Table of Contents - Appendix e

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Appendix E
List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................................E–ii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... E–iii
Appendix E
Interim Report on Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications ..............................E–1
E.1 Scope of Report ...........................................................................................................................E–1
E.2 Units and Abbreviations ..............................................................................................................E–2
E.3 Sources of Information ................................................................................................................E–2
E.4 Tower Design – Structural Steel Documents...............................................................................E–3
E.4.1 Specification of Steel Grades (Minimum Yield Strength) ...............................................E–3
E.4.2 Structural Overview..........................................................................................................E–3
E.5 Contemporaneous Steel Specifications......................................................................................E–15
E.5.1 Standards Called for in the Steel Contracts ....................................................................E–16
E.5.2 Steels Used in Construction............................................................................................E–20
E.5.3 Recommended Values for Mechanical Properties..........................................................E–29
E.5.4 Sources of Information ...................................................................................................E–34
E.6 Contemporaneous Construction Specifications .........................................................................E–37
E.6.1 Fabrication of the Various Components.........................................................................E–37
E.7 Reference Lists ..........................................................................................................................E–41
E.7.1 References from Publicly Available Sources .................................................................E–41
E.7.2 Private Communications ................................................................................................E–44
E.7.3 References from Nonpublic Sources ..............................................................................E–45
Attachment 1
Steel Companies Involved in the World Trade Center ......................................................E–49
Attachment 2
Notes on ASTM Standards for Structural Steel .................................................................E–53
E–i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure E–1. Schematic diagram of the tower structure..........................................................................E–4
Figure E–2. WTC tower floor plan and column numbers......................................................................E–5
Figure E–3. Cross-section of perimeter columns; sections with and without spandrels........................E–6
Figure E–4. Characteristic perimeter column panel consisting of three full columns connected by
three spandrels....................................................................................................................E–7
Figure E–5. Partial elevation of exterior bearing-wall frame showing perimeter column panel
construction. Highlighted panel is three stories tall (36 ft) and spans four floors.
Distance between panels has been exaggerated. ................................................................E–8
Figure E–6. Typical welded box members and rolled wide flange shapes used for core columns
between floors 83 and 86 (to scale)....................................................................................E–9
Figure E–7. Core column layout in WTC towers. ...............................................................................E–10
Figure E–8. Schematic diagram of a floor truss...................................................................................E–11
Figure E–9. Hat truss in upper floors...................................................................................................E–13
Figure E–10. Schematic diagram of the stress-strain behavior of a structural steel. .............................E–21
E–ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table E–1. Metric equivalents of common yield strengths. ...................................................................E–2
Table E–2. Number of WTC 1 and WTC 2 perimeter columns damaged by aircraft impact. .............E–14
Table E–3. Number of core columns with a given minimum yield strength within the floors
penetrated by the aircraft....................................................................................................E–14
Table E–4. Number of perimeter columns of specified grades in floors with significant fire. ............E–14
Table E–5. Number of core columns of specified grades in floors with significant fire. .....................E–15
Table E–6. Steels specified as acceptable by PONYA in its contract with steel fabricators................E–17
Table E–7. Summary of mechanical properties from relevant ASTM International structural steel
standards from WTC era. ...................................................................................................E–18
Table E–8. Summary of chemistry data from relevant ASTM International structural steel
standards from WTC era. ...................................................................................................E–19
Table E–9. Summary of Japan Industrial Standard structural steel standards from 1974. ...................E–20
Table E–10. Steel companies involved in WTC construction and their contracts..................................E–21
Table E–11. Properties of Laclede ASTM A 242 steels obtained from Laclede mill test reports..........E–22
Table E–12. Specified properties for Yawata contemporaneous steel grades. .......................................E–24
Table E–13. Reported properties for Yawata contemporaneous steel grades. .......................................E–25
Table E–14. Mechanical properties of U.S. Steel and Bethlehem V-series steels..................................E–27
Table E–15. Chemistry and mechanical property data for a Fuji Steel plate and a Colvilles plate
used for core columns. .......................................................................................................E–28
Table E–16. Databases searched for WTC information. ........................................................................E–28
Table E–17. Estimated yield strengths (Fy) for grades of steel above Floor 9. ......................................E–33
Table E–18. Trade journals examined for WTC steel information. .......................................................E–35
Table E–19. Sources examined for mill test reports and other construction information, other than
the (LERA) archives. .........................................................................................................E–36
Table E–20. Comparison of chemistry requirements for ASTM A 325 “Standard Specification for
High-Strength Bolts for Structural Steel Joints, including Suitable Nuts and Plain
Hardened Washers” between 1970 and 2002 standards.....................................................E–39
E–iii
Appendix E
This page intentionally left blank.
E–iv
Appendix E
INTERIM REPORT ON CONTEMPORANEOUS STRUCTURAL
STEEL SPECIFICATIONS
The purpose of Project 3, Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel, of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) World Trade Center (WTC) Investigation is to analyze
structural steel available from WTC 1, 2, and 7 for determining the metallurgical and mechanical
properties and quality of the metal, weldments, and connections, and providing these data to other
investigation projects. (For test plan details, see <http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htm#proj3>.)
The properties determined under this project will be used in two ways:
1. Properties will be correlated with the design requirements of the buildings to determine if the
specified steel was in place in the towers.
2. Properties will be supplied for other projects in the Investigation as input for models of
building performance.
E.1 SCOPE OF REPORT
This appendix describes the WTC tower structure and critical structural elements to be characterized in
Project 3. This includes the structural design and properties specified by the structural engineers for
columns, floor systems, and connections.
Contemporaneous (late 1960s era) specifications are described for various types and grades of steel
designated by the ASTM International, the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), and other
national and international organizations. It also includes information from numerous suppliers of the steel
for the structure. The structural steel for the towers was supplied through at least a dozen contracts to
suppliers and fabricators. Substantial understanding of the consistency, quality, and actual strength of the
steel (as opposed to specified minimum values) can be gained if the production practices and quality
control procedures used by the various steel suppliers are understood. Practices and data from the
numerous WTC steel suppliers have been investigated and are reported for both structural steel and
construction practices. In addition, this information has been used to estimate typical mechanical
property values for the many of the grades of steel. These typical values can serve as a guide for the
properties to be inserted into the finite element models of building performance and as a point of
comparison for actual properties measured on the recovered steel.
The appendix also includes a review of the standards and specifications used in welding the built-up
columns, and those used in the erection of the towers.
E–1
Appendix E
E.2 UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Yield strengths of the steels and the dimensions of the building are expressed in English units with metric
(SI) equivalents. The steels were specified to English unit-based ASTM standards, and the building was
built to foot and inch dimensions. ASTM standards differentiate between English and metric units by
denoting them with completely different designations and frequently by publishing them as separate
documents. This appendix uses English units for values that were contractually specified during the
construction (primarily component dimensions and steel strengths). Table E–1 shows the SI equivalents
of the common yield strength grades of steel.
Table E–1. Metric equivalents of common yield strengths.

ksi MPa
36 248
42 290
45 310
46 317
50 345
55 379
60 414
65 448
70 483
75 517
80 552
85 586
90 621
100 689
In reviewing some of the historical documents, NIST found ambiguities in the use of the measure “ton.”
NIST has assumed that in any source originating in the United States, a “ton” refers to 2,000 lb (i.e., a
short ton). For sources originating in Japan, NIST assumes that a “ton” refers to 1,000 kg (= 2,204.6 lb,
i.e., a metric ton). For any source originating in Great Britain, NIST assumes that a “ton” is 2,240 lb (a
“long” or U.K. ton) and that a “tonne” is 1,000 kg. In this appendix, all weights in tons are converted to
short tons (= 2,000 lb).
This appendix follows the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) convention and denotes yield strength
with the symbol Fy. The ASTM International uses the symbols YS (or YP) and Sy.
E.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
This appendix is based on three different types of sources. Open literature sources like journal and trade
magazine articles, books, historical standards, and publicly searchable databases comprise the first type.
The second type comprises personal interviews by NIST investigators with individuals and company
representatives, and information they provided voluntarily. Sources of information where NIST has
E–2
Interim Report on Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
entered into material release agreements with organizations or individuals comprise the third type.
Documents provided by Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA), which is the source of most of the
contemporaneous information on the construction of the buildings, is an example of the third type. This
archive has been useful in identifying the specific steels and standards used in the construction. Although
it is voluminous, the LERA archive does not include every document generated during the construction of
the towers. Section E.5.4 summarizes the search strategies for open literature information and provides
details on the companies and individuals contacted and the information they provided
This report identifies the type of source in the reference. For example, a reference to a book or other
publicly available document appears as (Smith 1968). The symbol † denotes a personal communication
to a NIST investigator, for example (Jones 2003 †). In the case of a source bound by a Material Transfer
Agreement, the symbol § appears in the reference, for example (Monti 1969 §). The reference lists
appear as Section E.7.
E.4 TOWER DESIGN – STRUCTURAL STEEL DOCUMENTS
E.4.1 Specification of Steel Grades (Minimum Yield Strength)
Specifications (ASTM, AISI, etc.) typically place limits on chemical composition or mechanical
properties or, most commonly, both. Various mechanical properties may be specified, such as tensile
strength, minimum yield strength, ductility, and toughness. Other material properties may not appear in a
specification, yet are critical in building design; the most important such property is perhaps the elastic
modulus, or stiffness, which does not appear in specifications because there is little variability among the
various steels.
In practice, the material property of greatest importance for characterizing a particular steel is the yield
strength (Fy). In the United States, steel is often referred to according to its yield strength; for example, a
“50 ksi steel” is steel with a minimum yield strength of 50,000 lb/in2. Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, &
Robertson (SHCR), structural engineers for the WTC towers, followed this convention, and the structural
engineering plans are marked with the minimum yield strength for each piece of structural steel.
E.4.2 Structural Overview
The WTC tower buildings had a frame-tube construction consisting of closely spaced perimeter columns
coupled to a rectangular service core (Fig. E–1). The buildings had a square footprint, 207 ft 2 in.
E–3
Appendix E
Central Core
Exterior Framed Tube Columns
Floor Slab
Technical Services
Sky Lobby
Technical Services
59 columns per side
Floor
Local Elevators Concrete SlabCovering Trough Decking
Sky Lobby Open Web Bar Joist

Technical Services
Express Elevators
Technical Services Air-conditioning Duct

Local Elevators Electric Duct
Plaza Level
Figure E–1. Schematic diagram of the tower structure.
(63.14 m) on a side with chamfered corners. From floor 9 to floor 107, the perimeter columns consisted
of closely spaced built-up box columns. The service core at the building center was approximately 87 ft
by 137 ft (26.5 m by 41.8 m) and connected to the perimeter columns by a floor panel system that
provided an essentially column-free office space, see Fig. E–2. In addition to showing the location of
perimeter and core columns, Fig. E–2 describes the column numbering scheme used to identify each
column on a given floor.
The WTC tower structural steel plans (SHCR 1967 §) point out the major structural elements of interest.
The main features of structural interest are the perimeter columns, the core columns and associated
framing, the trusses that supported the floors, and the connections between and within these elements. In
addition, a hat truss located within floors 107 to 110 tied the core to the perimeter columns and provided a
base for the television mast atop WTC 1 and support for a proposed mast atop WTC 2.
E–4
Source: McAllister 2002.
Figure E–2. WTC tower floor plan and column numbers.
The structural engineering plans provide the location, cross-sections, and grade of steel (i.e., required
minimum yield strength) for each of the thousands of structural elements in the buildings. In all, 14
different grades of steel were specified, ranging in yield strength from 36 ksi to 100 ksi. In addition to
yield strength requirements, Port of New York Authority (PONYA) documents provided by LERA
specified allowable steels using ASTM or other standards (details in Section E.5 in this report).
Requirements for bolts and welds are also given.
Perimeter Columns and Spandrels
Between floors 9 and 107, the perimeter structure consisted of closely spaced, built-up box columns.
Each building face consisted of 59 columns spaced at 40 in. (1.02 m). The columns were fabricated by
E–5
Appendix E
welding plates of steel to form an approximately 14 in. (0.36 m) square section (Fig. E–3). Adjacent
columns were interconnected at each floor level by deep spandrel plates, typically 52 in. (1.32 m) deep
(Fig. E–4).
Outer Web (Plate 2)

14.0 in.
Flange
(Plate 1) 11.0 in.
13.5 in.
Section at individual column
15.75 in. Inner Web (Plate 3)
Outside of building
40.0 in.
Splice Plates
Inside of building
Spandrel Plate (Plate 4)
Section at spandrel
Figure E–3. Cross-section of perimeter columns; sections with and without spandrels.
The perimeter columns were prefabricated into panels, typically three stories tall and three columns wide
(Fig. E–4). Heavy end, or “butt” plates with Fy = 50 ksi and 1.375 in. to 3 in. (3.5 mm to 7.6 mm) thick
were welded to the top and bottom of each column. Fillet welds were used inside the columns along three
edges, with a groove weld on the fourth, outside edge. During erection, abutting spandrels were bolted
together, and columns were bolted to the adjacent columns, all using ASTM A 325 bolts except for the
heaviest butt plates, which used ASTM A 490 bolts. Other than at the mechanical floors, panels were
staggered (Fig. E–5) so that only one third of the units were spliced (i.e., connected) in any one story. At
the mechanical floors (75 and 76 in the upper level of the buildings), however, every perimeter column
was spliced at the same level, floors 74 and 77. These splices were both welded and bolted.
E–6
Figure E–4. Characteristic perimeter column panel consisting of three full columns
connected by three spandrels.
Fourteen grades of steel were specified in the design documents for the perimeter columns, with
minimum yield strengths of (36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 100) ksi. Twelve
grades of steel were specified for the spandrels, with the same strength levels as the columns but without
the two highest strength steels. The structural engineering plans indicate that the flanges and webs of a
given column section consist of a single grade (i.e., minimum yield strength) of steel, but each column
and spandrel within a single prefabricated panel could be fabricated from different grades of steel.
Columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of lighter gage steel, as thin as 0.25 in. (6.35 mm),
with the grade of steel dictated by the calculated gravity and wind loads. In this manner the gravity load
on the lower stories was minimized. In the lower stories the perimeter column flanges were often more
than 2 in. (51 mm) thick.
The spandrels formed an integral part of the columns: there was no inner web plate at spandrel locations.
(Fig. E–3). Spandrels were generally specified with a yield strength lower than that of the column webs
and flanges, as well as a heavier gage than the adjacent inner webs.
E–7
Appendix E
Floor
Floor
Floor
Floor
Floor
Floor
Figure E–5. Partial elevation of exterior bearing-wall frame showing perimeter column
panel construction. Highlighted panel is three stories tall (36 ft) and spans four floors.
Distance between panels has been exaggerated.
Core Columns
Core columns were of two types: welded box columns and rolled wide flange (WF) shapes (Fig. E–6).
The columns in the lower floors were primarily very large box columns as large as 12 in. by 52 in.
(0.30 m by 1.32 m) composed of welded plates up to 7 in. (178 mm) thick. In the upper floors the
columns shifted to the rolled WF shapes. The transition floors are indicated in Fig. E–7 for each of the
core columns. Core columns were typically spliced at three-story intervals. The splices in the impact and
E–8
fire zones were at floors 75, 77, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 95, 98, and 101. Diagonal bracing was used at the
mechanical floors and in the area of the hat truss. Core box columns were 36 ksi or 42 ksi. Core wide
flange columns were specified to be one of four grades, but were primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steel; only
about 1 percent of all the core columns were made of 45 ksi or 50 ksi steel.
22.0 in.
1.31 in.
14.0 in.
1.50 in.
Column 504
22.0 in.
Column
15.0 in. 701
Columns 1001 1008

501 508
14WF730 4.91 in.

Columns 607 906 1.62 in. 14WF61
Column 705
14WF219 0.64 in.
22.44 in.
15.87 in.
13.91 in.
17.89 in. 15.825 in. 10.00 in.

