NIST North Tower ANSYS model -- floor trusses

gamolon · May 17, 2018

gerrycan said:
The Laclede sheets are actually what will settle it. They have more detail. I have a couple of them that NIST were happy to part with for unequal T's and some cover plates from the bridging area.

I already told you what will settle it.

gamolon said:
Let us know if/when you get drawing book 7. Or maybe you have a picture of 7-AB3-2. That drawing has the dim for the truss ends as I have circled in the screenshot below.
View attachment 67233171

That drawing will give you the distance of the end of the truss, "DIM A", which directly correlates to what your claiming.

gerrycan · May 17, 2018

gamolon said:
I already told you what will settle it.

That drawing will give you the distance of the end of the truss, "DIM A", which directly correlates to what your claiming.

Again. You are supposing that ONE detail can be transposed to the whole building. That's inane, given the varied detail we have both seen just in this thread.

ADD note also that if I have meant to say drawing book 7, I woud have.

gamolon · May 17, 2018

gerrycan said:
Again. You are supposing that ONE detail can be transposed to the whole building. That's inane, given the varied detail we have both seen just in this thread.

ADD note also that if I have meant to say drawing book 7, I woud have.

No, I am trying to settle the fact that you think NIST swapped the long and short span trusses based on an incorrect 1964 drawing that shows both long and short truss ends. That specific drawing will settle that. Period.

gerrycan · May 17, 2018

gamolon said:
No, I am trying to settle the fact that you think NIST swapped the long and short span trusses based on an incorrect 1964 drawing that shows both long and short truss ends. That specific drawing will settle that. Period.

The same way that one drawing settled the WTC7 shear stud issue you mean ?
That didn't work out too well for you.

The fact here is that the 1964 booklet does show a variance, and either way that should be settled. I put that caviat on my OP for the very reason that relying on one piece of evidence or one drawing is not advisable.

gamolon · May 17, 2018

gerrycan said:
The fact here is that the 1964 booklet does show a variance, and either way that should be settled.

That drawing doesn't not support your claim that NIST swapped the long and short span trusses thus invalidating their analysis. The reason it doesn;t support your claim is that it was an early drawing and not a stamped drawing used in the construction. That makes it invalid for anything in the towers.

Again. the truss details in drawing book 7 will put this claim to rest once and for all as they will shows exactly what should have been used at these floor levels.

You have no credibility here anymore based on all your mistakes presented within this thread and nobody should take you seriously. Not to mention your failed attempts at sock-puppetry at another forum. Just more examples of the games you like to play.

gerrycan · May 17, 2018

gamolon said:
That drawing doesn't not support your claim that NIST swapped the long and short span trusses thus invalidating their analysis. The reason it doesn;t support your claim is that it was an early drawing and not a stamped drawing used in the construction. That makes it invalid for anything in the towers.

Again. the truss details in drawing book 7 will put this claim to rest once and for all as they will shows exactly what should have been used at these floor levels.

You have no credibility here anymore based on all your mistakes presented within this thread and nobody should take you seriously. Not to mentioned you failed attempts at sock-puppetry at another forum. Just more examples of the games you like to play.

Paranoid. Get that sorted out.

We do at least agree that NIST have not yet released the data to back up their conclusions though.

gerrycan · May 18, 2018

gamolon said:
Like I said before. Your track record with construction drawings and terms stinks to high heaven.

Says the guy who was wrong after a previous 2 year debate and still cannot admit it over 6 years later

gamolon said:
You have no business arguing the things you do because you have no clue. That much is evident with the last mistakes I posted.

I have plenty business arguing it, and will continue to do so. Your opinions are just that. Your opinions. You're not even comprehending the issues here Gamolon. You were over a month later realising the overhang that existed at the core perimeter corners when you corrected Sander's graphic a couple f days ago and then proclaimed " looks like i was correct". Funny.

gamolon said:
Again, your claim will be proven right or wrong as soon as you get the truss details from book 7.

I tend to think that the trusses will be mixed in terms of the ends. I stated this on this thread weeks ago.

gamolon said:
Until then, you're done here.

Far from it. Consider this a prelude. I'll be done when I decide I am done, not when you would rather I was.

gerrycan · Jul 3, 2018

gamolon said:
Let us know if/when you get drawing book 7. Or maybe you have a picture of 7-AB3-2. That drawing has the dim for the truss ends as I have circled in the screenshot below.
View attachment 67233171

So Gamelon, I'll just leave this here then and you can share your thoughts

https://imgur.com/a/d81j3zx
This should be good.....

gerrycan · Jul 5, 2018

As an interesting aside wrt the OP, here is a sheet for one of the short span C32T6 trusses. They use a more or less generic sheet and provide a check box to specify the end type, which can be shallow or steep...
https://imgur.com/a/nw6ERyJ

Note that this particular short span truss has a shallow end identical to that in the booklet which some here disputed the accuracy of....
https://imgur.com/a/tIQD4fJ

The booklet's not wrong.

gerrycan · Jul 7, 2018

gamolon said:
I have proven you have no clue what you're taking about when it comes to drawings and construction

Well, that quote didn't age too well for you did it. I said that I believed that the ends were mixed, and now you have it in black and white from the original manufacturer's drawings that the short span ends varied.

gamolon said:
and have also invalidated most of your supporting evidence for your "NIST has swapped the truss ends" claim.

No Gamolon. Once again you have got it horribly wrong and now you will revert to the only option open to you. To run and hide from the facts which are being laid bare for you and anyone else to see.

