Indoor and Built Environment

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Langer, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Morse, R. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 10, No. 6, 350-360 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X0101000603

The World Trade Center Catastrophe: Was the Type of Spray Fire Proofing a Factor in the Collapse of the Twin Towers?

Arthur M. Langer

Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

Roger G. Morse

Morse Associates, Poestenkill, New York, N.Y., USA

The structural collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center occurred in a time period far shorter than its statutory Fire Code rating. Speculation gave rise to theories that the steel had buckled because of the substi tution of the original asbestos-containing fireproofing with a non-asbestos-containing vitreous fibre formula tion. The substitution was thought to have come about due to New York City's 1972 ban of such materials in con struction. The use of substitute material in the Towers actually pre-dated the New York City ban by almost 2 years. Although, the substitute material may have had the same thermal rating for fire, its characteristics con cerning durability during service are now known to have been inferior. At the time of application and construction, no performance criteria were available concerning ap plication thickness, adherence character, compressive strength, or density. These factors are now thought to have played a major role in the heating of the structural steel and its subsequent failure. The ban of asbestos- containing spray fireproofing was probably a reasonable conclusion for the time, only if the substitute material performed as well as the material which it replaced. However it did not. The issues today focus on the neces sity to re-inspect buildings sprayed with asbestos substi tutes during the time period 1972-1977, especially those structures that employed the same light-weight floor truss design, and measure their serviceability according to now established standards.

Key Words: World Trade Center • Twin Towers • Spray fireproofing • Spray fireproofing performance criteria • Asbestos disease risk • Asbestos spray ban


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?