Figure E–6. Typical welded box members and rolled wide flange shapes used for core
columns between floors 83 and 86 (to scale).
The core area was framed conventionally with beams. There were numerous openings in the core area
floor for elevators and stairwells. Since fewer elevators were needed at the upper floors, part of the core
area was not needed for services. In Fig. E–7, the dashed line shows the perimeter of the core, and shaded
areas indicate typical enclosed areas for elevators and other services.
E–9
Appendix E
502 Column #
83 Floor of transition from box to WF columns
WF Column
Box Column } Shape of column at 84th floor
Typical enclosed area for elevators and other services
501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508

83 83 83 86 86 83 83 83
601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608

80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708

83 7 75 <1 7 24 7 92
807
801 802 803 804 805 806 89
95 7 95 9 7 7
901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908

89 48 80 77 86 48 48 48
1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008

80 77 77 86 86 77 77 80
Figure E–7. Core column layout in WTC towers.
Flooring System
In the great majority of floors, the floor area outside the central core was supported by a series of 29 in.
(0.74 m) deep, composite open web bar joists (“floor trusses”) that spanned between the core and
perimeter wall (see Fig. E–8). At the core, the floor trusses were bolted to seats generally attached to
channels that ran continuously along the core columns. At the perimeter columns, the floor trusses were
bolted and then welded to seats, mounted on spandrels at every other column. The floor trusses were
approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) or 35 ft (10.7 m) long (depending upon the relative orientation of the
building core), spaced at 6 ft 8 in. (2.0 m). There were of dozens of variants.
E–10
Source: McAllister 2002.
Figure E–8. Schematic diagram of a floor truss.
The prefabricated floor modules were typically 20 ft (6.1 m) wide, containing two sets of doubled trusses
in the interior and a single truss along each edge. Thus, each seat supported either a double truss within a
floor panel, or two single trusses from adjacent floor panels. In addition, the bottom chord of each pair of
trusses was attached to perimeter spandrels with visco-elastic dampers. Bridging trusses ran
perpendicular to the main bar trusses and were spaced at 13 ft 4 in. (4.06 m). The floor panels were
covered with a corrugated steel floor deck that rested on the bridging trusses. Flutes in the deck ran
parallel to the main trusses. Once in place, 4 in. (100 mm) of lightweight concrete was poured for the
floor. Figure E–4 shows an assembled floor panel before the concrete floor was poured.
E–11
Appendix E
The minimum yield strength of the steel for the floor trusses was specified to be 50 ksi “unless otherwise
noted.” In practice, several of the designs specified 36 ksi steel as well as 50 ksi steel (see Section E.5.2
for complete details).
All seats were specified to be of 36 ksi minimum yield strength. There were over 30 varieties of
perimeter seats, with various thicknesses from 3/8 in. to 7/8 in. in 1/8 in. increments (9.5 mm to 22.2 mm
in 3.2 mm increments). Core seats were 7/16 in., 1/2 in., 5/8 in., or 3/4 in. thick (11.1 mm, 12.7 mm,
15.9 mm, or 19 mm).
The floor in the core area was typically framed with rolled structural steel shapes acting compositely with
formed concrete slabs. Certain floors outside the core were also supported by rolled structural steel
shapes rather than trusses. These included the mechanical floors and the floors just above the mechanical
floors (e.g., floors 75, 76, and 77). Beam framing was typically W271 beams in the long span region and
W16 beams in the short direction with beams spaced at 40 in. The floor was 5.75 in. thick, normal-
weight concrete poured on a 1.5 in. fluted steel deck, acting compositely with the steel beams. The
concrete on the beam-framed floors above the mechanical floors was 8 in. thick, normal-weight concrete
in the core area and 7.75 in. thick normal-weight concrete outside the core.
Floors 107 to 110
At the top of each tower (floor 107 to the roof), a hat truss interconnected the core columns (Fig. E–9).
Diagonals of the hat truss were typically W12 or W14 wide flange members. In addition, four diagonal
braces (18 in. by 26 in. box beams spanning the 35 ft gap, and 18 in. by 30 in. box beams spanning the
60 ft gap) and four horizontal floor beams connected the hat truss to each perimeter wall at floor 108
spandrel. The hat truss was designed to provide a base for antennae atop each tower, although only the
WTC 1 antenna was actually built.
Perimeter columns for floors 107 to 110 also differed from the lower floors, and were alternating small
tube columns or wide flange columns, with the wide flange columns supporting the floor system.
Impact Zone
The impact zones of the two towers are of particular interest, and special testing of the steels in this region
will be conducted. High strain-rate mechanical tests and high-temperature mechanical property tests will
focus on those steels most prominent in the impact zones, as indicated below.
In WTC 1, the perimeter columns torn out or otherwise damaged by the airplane impact (as judged from
photographs of the building) were predominantly specified as 55 ksi and 60 ksi steel. In WTC 2, most
damaged columns were specified in the 55 ksi to 65 ksi range, though there was a wide range of steel
1
The “W” in W27 beam denotes the shape of the beam, which is like the letter “H” (see Figure E–6). The number following the
“W” is the nominal depth of the beam in inches. The second number denotes the weight of the beam in pounds per foot. A
W27 by 114 beam is 27.28 in. high and weighs 114 lb/ft. W shapes should not be confused with HP (sometimes called H)
shapes. Like W shapes, HP shapes have flanges with parallel faces, but unlike W shapes, the webs and flanges of HP shapes
have equal thickness. The common I-beam is denoted as an S shape, which differs from a W shape in that the flange faces are
not parallel. Instead, the inside flange surface has a slope of 1/6.
E–12
Source: McAllister 2002:Fig. 2-10; Leslie Robertson Associates.
Figure E–9. Hat truss in upper floors.
E–13
Appendix E
grades involved. Table E–2 summarizes the steel grades in the perimeter columns damaged by the
impact. In the table, the impact zone is defined as floors 94–98 in WTC 1 and floors 78–83 in WTC 2.
Table E–2. Number of WTC 1 and WTC 2 perimeter columns damaged by aircraft impact.
Column Design Minimum Yield Strength Fy (ksi)

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 100
WTC 1 3 27 17 5 - - - - - -
WTC 2 1 6 13 16 2 1 1 - 2 1
Although the extremities of the airplanes extended onto surrounding floors, these are the floors over
which the airplanes penetrated into the buildings.
The number of core columns damaged by the impact is not known. In the WTC 1 impact zone, the core
columns were almost entirely wide flange shapes. In the WTC 2 impact zone, the core columns were a
mix of box and wide flange shapes. As is typical of all core columns, the steel was predominantly
specified as 36 ksi and 42 ksi minimum yield strength. Table E–3 describes the distribution of core
column types in the impact zones.
Table E–3. Number of core columns with a given minimum yield strength within the
floors penetrated by the aircraft.
Column Yield Strength Fy (ksi)
Type WTC 1 (floors 94 to 98) WTC 2 (floors 78 to 83)
36 42 45 50 36 42 45 50
Box 0 3 - - 38 15 - -
Wide flange 88 44 3 3 81 6 0 1
Note: Core columns were three stories tall and were spliced at floors 77, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 95, and 98. The splice is
several feet above the floor at the story indicated. Therefore, in the WTC 1 impact zone there were three sets comprising
141 individual columns.
Floors Involved in Post-Impact Fires
Special attention will be given to characterizing the performance of the structural steel found in floors
engaged in the post-impact fires. The steels most vulnerable to heat from the fires were located in the
zone damaged by the impact since those members were already under additional loads. Table E–4 lists
the perimeter column types and grades of steel within these floors, defined here as floors 92 to 100 for
WTC 1, and floors 77 to 83 for WTC 2. Table E–5 lists this information for the core columns.
Table E–4. Number of perimeter columns of specified grades in floors with

significant fire.
Perimeter Column Design Minimum Yield Strength Fy (ksi)
Floors 45 46 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 100
WTC 1 92 to 100 0 1 26 225 246 196 122 83 40 16 7 16
WTC 2 77 to 83 1 3 34 217 255 88 29 25 26 40 91 105
E–14
Table E–5. Number of core columns of specified grades in floors with

significant fire.
Column Yield Strength Fy (ksi)
Type WTC 1 (floors 92 to 100) WTC 2 (floors 77 to 83)
36 42 45 50 36 42 45 50
Box 0 7 - - 69 16 - -
Wide flange 115 58 3 5 86 13 1 3
E.5 CONTEMPORANEOUS STEEL SPECIFICATIONS
This section integrates information from many sources on the steels used in the WTC and has three
primary goals. First, contemporaneous (1960s era) American and Japanese steel specifications are
summarized. Second, relevant information on steel properties from the construction documents and open
literature sources is presented. Finally, estimated values for typical yield and tensile strengths and
elongations for the numerous steels in the buildings are given (as opposed to the specified minimum
values).
The first and second goals are approached from several directions. As is common practice, the structural
engineering plans (obtained from LERA) only specify the minimum yield strengths and dimensions of the
beams and columns. The steel contracts that the Port Authority (PONYA 1967, Ch. 2 §) awarded for the
fabrication provided the specifications for the allowable steels to meet those minimum yield strengths.
Those contracts allowed the fabricators to use steels that conformed to certain ASTM Standard
Specifications. In addition, the contracts also permitted the fabricators to use certain proprietary steels
from U.S. steel mills. These were required to conform to specific, dated and published data sheets that
the steel mills provided. Finally, the contracts also allowed other proprietary steels not listed in the
contract, provided that the Port Authority chief engineer of the project reviewed and formally approved
their specifications (PONYA 1967, Clause 1). In all cases, the steels required extensive documentation to
be acceptable for use.
Regarding the third goal, the best documentation of typical steel properties is contained in the mill test
reports that detail the properties (Fy, tensile strength, elongation, chemistry, etc.) of the individual steel
plates and shapes for the steels supplied. During late 2002 and early 2003, NIST investigators contacted
the fabricating companies still in existence, their successors where possible, or in many cases their former
employees, in a search for these mill test reports for steels used in the fire and impact zone, as well as
other documents. None of the individuals or corporations retained these records. Section E.5.4
summarizes these contacts. The sources for steel properties NIST has obtained to date sometimes supply
inconsistent values for the properties, so this report is a best effort to supply the steel properties.
This section focuses on the steels used in the area of the impact and fire: the floor panels, the perimeter
columns, the welded core box columns, and the rolled core columns, fabricated by Laclede, Pacific Car &
Foundry, Stanray Pacific, and Montague-Betts, respectively. It does not consider any of the sections of
the buildings remote from the impact and fire sites, so fabricators of sections below the 9th floor (Mosher,
Drier, Levinson, Pittsburgh-Des Moines, and Atlas) are not addressed, although Attachment 1 provides
some background information on these companies.
E–15
Appendix E
In this document, “contemporaneous” refers to the standards in effect at the time of construction, in
contrast to contemporary (or present-day) standards. ASTM standards are modified and renewed at
regular intervals, so the current requirements of a standard may not have been in force during the WTC
era. This distinction is also important because historical versions of standards can be difficult to locate.
Attachment 2 summarizes the generally minor differences between the contemporaneous and
contemporary versions of the relevant standards.
E.5.1 Standards Called for in the Steel Contracts
The Port Authority had a generic contract that listed allowable steel standard specifications, which went
to all the fabricators. Generally, it specified that a given steel was acceptable for use if it conformed to
one of a list of ASTM standards that were in force during September 1967. It also allowed several steels
that were modifications of these ASTM standards. In addition, it allowed a number of proprietary steels
made by U.S. steel mills. Finally, it allowed the use of other proprietary steels after formal approval by
the Project Engineer, an employee of PONYA. It was by this last method that Pacific Car and Foundry
(PC&F) received approval to use the Japanese steels in the perimeter columns.
It is important to remember that an ASTM standard can admit a wide variety of steel compositions and
strengths. A specific steel might be capable of meeting several distinct ASTM steel standards. For
instance, in the WTC construction era, ASTM A 36 only specified a minimum 36 ksi yield strength, an
upper and lower tensile strength and carbon, manganese, silicon, phosphorus, and sulfur contents. Many
high-strength low-alloy steels designed to meet other ASTM structural steel standards (e.g., A 572,
A 242) will also meet A 36. Simply identifying a specific steel as meeting a given ASTM standard will
not uniquely identify its composition or mechanical properties.
In terms of shapes and tolerances, all the steel was required to meet ASTM A 6, “General Requirements
for Delivery of Rolled Steel Plates…”
Steels
Table E–6 summarizes the allowable steels listed in the contract (in “Chapter 2 (Materials)”) between the
Port Authority and all the fabricators. Note that it does not list ASTM A 572, a common, current standard
for niobium-vanadium structural steels, which was established only in 1966. The proprietary steels
allowed by the contract do include U.S.S. EX-TEN and Bethlehem V-series, however. These steels
would conform to ASTM A 572, which was under development in that era. Tables E–7 and E–8
summarize the relevant structural steel specifications from the WTC construction era, including data on
the various “modified” standards allowed in the Materials chapter of the fabricators’ contracts.
Although Japanese steel mills supplied much of the steel, NIST has found no evidence that PONYA or
the fabricators ever referred to any Japanese standards. Table E–9 summarizes the relevant Japanese
Industrial Standard (JIS) from the era. They not as detailed as the corresponding ASTM steel standards,
and mostly just specify minimum yield strength and maximum carbon content.
E–16
Table E–6. Steels specified as acceptable by PONYA in its contract with steel fabricators.
Standard Fy (ksi) Description of Standard
Structural Steels
A 36 36 Structural steel
A 242 50 High-strength structural steel
A 440 50 High-strength structural steel
A 441 50 High-strength manganese vanadium steel
a
A 441 modified 50 As A 441 with Cr and increased Cu
A 514 100 Quenched and tempered alloy steel plate for welding
A 514 Modified 100 As A 514, but TS requirements waived
USS CON PAC Grades 70 and 80
Bethlehem V series Grades 42, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65
Lukens Grades 45, 50, 55, 60, 80
USS EX-TEN Grades 42,45,50,55, 60, 65, 70
USS COR-TEN “considered to conform to A 441 modified”
Lukens COR-TEN “considered to conform to A 441 modified”
Pressure Vessel Steels
A 302 Manganese molybdenum steel for pressure vessels
A 302 modified
A 533 Mn-Mo and Mn-Mo-Ni steels for pressure vessels
A 533 modified
A 542 Cr-Mo steel for pressure vessels
a. Apparently (Irving 1968) “A 441 modified” was a catch-all term for a group of steels that were codified in 1968 under ASTM
A 588 “High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel with 50,000 psi Minimum Yield Point to 4 in. Thick.”
Key: Cr, chromium; Cu, copper; Mn, manganese; Mo, molybdenum; Ni, nickel; TS, tensile strength.
E–17
Appendix E
Table E–7. Summary of mechanical properties from relevant ASTM International

structural steel standards from WTC era.
Fy TS TS Elong
Min. Min. Max. Min.
Standard Title (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (%) Notes
a
A 36-66 Structural steel 36 58 80 20 For shapes; plates have higher C, Mn,
and Si requirements
A 242-66a High-strength low-alloy structural 50 70 18 Plates and bars t <= 0.75 in.; Group
steel 1&2 shapes
A 440-67a High-strength structural steel 50 70 18 Plates and bars t <= 0.75 in.; Group
1&2 shapes
A 440-67a High-strength structural steel 46 67 19 Plates and bars 0.75 in. < t <=1.5 in.;
Group 3 shapes; elongation reductions
based for t > 0.75 in.
A 440-67a High-strength structural steel 42 63 16 Plates and bars 1.5 in. < t <=4 in.;
Group 4&5 shapes.; elongation
reductions for t > 3.5 in.
A 441-66a High-strength low-alloy structural 50 70 18 Plates and bars t <= 0.75 in.; Group
manganese vanadium steel 1&2 shapes
A 441- As A 441, but modified by PONYA 50 70 19 Plates & bars 0.75 in.<= t<= 4 in.;
modifieda Group 1,2,3 shapes
A 441-66a High-strength low-alloy structural 46 67 19 Plates and bars 0.75 in. < t <=1.5 in.;
manganese vanadium steel Group 3 shapes.; elongation
minimums relaxed for t > 0.75 in.
A 441-66a High-strength low-alloy structural 42 63 16 Plates and bars 1.5 in. < t <= 4 in.;
manganese vanadium steel Group 4&5 shapes
A 441-66a High-strength low-alloy structural 40 60 Plates and bars 4 in. < t <= 8 in.;
manganese vanadium steel elongations on 2 in. GL
A 514-65a High-yield-strength, quenched and 100 115 135 18 t <= 0.75 in.
tempered alloy steel plate, suitable for
welding
A 514-65a High-yield-strength, quenched and 100 115 135 18 0.75 in. < t <= 2.5 in.
welding
A 514-65a High-yield-strength, quenched and 90 105 135 17 2.5 in. < t <= 4 in.
welding
A 514- 100 x x See As A 514, but TS waived in PONYA
modifieda std. steel contract
A 529-64 Structural steel with 42 ksi minimum 42 60 85 19
yield point
A 572-70 High strength low-alloy columbium 50 65 18 6 grades: Fy = (42 45 50 55 60 65) ksi;
vanadium steels of structural quality different C contents
A 573-70 Structural carbon steel plates of 35 65 77 20 2 grades 65 ksi or 70 ksi TS
improved toughness
A 588-70 High-strength low-alloy structural 50 70 18 9 chemistries
steel with 50 ksi minimum yield point
to 4 in. thick
a. Allowed by PONYA Steel contract, Chapter 2 “Materials.”
Key: C, carbon; Elong, elongation to failure; Fy, specified minimum yield strength; Mn, manganese; Si, silicon;
TS, tensile strength.
E–18
Table E–8. Summary of chemistry data from relevant ASTM International structural steel
standards from WTC era.
Chemistry (%)
C Mn Si V Cu P S
Standard Max. Max. Max. Ni Cr Min. Min. Max. Max. Other/Notes
A 36-66 shapes 0.26 NR NR 0.2 0.04 0.05 Cu where specified
A36-66 plates with 0.25 NR NR 0.04 0.05 Cu where specified

t≤0.75 in.
A36-66 plates with 0.25 0.8-1.2 NR 0.04 0.05 Cu where specified
0.75 in. <t≤1.5 in
A36-66 plates with 0.26 0.8-1.2 0.15-0.3 0.04 0.05 Cu where
1.5 in. <t≤2.5 in specifieda
A 242-66 0.22 1.25 0.05 Type 1
A 242-66 0.15 1.40 0.05 Type 2
A 440-67 0.28 1.1-1.6 0.3 0.2 0.06 0.05
A 441-66 0.22 0.85-1.25 0.3 0.02 0.2 0.04 0.05
A 441-modified 0.19 0.85-1.25 0.15-0.3 0.4-0.65 0.02 0.25-0.4 0.04 0.05
A 441-66 0.22 0.85-1.25 0.3 0.02 0.2 0.04 0.05

