_____________________________________

Appendix A

PROPOSAL FOR AN ENHANCED DISASTER INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL 

Prepared by Professor Glenn P. Corbett
John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Need for an Enhanced Protocol:

When a major disaster strikes in the United States, very important questions typically arise: What happened? Why were so many lives lost?  How can we prevent this from happening in the future?  

These questions need answers.  If we are to protect ourselves and future generations, we must learn the lessons of the disaster and apply them

For past disasters like the Oklahoma City bombing and the Northridge earthquake, a variety of research projects were undertaken.  While these research projects produced very useful information, they were conducted independently, without the benefit of a central coordinating body to integrate all of the information.  In addition, it has become apparent that some of the very critical lessons never found their way into general design practice – there is a disconnect between the private sector code-writing organizations and the lessons coming out of the research projects .

Since disasters are multi-disciplinary, they require an integrated and comprehensive approach. The disaster must be investigated as a whole, following standard investigative procedures. A single standardized model can be developed for all disasters, with a specific set of “adaptable” procedures for each type of disaster.      

Development of an Enhanced Disaster Investigation Protocol

Since FEMA has responsibilities for disaster response and disaster mitigation, it is suggested that the development of an enhanced disaster investigation protocol be initiated within FEMA. Other Federal agencies and private sector organizations with disaster responsibilities/interest would obviously need to participate in the development of the protocol. The National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation procedures provide a very useful model for which to begin the development of an enhanced disaster investigation protocol.        

“Organizational” Details of a Enhanced Disaster Investigation Protocol  

Organizationally, an enhanced disaster investigation protocol:

·        Utilizes an investigative “lessons learned” approach to analyzing disasters.  

·        Provides a detailed investigation “command structure” to establish which agency is in charge and the limits of its investigative authority.

·        Details the responsibilities of each participating organization.

·        Establishes the specific types of disasters that will be investigated and the necessary resources needed for each type of disaster.              

“Functional” Details of an Enhanced Disaster Investigation Protocol

Functionally, an enhanced disaster investigation protocol:

·        Incorporates a “rapid response” capability, allowing for the immediate deployment of a initial set of investigators to plan the investigation, secure evidence, and to begin the documentation process.

·        Ensures the deployment of self-sufficient, disaster-specific “specialist teams” to the scene to conduct the detailed investigation work (similar to USAR organization).

·        Ensure that periodic press releases are issued to inform the public of the investigation and its progress.

“Coordination” Details of an Enhanced Disaster Investigation Protocol

In order to assure coordination, an enhanced disaster investigation protocol:

·        Ensures that liaisons are appointed to the local incident commander’s command post, search and rescue teams (e.g. USAR), and criminal investigation organizations (e.g. FBI) to ensure coordination with their efforts.

·        Ensures that the appropriate “specialist teams” are deployed and are working together efficiently.

·        Ensures that additional “outside” research efforts are integrated into the investigation.

·        Ensures that a regimented set of meetings with specialist team leaders and staff are held to review progress and to keep investigation on course.

“Final Report” Details of an Enhanced Disaster Investigation Protocol

In order to produce a comprehensive report, an enhanced disaster investigation protocol:

·        Ensures that the specialist team leaders are assembled to provide oral presentations to other team leaders/staff and to provide written draft reports for inclusion in Final Report.

·        Ensures that the staff support collates the team reports and configures them into a standardized, “single author” report format.

·        Ensures that long-term research needs are identified and documented for inclusion in the Final Report. 

“Applied Lessons” Details of an Enhanced Disaster Investigation Protocol

To ensure the application of the “lessons learned,” an enhanced investigation protocol:

·        Appoints code-writing organization representatives to investigative “specialist teams.”

·        Establishes a “formal agreement” with the private sector code-writing bodies that ensures every recommendation for a change in the codes will be formally reviewed by the code-writing body.  Final disposition of “disaster” code change proposals (including rationale if code change is rejected) will be formally documented and issued back to the affected disaster investigation organizations.                

_______________________________

Appendix B

PROPOSAL FOR A WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER COMMISSION

Prepared by Professor Glenn P. Corbett
John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Need for the Commission:

In the wake of the World Trade Center disaster, it has become readily apparent that many issues involving high-rise building construction, emergency evacuation procedures, firefighting operations, and other important concerns must be analyzed collectively in order to learn from the disaster and apply the lessons to the future.  Many Americans live and work in high-rise buildings, so it is essential that we learn as much as possible about this disaster.

The establishment of a Commission will allow for the various public and private research efforts currently underway to come together “under one roof” and  share information, a critical issue when studying a disaster as complex as the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  The multi-disciplinary aspects of the World Trade Center necessitate that the disaster be investigated in that context, allowing for the identification of interrelationships between the areas of concern. 

Commission Objectives:

·        The Commission will direct an investigation and coordinate a comprehensive review of all aspects of the World Trade Center disaster.  The Commission will take a “lessons learned” type of approach in its review and analysis of the disaster.

·        The Commission will utilize the expertise of nationally recognized individuals in the fields of architecture, engineering, forensic investigation, construction methods and materials, fire protection and life safety, human behavior, firefighting, search and rescue, terrorism, building/fire code development and emergency management.

·        The Commission will prepare a set of detailed recommendations for the improvement of building designs, building materials, safety regulations and building codes, as well as emergency response procedures. 

