Originally posted by TimberWolf
View Post
The greatest tendency would be to come straight down (hence the term falling down, rather than falling sideways 
), and more so with tall buildings. I am well aware of the conservation of energy, but this is a staw-man without explanation, since CoE only means what it says, and that is that the building would happily stay where it is.
To get an idea of the forces involved in toppling just have a guess. At an angle theta to the vertical, the sideways force on the framework would be on the order of m*g*sin(theta). At zero degrees this is zero in a horizontal direction, and the way things should be, downward compressive forces only. At 30 degrees the framework would have to withstand 50% of the weight of building - sideways
. A tensile force in a direction it isn't designed to withstand, and only one bolt has to fail before irt collapses rather than topples. It couldn't topple much.
), and more so with tall buildings. I am well aware of the conservation of energy, but this is a staw-man without explanation, since CoE only means what it says, and that is that the building would happily stay where it is.To get an idea of the forces involved in toppling just have a guess. At an angle theta to the vertical, the sideways force on the framework would be on the order of m*g*sin(theta). At zero degrees this is zero in a horizontal direction, and the way things should be, downward compressive forces only. At 30 degrees the framework would have to withstand 50% of the weight of building - sideways
. A tensile force in a direction it isn't designed to withstand, and only one bolt has to fail before irt collapses rather than topples. It couldn't topple much.
Comment