A 514-65 8 individual
chemistries, with
Cr, Mo, B
A 529-64 0.27 1.2 0.2 0.04 0.05
A 572-70 0.22 1.35 0.3 0.04 0.05 4 variants with Nb

or Va or Nb+Va,
or V+N
A 573-70 0.24 0.85-1.25 0.15-0.30 0.04 0.05
A 588-70 9 individual
chemistries,
generally with Cr,
Ni, V, Nb
a. A 36 plates have different requirements for thicker sections that include higher carbon allowables and slightly different
manganese requirements.
Key: B, boron; C, carbon; Cr, chromium; Cu, copper; Mn, manganese; Mo, molybdenum; Nb, niobium; Ni, nickel; NR, no
requirement; P, phosphorus; Si, silicon; S, sulfur; V, vanadium.
E–19
Appendix E
Table E–9. Summary of Japan Industrial Standard structural steel standards from 1974.
Fy TS TS C Mn Si Cu P S
Min. Min. Max. Max. Max. Max. Cr Min. Max. Max.
Standard Grade (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Other
JISG3106-73 Rolled SM50a 45 71 88 0.20 1.5 0.55 0.04 0.04 Add any element
Steel for Welded “if necessary”
Structure
SM50b 45 71 88 0.18 0.04 0.04 Add any element
SM50c “if necessary”
SM50Ya 51 71 88 0.20 1.5 0.55 0.04 0.04 Add any element

SM50Yb “if necessary”
SM53b 51 75 92 Add any element

SM53c “if necessary”
SM58 65 82 104 0.18 1.5 0.55 0.04 0.04
JIS G3114-73 Hot SMA50a 51 71 88 0.19 1.4 0.75 0.3–1.2 0.2–0.7 0.04 0.04 + Mo or Nb or Ni
Rolled Atmospheric SMA50b or Ti or V or Zr
Corrosion Resistant SMA50c
Steel for Welded
Structure SMA58b 65 82 104 0.19 1.4 0.75 0.3–1.2 0.2–0.7 0.04 0.04 +Mo, Ni, Nb, Ti,
Va and or Zr
JIS G3101-73 Rolled SS55 57 78 0.30 1.6 0.04 0.04 Add any element
Steel for General "if necessary"
Structure
SS50 40 71 88 0.05 0.05
Key: C, carbon; Cr, chromium; Cu, copper; Fy, yield strength; JIS, Japan Industrial Standard; Mo, molybdenum; Nb, niobium;
Ni, nickel; P, phosphorus; Si, silicon; S, sulfur; Ti, titanium; TS, tensile strength; V, vanadium; Zr, zirconium.
Note: Compositions are given as mass fractions. Thickness range for all standards is 16 mm< t < 40 mm.
Source: World Steel Standards, Handbook of Comparative (1974).
Fasteners
Section E.6 covers fastener standards in the section on connections (bolts and welds).
E.5.2 Steels Used in Construction
Information from the suppliers and fabricators was used to identify the specific steels supplied to meet
those contractual requirements. Table E–10 and Attachment 1 provide background information on the
various fabricators of WTC steel, including tons of steel reported in their contracts. The rest of this
section summarizes information on the steels used in the impact and fire zones of the towers.
Floor Trusses
Laclede Steel manufactured the trusses for the composite floor panels for both WTC 1 and WTC 2 from
steel they made and rolled at their mill in Alton, Illinois. The chords were fabricated from hot-rolled
angles, while the web was fabricated from hot-rolled round bar, Fig. E–10.
E–20
Table E–10. Steel companies involved in WTC construction and their contracts.
Fabricator Current Status Component Tons
Pacific Car & Foundry, Co. Sold in 1974 Exterior columns and spandrels 55,800
Montague Betts, Co. Inc No longer a steel Rolled columns and beams above 9th 25,900
fabricator floor
Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Bifurcation columns (“trees”) 4th to 9th 6,800
Co. floor
Atlas Machine & Iron Works No longer in business Box columns below the bifurcation 13,600
columns to 4th floor
Mosher Steel Co. Currently active Core box columns below the 9th floor 13,000
Stanray Pacific Corp. Closed in 1971 Core box columns above the 9th floor 31,100
Levinson Steel Co. Sold in 1997, parent Supports for slabs below grade 12,000
company in bankruptcy
Laclede Steel Co. Bankrupt in 2001, new Floor trusses Unknown
owners of rolling mill
Drier Structural Steel Co, Inc. Unknown Grillages Unknown
Total 141,170
Source: Feld 1971.
Figure E–10. Schematic diagram of the stress-strain behavior of a structural steel.
E–21
Appendix E
According to internal Laclede documents (Bay 1968 †), the top chord angles, as well as most round bars,
were fabricated to meet ASTM A 242 (Fy = 50 ksi). Only 1.09 in. (27.7 mm) and 1 13/16 in. (46.0 mm)
round bars and the bottom chord angles were specified as ASTM A 36. Conversations with Laclede
metallurgists (Brown 2002 †) active during the WTC construction revealed that even for components
specified as ASTM A 36, Laclede would have supplied a vanadium, micro-alloyed steel with a typical
Fy = 50 ksi, similar to a contemporary A 572 steel. In all the Laclede documents NIST examined, there
were only two different mill test reports on A 242 steel, both from mid-1969; see Table E–11. These mill
test reports indicate that the A 242 steel supplied is a niobium-containing steel similar to modern ASTM
A 572 steels with yield points that exceed the specified minimum by about 10 ksi.
Table E–11. Properties of Laclede ASTM A 242 steels obtained from Laclede mill
test reports.
Fy Element Composition (%)
Component (ksi) C Mn P S V Nb Source
2 in. by 1.5 in. by 0.25 in. bulb 62.8 0.20 0.86 0.014 0.044 NR 0.020 (Kamper 1968 †)
angle heat 83033
3 in. by 2 in. by 0.25 in. bulb 60.1 0.19 0.77 0.013 0.043 NR 0.015 (Kamper 1968 †)
angle heat 83162
1.14 in. rod heat 76056 54 0.19 0.80 0.005 0.024 NR NR (White1969b †)
2 tests
Key: C, carbon; Mn, manganese; Nb, niobium; NR, not reported; P, phosphorous; S, sulfur; V, vanadium.
Note: Compositions are reported % mass fractions.
The perimeter wall columns, fabricated by PC&F, comprise three important sub assemblies: the columns,
the spandrels, and the truss seats. The structural engineering plans called for the columns to be fabricated
from 14 grades of steel with Fy = (36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 100) ksi. Above
floor 75, more than half of the columns have yield strengths greater than or equal to 55 ksi and less than
or equal to 70 ksi. The spandrels were fabricated from 12 grades of steel with Fy = (36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55,
60, 65, 70, 75, 80, and 85) ksi. The truss seats were specified to be fabricated from steel with Fy = 36 ksi
minimum.
Yawata Iron and Steel Co. supplied most of the steel to PC&F for the perimeter columns and spandrels.
In general, the exterior (or web) and side (or flange) plates of each column and the spandrels were
fabricated from Japanese steel, and the inner web plate (plate 3, see Fig. E–3) was fabricated from
domestic steel (Symes 1969a §; White 1969a §). Searches of archival material yielded no information on
the steels for the truss seats beyond the fact that they were specified as Fy = 36 ksi.
A contemporaneous Yawata document (Yawata 1969 †) indicates that Yawata shipped 46,000 metric tons
of WEL-TEN 60, 60R, 62, 70, and 80 to PC&F. That document refers to WEL-TEN 80, rather than
WEL-TEN 80C, which is a Yawata steel with a different chemistry, but identical yield strength. The
document certainly must actually mean WEL-TEN 80C, because all other sources, including other
Yawata sources, that mention WEL-TEN steels refer to WEL-TEN 80C. Most sources, for instance, Feld
(1971), put the PC&F contract at 55,800 tons. Assuming the Yawata document (1969 †) refers to metric
tons, that would still leave a minimum of 5,100 tons from other sources. The inner web plate (plate 3,
Fig. E–3) represents about 12 percent of the total area of a perimeter column panel. The 5,100 tons
E–22
unaccounted for in the Yawata contract is not inconsistent with the assertion that the inner web was
usually fabricated from domestic steel, while the remaining plates were fabricated from Yawata steel.
Several sources (ENR 1967; Monti 1967a §; White 1967a §; Feld 1967a §) indicate that Kawasaki Steel
also supplied PC&F, but apparently only 36 ksi grade (Feld 1967a §). Ronald Symes (2002 †), PC&F
chief engineer, could not remember any other foreign steel suppliers other than Kawasaki. However, the
fabricators only interacted with the Japanese import companies rather than with the steel mills directly.
Mitsui (now Mitsui USA) imported the Japanese steel for PC&F. Because the flanges and spandrels are
the primary structural components of the perimeter columns, and they were all fabricated from Yawata
steel, the properties of the perimeter columns can be based on the mechanical properties of the Yawata
steels.
During the 1960s Yawata produced a number of named, proprietary grades (such as WEL-TEN and
YAW-TEN series) of weldable steels with specified minimum properties. Several of these named grades
supplied to PC&F (WEL-TEN 60, WEL-TEN 62, WEL-TEN 80C) are common in the contemporaneous
literature, and open literature publications (Ito 1965a, Ito 1965b; Goda 1964) describe many of their
physical and mechanical properties other than specified minimum strength quite extensively. For two of
the named, proprietary grades that Yawata supplied to PC&F (WEL-TEN 60R and WEL-TEN 70), NIST
has been unable to find corroborating specifications or mechanical property data, even in consultation
with Nippon Steel. It is possible that these names were assigned simply for convenience for the WTC
construction. Chemically, WEL-TEN 60, 60R and 62 are similar to contemporary ASTM A 588, with
their Cr additions and high silicon contents, though none would meet that specification exactly.
WEL-TEN 60, 62, and 70 are heat-treated steels, while WEL-TEN 60R is a hot-rolled steel.
WEL-TEN 80C is a Cr-Mo steel that is very similar to contemporary A 514 steels, and possibly could
have been manufactured to meet that contemporary specification. According to PC&F documents (Symes
1967c §), Yawata intended to supply grades that would meet the “ASTM A 441-modified” specification
(see Table E–7) of PONYA for the lower strength column plates. From the proposed specification, these
“A 441-modified” compositions were similar to contemporary A 588 steels, with their added Cr and use
of Nb for strengthening. Their chemistries do not correspond to any other named grade of Yawata steel,
for example WEL-TEN 50, WEL-TEN 55, YES 36, YES 40 or YAW-TEN 50. For the intermediate
strength plates (55 ksi, 60 ksi, and 65 ksi), Yawata intended to furnish heat-treated WEL-TEN grades for
the thicker sections and the hot-rolled “A 441 modified” grades for the thinner sections. Tables E–12 and
E–13 summarize these specifications and representative properties, obtained from a variety of documents.
Note that not all the sources agree on yield strength or chemistries, probably because Yawata could tailor
the steels for specific applications. The entries at the top of the table are for the steels that a PC&F memo
(Symes 1967c §) mentions, while the bottom entries detail representative data culled from many literature
sources for all grades of Yawata weldable steels.
NIST has located a total of six mill test reports (tests performed at the Yawata rolling mill) describing
135 plates (Symes 1969b §; Barkshire 1969a §; White 1969c §) of Yawata steels: two for Fy = 75 ksi, one
for Fy = 70 ksi, two for Fy = 50 ksi, and one for Fy = 45 ksi. When the originals were microfilmed after
the construction was completed, the technician did not rotate the landscape pages into portrait orientation,
so the sheets only show the measured yield point, tensile strength and elongation, but not chemistry. For
each steel, the measured yield strength of the plates increases with decreasing thickness. The thickest
WEL-TEN 62 plates (t = 1.5 in.) plates typically have yield strengths 5 ksi higher than the specified yield
strength. The thinnest plates (t = 0.375 in.) have yield strengths 15 ksi to 20 ksi higher than the stated
E–23
Table E–12. Specified properties for Yawata contemporaneous steel grades.
Appendix E
E–24
Table E–13. Reported properties for Yawata contemporaneous steel grades.
E–25
Appendix E
yield strength. For the lower strength plates (Fy = 45 ksi and Fy = 50 ksi) the measured yield strength
increases less rapidly with decreasing thickness: to a first approximation, their strength is independent of
thickness. They average 7.4 ksi and 11.8 ksi higher than the specified yield strength, respectively.
Contemporaneous documents indicate that PC&F also purchased V-series (White 1968a §; 2003 †) and
modified V-series plate from Bethlehem Steel (Symes 1967a §), EX-TEN and modified EX-TEN from
U.S. Steel (Symes 1967a §; White 2003 †; Barkshire 1968a §), and various Kaisaloy grades (Barkshire
1968b §) from Kaiser steel, for use in the interior plates. The inner plate (plate 3, see Figure E–3) is
usually half the thickness of the flange plates, and never exceeds 15/16 in. thick, and so represents at most
5 percent of the mass of steel in the entire contract. Status reports from mid-1968 indicate that PC&F
phased out U.S. Steel and Kaiser and replaced them with Bethlehem as the only domestic
supplier (Barkshire 1968c §). Presumably most of the inner web plates (plate 3) in the columns (see
Fig. E–3) near the impact floors were made from hot-rolled Bethlehem V-series steels. Table E–14
summarizes the properties of the V-series (Alloy Digest 1970) and modified V-series
steels (Symes 1967b §).
In summary, NIST has extensive data from open literature sources for properties other than chemistry and
yield strength for the 65 ksi WEL-TEN 60, the 70 ksi WEL-TEN 62, and the 100 ksi WEL-TEN 80C.
Properties for the “A 441-modified” grades and for WEL-TEN 70 and WEL-TEN 60R must be estimated
theoretically, from accepted literature values for plate steels, or experimentally from tests on recovered
steels.
Core (Welded Box Columns)
Stanray Pacific Corp. fabricated the welded core columns in both buildings above floor 9. The plans
called for two grades of steel with 36 ksi and 42 ksi minimum yield strengths. Contemporaneous Stanray
Pacific documents (Morris 1967 §; Warner 1967 §) indicate that Stanray Pacific purchased nearly all the
steel plate for the core columns from two sources. The 10,240 tons from Colvilles Ltd. (Dalzell Works,
Motherwell, Scotland) and 21,760 tons from Fuji Iron and Steel (Hirohata Works). The total of
32,000 tons is close to the 31,100 tons that Feld (1971) reported in his Civil Engineering article that
summarizes the construction of the WTC towers. It is likely, then, that these two mills supplied nearly all
the steel for the welded core columns. Telephone conversations with M. McKnight (2003 †), formerly
with the British Steel Export Association, which imported the steel to the United States, confirmed
Colvilles as a supplier to Stanray Pacific.
The same document (Warner 1967 §) that details the major suppliers, indicates that Fuji Steel supplied all
plates thinner than 1.75 in. Both mills supplied plates with t≥1.75 in., but even there, Fuji supplied about
60 percent of the total mass of steel used. In the fire and impact floors of WTC 1 (floor 94 to floor 98),
only three of the columns are welded, box columns, and all three are made from plate thinner than 1.75 in.
In the fire and impact floors of WTC 2 (floor 78 to floor 84) only 9 of 52 welded box columns are made
from plate 1.75 in. or thicker. In terms of steel properties for modeling, then, the columns can be modeled
with the properties of the Fuji-supplied plates alone. NIST has located a mill test report for a single Fuji
Steel A 36 plate (Morris 1969 §), and a third-party chemical analysis of a Colvilles A 36
plate (Walton 1968 §) (Table E–15). Other than these, NIST has located no other mill records. See
Table E–16 for the search details.
E–26
Table E–14. Mechanical properties of U.S. Steel and Bethlehem V-series steels.
E–27
Appendix E
Table E–15. Chemistry and mechanical property data for a Fuji Steel plate and a Colvilles
plate used for core columns.
Fy TS Elong C Mn Si Ni Cr V Cu P S
Description (ksi) (ksi) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Other Source
12.6 ton A 36 plate 38.4 64.9 32 0.2 0.96 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.013 0.008 (a)
3 in. by 65.5 in. by
453.75 in. Rolled at
Hirohata works, Fuji Steel;
tested August 5, 1969.
Chemical analysis of a 6 in. ND ND ND 0.2 0.99 0.3 0.2 <0.01 0.005 0.2 0.017 0.035 0.01 Mo, (b)
by 52 in. by 18 ft 0.75 in. 0.02 Co
Colvilles A 36 plate Heat
H218 Slab 1804H by
Materials Testing
Laboratory, Los Angeles,
CA, February 2, 1968.
a. Morris 1969.
b. Walton 1969.
Key: C, carbon; Cr, chromium; Cu, copper; Elong, elongation to failure; Fy, specified minimum yield strength; ND, not determined;
Mn, manganese; Ni, nickel; P, phosphorus; S, sulfur; Si, silicon; TS, tensile strength; V, vanadium.
Note: Compositions expressed as mass fractions.
Table E–16. Databases searched for WTC information.