·        The Commission could form the model for a portion of an enhanced disaster investigation protocol.

Establishment of the Commission:

Given the role of FEMA in disaster response and hazard mitigation, it is logical to have the Commission operate under the auspices of FEMA.  FEMA would play the role of coordinator and provide staff and facility support (including the development of a final report).   

The Commission should have a “core” of eight primary members, including a Chairman, a Vice Chairman, and designated leaders from each of the six focus areas identified below.  All eight of the Commissioners would meet on a regular basis to share information, identify needs, and to direct the overall activities of the Commission.  

Six Primary “Focus Areas” of Commission:

·        Building Design
·        Building Collapse
·        Firefighting Procedures
·        Building Evacuation
·        Search and Rescue Operations
·        Building Codes and Regulations

Examples of “Focus Area” Inquiries:

Building Design

·         Identify general design concepts (“lightweight” construction, loads, etc.).

·         List fire protection features in original design and improvements.

·         Describe fire protection and life safety upgrades after 1993 attack.

·         Establish means of egress design objectives.

Building Collapse

·        Create chronology of events leading to collapse.

·        Examination of physical evidence to identify failure mode(s) leading to collapse.

·        Examination of physical evidence to assess material behavior.

·        Model fire behavior (temperature, heat release rate, etc.), including contribution of jet fuel.

·        Create fire and structural models to illustrate building conditions for duration of incident.

Firefighting Procedures

·        Interview surviving firefighters, review radio transmissions, and analyze reports to create as complete a “picture” of firefighting response as possible.

·        “Map” and analyze incident command structure.

·         Establish the overall goals of incident command officers, including use of  “standard” high-rise firefighting strategies.

·         Enumerate tactical problems encountered by fire companies.

·         Detail radio transmission problems at incident. 

Building Evacuation

·        Analyze building evacuation procedures, including directions given to occupants by building staff. 

·        Interview evacuees to collect their observations and experiences during evacuation.

·        Model the evacuation including time of egress, points of constriction, crossovers delays, etc.

·        Highlight the effects of improvements made after 1993 attack.   

Search and Rescue Operations

·        Detail coordinated effort between FDNY and USAR teams.

·        Establish impact of “self-responders” on rescue operations.

·        Analyze performance of “tools and technologies” used in search efforts (robots, “listening devices,” cutting equipment, etc.).

·        Detail efforts of maintaining “scene safety.”

Building Codes and Regulations

·        Establish national standards/codes in effect at time of construction.

·        Identify the deficiencies of ASTM E-119 (a national test standard that establishes structural fire resistance of various fire resistive materials) when compared with the fire conditions experienced during the incident.

·        Review the high-rise requirements found in current national building codes in context of this incident.

·        Correlate accepted terrorism design strategies with this incident and develop design criteria for inclusion in building codes.

The Final Report of the Commission:

Upon completion of the investigation and research efforts, a final report should be issued.  The report will tell the story of the disaster, highlight the lessons learned, identify additional research needs, and provide a set of specific recommendations. General examples of recommendations could include the following:

·        Identification of building/fire code provisions that need to be added/updated/deleted.

·        Procedural changes for fire service response to high-rise and terrorist incidents

·        Changes in evacuation procedures and egress capacity criteria

http://www.house.gov/science/full02/mar06/corley.htm

Testimony of
Dr. W. Gene Corley 
Senior Vice President
CTL Engineering
Chicago, IL

On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers 

Before the

Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards
&
Subcommittee on Research
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives

March 6, 2002

The tragic events of September 11 have served as a grim reminder that there is no limit to the destructive forces than man can use to damage or destroy our nation’s infrastructure. The civil engineering profession, as stewards for our nation’s infrastructure, feels obligated to make certain the critical public works our communities and nation depend on are protected. Through the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the profession has taken a leading role in addressing infrastructure vulnerability and is developing both short- and long-term strategies to mitigate the impact of future disasters on our critical civil infrastructure. 

Founded in 1852, ASCE represents more than 125,000 civil engineers worldwide and is the country’s oldest national engineering society.  ASCE members represent the profession most responsible for the nation’s built environment.  Our members work in consulting, contracting, industry, government and academia.  In addition to developing guideline documents, state-of-the-art reports, and a multitude of different journals, ASCE, an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved standards developer, establishes standards of practice such as the document known as ASCE 7 which provides minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.  ASCE 7 is used internationally and is referenced in all of our nation’s major model building codes.

In response to the events of September 11th, ASCE is implementing a multifaceted response plan, significant elements of which are outlined here.  Following this abbreviated outline of our initiative is a more detailed discussion of ASCE's efforts related to the World Trade Center.

ASCE’s Critical Infrastructure Response Initiative

On October 9, 2001, the ASCE Board of Direction voted to expend money from reserves on a Critical Infrastructure Response Initiative (CIRI). The objective of CIRI is to establish strategies and guidelines for:

1. Assessing U.S. infrastructure vulnerability.

2. Using the results of vulnerability assessments to prioritize infrastructure renovation.

3. Identifying research and development needs for new approaches to protecting critical infrastructure.

4. Developing retrofit designs to mitigate damage from disasters.

5. Developing new approaches to design and construction.

6. Improving disaster preparedness and response.

To accomplish the CIRI objectives, ASCE has undertaken the following activities:

1. Review and evaluate existing and pending legislation regarding infrastructure, and provide appropriate input.

2. Identify existing and pending infrastructure initiatives by other professional and technical associations to identify opportunities for partnering, and to avoid duplication of efforts. For example, EPA has several water supply initiatives underway with AMWA. These initiatives, however, are currently focused on operations and management, and ways will be sought to provide input regarding design and construction issues.

