• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Engineers at Ground Zero: Lessons From the Second Responders of 9/11 (w/video)

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,941
Location
Not where I really want to be
Even 23 years later, the memories of the unity and shared purpose that emerged from 9/11 continue to resonate deeply. Strangers found themselves connected in ways they never imagined, bonded by the human spirit in the face of devastation. Yet, the technical lessons from that day, while transformative, remain less well-known outside of expert circles.

Enter Engineers at Ground Zero, a new documentary released in November 2024. It begins in the immediate aftermath of the Twin Towers’ collapse, shifting focus from rescue efforts to a critical and overlooked task: assessing the safety of the surrounding environment. Often dressed in civilian clothes and armed with knowledge of tension, compression, and material failure, structural engineers became the unsung "second responders," working alongside firefighters and demolition crews to answer vital questions: Were nearby buildings safe? Could the ground beneath Lower Manhattan hold?

The Engineers’ Role​

The collapse of the Towers not only claimed lives but left a scar on New York City’s infrastructure. Over 400 buildings below 14th Street required evaluation, and the stability of the ground itself came into question. Structural engineers stayed on site for months, ensuring the safety of the surrounding area and determining how the unimaginable had occurred.

“What did we learn from 9/11?” asks Vicki Arbitrio, an engineer who helped coordinate efforts in Lower Manhattan. Speaking to TIME, she highlights key takeaways that have since influenced building design and safety measures. “We learned to make stairwells wider, so that firefighters can go up while others go down. We learned that the walls around stairs should be more than just gypsum board, and that sprinkler mains should be within those hardened walls. Redundancy in the overall structural system is critical to ensure that a building stands longer, giving occupants more time to escape.”

How the Towers Fell​

The film provides a step-by-step breakdown of the Towers' collapse, featuring an animation created from physics-based modeling. Each high-rise was initially able to withstand the impact of American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, redistributing the load around the gaping holes left by the planes. But it was the ensuing fire—fueled by jet fuel—that caused the steel girders at the core to fail, leading to progressive collapse.

The documentary delves into this sequence, explaining how the unique design of the Towers contributed both to their initial resilience and their eventual failure. It’s a haunting yet critical analysis, offering insight into how modern construction can be adapted to withstand such catastrophic events.

Challenges Below Ground​

The dangers extended below ground, where the absence of the Towers caused unexpected shifts. A crack opened in the earth, threatening the wall designed to hold back the Hudson River. One engineer recalls the urgency: “If the river followed, it wouldn’t just flood the World Trade Center site—it would flood the entire New York subway system.” The solution? A combination of pumps to relieve pressure on one side of the wall and bulldozers to reinforce the other.

Such ingenuity underscores the adaptability of engineers in crisis situations. Their interventions prevented further catastrophe and safeguarded the city’s infrastructure during an unprecedented moment in history.

A Legacy of Lessons​

The documentary doesn’t stop with 9/11. It connects lessons learned to other tragedies, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and the Surfside condo collapse in Florida. Engineers, Arbitrio notes, are always asking: “What can we do better?”

These reflections emphasize the evolution of building codes and safety standards. Wider stairwells, stronger materials, and improved redundancy are now integral to modern construction. Yet, Arbitrio also acknowledges that the challenges are ever-changing: “People will always find more powerful ways to destroy. Our job is to make things safer, economically and practically.”

Honoring the Unsung Heroes​

Engineers at Ground Zero is more than a technical examination; it’s a tribute to the professionals who worked tirelessly to make sense of the devastation. Filmed in an unfinished high-rise, the documentary features interviews with engineers speaking against a backdrop of empty floors and visible supports. It’s a fitting metaphor for their work: the unseen strength that keeps our world standing.

“We are often taken for granted, and that’s okay,” Arbitrio reflects. “If all goes well, you don’t notice us. But when something goes wrong, it’s good to learn from it. That’s not just structural engineering—that’s everything.”

As fewer people remember 9/11 firsthand, this documentary stands as a vital record—a testament to the resilience of New York City and the critical role of engineers in shaping a safer future.

 
A lot was made about the gwb around the stairs and while certainly cmu or reinforced concrete would have been stronger, do we know for certain would more than 1 of the six stair towers (3 each building) have remained useable through the impact floors?

Still so much to be learned about building design and construction from this disaster.
 
A Legacy of Lessons
The documentary doesn’t stop with 9/11. It connects lessons learned to other tragedies, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and the Surfside condo collapse in Florida. Engineers, Arbitrio notes, are always asking: “What can we do better?”

Building collapses are like airplane crashes: we learn from each one. But not all engineers get the message. There are two engineers working and based in the small town where I work who (IMHO) are dangerous. I know I've posted about one of them -- they guy who literally stole another engineer's foundation detail drawing for a pre-engineered metal building. But the original was half the height and two-thirds the width, so the foundation reactions were significantly greater in the building this clown was responsible for. As I posted at the time, I happened to catch it mostly by accident. When I called the original engineer to ask if he had given engineer #2 permission to use his details, he said "No." When I mentioned the span and the height of the building, engineer #1 said (and I quote), "I wouldn't expect that to stand up."

So, some engineers learn from disasters. Other engineers seem determined to create them.

These reflections emphasize the evolution of building codes and safety standards. Wider stairwells, stronger materials, and improved redundancy are now integral to modern construction. Yet, Arbitrio also acknowledges that the challenges are ever-changing: “People will always find more powerful ways to destroy. Our job is to make things safer, economically and practically.”

What wider stairwells? Required width for vertical means of egress has been 0.3 inches per person for decades. It was 0.3 inches per person before 9/11, and it's 0.3 inches per person today. BUT ... ever since I was an intern architect in the 1970s, the occupant load ratio for Business use/occupancy was 1 person per 100 square feet. With the 2018 IBC, that suddenly changed to 1 person per 150 square feet, thus reducing the occupant load by 33 percent, and thus reducing the required width of stairs by 33 percent.

So much for making stairs wider ...
 
I just checked the NYC code in UpCodes. According to UpCodes, the NYC building code is based on the 2018 IBC. NYC still uses a factor of 1 person per 100 s.f, for the occupant load, but their requirement for stair width remains at 0.3" per person -- so I don't know what that woman was talking about when she mentioned making stairs wider.
 
Back
Top