Database Query Earliest year covered
Cambridge Scientific Databases: Yawata 1966 (Metadex)
Metadex, Weldasearch World Trade Center 1967 (Weldasearch)
OCLC FirstSearch Search for steel periodicals—used to identify 19th century
Database: WorldCat possible additional sources of information
Search for library holdings of
contemporaneous steel catalogs. Also
searched on Alibris for used steel data sheets.
American Society of Civil World Trade Center, Yawata, Stanray, Pacific 1973
Engineers Database Car and Foundry: no useful information
www.pubs.asce.org
The LERA archives contain several examples of steel substitutions from other mills. Because the sum of
the Colvilles and Fuji contracts, 32,000 tons (Warner 1967 §), is larger than the PONYA value of the
contract, 31,100 tons (Feld 1971), these were probably isolated, uncommon occurrences. They are not
relevant for estimating steel properties. The documents were probably retained because they documented
substitutions that required authorization by PONYA. These records include mill test reports for a single
A 7 plate purchased from Crest Steel and rolled by Nippon Kokan Steel (Fukuyama, Japan)
(Tarkan 1969 §) and eight A 36 plates with 3.25 in.>t>7.25 purchased from Lukens Steel (Morris
1969b §). A report (Yamada 1967 §) of the first shipment of plates from Japan lists the plates as being
A 36 and A 572 grade 42. The appearance of A 572 is notable, because it is not listed in the PONYA
steel contract list of steels that could be used without requesting formal approval. The document is not a
mill test report, however, so it not completely certain that the 42 ksi plates were actually supplied to
A 572. It is also possible that documents authorizing the use of steels meeting A 572 have not survived.
E–28
Core (Rolled Wide flange Shapes)
Montague-Betts Steel fabricated all the rolled WF shapes for the core columns as well as all the beams in
both towers above floor 9. These rolled shapes represent a significant fraction of the total core columns
in the fire and impact zone. Above floor 80 in WTC 2, more than half of the core columns were WF
shapes, and above floor 94 in WTC 1, 43 of the 46 columns are WF shapes. The plans called for steels
with 36 ksi, 42 ksi, 45 ksi, and 50 ksi minimum yield strengths, but very few of the rolled shapes used the
45 ksi or the 50 ksi material. Various sources (Davis 2002 †; Yawata 1969 †) confirm that
Montague-Betts purchased about 12,000 tons (of a total contract of 25,900 tons) of A 36 and A 441 wide
flange shapes from Yawata Iron and Steel, Sakai Works. An additional 1,200 tons came from
Dorman-Long, Lackenby Works, Middlesborough, England (Gallagher 1968 §; Goode 1967 §). Given
the size of the Yawata contract, it is likely that it represents the majority, if not all, of the WF core
columns. Because Yawata engineers felt that the “A 441-modified” composition was protected by a
U.S. Steel patent (Clarkson 1967 §), they also obtained permission to supply high-strength steel to
different “A 441-modified” composition (see Table E–3) with 0.2 percent to 0.4 percent mass fraction
added Ni (White 1967b §). Whether this approval represents a complete substitution of a Yawata specific
alternate “A 441 modified” for the original A 441 modified, or simply an alternate specification for use in
limited instances, is unknown. Montague-Betts CEO William Davis (2002 †), who worked on the
project, confirmed that Montague-Betts also purchased steel from Bethlehem and U.S. Steel, the only two
domestic mills that produced 14WF rolled sections heavier than 87 lb/ft (AISI, 1973). To date, NIST has
found no mill records for chemistry or mechanical properties for any of the column steels used in the
Montague-Betts contract. See Table E–15 for the search details.
E.5.3 Recommended Values for Mechanical Properties
From the data NIST has recovered from various sources, it is possible to recommend values for estimated
yield strength for the various steels for use in analyzing the performance of the buildings. These sources
include mill test reports of WTC steels from corporate archives and contemporaneous studies of the
properties of plates and shapes of structural steels. These estimates should be confirmed with results of
mechanical tests on recovered steel, because they include assumptions about general steelmaking
practices that may not have been employed for the specific steels in the WTC.
Central to the estimation of properties is the data from the mill test report that accompanies every piece of
steel sold to ASTM International structural steel specifications. In this report, the steel mill attests to
certain measures of the quality and properties of the steel supplied. To understand the steel mechanical
properties, it is important to recognize the limitations on the information contained in the mill test reports.
Most of the characterization for structural steel for buildings is conducted on a per heat (or ladle) basis. A
heat of steel weighs up to several hundred tons and represents the unit at which the steel mill modifies the
chemistry for the intended application. Heats of molten steel are poured into ingots to solidify. After
solidification and homogenization, the steel mill rolls the ingots into plates and structural shapes. A
single heat may supply the steel for many ingots, and a single ingot can supply the steel for many plates
or shapes.
For structural steel intended for buildings, both in the WTC era and now, the mill test report contains the
results of a single chemical analysis of the steel, taken before the ladle of molten steel is poured into the
E–29
Appendix E
ingot to solidify. It also contains the results of one or two tension tests, depending on the size of the heat,
to evaluate the yield and tensile strengths of the steel. Yield strength is the stress at which the steel first
begins to deform permanently, rather than elastically. Buildings are designed so that the stresses do not
exceed the yield strength of the steel. Tensile strength represents the maximum stress the steel can carry.
The test specimen does not necessarily come from the plate purchased, nor is it likely that it originates
from a plate of identical thickness to the one purchased. Therefore, the properties of the plate may differ
slightly from the properties that the mill test reports. In essence, the mill test report is a quality control
tool. It represents a check that the properties of that production of plates or shapes are in the range that
they should be. The mill test report is not the average of a collection of tests, nor is it a guarantee that the
entire plate or shape has a yield strength or chemistry that would meet the specification.
During the 1960s and 1970s, several studies (AISI 1973; Galambos 1976; Alpsten 1972) characterized the
variability in properties of steels supplied to various standards. These studies asked the question, “If I
buy a 36 ksi steel, what is the mean value of the yield strength of the plates that the steel mill supplies to
me?” They answered this question by examining thousands of mill test reports, but not by doing
independent product testing. Because the tension test to certify the mechanical properties is conducted
near the end of the production process, scrapping a heat of steel because it did not meet the intended
specification is undesirable. Thus, steel mills generally strive to make steels in which the strength
exceeds the intended specification. Typically, the yield strengths in the mill test reports exceeded the
specified minimum values. The exact value depended on the value of the yield strength specified in the
standard, and whether the steel was supplied as plates or shapes. Of course, the yield strength in the mill
test report will never be less than the standard calls for, because the steel could not have been sold as
meeting the standard. The results of these studies are useful in estimating the properties of WTC steels
when no other corroborating evidence is available.
A second question that some studies attempted to answer was, “If I buy an A 36 plate (a steel with
Fy = 36 ksi), what is the probability that a tensile test that I do on that plate will yield a value less than
36 ksi?” Here, the question is about tests that the user conducts, and the studies attempted to characterize
the distribution of strengths, rather than the mean value. The American Iron and Steel Institute
commissioned the most complete and relevant of these studies in the early 1970s. It compared the results
of subsequent tensile tests to the value listed on the mill test report. The most important conclusion from
this study is that it is not uncommon for a product tension test to produce a yield strength that is less than
the standard allows. The executive summary of the AISI report shows an example for an A 36 steel
(specified minimum yield strength of 36 ksi) where measured yield strength on the mill test report is
38 ksi (i.e., 6 percent over the minimum). Even in this plate, there is a 22 percent probability that a
second test will produce a yield strength less than 36 ksi, i.e., below the specified minimum yield
strength. Because the distribution of yield strengths is reasonably narrow, there is only a 0.1 percent
probability that the test will have a yield strength less than 30 ksi, however. It is likely, therefore, that
some tension tests done on recovered steel as part of the WTC investigation will produce yield strengths
that are less than the relevant standard called for. The occasional appearance of a low yield strength in
tests of recovered steel cannot be interpreted as meaning that the steel was defective, or even that it did
not meet the standard to which it was supplied.
Several further corrections must be made in estimating the deformation properties of structural steel for
modeling. The three most important of these arise because the tensile test method specified in the
standard does not perfectly match real deformation conditions. In the mill tension test, a test specimen is
E–30
cut from the plate and machined into the proper shape. It is then pulled in tension in a testing machine at
a constant, prescribed elongation rate, while measuring the resulting load on the specimen. In contrast,
the steel in a building supports loads that can be considered to be quasi-static.
The elongation rates used in the mill tension tests are relatively high, to maximize throughput.
ASTM A 370 allows a maximum strain rate of 0.001 s-1, which causes yielding within 5 s for most
structural steels. The yield strength of structural steel increases slightly with increasing testing rate. For
modeling the static behavior of the building, the relevant strength is not the one measured in the mill test,
but instead is the so-called “static yield strength.” This is the strength that would be measured at
infinitesimally slow deformation rate, which is naturally the relevant rate for the gravity loads in a
statically loaded building. Typically, the static yield strength is 1 ksi to 4 ksi less than the value on the
mill test report, as established in extensive studies from the 1960s (Rao 1966; Johnson 1967;
Galambos 1976), and methods exist to calculate the expected static yield strength from tests conducted
dynamically. These corrections are necessary to estimate properties relevant to the airplane impact
conditions.
A second correction that must be made arises from the microstructural behavior of low alloy steels (such
as steels specified to A 36 and A 440) near the yield strength. During tensile testing, these steels often
exhibit what is known as a yield drop (Fig. E–10). The stress necessary to initiate the first bit of
permanent deformation (yield) is larger than the stress necessary to continue the deformation. During the
elongation in the test, the load rises linearly until permanent deformation initiates at a single location in
the test specimen. Frequently the stress can drop 3 ksi to 5 ksi upon yielding. A localized band of
deformation passes through the test specimen, and the load drops to a lower constant value. Because the
specimen is tested at constant extension rate, rather than at constant load, the deformation band
propagates through the test specimen until the entire specimen has begun to deform permanently. This
behavior manifests itself as a region of constant stress deformation known as yield point elongation. For
all structural steels with specified yield strengths less than 100 ksi, ASTM standards allow the mill test to
report the maximum value of the stress reached before the load drop, called the yield point, rather than the
lower, constant value, called the lower yield stress. The yield point phenomena occur only in tests that
have uniform stress states. Beams loaded in bending, for example, will not show this sort of stress-strain
behavior. For modeling purposes the lower yield stress is the relevant parameter for modeling yield
behavior.
For estimating the properties of rolled wide flange shapes, one must correct for variation in yield strength
with location from which the test specimen is taken. During the WTC era, but not currently, ASTM
standards specified that the test specimen for the mill test report be taken from the web section (in the
“cross bar” of an “H” shaped specimen) of the rolled shape, rather than the flange. In typical rolled
shapes, however, the flange is the thicker section, and accounts for most of the load-carrying capacity of
the column. Because it is thicker, it cools more slowly from the rolling temperature, and generally has a
lower yield strength than the flange. Many studies, summarized by Alpsten (1972), have characterized
this difference as being 2 ksi to 4 ksi for nominally 36 ksi shapes. It was not uncommon for the yield
strength of a flange to be 1 ksi to 2 ksi below the specified nominal value (from the web) for the standard.
There is a similar problem for estimating the yield strength of plates. The steel community has
recognized that for a given specified minimum yield strength, thinner plates often exhibit a higher yield
strength than thicker plates. Thinner plates have had more hot working and cool faster than thicker plates
rolled from the same heat (Alpsten 1973; Galambos 1978). Indeed, the high-strength plates that the
E–31
Appendix E
surviving Yawata mill test reports describe (Section 0) show this effect, but the low-strength plates do
not. The effect is difficult to model, however, because mills can adjust the composition of heats intended
for specific thicknesses, while still meeting the chemistry requirements of the standard specification, to
keep the actual yield strength close to the specified minimum. In the absence of a well-defined method
for estimating the thickness effect, it must be regarded as a source of uncorrectable uncertainty.
Table E–17 lists estimated yield strengths for the relevant steels from the impact and fire zone. It
contains two columns. The first, labeled “Estimated mill Fy” is an estimate of the average value of the
yield strength that would have been reported on the mill test reports. It is based on surviving mill test
reports where they are available, and on literature estimates where no mill test reports have survived. The
values were estimated by multiplying the specified minimum value by a constant, k, where k = 1.12 for
plates (Baker 1969) and k = 1.2 for shapes (Alpsten 1972). The second column corrects the estimated
average mill test report Fy to the value for the static yield strength, using the correction factor of Rao
(1966) of –3.6 ksi. The value for the rolled core shapes is further corrected to the expected yield strength
for the flanges (since the mill test reports are for specimens taken from the webs) using the value from the
AISI report (1973) of –2.4 ksi.
Floor Trusses
Based on the mill test reports summarized in Table E–11, NIST recommends using Fy = 58.4 ksi for
angles specified as either A 242 or A 36, and 50.4 ksi for rounds specified as A 242. Based on the
conversations with Laclede personnel (Brown 2002), A 36 rounds are estimated to have Fy = 43.4 ksi.
Table E–17 summarizes these recommendations.
Table E–17 provides the current best estimate of the properties of the Yawata grades for each indicated
minimum yield strength. Most important in Table E–17 is the entry that shows that PC&F obtained
permission (White 1968b) to substitute Fy = 100 ksi (WEL-TEN 80C) material for Fy = 90 ksi
applications, but not to upgrade any other yield strengths by 10 ksi or larger anywhere else. Documents
(Symes 1969a §) from early 1969 indicate that PC&F did not use any Fy = 85 ksi steel in the building, so
any steel specfied as Fy = 85 ksi would have to have been supplied at Fy = 100 ksi as well. Nicholas
Soldano, PC&F General Manager in 1969 (2002 †), confirmed that they had also been granted permission
to substitute 45 ksi steel for 42 ksi. Ronald Symes (2002 †), project engineer for PC&F, confirmed that
they followed the 5 ksi yield increments, so with the exception of the Fy = 85+ ksi and Fy = 42 ksi steels,
there would be grades for each yield strength. Estimates of the yield stress use the average values of the
plates in the mill test reports NIST has located (for “A 441-modified” with Fy = 45 ksi and Fy = 50 ksi and
WEL-TEN 62 with Fy = 70 ksi and Fy = 75 ksi). Where no data from mill test reports exist, NIST
recommends using the literature value as described above. Estimates for WEL-TEN 80C use the average
values for the data found in a literature report (Ito 1965b).
E–32
Table E–17. Estimated yield strengths (Fy) for grades of steel above Floor 9.
Grade Estimated Estimated static
Mill test
Fy Fy
report Fy
(ksi) (ksi) (1) (ksi) (2) Thickness Range Steel Source Notes
Perimeter Column Plates 1, 2, 4 (flanges, exterior of building, and spandrels) –see Fig. E–3)
36 40.3 35.6 Yawata A 36 (3)
42 56.8 53.2 Yawata "A 441 modified" (4,5)
45 56.8 53.2 Yawata "A 441 modified" (5)
50 57.7 54.1 Yawata "A 441 modified" (5)
55 61.6 58.0 For plates with t<=1.5 in. Yawata "A 441 modified" (6) (7)
55 61.6 58.8 For plates with t> 1.5 in. Yawata WEL-TEN 60 (3) (7)
60 67.2 63.6 For plates with t<=1.25 in. Yawata "A 441 modified" (6) (7)
60 67.2 63.6 For plates with t>1.25 in. Yawata WEL-TEN 60 (3) (7)
65 72.8 69.2 For plates with t>0.5 in. Yawata WEL-TEN 60 (3) (7)
65 72.8 69.2 For plates with t<=0.5 in. Yawata WEL-TEN 60R (3) (7)
70 78.4 74.8 Yawata WEL-TEN 62 (5)
75 84.0 80.4 Yawata WEL-TEN 62 (5)
80 89.6 86.0 Yawata WEL-TEN 70 (3)
85 105.0 101.4 Yawata WEL-TEN 80C (8) (9)
90 105.0 101.4 Yawata WEL-TEN 80C (8) (9)
100 105.0 101.4 Yawata WEL-TEN 80C (9)
Perimeter Column Plate 3 (faces interior of building –see Fig. E–3)
42 47.0 43.4 Bethlehem V42 (3)
45 50.4 46.8 Bethlehem V45 (3)
50 56.0 52.4 Bethlehem V50 (3)
55 61.6 58.0 Bethlehem V55 (3)
60 67.2 63.6 Bethlehem V60 (3)
60 67.2 63.6 0.75in.<t<=1.5 in. Bethlehem V60-modified (3)
65 72.8 69.2 t<=0.375 in. Bethlehem V65 (3)
65 72.8 69.2 0.375in.<t<=1.5 in. Bethlehem V65-modified (3)
75 84.0 80.4 t<=1.0 in. Bethlehem V75-modified (3)
Core Box Columns
36 40.3 36.7 Fuji Steel, Colvilles (3)
42 47.0 43.4 Fuji Steel, Colvilles (3)
Core Rolled Columns
36 43.2 37.3 Yawata + others (3)
42 50.4 44.5 Yawata + others (3)
45 54.0 48.1 Yawata + others (3)
50 60.0 54.1 Yawata + others (3)
Floor Trusses
50 62.0 58.4 A 242 and A 36 angles (6)
36 41.6 38.1 d = 1.09 in. and 1 13/16 in. Laclede A 36 rounds (6)
50 54.0 50.4 All other rounds Laclede A 242 rounds (6) (10)
E–33
Appendix E
Table E–17. Estimated yield strengths (Fy) for grades of steel above the Floor 9
(continued).
Estimated
Grade Estimated actual
Mill test
Fy report Fy Fy
(ksi) (ksi) (1) (ksi) (2) Thickness Range Steel Source Notes
Notes:
1 This Fy is the estimated average Fy on that would have been reported on the mill test reports, had they been available. For WF shapes, it
represents the value from a specimen taken from the web.
2 Estimated average mill test report Fy corrected for rate and location effects. For a WF shape, this represents the value appropriate for the
flange.
3 Based on reported literature properties for plates (Galambos 1978:Table 3; citing Baker 1969) and rolled shapes: (Alpsten 1975: Fig. 13;
Galambos 1978). Estimated flange Fy reduced by 2.4 ksi (AISI 1973:Table 22).
4 Fy = 42 ksi steel substituted with Fy = 45 ksi (Soldano 2002 †).
5 Based on averages from Yawata mill test reports (Symes 1969b §; Barkshire 1969a §; White 1969c §).
6 Based on Laclede mill test reports (Table E–11) and conversations with Laclede metallurgists (Brown 2002).
7 Use of A 441-modified vs. WEL-TEN based on White memo (White 1969a).
8 Fy = 85 ksi and Fy = 90 ksi steel substituted with Fy = 100 ksi (Symes 1969a; White 1968).
9 Based on typical values from manufacturer reports.
10 Assumed to be chemically identical to A242 angles.
In the absence of any confirming mill test reports, the best estimate of yield strength for the core columns
is 12 percent higher than specified value (Baker 1969), also listed in Table E–17.
Core (Rolled Wide flange Shapes)
Given the tonnages of wide flange shapes supplied, it is likely that Yawata supplied all the rolled core
columns, but NIST has found no confirming evidence of this. Furthermore, NIST has found no open
literature information on chemistry or typical mechanical properties of Yawata rolled shapes. In the
absence of mill records or steel mill source identification, the best estimate of the yield strength for the
expected average mill test report Fy for core rolled shapes is 20 percent higher than the specified
minimum yield strength, as detailed by Alpsten (1972) and corrected for the difference between flanges
and webs (AISC 1973), summarized in Table E–17.
E.5.4 Sources of Information
Preliminary searches used open literature sources of information, including trade journals to locate
information on the various companies and steels involved in construction. Table E–18 lists the journals
examined, and the strategy for locating WTC specific information. As mentioned, Table E–16 lists
similar information for the databases and search strategies used to locate WTC information.
E–34
Table E–18. Trade journals examined for WTC steel information.