3. Identify existing and pending infrastructure initiatives by federal agencies to identify opportunities for partnering.

4. Create a liaison or partnership with the Office of Homeland Security regarding the assessment of infrastructure vulnerability and the design and construction of mitigation measures.

In each of these areas, ASCE stands ready to assist other organizations, both public and private, to reduce the vulnerability of our nation's infrastructure. 

ASCE's Efforts Related to the World Trade Center

Building Performance Study Teams

On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE (SEI/ASCE) began assembling two teams of experts to study the performance of the buildings at the World Trade Center Complex and the Pentagon. The goal of the studies is to increase our knowledge and understanding of how buildings subject to extreme forces, such as those caused by the crash and resulting fires, perform under these unusual circumstances.

The scope of the WTC study team is quite broad.  Although much of the nation’s attention has been riveted to the collapse of the twin 110-story towers, the WTC team is also examining several of the buildings in the surrounding area to determine what lessons might be learned from the performance of those structures as a result of their being impacted by falling debris and ensuing fires.  Of particular interest to the engineering community is the performance of WTC 7 and the Banker's Trust Building.

Studies of this type have been performed by ASCE following other disasters under the authority of ASCE's Disaster Response Procedure, which provides the internal mechanism to organize and fund these studies. This was the fifth time in 2001 that the procedure was used to create study teams. Earlier teams, whose members were experts in earthquakes and lifeline engineering, were dispatched to study and document the damage from the earthquakes in El Salvador, India, Seattle, and Peru.  In 1995, ASCE, in partnership with FEMA, organized a team to examine the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City and surrounding area after the bombing.

Team Members and Partnering Organizations

The teams assembled by SEI/ASCE are comprised of leading experts in the fields of structural analysis and design, fire engineering, blast effects, and building materials.  On October 1st, the WTC study became a joint effort between ASCE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a partnership, which continues to this day. 

The partnership with FEMA has proven to be extremely beneficial to the overall success and progress of the WTCteam. In addition to providing funds, FEMA has provided logistical assistance, organizational and operational guidance, assistance in obtaining and organizing the needed data, and will provide the resources to publish the report.  Utilizing the FEMA standard operation procedure for post-disaster engineering studies, managed through a contract with the architecture and engineering firm, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., FEMA helped organize and coordinate the on-site operation of the BPS Team as they performed their initial data-collection efforts in New York City.

The WTC team is headed by W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., a preeminent expert on building collapse investigations and building codes.  A full list of team members and an indication of their areas of expertise is attached.  Dr. Corley, whose biography is attached, was the team leader and principal author of the ASCE/FEMA Murrah Federal Office Building Study Report in 1995.

The Pentagon team is headed by Paul Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E., of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi.  Dr. Mlakar is a preeminent expert in blast engineering and was also a member of the ASCE/FEMA team, which examined the Murrah Federal Office Building.

In addition to assembling the teams of experts, SEI/ASCE has also organized a coalition of professional organizations to participate and support the work.  These partnering organizations include: the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), which provided recommendations of team members; the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which provided counsel on the fire engineering aspects of the study; and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), which provided on-going assistance in the examination of the debris.  It should be noted that SEAoNY, on its own initiative, was instrumental in providing assistance to the rescue and recovery operations immediately after the attacks. Additional members of the coalition are the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (AISC), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), the International Code Council (ICC), the Masonry Society (TMS) and the National Council of Structural Engineering Associations (NCSEA).

To increase our knowledge and understanding of the performance of the structures, the study is focusing on the response of the buildings, including fire behavior, structural design, fireproofing characteristics, and damage resulting from the aircraft impacts.    As a result of this study, the structural and fire protection engineers comprising the team hope to provide an accurate description of the events and a preliminary assessment of the behavior of the affected buildings.

Data Collection

Simultaneous with the efforts to assemble the team and organize the supporting coalition, work began to collect data and information pertinent to the study. A significant part of this data collection phase was holding a meeting of the team in New York City to examine the wreckage and the surrounding buildings impacted by the collapse.  On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site.  The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous.  To aid the team in this intense 6-day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis.

During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey.  Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of November.  Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.

Unlike other structural collapses, there is an unprecedented volume of photographic and video evidence available for the team to review, including more than 120 hours of network and private video footage.  Individual team members have viewed every foot of this videotape and provided information on the available data to the team at large.

Beyond the information and data pertaining to the events on September 11th, there is also a need to establish, as accurately as possible, the physical attributes of the towers and surrounding buildings prior to the impact of the airplanes.  Doing this is a monumental task.  The construction of the towers was documented by literally thousands of engineering drawings.  In addition, there were numerous changes to the towers over their life.  This effort is also being conducted for WTC 7, which is of considerable interest to the team. These data, together with the data previously described will be used to construct detailed computer models of the structures. 

Impediments Encountered by the Building Performance Study Teams

In the 10 years in which ASCE has been conducting studies of disasters we have learned that our teams will always encounter impediments.  It is therefore not surprising that the study team has encountered some difficulties in their data collection activities.  However, we have also learned that with time and persistence these difficulties are either overcome or an alternate approach is found to enable the team to satisfactorily complete their study as described below.

