Still looking for Tony Szamboti to explain his understanding of FOS

Based on two specific statments by Tony, I would really like an explanation from him on how he thinks FOS is applied to structures. Below are the two specific statements that basically contradict one another.



One of Tony's statments:

1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti (Post 9344507) If 20% of the columns were severely damaged or severed then 80% of the capacity would remain. The intact factor of safety of the core columns was at least 3.00 to 1, so a loss of 20% would drop that to 2.40 to 1.

Reading the above statement, one can conclude a few things.

1. A current FOS above 1 (derived by the math used above) means the structure would remain standing.

2. It doesn't matter which core columns are severed/damaged as no specific columns are called out above, only a "percentage".

3. You can derive the new FOS of a damaged structure by reducing the original FOS by the percentage of core columns severely damaged or severed.

4. The vertical load applied to each core column is the same, hence the "percentage of columns severely damaged or severed" claim.





But then Tony makes this statement:

2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti (Post 9396104) The outer 24 core columns contained 70% of the strength of the core vertical support. When they were removed the entire core load was on the inner 23 columns and they would fail in a hurry due to the static overload.

Now we have a new set of conclusions which differ from the ones above:

1. It now matters which core columns are damaged or severed, hence the "24 outer core columns" claim.

2. It now is stated that the 24 outer core columns contained 70% of the core strength for vertical support which now contradicts the "even spread" claim above.

3. This now contradicts the percentage of core columns damaged/severed reduces the FOS by the same percentage claim.



So which is correct?

via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=265504&goto=newpost