Journal Search Method
Acier Stahl Steel 1966 to 1972 Tables of Contents.
Civil Engineer-ASCE 1965 to 1973 Index on WTC.
Engineering News Record 1967 to 1973 Index on WTC, New York
Also, see compilation volume of all articles published (ENR 1972) City.
The Iron Age 1966 to 1968 Index on Japan, WTC,
structural steel, fabricator and steel company
name.
Iron and Steel Page-by-page for 1968 to 1971.
Iron and Steel Engineer 1967 to June 1968 Table of Contents,
Dateline column, Industry news column.
Index is not topical.
Japan’s Iron and Steel Industry 1967-1970 1967 to 1970 page-by-page.
Metal Construction Page-by-page.
Metal Progress Page-by-page.
Modern Steel Construction Tables of Contents.
Nihon Kinzoku Gakkaishi (J. Jap. Inst. Metals) Cursory, WTC era.
Steel 1966 to 1969 Index on Japan, WTC,
fabricator and steel company name.
Transactions of the Iron and Steel Institute of Japan 1965 to 1969 Table of Contents and news
pages.
Stahlbau 1966 to 1973 Index under Hochbau.
Steelways –
Structural Engineer 1966 to 1972 cursory.
Welding Design and Fabrication Cursory.
West of Scotland Iron and Steel Institute Journal 1966 to 1969 Tables of Contents.
After identifying the fabrication companies, NIST contacted Laclede Steel Corporation, Nippon (formerly
Yawata) Steel, PACCAR (formerly Pacific Car and Foundry), Montague Betts, Dovell Engineering, and
several former employees of Stanray Pacific and Pacific Car and Foundry. NIST did not attempt to
contact fabricators that were only involved in the lower floors (Atlas Machine and Iron Works, Levinson,
Mosher, and Drier). Table E–19 summarizes these contacts and information. Most of the information in
this report came from the archives of LERA.
Initially, NIST had hoped to find the mill test reports for the steel used, which would have provided
complete yield (Fy) and tensile strength and chemistry information for all the steels. Each fabricating
company, as part of the quality control program required by their contract with PONYA, supplied this
information to Tishman, the general contractor, to SHCR, the structural engineers, and to PONYA.
Unfortunately, Laclede, Montague-Betts (Davis 2003 †), PACCAR (Bangert 2002 †) (the new name of
Pacific Car and Foundry), SHCR (Magnussen 2002 †), and Tishman (Christensen 2003 †) all confirm that
they have no mill test reports from that era.
E–35
Appendix E
Table E–19. Sources examined for mill test reports and other construction information,
other than the (LERA) archives.
Contact Background Result
Laclede Steel Corporation Laclede fabricated the trusses for the During Nov. 2002 NIST personnel visited
David McGee floor panels. Laclede, which shared material from its
Larry Hutchison archive, including two mill test reports.
Ronald Symes Former Chief PC&F fabricated the perimeter Symes did not retain any WTC documents
Engineer, PC&F columns. relating to steel properties, but he did have
information on welding
Nicholas Soldano Former – Soldano provided information on steel
general manager, PC&F substitutions, but had no WTC documents.
D. Bangert, VP for facilities PACCAR owned Pacific Car & PACCAR retained no records relating to
PACCAR Foundry before selling it in 1974. any aspect of PC&F
Nippon Steel USA Nippon Steel formed by the merger Nippon located several 1960s era data
Tomokatsu Kobayashi, VP of Yawata and Fuji Steel, which sheets for Yawata WEL-TEN steels, but
together supplied most of the no mill test reports for steels used in the
Japanese steel. WTC.
Mitsui USA, Janet Garland Mitsui imported the steel for PC&F Mitsui has no WTC records.
Carl Lojic, former president, Stanray Corp closed its fabricating Neither Lojic nor Tarkan retained any
Joseph Tarkan, former Chief business in 1969, and has apparently documents from the project.
Engineer, Stanray Pacific gone out of business.
Corus Construction & Corus (formerly British Steel) owns Corus was unable to locate any records
Industrial Homi Sethna the works that rolled the thicker from the WTC era.
plate for the welded core columns.
Tony Wall, President, Dovell Dovell was the detailer for Stanray The Northridge earthquake damaged their
Engineering Pacific. building. During clean-up they disposed
of all WTC documents.
William Betts, CEO Montague-Betts fabricated all rolled Six years after completion,
Montague-Betts shapes above the 9th floor. Montague-Betts destroyed, as per
company policy, all records relating to the
WTC construction.
Marubeni-Itochu Steel Marubeni-Itochu succeeded “All sales transactions going back to the
Tadashi Yaegashi Chief Marubeni-Iida, which imported the 1960’s have been destroyed”
Administrative Officer Yawata steel for Montague-Betts.
SGS US Testing Company SGS succeeded US Testing and The SGS was unable to locate any documents
Rich Franconeri Superintendence Co., both of which from that era.
inspected the Japanese steel.
Skilling, Ward, Magnussen, SWMB is the successor to the SWMB retained no WTC records. They
and Barkshire (SWMB); Jon structural engineering firm that transferred everything to LERA. NIST has
Magnussen, partner designed the towers. access to these records.
Tishman Realty and Tishman was the general contractor “[O]ur archive facility has standing orders
Construction; Linda for the construction. that any and all files over seven years in
Christensen age are to be destroyed.”
NIST also contacted several of the inspection companies (Franconeri 2003 †) and the steel mills
(Sethna 2003 †) and steel importing companies (Garland 2004 †; Yaegashi 2003†), as well as Crest Steel,
which some Stanray Pacific communications mention (Steinberg 2002 †). All confirmed that they
retained no records relating to steel for the WTC.
E–36
NIST investigators located six pages of mill test reports for PC&F in the LERA archives, and several
individual mill test reports in the Laclede archives.
E.6 CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
Section E.4, Contemporaneous Steel Specifications, traces the sources and grades of steel used to
fabricate structural steel components for the WTC towers. This section supplements that by extending
further into the construction process, specifically adding information on the fabrication (welding) of
components and the erection of the buildings.
E.6.1 Fabrication of the Various Components
Floor Trusses
Laclede Steel manufactured the trusses for the floor panels for both WTC 1 and WTC 2 from steel they
made at their mill in Alton, Il. The chords of the trusses were fabricated from hot-rolled angles, while the
web was from hot-rolled round bar. The web and the chord angles were joined by resistance welding
(Laclede 1969).
Little information is available on the standards used for fabrication of the floor trusses. However, floor
joist standards existed since 1929. The AISC Steel Construction Manual (1972) Standard Specifications
for Open Web Steel Joists specifies that 36 ksi and 50 ksi minimum yield strength steel are permitted in
such bar joists, and that “Joint connections and splices shall be made by attaching the members to one
another by arc or resistance welding or other approved methods.” A Technical Digest from the Steel Joist
Institute (Somers 1980) also confirms the use of resistance welding.
Exterior Wall Columns and Spandrels
The perimeter column panels, fabricated by PC&F, comprise three important sub assemblies: the
columns, the spandrels, and the seats. A Welding Design and Fabrication article (1970a) describes the
fabrication sequence, which began with forming the inside wall of the panels (using a butt joint to link the
spandrel plates to the inner column webs), followed by the addition of the flanges and outer web plate of
the columns by six simultaneous submerged arc welds. PC&F constructed a 16-station automated
production line to keep up with the schedule of 55,800 tons of perimeter column panels between
November 1967 and August 1970, an average of 1,400 tons per month.
The construction contract states that the submerged arc electrodes used in the WTC were purchased to the
requirements of ASTM Standard A 558 “Specification for Bare Mild Steel Electrodes and Fluxes for
Submerged Arc Welding.” This standard was withdrawn in 1969, and was replaced by an equivalent
American Welding Society (AWS) Standard A 5.17 “Bare Mild Steel Electrodes and Fluxes for
Submerged Arc Welding.” The period 1965 to 1969 was one of transition, during which AWS assumed
the responsibility of maintaining the standards for welding filler materials. Because the contract was
awarded in 1967, the fabrication was likely started with the requirements of the 1965 version of the
E–37
Appendix E
ASTM Standard (ASTM A 558-65T, jointly published by AWS as AWS A 5.17-65T), but later perimeter
column panels may have included some minor changes associated with the conversion to the 1969 version
of the AWS Standard (AWS A 5.17-69). Distorted columns were straightened in the conventional
manner by heating just after column assembly, so any low-strength areas in the steel plates and changes in
microstructure should not be interpreted solely in terms of the airplane impact and subsequent fires.
The Welding Design and Fabrication article (1970b) further states that PC&F inspected the perimeter
column panel welds using either ultrasonic, or visual and magnetic particle techniques.
The inner wall assembly (the spandrels and inner plates of the perimeter column panels) was joined with
complete joint penetration welds according to the requirements of AWS D 2.0 “Specifications for Welded
Highway and Railway Bridges.” This probably refers to the 1966 version of AWS D 2.0. They may have
chosen this standard over D 1.0 “Code for Welding in Building Construction” because, at the time, D 1.0
was limited to steel strengths under 60 ksi (Fenton 1966). AWS D 2.0 specifies various dimension and
strength requirements for the assemblies and their welds (e.g., paragraphs 302 and 403). This standard,
like most standards, lags the steel technology of the time. Thus, it seems to be mostly designed around
the application of fairly old steels, like A 7, A 36, and A 373. However, newer steels, such as the higher
strength steels used in the WTC towers, could be used after formal approval.
Once the inner wall was ready, the columns were assembled from outer web plates, butt plates, diaphragm
plates, and flange plates (Welding Design 1970a). Once assembled and preheated, the plates were joined
in the main fillet weld gantry, a station that made six, 0.75 in (19 mm) fillet welds simultaneously along
the length of the perimeter column panel. Then the panel was jacked 90 degrees, and the other six fillet
welds were made along the length of the panel. At full production, this gantry laid down 2,900 lb
(1,300 kg) of weld metal a day. These large fillet welds started 6 in. (150 mm) from the ends of the
columns, so manual welding was used to finish the welding of the ends and to make any repairs.
Stanray Pacific Corp. fabricated the welded core columns in both buildings above floor 9. Like PC&F,
they used large assembly fixtures and triple submerged arc welding stations to achieve high production
rates. Review of some of the correspondence generated during the initial stages of the fabrication shows
the level of attention to welding and inspection details needed to meet the requirements of PONYA and
SHCR as described below.
A September 1967 draft of the contract between PONYA and The United States Testing Laboratory (a
third-party inspector) lists the documentation that would be required of the work at Stanray Pacific
Corp (White 1967c §). This contract prescribes daily and weekly written reports of components that are
accepted, those that are rejected, and a summary of any problems, with copies going both to the
construction manager and to SHCR. In addition, a weekly report was sent with all the chemical and
physical (mechanical) tests performed. The inspectors checked the various steps from plate delivery
(checking heat number, specification conformance and condition), through fabrication (alignment,
100 percent visual inspection of the welds, and selection of regions for non-destructive testing), to final
inspection (perpendicularity of milled ends, overall length, cleaning, and marking). PONYA also had a
procedure to inspect the steel from all sources. The procedure included double-checking the mill
certificates by performing a tensile test and a check analysis on 1 out of 10 heats selected at
E–38
random (Monti 1967b §). The requirements were still higher for steel with strengths above 50 ksi or from
foreign sources. The welding procedures, welders and welding operators were qualified in accordance
with requirements of Appendix D of AWS Codes D1.1-66 and D 2.0-66. The welding electrodes for
manual metal arc welding conformed to ASTM A 233-64T, E60 and E70 series (also AWS A 5.1-64T).
Mild steel electrodes and fluxes for submerged arc welding conformed to ASTM A 588-65T (also
AWS A 5.17-65T) and to Section 1.17.3 of the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.
By October 1967, welders were being qualified, magnetic particle inspector qualification was being
discussed (based on a minimum of 40 hours of training), and chemical analysis of the steel was underway
(Chauner 1967a). The level of inspector oversight continued to increase until by November 10 “U.S.
Testing inspectors are all over the place and recording a lot of information” (Chauner 1967b). The level
of attention to detail increased even more after a surprise visit to Stanray by Hugh Gallagher, a PONYA
inspector, on November 20, 1967 (Gallagher 1967).
While reading the correspondence, one senses that toward the beginning of the contracts, the various
fabricators faced major (and perhaps unexpected) challenges introduced by both the tight production
schedule and PONYA and SHCR’s strict quality requirements.
Connections (Bolts and Welds)
The Port Authority contract allowed the use of ASTM A 307, A 325, and A 490 fasteners. The WTC
Design Standards book (p. DS1-6) calls for the use of ASTM A 325 bolts with no indication of type.
According to the standard, they would have therefore been supplied as Type 1. As in the contemporary
version of ASTM A 325, Type 1 bolts in 1970 had Fy = 120 ksi for diameters up to and including 1 in,
and Fy = 105 ksi for larger diameters. ASTM A 325-70 does differ significantly from ASTM A 325-02 in
several ways. In particular, the specification for Type 2 bolts was withdrawn in 1991. ASTM A 325-02
also admits three new chemistries for Type 1 bolts. In ASTM A 325-02, the specification for Type 1
Carbon Steel bolts most closely approximates the Type 1 bolts of A 325-70. Table E–20 compares the
chemistry requirements of the two standards. A 325-70 also admits a slightly wider range of acceptable
hardness, which is currently in Table 3 of A 325-02.
Table E–20. Comparison of chemistry requirements for ASTM A 325