When studying damaged structures it is important to understand the physical nature of the original structure as soon as possible.  Commonly this is accomplished by obtaining and studying the engineering plans of the structures.  Because the team did not have the engineering plans of the affected structures during the site visit in early October, arrangements were made to have several of the principal designers make presentations to the team.  These briefings enabled the team to conduct their site visit more efficiently and to better understand the structure of the affected buildings. The delay in the receipt of the plans hindered the team’s ability to confirm their understanding of the buildings. Through the efforts of FEMA and others, the team received the engineering plans for the WTC Towers on January 8, 2002, and work is proceeding.

As noted previously, there is an enormous volume of video and photographic documentation of the events of September 11th. This type of evidence can often yield significant insights into the failure mechanisms but it is imperative that the highest quality video footage be used.  The team did experience some difficulty in obtaining video footage from the various television networks.

Obtaining access to the site of a disaster is always difficult and clearly the search and rescue efforts and any criminal investigation must take first priority.  However, in all studies of this nature, gaining access to the site as soon as possible is important in order to observe and document the debris and site conditions.  For the future, it may be useful to consider some protocol or process whereby selected individuals from the BPST would be allowed on site in the initial days after a catastrophic event to gather critical data.

There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling.  This is not the case.  The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples.  At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures. 

Resources are always an issue with building performance studies, particularly for one whose magnitude and scale is unprecedented.  The total amount of resources being dedicated to support the team’s activities is approximately $1 million, which has allowed the team to do the initial reconnaissance of the site and the building materials, begin the process of hypothesis setting, and conduct some limited testing.  This raises the question of what amount of money would be sufficient.  It is our opinion that $40 million would be a sufficient amount to fully fund a comprehensive study of an event of this magnitude and complexity. 

A Protocol for Future Building Performance Study Teams

The Building Performance Assessment Team program in place within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has a long and distinguished history of providing excellent information to the engineering profession.  The BPAT program has a detailed protocol in place which has been continually refined and improved upon throughout its use. 

Similarly, ASCE's Disaster Response Procedure has been successfully used by ASCE to conduct important studies of significant disasters.  ASCE's procedure also has been refined and improved upon through its history.

The history of both of these programs however has been predominantly with natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes or floods.  While it is certainly our sincere hope that the anti-terrorist efforts of our government will prove successful, it may be useful to review the existing protocols from the perspective of their application to major, unprecedented events such as the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.  This could address some of the impediments that were discussed above.

A Case Study for Improved Building Practices?

As many in the United States and the world examine the future of tall buildings it is important to look at how well these buildings performed under extreme circumstances.  It must be remembered that large commercial aircraft hit the World Trade Center Towers, yet both withstood the initial impact.  Additionally, as has been widely reported, almost all of the individuals in the buildings below the impact zone were able to get out of the buildings to safety.  Efforts such as that being conducted by the Building Performance Study teams and studies emanating from this initial study will seek to extend the performance of structures to allow occupants ample time to reach safety.

Because there is no limit to the destructive forces which terrorists can bring to bear against our built infrastructure it is impossible to design a building to withstand such an attack.   The multi-faceted approach presently being pursued, that being to prevent the attack initially and pursue rational, scientifically based methods to improve structural performance, is both sound and prudent.

Future Research Needs for Civil Engineering

As has occurred throughout the world, the events of September 11th have created new challenges for the civil and structural engineering communities.  Solving the problems presented by these challenges will be neither easy nor quick, and will require the collective efforts from a broad range of engineering and scientific disciplines.

While there will be a number of specific issues and recommendations in the reports being issued by the ASCE/FEMA WTC study team and the ASCE Pentagon study team later this spring, there are several high priority needs from the structural engineering community to which I would like to draw your attention:

Progressive Collapse: The likelihood of a building or structure collapsing progressively is dependent upon two inter-related through separate behaviors: the event or load to which the structure is subjected and the strength or redundancy of the structure.  At present, there is no rational technical basis to specify the initiating event or conversely to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative mitigation strategies, either alone or in combination.  While virtually all structures contain some degree of redundancy, we must now live, build and function in a world where the performance demands placed on our built infrastructure have been altered, thereby necessitating the development of engineering-based tools to guide our profession in the future.

Fire-Structure Interaction: While events such as those of September 11th are rare, and through the efforts of the President and Congress will be even less likely in the future, normal fires in buildings and other structures are not rare events.  To continue to improve the performance of structures in a fire environment will require the development of new tools and design methods through the collaboration of the fire engineering and structural engineering communities for application to both new and existing buildings.  This work should include tools by which to address fire as a structural design load, understanding the behavior of structural connections under fire conditions, and a coupling between fire dynamics and structural response.

We believe that each of these needs are crucial to advancing the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of our nation.  Each of these priorities are also highly complex and will require a substantial partnership between public agencies and private organizations to accomplish this work.

In the private sector, ASCE has begun this work through the establishment of a multi-disciplinary coalition of engineering organizations.  This coalition, led by the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE, includes the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the Structural Engineers Association of New York, and the International Code Council.  Taken in combination, this coalition represents over 250,000 architects, engineers and scientists who stand ready to bring their talents and expertise to meeting the needs of our nation.

