural integrity of the building. The combination of these factors ultimately led to the failure of the building's structural system.
In conclusion, while jet fuel does not have the capacity to melt steel, the heat generated by the fires was sufficient to weaken the steel to the point where it could no longer support the weight of the building, leading to the tragic collapse of the World Trade Center towers.
Firstly, it's important to clarify the nature of the combustion process. Jet fuel, typically kerosene-based, burns at temperatures ranging from 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. This is significantly lower than the melting point of steel, which is approximately 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. However, the melting point is not the only factor to consider when discussing the structural integrity of steel under fire.
The structural strength of steel is a function of temperature. As steel is heated, it loses its strength. This process is known as thermal degradation. The loss of strength is not linear and can vary depending on the specific alloy and its composition. At temperatures around 500 to 600 degrees Fahrenheit, steel begins to lose a significant amount of its structural strength. By the time the temperature reaches approximately 1100 to 1200 degrees Fahrenheit, the steel's strength can be reduced to about 50% of its original strength at room temperature.
The World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, a plane similar in size to the ones that struck on September 11, 2001. However, the design did not account for the intense fires that resulted from the impact and the subsequent burning of jet fuel. The fires caused by the jet fuel, combined with the materials inside the buildings, created a scenario that was far beyond what the buildings were designed to handle.
The collapse of the towers was not due to the steel melting but rather to the steel losing its structural strength. The heat from the fires caused the steel to expand and weaken, compromising the integrity of the building's frame. Additionally, the insulating materials that were meant to protect the steel from heat were likely destroyed in the initial impact, further exposing the steel to the intense heat.
It's also worth noting that the fires in the towers were not a uniform heat source. They were localized and intense, which could have led to uneven heating of the steel, further complicating the structural integrity of the building. The combination of these factors ultimately led to the failure of the building's structural system.
In conclusion, while jet fuel does not have the capacity to melt steel, the heat generated by the fires was sufficient to weaken the steel to the point where it could no longer support the weight of the building, leading to the tragic collapse of the World Trade Center towers.
2024-06-15 11:42:05
reply(1)
Helpful(1122)
Helpful
Helpful(2)
Works at Adobe, Lives in San Jose, CA
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800-- to 1500--F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750--F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat.Jul 31, 2017
2023-06-11 15:32:33
Benjamin Martin
QuesHub.com delivers expert answers and knowledge to you.
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800-- to 1500--F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750--F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat.Jul 31, 2017