“Standard Specification for High-Strength Bolts for Structural Steel Joints,
including Suitable Nuts and Plain Hardened Washers”
between 1970 and 2002 standards
ASTM A 325-70 ASTM A 325-02
(% mass fraction) (% mass fraction)
Element Maximum Maximum
C 0.27 0.28–0.55
Mn 0.47 0.57
P 0.048 0.048
S 0.058 0.058
Si – 0.13–0.32
Key: C, carbon; Mn, manganese; P, phosphorus; S, sulfur; Si, silicon.
Note: Data are for product, not heat, analysis. Mechanical property requirements are identical between
versions.
E–39
Appendix E
Spandrels of adjacent perimeter column panels were attached together with high-strength bolted shear
connections. Adjacent spandrels were butted to each other with splice plates on the inside and outside
(Fig. E–3). For floors 9 to 107, each spandrel was connected to the splice plates with anywhere from 6
to 32 bolts, depending on design load. Splice plates were all 36 ksi steel regardless of spandrel grade.
Bolts for all connections between spandrels conformed to ASTM A 325. Minutes of a May 1967
(Feld 1967a) meeting between PC&F, PONYA, and Koch, state that no A 490 bolts were to be used for
the spandrel splice plates, and that only A 325 bolts were to be used there. “Bow-tie” spandrels in trees
below the floor 9 were connected with heavy 42 ksi splice plates with A 325 or A 490 bolts in friction
connections.
Perimeter columns were bolted via the butt plates to those immediately above and below, with four bolts
in the upper stories and six bolts in the lower stories. Other than at the mechanical floors, panels were
staggered (Fig. E–4) so that only one third of the units were spliced in any one story. At the mechanical
floors, every column contained a splice, and columns were welded together as well as bolted.
Seats for the trusses that supported the floor were welded to spandrels in the perimeter column panels and
to channels or core columns at the central core. The trusses were positioned on the seats and held in place
with construction bolts until welded to the seats. The construction bolts generally remained in place after
welding.
Construction (On-site Assembly)
During fabrication, Karl Koch Erecting Co. used a combination of bolting, shielded metal arc (SMA)
welding (E7018), and gas metal arc welding (semiautomatic Fab Co 71 with CO2 shielding) to join the
components (Welding Design 1970b). The E7018 low-hydrogen SMA electrode would likely have been
produced to ASTM Standard A 233-64T (also published by AWS as A 5.1-64T), then AWS
Standard A 5.1-69 for the later parts of the fabrication. The 3/32 in. (2.4 mm) diameter Fab Co 71 (sic,
probably should be FabCO 71, a trademark of Hobart Brothers Company) was an E70T-1 flux cored arc
(FCA) electrode and would likely have been produced according to ASTM A 559 (withdrawn in 1969),
then AWS A5.20-69. Higher-strength SMA electrodes (ASTM A 316 until 1969, then AWS A 5.5-69)
were also permitted by the contract. More than 48,000 lb (22,000 kg) of electrodes were used in each of
the towers (Welding Design 1970b). Koch used a combination of visual and ultrasonic inspection on the
joints. They estimated that rework would cost three times as much as the original weld, so they inspected
early and often to minimize any rework. One reason that rework was so expensive is that some welds
took as many as 200 passes, so they wanted to catch any problems before the later passes made access
more difficult.
Perhaps the most common construction standard for buildings of the period was AWS D 1.0 “Welding in
Building Construction” (Fenton 1966). This document was subject to frequent revisions by the
responsible committee. Some versions that may have been specified for parts of the WTC towers were
the versions published in 1966, 1967, and 1968. The 1967 and 1968 revisions addressed issues such as
the details on the use of multiple-electrode submerged arc welding, more requirements on qualification of
the welders (especially tack welders), and the addition of radiographic inspection. Many of these
revisions may have been driven by the needs of the WTC design. Because the D2.0 code referenced in
the discussion on fabrication of perimeter column panels above only covers the use of submerged arc and
E–40
shielded metal arc welds (unless through special application of Section 5), use of D1.0 (specifically
through the use of Section 502) might have been the easiest way to cover the use of FabCO 71 electrode.
Incidentally, the apparent misspelling of FabCO 71 in one of the references points out the problem of
inconsistencies in some of the references. The likely explanations include both authors’ faulty memories
of some details, but also changes that occurred after an article (perhaps based on the near-term
construction plans) went to press. An apparent example of the later case involves the plan to use
electroslag welding to fabricate the “trees,” the branching columns that formed the transition from the
10 ft (3 m) spacing of columns in the lobby area to the 40 in. (1 m) spacing of columns for all the upper
floors. Gillespie’s book (1999) describes the fabrication of these trees by electroslag welding. However,
Koch’s book (2002) describes their inability to get the electroslag process operating under field conditions
(in a location described as the “belly band,” halfway up between the front doors and the branching of the
trees), so they welded all these large joints manually.
Examination of the perimeter columns shipped to NIST revealed arc welds at the ends of the trusses,
where they were attached to the columns during erection. These welds supplemented the bolt attachment
at the seats, and were probably produced by gas metal arc or shielded metal arc electrodes.
E.7 REFERENCE LISTS
E.7.1 References from Publicly Available Sources
This section lists references from the open literature, primarily magazine and journal articles and books.
Alloy Digest. 1965. WEL-TEN 100N. Serial #826.
Alloy Digest. 1967. WEL-TEN 50. Serial #966.
Alloy Digest. 1968. WEL-TEN 60-LT. Serial #1003.
Alloy Digest. 1969. WEL-TEN 80C-LT. Serial #1061.
Alloy Digest. 1970. Bethlehem V Steel. Filing Code SA-257.
Alpsten, G. A. 1975. Variations in mechanical and cross-sectional properties of steel. In Tall Building
Criteria and Loading vol. 1b of Planning and Design of Tall Buildings. Edited by Thomas C.
Kavanagh et al. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. 755–805.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 1974. The Variation of Product Analysis and Tensile
Properties Carbon Steel Plates and Wide Flange Shapes. Contributions to the Metallurgy of Steel.
1-120.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 1973. Manual of Steel Construction. New York:
American Institute of Steel Construction.
E–41
Appendix E
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 1972. Standard Specifications and Load Tables for
Open Web Steel Joists, Longspan Steel Joists, Deep Longspan Steel Joists. New York: American
Institute of Steel Construction.
American Welding Society (AWS). 1965. Tentative Specification for Bare Mild Steel Electrodes and
Fluxes for Submerged-Arc Welding. New York: American Welding Society and American Society
for Testing and Materials.
American Welding Society (AWS). 1966. Specifications for Welded Highway and Railway Bridges.
New York: American Welding Society.
American Welding Society (AWS) Structural Welding Committee. 1967. Addenda to D1.0-66 Code for
Welding in Building Construction on and SRI-65 Gas Metal-Arc Welding with Carbon Dioxide
Shielding. New York: American Welding Society.
American Welding Society (AWS) Structural Welding Committee. 1968. Supplement to AWS D1.0-66,
Code for Welding in Building Construction, and AWS D2.0-66, Specifications for Welded Highway
and Railway Bridges, on Requirements for Submerged Arc Welding with Multiple Electrodes. New
York: American Welding Society.
American Welding Society (AWS). Committee on Filler Metal. 1969. Specification for Bare Mild Steel
Electrodes and Fluxes for Submerged-Arc Welding. New York: American Welding Society.
Baker, M. J. 1969. Variations in the mechanical properties of structural steels. In Reports of the
Working Commissions, Symposium on Concepts of Safety of Structures and Methods of Design.
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. London. 165–174.
Brockenbrough, R. L., and B. G. Johnston. 1968. The structural steels and their mechanical properties.
Chap. 1 in USS Steel Design Manual. United States Steel Corporation. Pittsburgh, PA.
Civil Engineering-ASCE. 1970. World Trade Center shows on New York City skyline, 40:81.
Engineering News Record (ENR). 1967. Steel Ahoy! November 11.
Engineering News Record (ENR). 1972. The World Trade Center, its planning, finance, design and
construction as reported through the weeks for more than a decade. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Feld, L. S. 1971. Superstructure for the 1,350-ft World Trade Center. Civil Engineering-ASCE.
41:66–70.
Fenton, Edward A. 1966. Code for Welding in Building Construction. New York: American Welding
Society.
Galambos T. V. and M. K. Ravindra. 1978. Properties of steel for use in LRFD. Journal of the
Structural Division-ASCE, 104(9):1459–1468.
Gillespie, Angus Kress. 1999. Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center. New
York: New American Library.
E–42
Goda, S., T. Ito, H. Gondo, I. Kimura, and J. Okamoto. 1964. Present status of weldable high strength
steel, Yawata Technical Report (Yawata Seitetsu Kenkyu). 248:5086–5163.
Groner, Alex. 1981. PACCAR The Pursuit of Quality, Bellevue, Wa: Documentary Book Publishers.
Handbook of Comparative World Steel Standards. 1974. Tokyo: International Technical Information
Institute.
Iron Age. 1966. Yawta advertisement, vol. 198. October 6.
Irving, R.R. 1968. Construction, a materials arena. The Iron Age. November 1:59–66.
Ito, T., K. Moriyama, and Y. Sogo. 1965a. Usability of WEL-TEN 80C welded joints of high-tension
steel (in English). Yawata Technical Report (Yawata Seitetsu Kenkyu). 253:6307-6316.
Ito, T., K. Moriyama, and Y. Sogo, 1965b. Usability of WEL-TEN 80C welded joints of high-tension
steel (In Japanese). Yawata Technical Report (Yawata Seitetsu Kenkyu). 253 6232-6244 (1965).
Japan’s Iron and Steel Industry. 1968. New products and processes. In Japan’s Iron and Steel Industry
1968 ed., edited by Sukeyuki Kawata. Tokyo: Kawata Publicity, Inc.
Johnson, R. F. 1967. The measurement of yield stress. In Strong Tough Structural Steel. England: The
Iron and Steel Institute. 51-60.
Koch, Karl, and Richard Firstman. 2002. Men of Steel: the Story of the Family that Built the World
Trade Center. New York: Crown Publishers.
McAllister, T., ed. 2002. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection,
Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations. FEMA 403. Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Washington, DC, May.
Otani, M. 1966. Fundamental properties of high tension steel (in Japanese). Yawata Technical Report
(Yawata Seitetsu Kenkyu). 257:7066–7117.
Rao, N. R. N., M. Lohrman, and L. Tall. 1966. Effect of strain rate on the yield stress of structural steels.
ASTM Journal of Materials. 1(1):241–262.
Rodengen, Jeffrey L. 2000. The Legend of Trinity. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Write Stuff Enterprises.
Stanray Corp. 1970. 1969 Annual Report.
Stanray Corp. 1971. 1970 Annual Report.
Somers, Robert E., and Theodore V. Galambos. 1980. Welding of Open Web Steel Joists. Technical
Digest No. 8. Steel Joist Institute Richmond, VA. Based on inclusion of statistics on U.S. joist
production in 1979.
E–43
Appendix E
Welding Design and Fabrication. 1970a. Welding and abricating 55,000 tons of steel for the World Trade
Center, July:50–52.
Welding Design and Fabrication. 1970b. Welding and inspecting the World Trade Center-giant among
giants, February:53–56.
Woldman's Engineering Alloys. 1990. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.
Zaizen, T. K. Moriyama, and M. Kawshima. 1968. On the Yawata’s structural steel plates for low
temperature applications. Yawata Technical Report (Yawata Seitetsu Kenkyu). 262:8239–8250.
E.7.2 Private Communications
The text identifies references that are private communications or unpublished works that are not bound by
any material transfer agreement with the symbol, †. All contemporaneous memoranda referring to
Laclede are from the Laclede archives in Alton, Il. NIST obtained Yawata documents from Nippon Steel
USA, New York office.
Bangert, D. 2002. Telephone interview with William Luecke, NIST. Confirmation that PACCAR has no
records of the WTC contract. Structural steel division was sold “years ago.” October 21.
Bay, R. D. 1968. Memorandum No. 11, Laclede internal memorandum showing grades of steel for bar
joists, February 28.
Brown, Dale. 2002. Telephone interview with Richard Fields, NIST. Brown, the Laclede metallurgist
during the WTC construction, confirmed that for ASTM A 36, Laclede would have specified a
microalloyed steel similar to current ASTM A 572. November 20.
Christensen, Linda (VP and General Counsel, Tishman Construction). 2003. Letter to William Luecke,
NIST. Tishman has retained no records from the WTC construction, in response to letter sent on
19 February. April 2.
Davis, William. 2002. Telephone interview with William Luecke, NIST. Montague Betts furnished
rolled beams for the core of both towers as well as the antenna base for one tower. He remembered
about 60 percent of the steel was American, and the rest was Japanese or British. Confirmed that they
did buy steel from Yawata, and that Yawata had better tolerances than the US steel mills did. All
records of the job were destroyed after 6 years. Montague Betts closed its steel operations in 1992.
November 5.
Franconeri, Rich. 2003. Letter to William Luecke, NIST. SGS U.S. Testing Company was unable to
locate any records relevant to the World Trade Center. April 25.
Garland, Janet. 2004. Electronic mail to William Luecke, NIST. Mitsui and Co. USA, New York office.
confirms that they have no records relevant to steel imported for the World Trade Center. January 20.
Kamper, H. G. 1968. Internal Laclede memo to R. D. Bay, Laclede, shows chemistry and yield strength
for A 242 steel. August 8.
E–44
Laclede Steel. 1968. Standard Resistance and Arc Weld Connections used in Truss Manufacture.
February 28.
Magnusson, Jon D. 2002. Letter to William Luecke, NIST. Skilling Ward Magnussen Barkshire (the
current name of SHCR) has “absolutely no documents relating to the WTC at our firm here in
Seattle.” November 12.
McKnight, M. E. 2003. Telephone interview with William Luecke, NIST. January 21.
Steinberg, P. 2002. Electronic mail to William Luecke, NIST. Steinberg worked for Crest Steel in the
1960s, which supplied steel to Stanray Pacific. They have no records from that era. December 26.
Symes, R. C. 2002. Telephone interview with William Luecke, NIST. PC&F made a serious effort to
follow the 5 ksi yield stress increments as noted in the plans. December 20.
Tarkan, Y. N. 2002. Telephone interview with William Luecke, NIST. Tarkan was chief engineer for
Stanray Pacific. He remembered that all the steel for Stanray's contract came from Japan. When
questioned about the Crest Steel note in the LERA documents, he thought that Crest might have been
the distributor for that Japanese mill (Nippon Kokan). December 17.
Wall, Tony. 2002. Telephone interview with William Luecke, NIST. Former president of Dovell
Engineering is in no position to provide details of the WTC construction. December 3.
White, James. 2003. Telephone interview with William Luecke, NIST. PC&F used (in addition to
Yawata) U.S.S. and Bethlehem Steel for plates (probably for Fy less than 60 ksi). February 11.
White, James. 1969b. Memo from SHCR to R. D. Bay, Laclede, returning mill test reports for A 242
steel. Laclede Steel Archives December 29.
Yaegashi, Tadashi. 2003. Letter to William Luecke, NIST. Marubeni-Itochu Steel America confirms that
they have no records relating to steel imported for the World Trade Center. February 7.
Yawata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 1969. New York World Trade Center Building. Internal Yawata
document.
Yawata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 1969b. WEL-TEN 80. Data sheets for WEL-TEN 80 steel.
E.7.3 References from Nonpublic Sources
The text denotes with the symbol § references that are private communications or unpublished works
bound by material transfer agreements.
Barkshire, Art. 1968a. Internal SHCR report to J. White on fabrication at PC&F. Contains 5 page
attachment showing instances of U.S.S. steel used in columns mostly in floors 20 to 30. Tower not
specified. 7 pages. May 15.
E–45
Appendix E
Barkshire, Art. 1968b. Internal SHCR to J. White showing spandrel plate of Kaisaloy 50-SG in panel
203-16-19A. 6 pages. December 4.
Barkshire, Art. 1968c. Internal SHCR memo to J. White stating that U.S.S. and Kaiser are being phased
out as suppliers with Bethlehem (Seattle) and Japanese mills furnishing all steel. 2 pages with
5 pages attached. June 5.
Barkshire, Art. 1969. Corner Panel Stiffener Plates Memo to R. Symes, PC&F, approving substitution of
steel. Contains three Yawata mill test reports. 6 pages. January 23.
Chauner, Richard. 1967a. Internal SHCR memo to James White. October 27.
Chauner, Richard. 1967b. Internal SHCR memo to James White. November 10.
Clarkson, William W. 1967. Memo from Montague-Betts Steel to R. M. Monti, PONYA, requesting
permission to have Yawata supply steel similar to ASTM A 441-modified but with 0.2 percent to
0.4 percent mass fraction Ni, to avoid the U.S. Steel patent on the A 441-modified composition.
October 9.
Equivalent Carbon Contents. 1967. Worksheet that calculates equivalent carbon content for various
steels. It indicates that steel would be supplied in 5 ksi intervals. Chemistries correspond to “Yawata
Proposition.” June 23.
Feld, Lester S. 1967. Internal PONYA memo to H. Tessler summarizing meeting between PC&F, Koch,
Tishman, SHCR, and PONYA to discuss engineering changes. Discusses spandrel plate splices,
A 325 bolts, not using A 490 bolts for the spandrel splices, and a statement by N. Soldano, PC&F,
that Yawata would furnish imported steel with Fy>36 ksi, and Kawasaki would furnish 36 ksi steel.
5 pages. May 9.
Gallagher, H. B. 1968. Internal PONYA memo. W. Borland detailing inspection trip to Great Britain to
visit Colvilles mills at Motherwell and Mossend, and Dorman-Long. May 15.
Gallagher, Hugh. 1967. Internal PONYA memo to D. Brown. December 11.
Goode, Bob. 1967. Internal SHCR memo to Leslie Robertson on Worthington, Skilling, Helle, Jackson
letterhead stating that Dorman-Long will produce 1,200 t of wide flange (WF) s for Montague-Betts.
September 8.
Monti, R. M. 1967a. Letter from PONYA to R. C. Symes, PC&F, mentioning discrepancies between
purchase orders and inspection reports for Kawasaki steel plates. August 21.
Monti, R. M. 1967b. Memo to R. Morris, Stanray Pacific. November 13.
Morris, R. E. 1969. Letter to James White, SHCR, with attached mill test report for Fuji Steel Plate that
appears in other documents. September 10.
Morris, R. E. 1969b. Letter to James White, SHCR, with attached mill test report for Lukens A 36
plates. August 29.
E–46
Morris, R. E. 1967. Letter from Stanray Pacific to R. M. Monti, PONYA, showing Colvilles, British
Steel Export Assn., and Fuji Steel as source of plate for contract. September 8.
Port of New York Authority (PONYA). 1967. The World Trade Center Contract WTC-214.00
Fabricated Steel Exterior Wall 9th Story Splice to Roof North and South Tower. This contract was
between PONYA and PC&F, but the materials chapters of the Laclede (WTC 221, Laclede) contract
are identical. February 25.
Port of New York Authority (PONYA). 1967. The World Trade Center Contract WTC-214.00
Fabricated Steel Exterior Wall 9th Story Splice to Roof North and South Tower. Clause 1 of the
contract between PONYA and PC&F defines the term Engineer (who was responsible for approving
proprietary steels) as follows. “‘Engineer’ shall mean the Chief of the Planning and Construction
Division of the WTC of the World Trade Department of the Authority for the time being, or his
successor in duties, acting personally or through his authorized representative, except where provided
herein to be acting personally, who is at present the Construction Manager of the WTC.”
February 25.
Port of New York Authority (PONYA). 1967. Change slip DM-116 to Stanray Pacific. June 6.
Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson (SHCR). 1967. WTC Structural Drawing Books.
Symes, R. C. 1969a. Memo from PC&F to M. Gerstman, Tishman, requesting adjustment to payment
because of steel changes. States that plates 1, 2, and 4 (flange, outside web, and spandrel) were made
from imported steel (presumably Yawata) and plate 3 (inside web) was fabricated from domestic
steel. Also contains a table showing tons of steel used by grade and thickness. 6 pages PCF#T-40.
February 5.
Symes, R. C. 1969b. Memo PC&F to R. M. Monti, PONYA, requesting approval for material
substitution, contains Fy = 45 ksi and Fy = 50 ksiYawata mill test reports. February 24.
Symes, R. C. 1967a. Memo from PC&F to R. Monti, PONYA, requesting approval of Bethlehem
V-series steels outside of the published plate sizes. 2 pages. Denied without full information on
September 8, 1967, requested again with further documentation on November 2, 1967. Provisionally
approved November 18, 1967 (no PCF letter #). August 14.
Symes, R. C. 1967b. Letter PC&F to R, Monti (PONYA) requesting approval to use modified
Bethlehem V-series steels outside the published thickness range, with full specifications attached.
(PCF #666-39.) 7 pages. Approved November 30, 1967. November 2.
Symes, R. C. 1967c. Memo from PC&F to R. M. Monti, PONYA, including Yawata data sheets.
June 6.
Tarkan, Y. N. 1969. Memo from Stanray Pacific to James White, SHCR, requesting approval for use of
a welded plate. Includes mill sheet showing that the plate originated from Nippon Kokan Steel
Fukuyama Works and was supplied by Crest Steel. August 12.
E–47
Appendix E
Walton, W. E. 1968. Letter to Malcolm Levy, PONYA, with attached ultrasonic and metallurgical report
(Magnaflux Corp) on plate of “British” (i.e., Colvilles) steel. Details chemical analysis, weld quality
and (poor-quality) micrographs. February 8.
Warner, H. L. 1967. Memo from Stanray Pacific to Malcolm Levy, PONYA, detailing distribution of
plate thicknesses between British and Japanese steels. Total is 32,000 tons. July 7.
White, James. 1969a. Memo from SHCR to R. Monti, PONYA, documenting use of heat-treated steel
above (PC&F) and below (PDM) the 9th floor splice. Contains statement that plate 3 (inside web)
was fabricated from domestic steel, while plates 1, 2, and 4 (flange, outside web, and spandrel) are
imported steel. Also contains table that shows where ASTM 441-modified and WEL-TEN grades
were used, by thickness and yield strength. 28 pages. July 28.
White, James. 1969c. Memo approving the April 4, 1969, PC&F steel substitutions. Has WEL-TEN 62
mill test report. May 2.
White, James. 1968a. Memo from SHCR to R. M. Monti, Port Authority, approving PC&F substitution of
Fy = 100 ksi steel for Fy = 90 ksi steel in exterior columns. February 15.
White, James. 1968b. Memo from SHCR to R. M. Monti, Port Authority, approving use of Bethlehem
V60, V65, and V75 steels as specified for PC&F. January 4.
White, James. 1967a. Memo from SHCR to R. M. Monti, PONYA, asking for clarification on origin of
Japanese 36 ksi steel (Yawata or Kawasaki). 2 pages. September 6.
White, James. 1967b. Memo from SHCR to R. M. Monti, PONYA, approving Ni-containing
A 441-modified steel. Has two-page specification for Yawata A 441-modified. October 18.
White, James. 1967c. Memo to PONYA. September 1.
Yamada, H. 1967. Memo from Marubeni-Iida, the firm that imported the Fuji steel for Stanray Pacific, to
PONYA, listing 1,441 tons of A 36 and A 572 grade 42 steel plates up to 3 in. thick. Plates are 36 ft
3/4 in. long and 36 in. to 94 5/8 in wide. July 18.
E–48
Attachment 1
STEEL COMPANIES INVOLVED IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
Most of the fabrication firms that worked on the steel for the World Trade Center (WTC) are no longer in
business. This section summarizes the contributions of each of the major steel firms involved, and their
current status.
1.1 ATLAS MACHINE AND IRON WORKS