In the public sector, the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL), as the only federal laboratory dedicated to both building and fire research, BFRL can play a key role in assessing and addressing the vulnerability of the nation's buildings and physical infrastructure.  The public-private response program that has been established with significant NIST leadership encompasses the critical needs identified above.  We urge you to provide the support and resources sought by NIST so that together we can continue to provide the reliability and performance which our country expects from our physical infrastructure.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to express ASCE’s views. We offer you and all of the agencies involved in the recovery efforts ASCE’s full resources to manage the nation's critical infrastructure needs.  We are ready to help in any way possible, and I am eager to hear from you regarding ways that ASCE’s CIRI can support you as you examine our infrastructure needs in the coming months.

________________________

ASCE/FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Assessment Study Team Members 

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.  (Team Lead) Senior Vice President Construction Technologies Labor Skokie, Illinois Expert in building collapse investigations; principal investigator, Murrah Federal Office Building Study

William Baker, P.E., S.E. Partner, Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP Chicago, Illinois Expert in tall-building design

Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D. Professor, Center for Fire Safety Studies Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, Massachusetts Expert in building fire safety design and fire computer modeling

David T. Biggs, P.E. Ryan-Biggs Associates Troy, New York Expert in facades

Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E. Principal, URS Corporation Gaithersburg, Maryland Expert in BPAT Studies

Edward M. DePaola, P.E. Partner, Severud Associates Consulting Engineers New York, New York Expert in structural engineering

Robert F. Duval Senior Fire Investigator National Fire Protection Association Expert in fire investigations

John W. Fisher, P.E. The Joseph T. Stuart Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering Lehigh University Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Expert in metallurgy and connections

Richard G. Gewain Senior Engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland Expert in fire engineering

Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E. Parner, Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP New York City Expert in structural engineering

John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. Leader, Structural Systems and Design Group Building and Fire Research Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland Expert in steel design and fire-structure interaction

Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E. Senior Vice President, EQE Structural Engineers Division ABS Consulting Belmont, California Expert in structural analysis and design

Nestor Iwankiw Vice President, Engineering and Research American Institute for Steel Construction Chicago, Illinois Expert in steel design

Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E. Institute for Research in Construction National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, Ontario Expert in fire resistance design and fire effects on materials

Eric Letvin Department Head, Hazards Engineering Group Greenhorne & O’Mara Greenbelt, Maryland Project Manager

Jon Magnusson, P.E. Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, Inc. Seattle, Washington Expert in structural analysis and high-rise design

Christopher E. Marrion, P.E. Fire Strategist, Arup Fire New York, New York Expert in fire engineering

Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Structural Engineer Greenhorne & O’Mara Greenbelt, Maryland Team Coordinator

James Milke, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor & Associate Chair, Department of Fire Protection Engineering University of Maryland College Park, Maryland Expert in fire resistance analysis

Harold E. "Bud" Nelson Consultant Annandale, Virginia Expert in fire engineering

James A. Rossberg, P.E. Director, Structural Engineering Institute ASCE Reston, Virginia ASCE Staff Lead

Saw-Teen See, P.E. Managing Partner Leslie E. Robertson Associates New York, New York Expert in structural analysis and high-rise design

Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E. Principal, Weidlinger Associates New York City Expert in blast effects

Bruce Swiren Hurricane Program Manager, Region II Federal Emergency Management Agency New York, New York FEMA Region II Contact

Paul Tertell, P.E. Program Manager, Building Performance Assessment Team Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. FEMA BPAT Project Officer

[Corley resume omitted.]

Testimony of 

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley 

Before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives

March 6, 2002 Hearing on

“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”

It is a great honor for me to testify here today and address specific questions listed in your letter (in Bold below) regarding my involvement in the post disaster investigation of the World Trade Center. 

What role did you play in the investigating the collapse of the WTC buildings and what do you expect to produce from your effort?  How did you arrange NSF funding for your work, and how was that arranged so quickly?

My involvement in the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center is to conduct a reconnaissance of the collapsed and damaged WTC buildings and to collect the perishable data.  The main objectives of the reconnaissance are to learn as much as possible from the actual collapsed structures and to document the failure modes and performance of the members and connections as well as quality of the construction. The purpose of collecting the perishable data is to collect material samples, photographs, videotapes, drawings and data on design, construction and collapse. Using the information collected and by conducting the necessary analyses and research, we try to establish probable causes of the collapse and most likely scenario for such collapse. 

Our project was funded by the Directorate of Engineering of the National Science Foundation as one of the eight Quick Response Research Awards in the aftermath of the WTC collapse. These projects focus on structural engineering  (our project at UC-Berkeley), fire engineering, social aspects and response and recovery.  More information on these projects can be found at www.nsf.gov.  We prepared and submitted our proposal to the National Science Foundation three days after the 9/11 events and it was reviewed and funded by the end of the week. The credit for such a fast preparation, submittal, review and funding of these research projects should be given equally to the staff at the universities involved as well as the Program Directors and staff of the National Science Foundation. The use of “Fastlane” electronic submittal process of the NSF also expedited the process tremendously. 

So far, I have made three trips to NYC and spent a total of about 25 days there conducting field investigation and collecting data. Upon arrival to NYC on September 19, and after visiting Ground Zero and paying my respects and prayers to the victims, I started my reconnaissance and collection of the perishable data.  I have collected some data on design and construction of the WTC and have met and discussed the case with the structural engineers who have designed the WTC Buildings.  Thanks to cooperation of the HSNE recycling plant, I have been able to study the steel from the WTC before recycling.  I have identified and saved some components of the structures that appear to have been subjected to intense fire or impact of fast moving objects. Figures 1 through 4 show examples of inspected structures. These critical pieces are saved as perishable data and can be used in future research.

Please describe the impediments that you encountered during the investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings, such as the loss of material from the WTC site and any effects of such impediments on your work.

I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are:

1. Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.

2. Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

Such data has already been made available to ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team. If those are also available to us, we will be able to proceed further with our research. Figure 5 shows an example of analysis of performance of generic steel high-rise structure subjected to the impact of a 747 jetliner and the ensuing fire.  The example demonstrates the power of advanced technology developed in aerospace and mechanical engineering that can be brought to bear on this problem.  We plan to use the drawings and the data and the software used in the example to build a computer based realistic model of the World Trade Center towers and analyze their response to simulated impact of the 767 planes that crashed into them on 9/11 and the ensuing fire.

Should the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or Congress develops a more comprehensive protocol for how to conduct investigations in response to natural disasters and/or terrorist attacks?

The earthquake engineering community has conducted post disaster investigations very successfully and systematically within the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and funded by NSF and FEMA for several decades. As a result of such post-disaster investigations, the lessons learned and the continued research and technology developments, great advances have been made in mitigating earthquake hazard.  The approach taken in earthquake engineering can equally be applied to investigation of damage due to terrorist attacks as well as to minimizing consequences of such attacks. Due to criminal nature of terrorist attacks and higher priority placed on criminal investigation over engineering investigation, it appears that there is a need for a protocol to govern the availability of information and access to the site as well as interaction of the crime investigators and researchers investigating the scientific and engineering aspects of the terrorist attacks.

What areas of research into the WTC collapse still need to be addressed, and what is the most appropriate way to handle these needs?

There are short term and long-term research needs into the WTC collapse.  In short term, there is a need for a comprehensive, in-depth and research-oriented study of the WTC buildings from the time of plane impact, through the ensuing fire and the final collapse. Such studies not only should focus on structural and fire engineering aspects, but also social and human aspects of the tragedy as well.  A broad based team of researchers and engineers from academia, government agencies and private sector, with expertise in various aspects of the problem need to be assembled to conduct such studies.  In my opinion, such studies need to be directed by federal entities such as National Science Foundation (NSF) and/or National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that are involved in directing and conducting scientific and engineering research.  In December, the National Science Foundation sponsored a workshops organized by the Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems of the New York University to identify research needs for future research related to WTC. A list of workshop recommendations can be found at www.nsf.gov.  I participated at the workshop and feel that funding research in those areas will result in learning many valuable lessons from this tragedy and will result in significant improvements in the structural design, construction, fire protection, evacuation, fire fighting, rescue and recovery efforts, debris removal and many other aspects of protection of buildings and occupants against terrorist attacks.

In the long term, there is a need for major and sustained funding to conduct basic and applied research on various aspects of terrorist attacks. Such research activities can result in development of scientific methods and technologies to assure life safety, prevent catastrophic collapses and massive loss of lives and minimize the impact of such attacks on the national economy and security.  Last months, NIST held a workshop to identify research needs related to evaluation of performance and protection of buildings during intense fires. I also participated at this workshop and feel that the research areas identified at the workshop are very important in providing engineers and architects with the technologies to protect tall buildings, their occupants and firefighter and rescuers against catastrophic fires and resulting collapse.

In the aftermath of 9/11 tragedy and the hazard posed by terrorist attacks to public safety and the economical well being of the U.S. is not much different than the hazard posed by other “extreme events’ such as major earthquakes three or four decades ago. In the case of seismic hazard mitigation, Congress, by providing sufficient funding to the National Science Foundation and other agencies involved, has enabled research and engineering community to develop efficient and economical technologies to mitigate seismic hazard and to prevent catastrophic loss of lives. To prevent catastrophic consequences of terrorist attacks, we need to develop and fund a long-term plan of research, perhaps modeled after seismic research programs developed and supported over the years by NSF and FEMA, and in the field of protection of built environment against terrorist attacks.

Has the confidential nature of the FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team investigation made it more difficult to gain access to materials that might be useful, such as private videotapes?

I have not been provided with the information made available to the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team. This includes, videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings.  At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort.

I have been the Principal Investigator in conducting research on damage and collapse of several major buildings and bridges in the aftermath of earthquakes.  I understand and respect the concerns of owners, designers, builders and those who are responsible for safe operation of these structures for possible legal ramifications of findings of our research investigations.  However, the main objective of our research is to understand how the WTC buildings failed and learn lessons that can be used to prevent such collapses in the future.  Never before my research results have been used in any legal proceedings.  However, to allay any concerns that any findings of our research project might increase the liabilities of the City, Port Authority or Silverstein, the data on these structures could be provided to the Principal Investigator (myself) on a propriety basis. The Principal Investigator would keep the data and provide the other members of the research team with the information on a need-to-know basis.  I have followed similar procedures to the satisfaction of parties involved in conducting research on major buildings and bridges subjected to earthquakes and blasts due to terrorist attacks.  

I would like to take this opportunity and thank Chairman Boehlert and members of the Committee on Science for inviting me to testify. I would like now to welcome any questions that you may have.      