Contract WTC212
Atlas fabricated the 27 in. by 32 in. perimeter box columns, spandrels, and X-bracing below the 4th
floor (Feld 1971) (13,600 tons). This contract was the first major use of electroslag welding in the United
States (Feld 1971).
Most recent address:

Atlas Machine and Iron Works
13951 Lee Highway
Gainesville, VA 22065
Arthur X. Miles, President and Registered Agent
The Virginia Corporation Commission indicates that Atlas went out of business in 1999. The address is
at the intersection of US 29 and I-66 in Gainesville, Virginia. A drive past the site on November 24,
2002, confirmed that it is inactive.
1.2 DRIER STRUCTURAL STEEL

Drier fabricated the foundation load distribution system (base plates and grillages) (Feld 1971). No
information is available on its current status.
1.3 DOVELL ENGINEERING

Dovell was the detailer for Stanray Pacific. (The detailer makes the detailed fabrication drawings of the
columns and beams.)
Current Address
9901 Paramount Blvd Suite 202
Downey, CA 90241
562-927-4770
Dovell President Tony Wall (Wall 2002 †) indicated that the former owner, who was active in the WTC
project, is not in a position to provide details of the WTC project.
E–49
Appendix E
1.4 GRANITE CITY STEEL

Granite City fabricated the electrical/telephone ducts and the floor deck system (Feld 1971).
1.5 HOBART BROTHERS CO./ITW

Hobart provided the electrodes used for on-site erection by Karl Koch Erecting Company
ITW purchased it several years ago, but it still maintains its headquarters in Ohio.
Current Address
400 Trade Square East
Troy, OH 45373
www.hobartbrothers.com
1.6 KARL KOCH ERECTING COMPANY

Koch erected the towers (McAllister 2002).
Skanska, an international construction company, purchased Koch in 1982. Karl Koch III is still alive, and
recently wrote a book “Men of Steel” that includes information about the project (Koch 2002).
1.7 LACLEDE STEEL CO.

Contract WTC226
Laclede fabricated the trusses for the floor system (Feld 1971). It entered bankruptcy on November 30,
1998, but re-emerged in January 2001 only to reenter bankruptcy again July 27, 2001. Currently a group
of former employees has purchased the assets.
Current address
211 N Broadway
St Louis, MO 63102
314-425-1400
1.8 LEVINSON STEEL

Contract WTC230
Levinson fabricated the below-grade area (12,000 tons of 14WF sections), the plaza, and the damping
units (Feld 1971). Metals USA acquired Levinson in March 1998. The www.metalsusa.com Web site
does not list any information on Levinson, however. Metals USA went bankrupt in August 2001, but was
reported to be emerging from bankruptcy on October 31, 2002.
1.9 MONTAGUE-BETTS
Contract WTC226
Montague-Betts fabricated all the rolled columns and beams in the core of both towers, 25,900 tons
(Feld 1971). Their contract was for “all rolled columns and beams, including cover-plated sections
E–50
throughout both towers…including horizontal trusses on 2nd floor... and exterior wall steel above 107th
floor and the weldments for supporting future T.V. masts,” (Feld 1971).
Current address of former owners:

1619 Wythe Rd
PO Box 11929
Lynchburg, VA, 24501
William Davis, President
434-522-3200
William Davis (2002 †), son of the founder (now age 91), confirmed that they furnished all the rolled
beams for the core of both towers as well as the antenna base. Montague-Betts closed its steel fabrication
business in 1992, though the family still owns a majority interest in one steel fabrication business in
Lynchburg.
1.10 MOSHER STEEL

Mosher fabricated the elevator core framing system to the 9th floor (Feld 1971) (13,000 tons).
Trinity Industries acquired Mosher Steel in November 1973, which is still in business. Rodengen’s
(2000, p. 58) book has only a partial chapter on Mosher, and only notes that it “shipped more than
13,000 tons of steel for the lower portion…”
1.11 PACIFIC CAR AND FOUNDRY

Contract WTC214
Pacific Car and Foundry fabricated the perimeter column panels from the 9th to 107th floors (Feld 1971),
55,800 tons. It changed its name to PACCAR in 1972. As PACCAR, they manufacture Kenworth and
Peterbilt trucks.
Contact Info:
PACCAR Inc.
777 106th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone 425-468-7400; Fax 425-468-8216
Dick Bangert (2002 †) (VP for facilities) confirmed that PACCAR sold the structural steel division “years
ago” and has no records from that business. Ron Symes (2002 †), chief engineer for PC&F during the
WTC construction, confirmed that the division was sold in 1974. The PACCAR corporate
history (Groner 1981) reports that the WTC contract was not profitable for the Structural Steel Division
because it had estimated the job based on shipping the completed sections by barge to New York, but
were unable to obtain insurance to do that. As a result, they had to ship by rail, which nearly doubled the
shipping costs. These losses, plus concessions to settle strikes in 1969 and 1970 sent the division into a
decline from which it never recovered. Nicholas Soldano (2002 †), former general manager, remembered
that the metals recycler Schnitzer bought the Seattle property where the perimeter columns were
fabricated.
E–51
Appendix E
1.12 PITTSBURGH-DES MOINES STEEL

Pittsburgh-Des Moines (PDM) fabricated the perimeter bifurcation columns from the 4th to the 9th floors,
6,800 tons (Feld 1971). The bifurcation columns are also referred to as the “tuning forks” or the trees.
Civil Engineering (1970) reported that Lukens Steel “supplied seven basic grades of carbon and alloy
plate steels for use in the welded ‘trees… steels meet yield strength requirements from 36,000 to
65,000 min psi.” Reliance Steel and Aluminum (www.rsac.com) acquired PDM Steel Service Centers in
July 2001.
1.13 STANRAY PACIFIC CORP

Stanray Pacific fabricated the welded core box columns and built-up beams above the 9th floor,
31,100 tons (Feld 1971).
The California business portal report indicates that the company is no longer in business
(Record # C0388500). According to its annual reports, the parent corporation, Stanray (1969, 1970),
decided to close the Stanray Pacific (based in Los Angeles, California) subsidiary during 1969. Joe
Tarkan, Stanray Pacific chief engineer for the WTC contract, confirmed this (Tarkan 2002 †).
E–52
Attachment 2
NOTES ON ASTM STANDARDS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL
This attachment summarizes the important aspects of the relevant standards that governed the structural
steel supplied and compares contemporary (current) and contemporaneous (1960s) standards. In general,
the differences between the contemporaneous and contemporary standards are minor, and are usually
additions or deletions of individual steel chemistries or small changes in test protocol. However, because
of these changes, it is possible that a steel that met a construction-era version of a standard might not meet
that same standard today, because the chemistry or elongation requirements have changed. This
statement should not be interpreted to mean that the steel in question as used was unsuitable, however.
The ASTM International defines a standard as “a document that has been developed and established with
the consensus principles of the Society and that meets the approval requirement of ASTM procedures and
regulations.” A standard may be a document that specifies the properties of a material, as in the case of
steel standard specifications such as A 36. Other standards are test methods that define the way in which
the properties in a specification must be measured. An example of this is A 370, which defines the test
methods for establishing the strength of steel. An important aspect of ASTM standards is that they are
consensus documents, established by committees where membership is open to all individuals and
organizations. Except for military construction, the U.S. Government does not establish structural steel
standards for the industry. Instead, the ASTM committees that establish steel standards are required to
have balanced membership among producers, users, and independent experts. The standards they
produce allow the producers and consumers to efficiently specify materials, without requiring them to
include all possible properties and methods in a contract. This report, to avoid confusion with other uses,
will use the term “standard” to refer to all ASTM documents, regardless of their status as Specifications,
Test Methods, Terminology Standards, or Practices.
The ASTM issues its standards annually in a multi-volume “Annual Book of ASTM Standards,” but
revises an individual standard only when the committee in charge sees a need. ASTM does require that
standards be reauthorized every five years, even if they have not been revised. The designation of a
standard, for example A 36-66, comprises two parts. The first (for example “A 36”) is a shorthand for the
general chemistry and mechanical property requirements, in the case of structural steels. Following the
designation is a two digit number denoting the most recent revision year of the standard (for example
“-66,” which denotes a substantial revision in 1966). The steel fabrication contracts stipulated that the
appropriate standards were those in effect in September 1966. In some cases the relevant standard was
not revised in 1966, and so bears a prior year revision mark.
An individual ASTM standard does not contain all the information to uniquely characterize the steel.
Instead, there is a “chain of standards” that defines the properties of the steel. The WTC steel contracts
allowed the use of steels that conformed to certain ASTM standards (e.g., A 36, A 242, A 441, A 514).
These standards define the mechanical and chemical properties of the steels, but in turn reference other
standards that define how those properties shall be measured. For instance, all the steel standards, then
and now, require that the steel conform to ASTM A 6 (“Requirements for Delivery of Structural Steel”),
which specifies, among many things, the dimensional tolerances of plates and rolled shapes. The rest of
E–53
Appendix E
this section describes the minor differences between the ASTM standards that governed structural steel
used for construction of the WTC, and those that exist today.
2.1 A 6-65 VERSUS A 6-02

ASTM A 6-65 “Standard Specification for General Requirements for Delivery of Rolled Steel Plates,
Shapes, Sheet Piling and Bars for Structural Use,” specifies the tolerances for structural steel. Both
versions specify that mechanical properties shall be determined in accord with A 370. At some point
ASTM editorially amended the title of the standard to its present version “Standard Specification for
General Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling.” A 6-02 is a
much longer and more complex document than A 6-65.
For determining mechanical properties, A 6-65 specifies the size and shape of test specimens, while
A 6-02 references (similar) specimens in A 370. Table 2–1 summarizes the significant differences in
determining mechanical properties between A 6-65 and A 6-02. Two differences are particularly
significant. A 6-65 specifies that steels shall be tested in the rolling direction (longitudinally), but A 6-02
requires most plates to be tested in the transverse direction. The location of specimens from shapes is
also different: in A 6 they are always taken from the web, but in A 6-02 for the large shapes used for
columns, the specimen is taken from the flange. Typically, because the flange is thicker than the web, the
flange yield stress will be less than the web yield stress (Alpsten 1975, AISC 1974). In summary, to
conform to A 6, most A 36 specimens for the WTC projects would have been tested full thickness. Core
column steels over 1.5 in thick would have been permitted to use the round 0.5 in. (12.7 mm) diameter
specimen because of their thickness. Thin perimeter column plates would have been tested full thickness.
In terms of chemistry, A 6-65 does not require any special method be used to determine the chemistry of
the steel. In contrast, A 6-02 specifies that chemistry is to be determined in accord with ASTM A 751
(“Standard Test Methods, Practices, and Terminology for Chemical Analysis of steel products”). A 6-65
requires the mill test report to state the percentages of carbon, manganese, phosphorus and sulfur, as well
as any element required by the individual standard. To that list, A 6-02 adds silicon, nickel, chromium,
molybdenum, copper, vanadium, and niobium (referred to as columbium in the U.S. steel industry). The
chemistry requirements have also been moved between standards. A 6-65 specifies two types of chemical
analysis. The so-called ladle analysis is conducted at the steel mill on the steel before rolling. “Check” or
product analyses are conducted on representative samples taken from the finished structural product All
of the contemporaneous steel standards (e.g., A 36-66, etc) specify compositions determined in both ladle
and check analyses, where the check analyses are slightly relaxed from the ladle analyses. In
contemporary standards, the check analysis values (now called product analysis) have been removed from
the standards to a single table in A 6-02. A spot check of the some of these for A 36-01 and A 242-01
indicates that the values listed in Table B of A 6-02 (“Permitted Variations in Product Analysis”) are
identical to the values listed under check analysis in the contemporaneous steel standards of the 1960s.
E–54
Table 2–1. Differences in specimen sampling requirements between A 6-65 and A 6-02e.
Shape Specimen Location Orientation Specimen type and size
A 6-65
Beams, channels or Web (Sec. 6.4) Longitudinal
zees (Sec. 6.3)
Full-thickness
(Sec. 6.5)
Shapes or plates Generally specified as Longitudinal 18 in. long specimen with 8 in. gage length
except alloy steel corner in product (Sec. 6.3) or straight-sided specimen. For t>1.5 in.
plates over 1.5 in. specifications, but no Full-thickness can use 0.505 in. diameter round specimen
thick apparent restrictions on (Sec. 6.5) with 2 in. gage length
position within
thickness for
non-full-thickness
specimens.
Alloy steel plates “ Longitudinal May use a round specimen with
0.75<t<=1.5 in. d = 0.505 in. very similar to A 370 02
Fig. 4
Alloy steel plates “ Longitudinal May use a round specimen with
>1.5 in. thick d = 0.505 in. very similar to A 370 02
Fig. 4
A 6-02e
Shapes: t ≤ 0.75 in. If w>6 in. from the Full thickness 8 in. or 2 in. gage length flat specimen
flange, otherwise from (Sec. 11.5.1) A 370 Fig. 3
the web (Sec. 11.3.2) Longitudinal
(Sec. 11.2)
Shapes: t > 0.75 in. “ “ 0.5 in. diameter round specimen (A 370
Fig. 4) or full thickness flat specimen
(A 370 Fig. 3) if desired
Plates: t ≤ 0.75 in. Corner (Sec. 11.3.1) Full thickness 8 in. or 2 in. gage length specimen A 370
(Sec. 11.5.1) Fig. 3
Transverse if
w>24 in.
(Sec. 11.2)
Plates: t>0.75 in. “ “ 0.5 in. diameter round specimen (A 370
Fig. 4) or full thickness flat specimen
(A 370 Fig. 3) if desired
Steel products have a natural variability in mechanical properties. Because the mill test for yield and
tensile strength represents only one or two specimens, it is possible that tests conducted on the finished
product may yield properties that differ from the mill test report. Sometimes these tests will yield values
that are lower than the appropriate standard specification. Should a specimen taken as part of the
investigation exhibit a yield point or strength less than the applicable standard, this does not imply that
the steel as a whole did not meet the standard. A 6-02 makes this quite clear:
X2.1 The tension testing requirements of Specification A 6/A 6M are

intended only to characterize the tensile properties of a heat of steel for
determination of conformance to the requirements of the material
E–55
Appendix E
specifications. These testing procedures are not intended to define the

upper or lower limits of tensile properties at all possible test locations
within a heat of steel. It is well known and documented that tensile
properties will vary within a heat or individual piece of steel as a
function of chemical composition, processing, testing procedure and
other factors. It is, therefore, incumbent on designers and engineers to
use sound engineering judgement (sic) when using tension test results
shown on mill test reports. The testing procedures of Specification
A 6/A 6M have been found to provide material adequate for normal
structural design criteria.
Thus, the results of contemporary tension tests on WTC steels can only be used to assert that the steel in
question is of a quality that could reasonably be expected to meet a given ASTM standard. It may be that
an individual tension test might result in a measured yield point less than that acceptable in the standard.
As long as the measured yield point is close to the specified minimum, the steel in question probably met
the requirements of the standard.
2.2 A 370-67 VERSUS A 370-02

ASTM A 370, “Standard Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” controls the
methods used for mill acceptance testing of heats (or plates) of steel. Aside from minor revisions in 1966,
to incorporate A 443 (“Method of Notch Toughness of Turbine and Generator Steel Forgings”) A 370-67
is identical to A 370-66.
By and large A 370-67 and A 370-02 are very similar. Although the section numbers are different, much
of the text is unchanged over the past 35 years. Table 2–2 summarizes the important differences between
the two documents as they relate to tensile testing. As long as the loading rates are specified as the
maximum rate in A 370-02, the test results will also meet A 370-67.
2.3 E 6-66 VERSUS E 6-99ε2

ASTM E 6, “Standard Terminology Relating to Methods of Mechanical Testing,” defines the technical
terms used in the various mechanical testing standards. The definitions of elastic limit, elongation, gage
length, Poisson’s ratio, proportional limit, reduction of area, and tensile strength are word-for-word
identical in the two standards. The definitions of yield point and yield strength differ textually, but not in
spirit. Table 2–3 summarizes the textual differences between the two versions.
E–56
Table 2–2. Differences between A 370-67 and A 370-02.