[Astaneh-Asl resume omitted.]

http://www.house.gov/science/full02/mar06/bement.htm

Statement of

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Director 
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Commerce

Before the

Committee on Science
House of Representatives
United States Congress 

“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”

March 6, 2002 

Good afternoon Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee.  I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.  The tragedy that the United States experienced on September 11, 2001, was unprecedented when compared with any prior accident, natural disaster, or terrorist/war attack.  The collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers was the worst building disaster in human history.  Engineers, emergency responders, and the nation did not anticipate, and were largely unprepared for, such a catastrophe.  Among other national needs, these events highlight the following technical priorities:

• To establish the probable technical causes of the collapses and derive the lessons to be learned;

• To develop and disseminate immediate guidance and tools to assess and reduce future vulnerabilities; and

• To produce the technical basis upon which cost-effective changes to national practices and standards can be developed.

Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center, NIST’s building and fire researchers began assisting federal and local agencies in many ways to investigate the spread of fire through the buildings and their subsequent collapse.  Our researchers used previously developed models along with preliminary information from videos of the attack and other sources to simulate the spread of fire and smoke in the buildings.  At the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NIST conducted a comparison and analysis of the current building and fire codes of New York City with national codes, and we contributed to the Army Corps of Engineers’ study of the structural and fire damage to the Pentagon.   In addition, NIST experts participated in the initial assessment of the collapse conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Coalition that comprised a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) funded by FEMA.  The ASCE Coalition Team also included professional members of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). NIST is lending its expertise in structural disasters to ASCE and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to store WTC steel at its Gaithersburg, MD, headquarters for further scientific study.

However, more needs to be done.  A growing number of technical experts, industry leaders, and families of victims are pressing for a broad-based Federal investigation to study the building construction, the integrity of the materials used, and all the technical conditions that combined to cause the building disaster at the World Trade Center [Witness would like to submit for the record, letters received supporting a federal investigation].  NIST has begun working informally with a coalition of organizations – representing key industry, standards, codes, and professional groups – in an effort to launch a comprehensive public-private response program that includes such an investigation.  NIST is also working very closely with FEMA, since an in-depth technical investigation would go well beyond the scope of the building performance assessments conducted by FEMA following major disasters.   The implementation of the results of such an investigation would be critical to restore public confidence in the safety of tall buildings nationwide, enhance the safety of fire and emergency responders, and better protect people and property in the future.  To cite one example, the February 4th issue of “Crain’s New York Business” reports that an increasing number of tenants are leaving the Empire State Building, which is again the tallest building in New York City, because of fears of another terrorist attack.  Anecdotal evidence also suggests that building vacancy rates have doubled in Manhattan, despite the 15 million square feet of space that was lost on September 11th.

NIST has received policy approval from the Secretary of Commerce to initiate and, after consultation with local officials, to conduct an independent and comprehensive “National Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster” under NIST’s existing legislative authorities (15 U.S.C. 281a).  Among Federal laboratories, NIST is uniquely qualified to conduct such a comprehensive investigation.  The Building and Fire Research Laboratory is the foremost fire research laboratory in the United States, and through the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) NIST is the principal agency for research and development to improve building codes and standards.  NIST has extensive experience and expertise in conducting disaster investigations following structural/construction failures, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes.  These have included the well-known investigations into the 1981 collapse of a walkway in the Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel, the 1986 Dupont Plaza Hotel fire in San Juan Puerto Rico, the 1994 Northridge earthquake collapses, and the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake building collapses, to name just a few.  In compliance with statutory requirements NIST has already consulted with local authorities in New York, including the Port Authority of NY & NJ, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, the New York City Department of Design and Construction, and the Fire Department of New York.  These organizations have expressed support for NIST and agreed to cooperate in its it’s investigation. 

The proposed investigation wouldwill involve world-class experts from industry, academia, and other laboratories to complement NIST’s excellent in-house technical expertise.  Supplementing the outstanding work done through the building performance assessment team initially assembled through FEMA, NIST would willdelve deeper into the factors related to the collapse.  NIST would use the results of the soon to be released ASCE Coalition team’s study as a valuable source of input into the investigation.  The objectives of the NIST investigation would be to determine technically:

• Why and how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed following the impacts of the planes;

• Why the injuries were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, response, evacuation, and occupant behavior and emergency response;

• Whether or not state-of-the-art procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the World Trade Center Buildings; and

• Whether there are new technologies or procedures that should be employed in the future to reduce the potential risks of such a collapse.

The NIST investigation would focus primarily on World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 (the Twin Towers) for several reasons.  First, the collapse of the Towers was the triggering event that caused much of the collateral damage to the adjacent properties.  Second, many structural and fire protection design features and construction details found in the Towers are widely used in the building construction industry.  Third, to study procedures and practices used to assess the safety of innovative structural systems and building designs not covered by existing building codes or prior in-use experience as was the case of the twin towers, and whether such practices are adequate to detect and remedy inherent vulnerabilities.  Fourth, to study procedures and practices used to provide adequate structural reserve capacity to resist abnormal loads (e.g. blast, explosion, impact due to aircraft or flying debris from tornadoes, accidental fires, and faulty design and construction), especially those that can be anticipated prior to construction (e.g. impact of a Boeing 707).  Fifth, the Twin Towers would provide the opportunity to study the effectiveness of fire protection and firefighting technologies and practices for tall buildings, including emergency mobility and egress, and communication systems.  And lastly, the analytical tools used in these investigations would be experimentally verified and widely applicable to other building types. Besides the Towers, the investigation would possibly consider examining WTC Building 7, which collapsed later in the day.

NIST would use an open and inclusive process in formulating its work plan for the investigation.  This would involve the participation of technical experts from industry, academia, and other laboratories as well as liaison with federal, state, and local authorities. NIST would expect to complete its investigation and issue a final report in 24 months. 

The results of the proposed investigation would be extremely valuable in establishing the probable technical causes of the disaster and deriving the lessons to be learned, but it would be meaningless unless we take the knowledge gained and put it to practical use.  That is why NIST, in partnership with FEMA and a number of private sector organizations, has developed a broader response program.  This broader program would address critically and urgently needed improvements to national building and fire standards, codes, and practices that have begun to be recognized in recent years. The events of September 11 have brought even more focus and priority to this already important issue.

The goal of this broader program would be to produce cost-effective retrofit and design measures and operational guidance for building owners and emergency responders.  The program would develop and disseminate guidance and tools to assess, and produce the technical basis and recommendations for cost-effective changes to reduce vulnerabilities. 

Over the course of the proposed investigation and broader program there would be a number of short-term and interim work products that would provide guidance, tools, and technical assistance to better prepare facility owners, contractors, designers, and emergency personnel for future disasters.  Some of these products, based on prior NIST work, would be disseminated broadly as soon as possible.  Others that need further refinement would be disseminated within a year, and the rest after the completion of the investigation.  I would like to note that the President’s FY 2003 budget request for NIST contains a $2 million funding increase, which will go towards this effort and related research.

Let me now give you three examples of work that would be accomplished through this broader program. 

First, fire played a critical and visible role in the collapse of the WTC buildings and contributed to damage to the Pentagon buildings.  Current building design practice does not consider fire as a design condition.  Instead, structural fire endurance ratings are prescribed in building codes using standard tests on individual components.  The current testing standards are based on work carried out at NIST in the 1920s.  They do not represent real fire hazards in modern buildings.  They also do not consider the fire performance of structural connections or of the structural system as a whole, or the multiple performance demands on fire proofing materials.  NIST now has the capability to simulate building fires on the computer to explain critical events and outcomes to an extent previously not possible.  The proposed work would expand on this core competence in computational methods, and adapt measurement techniques and test methods to support the prediction of performance of building materials, products, structural elements, and systems up to the point of the collapse of a tall building due to fire.  In short, NIST would provide the technical basis and guidance for fire safety design and retrofit of structures, the predictive tools and test methods for fire resistance determination, and the performance criteria for fireproofing materials.  In addition, NIST proposes to develop guidance and retrofit technologies to enhance building egress in emergencies, practical tools and guidance to enhance the safety and effectiveness of fire and emergency responders, and improved models of occupant behavior and response to enhance evacuation and communication in emergencies.

Second, progressive collapse – which refers to the spread of failure by a chain reaction that is disproportionate to the triggering event – was also responsible for the extraordinary number of deaths in the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.  Yet, the United States has not developed standards, codes, and practices to assess and reduce this vulnerability.  Adding to the problem for modern structures is their smaller margin of safety – and the reserve capacity to accommodate abnormal loads – due to increased efficiency in the use of building materials and refinements in analysis techniques.  The work carried out at NIST in the early 1970s continues to provide the basis for the extremely limited guidance that is available in current United States standards.  NIST would develop cost-effective solutions to reduce building vulnerability to progressive collapse using a multi-hazard approach that exploits synergies in resisting extreme loads from blast, impact, earthquakes, and fires.

Third, vulnerability reduction of commercial and institutional buildings and facilities. The overwhelming majority of buildings in public use today are vulnerable to terrorist attack on a number of fronts. Most lack state of the art sensing and information management systems.  Few have electronic representations of the building documents or models, and standards do not exist for such representations.  Most are not protected against chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) threats.  While efforts are underway to protect military buildings through Department of Defense's “immune buildings” program, there are no standards and practices for civilian buildings.  NIST proposes to work with the DoD to develop guidelines and advanced technologies to reduce the vulnerability of such buildings to CBR attacks.  NIST also proposes to work with industry to develop standards for building information models and information exchange, and practicable tools for helping building owners make reasoned economic choices in reducing the vulnerabilities of their buildings.

The final program element supports a construction-industry-led roadmapping effort to reflect changed priorities for development and deployment of safety and security standards, technology, and practices.  It would also support the delivery and dissemination of practical guidance, tools, and technical assistance to better prepare facility owners, contractors, designers, and emergency personnel to respond to future disasters and to speed economic recovery within the industry following disasters.  The effort would complement and support parallel efforts of technical organizations to improve standards, codes, and practices.

In conclusion, I believe it is imperative for the U.S. to learn from the worst-ever building disasters in human history and take aggressive remedial action to minimize future losses.  As the events of September 11 demonstrated, the very stability of U.S. commerce and our economy depends upon major buildings and critical facilities that provide a key part of our Nation’s physical infrastructure.  In the wake of September 11, the private sector’s willingness to take necessary corrective action to strengthen building codes and standards is extraordinarily strong.  So with the envisioned Federal technical leadership and partners from the private sector, changes can be made to minimize the likelihood and consequences of future disasters.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I would be happy to take questions from the Committee.