A 370-67 A 370-02
Section 10d suggests that tests defined in terms of Section 7.4. specifically allows tests defined in terms
strain rate are acceptable, but not feasible with of strain rate
production grade equipment
No such language. Note 2 specifically disallows tests in load control
No restriction on minimum extension rate for tests Section 7.4.1 requires that minimum speed for testing
shall not be less than one-tenth of the maximum rate
for determining yield point or yield stress
No such language Allows maximum testing rate to be less than 100,000
psi, min
Section 13 (Determination of yield point) has different
language but is similar in spirit
Section 12(b)(1) specifies a so-called “divider method” Absent from Section 13
for measuring yield point.
In section 13 (determination of yield strength) the order
of the methods is reversed.
In Section 13 the extension under load method may “be No such recommendation
used only when the product specification permits.”
Section 13 allows the yield point to be reported as the No such allowance
yield strength if the load drop occurs before the
specified offset is reached.
A Class B1 extensometer is required for all offset Section 13.2.2 allows the use of a Class B2
method determinations of yield strength. extensometer for determining yield strength if the
offset is ≤0.2 %
Table 2–3. Differences in the definitions of yield point and yield stress in ASTM E 6.
E 6-66 E 6-99ε2
Yield Point
-2
“[FL ] the first stress in a material, less than the “YP [FL-2], n – a term used, by E 8 and E 8M, for the
maximum attainable stress, a which an increase in property which is now referred to as upper yield
strain occurs without an increase in stress strength.”
Note—It should be noted that only materials that ”Upper yield strength UYS, [FL-2], n –in a uniaxial test,
exhibit the unique phenomenon of yielding have a the first stress maximum (stress at first zero slope)
‘yield point.’” associated with discontinuous yielding at or near the
onset of plastic deformation.”
Yield Strength
-2
“[FL ] The stress at which a material exhibits a “YS or Sy [FL-2], n–the engineering stress at which, by
specified limiting deviation from the proportionality convention, it is considered that plastic elongation of the
of stress to strain. the deviation is expressed in terms material has commenced. This stress may be specified
of strain.” in terms of (a) a specified deviation from a linear
Notes on the offset and total extension under load stress-strain relationship, (b) a specified total extension
methods follow. attained, or (c) maximum or minimum engineering
stresses measured during discontinuous yielding.”
Discussion of the offset and specified extension under
load methods follows, as well as discussion of upper and
lower yield strengths, differences between the results of
the two methods and of rate effects.
E–57
Appendix E
2.4 A 36-66 VERSUS A 36-01

All chemistry requirements of Table 2 are identical for carbon, manganese, sulfur, and phosphorus.
A 36-01 requires that steel for plates and shapes other than group 1 be killed or semi-killed, while
A 36-66 only requires “where improved notch toughness is important, the material may be specified to be
silicon killed fin grain practice.” As a consequence, A36-01 limits silicon to 0.4 percent for all sizes of
plates and shapes, while A 36-66 only specifies silicon for plates with t>1.5 in. A 36-66 requires the
material to pass a bend test defined as “The bend test specimens shall stand being bent cold through
180 deg without cracking on the outside of the bent portion, to an inside diameter which shall have a
relation to the thickness of the specimens as prescribed in Table IV.” The bend test is absent from
A 36-01. A 36-66 requires that the steel be made by “open-hearth, basic-oxygen, or electric-furnace”
A 36-01 has no such requirements. The elongation requirements differ between the two standards.
A 36-66 has relaxed elongation requirements for thicker plates that are missing from A 36-01, and does
not differentiate between plates and shapes for elongation requirements. Other than these differences, the
standards are identical.
2.5 A 242-66 VERSUS A 242-01

The yield and tensile requirements are unchanged in the two standards, but the chemistry requirements
differ substantially. A 242-66 admits high and low carbon variants. A 242-01 admits only a low carbon,
low manganese type. During the WTC construction era, A 242 was revised to include the Type 1 variant
of A 242-01. Table 2–4 compares the chemistry requirements between the two standards. Another
difference is that A 242-01 prescribes the method for determining the atmospheric corrosion resistance,
while A 242-66 only states, “If the steel is specified for materially greater atmospheric corrosion
resistance than structural carbon steel with copper, the purchaser should so indicate and consult with the
manufacturer.” The elongation requirements are relaxed for thicker plates and shapes in A 242-66. The
current standard also adds some required elongations when specimens with 2 in. gage length are tested.
Finally, A 242-01 no longer mandates that steel pass a bend test. Requirements for bend testing are now
included as a non-mandatory appendix in A 6-02.
Table 2–4. Differences in chemistry requirements

between A 242-66 and A 242-01.
A 242-01
Element A 242-66 A 242-66 (Type 1)
C (max.) 0.22 0.15 0.15
Mn (max.) 1.25 1.4 1.00
S (max.) 0.05 0.05 0.05
P (max.) NR NR NR
Cu (min.) NR NR 0.20
Key: C, carbon; Cu, copper; Mn, manganese; NR, no requirement;
P, phosphorus; S, sulfur.
Note: Compositions expressed in % mass fraction.
The A 242 steel that Laclede supplied for the floor trusses would have met the chemistry requirements of
A 242-66, but would not meet the chemistry requirements of A 242-01, because of its elevated carbon
content. In terms of its load-carrying capacity, these differences are irrelevant, however.
E–58
2.6 A 441-66 VERSUS A 572-01

ASTM A 441 was withdrawn in 1989. A 441-66 and A 572-01 are similar in several ways. Both are
standards for vanadium-containing steels with minimum yield points greater than those specified in A 36.
To some degree it can be argued that A 572 replaced A 441. The carbon, manganese, and silicon levels in
both standards are similar but not identical. However, in terms of chemistry, most steels that met
A 441-66 would probably meet A 572-01. A 572-01 admits a wider range of minimum yield points in
much thicker sections as well, see Table 2–5.
Table 2–5. Differences between

A 441-66 and A 572-01.
A 441-66 Thickness A 572-01

YP (ksi) t (in.) YP (ksi)
40 4 in. <t<=8 in.
t <= 6 in. 42
42 1.5 in.<t<=4 in.
t<=4 in. 50
t<=2 in. 55
46 3/4 in.<t<=1.5 in.
t<=1.25 in. 60
t<=1.25 in. 65
50 t<=3/4 in.
2.7 A 514-65 VERSUS A 514-00A

A 514-65 differs from A 514-00a at dozens of points. Table 2–6 summarizes the substantial ones. Unlike
standards such as A 36, which have simple, non-proprietary chemistry requirements, each variant
chemistry in A 514 represents a single mill’s 100 ksi steel. For instance, Brockenbrough and Johnson
(1968) identify A 514 Grade F as USS T1, A 514 Grade B as USS T1 Type A, and A 514 Grade H as
USS T1 Type B.
2.8 YIELD POINT VERSUS YIELD STRENGTH

Both E 8 and A 370 distinguish between yield point and yield strength. For steels of interest to the
investigation, all standards for steels with yield strength under 80 ksi, whether contemporary or
contemporaneous, specify yield point instead of yield strength. ASTM E 6-99ε2 (Standard Terminology
Relating to Methods of Mechanical Testing) defines them as follows:
• yield point, YP [FL-2], n – a term used, by E 8 and E 8M, for the property which is now referred
to as upper yield strength.
• upper yield strength, UYS, [FL-2], n –in a uniaxial test, the first stress maximum (stress at first
zero slope) associated with discontinuous yielding at or near the onset of plastic deformation.
E–59
Appendix E
Table 2–6. Differences in ASTM A 514-65 and A 514-00a.

A 514-65 A 514-00a
Sampling One tension test from each of two plates from One tension test from every plate in each lot
requirements each lot (Sec. 10.2) (Sec. 8.1)
Brinell hardness from all plates not Brinell hardness may be substituted for plates
tension-tested (Sec. 7.1) 3/8 in. and under, with tension test from at
least two plates (Sec. 7.2)
Test specimen No special requirement Plates over 24 in. wide must be tested in the
orientation transverse direction (8.1)
Strength t ≤ 3/4 in. 115 ksi ≤ TS ≤ 135 ksi t ≤ 3/4 in. 110 ksi ≤ TS ≤ 130 ksi
3/4 in. < t ≤ 2.5 in. 115 ksi ≤ TS ≤ 135 ksi 3/4 in. <t ≤ 2.5 in. 110 ksi ≤ TS ≤ 130 ksi
2.5 in. < t ≤ 4 in. 105 ksi ≤ TS ≤ 135 ksi 2.5 in. <t ≤ 6 in. 105 ksi ≤ TS ≤ 130 ksi
(Table 2) (Table 2)
Elongation in 2.5 in.<t≤4 in.: 17 % 2.5 in. <t ≤ 6 in.: 16 %
2 in. (%) special elongation reduction allowances for No such allowance
plates under 5/16 in. (Sec. 6.2)
Chemistry Admits Types D, G Types D, G absent
(compositions Type D 0.13-0.2C 0.4-0.7Mn, 0.035P, 0.04S Admits new types J, K, M, P, Q, R, S, T.
expressed in 0.2-0.35Si, 0.85-1.2Cr, 0.15-0.25Mo
% mass 0.04-0.1Ti, 0.2-0.4Cu, 0.0015-0.005 B
fraction) Type G 0.15-0.21C, 0.8-1.1Mn, 0.035P,
0.04S, 0.5-0.9Si, 0.5-0.9Cr, 0.4-0.6Mo
0.05-0.15Zr, 0.0025 Max B
Chemistry Most S allowables are 0.04 % Most S allowables are 0.035 %
• yield strength, YS or Sy [FL-2], n –the engineering stress at which, by convention, it is

considered that plastic elongation of the material has commenced. This stress may be specified in
terms of (a) a specified deviation from linear stress-strain relationship, (b) a specified total
extension attained, or (c) maximum or minimum engineering stresses measured during
discontinuous yielding.
The definitions of yield point and yield strength differ textually, but not semantically, between ASTM
E 6-99ε2 and E 6-66, and are contrasted in Sec. 0 and Table 2–7.
In terms of mechanical properties, it matters little whether yield point or yield strength is specified.
Almost certainly the yield point of plain carbon steels (like A 440 and A 36) will exceed the yield
strength by only 1 KSI to 4 ksi, because they typically exhibit a yield drop after yielding. Of the relevant
standards, only A 514 specifies steel in terms of yield strength. Both contemporary and contemporaneous
version of A 36, A 242, A 441, and A 572 specify yield point rather than yield strength. The AISC
Manual of Steel Construction (AISC 1973, p.1-3) treats them identically:
As used in the AISC Specification, “yield stress” denotes either the

specified minimum yield point (for those steels that have a yield point) or
specified minimum yield strength (for those steels that do not have a
yield point).
E–60
Table 2–7. Methods for determining Yield Point and Yield Strength in ASTM A 370.
A 370-67 A 370-02
Yield Point
“Drop of the beam” method “Drop of the beam” method
Section 12(a)(1) Section 13.1.1
Position of the knee Position of the knee
Section 12(a)(2) Section 13.1.2
Total extension under load (at a suggested strain of Total extension under load (at a suggested strain of
ε = 0.005) ε = 0.005)
Section 12(b)(2) Section 13.1.3
“Divider method” Section 12(b)(1)
Yield Strength
Offset method with no suggested value but with an Offset method with no suggested value but with an
example that uses ε = 0.002 example that uses ε = 0.002
Section 13(b) Section 13.2.1
Extension under load with no required or suggested Extension under load with no suggested strain, but with
strain value: “this approximate method be used only an example that uses of ε = 0.005
when the product specification permits” Section 13.2.2
Section 13(a)
A 370-02 permits three different methods for measuring yield point and two methods for yield strength,
summarized in Table 2–2. The “drop of the beam” method applies to testing machines that prescribe the
loading rate, rather than the extension rate.
Interestingly, neither A 370-67 nor A 370-02 mandates a specific value of the total extension under load
determining either yield point or yield stress when using the total extension under load method. It does
suggest a value of ε = 0.005, but does so in a nonmandatory note. Furthermore, A 370-67 does not
require the mill to report which method it used for measuring yield point. Neither A 6-65 nor A 370-67
has any requirements as to the contents of a mill test report. A 6-02 does have a detailed section on Test
Reports, however.
E–61
Appendix E
This page intentionally left blank.
E–62

Table of Contents - Appendix e

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents - Appendix e

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents - Appendix e

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main structural components described in the document?

What are the main structural components described in the document?

How are the perimeter columns constructed?

How are the perimeter columns constructed?

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Appendix E

List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................................E–ii

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... E–iii

Figure E–1. Schematic diagram of the tower structure..........................................................................E–4

Figure E–2. WTC tower floor plan and column numbers......................................................................E–5

Figure E–7. Core column layout in WTC towers. ...............................................................................E–10

Figure E–8. Schematic diagram of a floor truss...................................................................................E–11

Figure E–9. Hat truss in upper floors...................................................................................................E–13

Table E–1. Metric equivalents of common yield strengths. ...................................................................E–2

Table E–16. Databases searched for WTC information. ........................................................................E–28

This page intentionally left blank.

E.1 SCOPE OF REPORT

E.2 UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Table E–1. Metric equivalents of common yield strengths.

E.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

E.4 TOWER DESIGN – STRUCTURAL STEEL DOCUMENTS

E.4.1 Specification of Steel Grades (Minimum Yield Strength)

E.4.2 Structural Overview

Sky Lobby Open Web Bar Joist

Technical Services Air-conditioning Duct

Figure E–1. Schematic diagram of the tower structure.

Source: McAllister 2002.

Figure E–2. WTC tower floor plan and column numbers.

Perimeter Columns and Spandrels

Outer Web (Plate 2)

15.75 in. Inner Web (Plate 3)

Columns 1001 1008

14WF730 4.91 in.

17.89 in. 15.825 in. 10.00 in.

Typical enclosed area for elevators and other services

501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508

601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608

701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708

901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908

1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008

Figure E–7. Core column layout in WTC towers.

Source: McAllister 2002.

Figure E–8. Schematic diagram of a floor truss.

Floors 107 to 110

Source: McAllister 2002:Fig. 2-10; Leslie Robertson Associates.

Figure E–9. Hat truss in upper floors.

Column Design Minimum Yield Strength Fy (ksi)

Floors Involved in Post-Impact Fires

Table E–4. Number of perimeter columns of specified grades in floors with

Table E–5. Number of core columns of specified grades in floors with

E.5 CONTEMPORANEOUS STEEL SPECIFICATIONS

E.5.1 Standards Called for in the Steel Contracts

Table E–7. Summary of mechanical properties from relevant ASTM International

A36-66 plates with 0.25 NR NR 0.04 0.05 Cu where specified

A 441-66 0.22 0.85-1.25 0.3 0.02 0.2 0.04 0.05

A 572-70 0.22 1.35 0.3 0.04 0.05 4 variants with Nb

SM50Ya 51 71 88 0.20 1.5 0.55 0.04 0.04 Add any element

SM53b 51 75 92 Add any element

SM58 65 82 104 0.18 1.5 0.55 0.04 0.04

E.5.2 Steels Used in Construction

Figure E–10. Schematic diagram of the stress-strain behavior of a structural steel.