For example, the long span ends at the transfers, which without the drawings, I ascertained were connected at the top and bottom chords. You disputed that and demanded stamped drawings....

and again.....

The only reason you even disputed my assertions was to try and recover a shred of credibility, having previously denied structural details in WTC7 for TWO YEARS which were subsequently validated (a fact which you STILL refuse to accept), proving you 100% wrong yet again.

How's that working out for ya champ ?

Maybe I should start a thread called "Gamolon's gaffes" based on the BS you have asserted throughout this thread which is coming back to haunt you now in the form of structural drawings. I'll understand if you'd rather not respond.
:lamo

gerrycan · Jul 9, 2018

gamolon said:
Prove it! Show me the drawings that you used to make that claim that the top and bottom chords aligned for the trusses that framed into the transfer trusses.

Sure....

And again....

And again....

Enough yet ?

ADD - I should say that I didn't use those at the time, but they do confirm what you disputed existed at the long span ends..
Another Gamolon gaffe.....

mike2810 · Jul 9, 2018

So Gerrycan. If you are so sure you are correct and NIST " It looks as if NIST have applied short span connections to the long span floor trusses at the core column connection end.",

When are you going to publish in a creditable engineering or science publication? Have you contacted any of the MSM and have them report your findings?

gerrycan · Jul 9, 2018

mike2810 said:
So Gerrycan. If you are so sure you are correct and NIST " It looks as if NIST have applied short span connections to the long span floor trusses at the core column connection end.",

When are you going to publish in a creditable engineering or science publication? Have you contacted any of the MSM and have them report your findings?

The fact that the truss ends illustrated in the 1964 booklet do match with some of the variants found in the details from the truss manufacturer does not prove that NIST were wrong perse in terms of what they modelled at floor 96 for the North tower.

What it does illustrate clearly is that the tower's floor system was more complex and less uniform than NIST model would suggest if taken in isolation. The question becomes, exactly what were the structural implications of the omission of elements (strap anchors, shear studs, reinforcement etc) and the simplification of others (truss seats, ends etc) has for NIST's main model.

As for the MSM and engineering publications, I am happy just to post my thoughts on the floor system here for now. So far those would appear to endorse the viewpoint that it is incumbent upon NIST to release their input data and be more open about the details of the model that they used to justify their report and conclusions therein.

That's certainly something that I will continue to put to NIST, regardless of the accuracy of the truss system that they used in their model. That'd be a different thread entirely and maybe one for the future.

gamolon · Jul 12, 2018

gerrycan said:
As an interesting aside wrt the OP, here is a sheet for one of the short span C32T6 trusses. They use a more or less generic sheet and provide a check box to specify the end type, which can be shallow or steep...
https://imgur.com/a/nw6ERyJ
View attachment 67235697

Gerrycan,
In your opinion, which end, shown in the drawing of the short span truss below, below connected to the core side? The one in red or the one in green?

zyzygy · Jul 12, 2018

gamolon said:
Gerrycan,
In your opinion, which end, shown in the drawing of the short span truss below, below connected to the core side? The one in red or the one in green?
View attachment 67236079

Wait until he tosses a coin.

gerrycan · Jul 12, 2018

gamolon said:
Gerrycan,
In your opinion, which end, shown in the drawing of the short span truss below, below connected to the core side? The one in red or the one in green?
View attachment 67236079

The green one. You can see from the long span sheet that the note directs you to sheet 1A for the details, in which there is a centreline call out from a short span C32T6 which expresses a distence from the end that varies.
I presume that you got the link to drawing book 7 before it was taken down ?
(add - I see tha the link is still there and active, I thought I had messed up the onedrive links to it - North and South Tower Floor Trusses Drawing Book 7 https://1drv.ms/f/s!AjophWeMbRuajlEMUst2o90cuar2 - 2.3 GB)

I'll add the long span sheet and the 1A sheet as soon as I can get to them....

gamolon · Jul 12, 2018

gerrycan said:
The green one.

So the drawing with the green circle shows 2'-9 1/2" in the red box:

The other drawing shows 5'-5" in the red box:

Yet you said they were identical. Are you saying that dimension in the red box for core end of the short span truss varies from floor to floor, truss to truss, based on the drawings?

gamolon · Jul 12, 2018

gerrycan said:
The booklet's not wrong.

And can you also tell me where the channel that ran along the core columns with the truss seat welded to it is in the red box on the drawing below?

gamolon · Jul 12, 2018

gerrycan said:
The green one.

And while you're at it, can you supply the drawing/detail with the correct dimensions for the short span truss (shown in the red box below) that was installed on the floor NIST used for that floor model?

gerrycan · Jul 12, 2018

gamolon said:
Are you saying that dimension in the red box for core end of the short span truss varies from floor to floor, truss to truss, based on the drawings?

Yes. The short span truss end diagonal slope varied. Yours is 1.45 for the C32T6-358. For the same 35' 8" span C32T5-358 truss the slope for the same element is 1.9.
As for the drawings generally despite not being quite a full set, I think there's enough there now with the addition of book 7 to understand the significance of the structural variances in the towers but I am still going through them. In paticular the bridging trusses were certainly not insignificant and the implications of their exclusion from previous analysis deserves more scrutiny.

EDIT apologies, I quoted the wrong qyestion

gamolon · Jul 13, 2018

gerrycan said:
Note that this particular short span truss has a shallow end identical to that in the booklet

Did you misspeak when you said the ends were identical between the data design sheet and the booklet drawing? One dimension is 2'-9 1/2" while the other is 5'-5" (both dimensions in question are in red boxes on the drawings).

Also note that the design data sheet (second picture) calls out 1.14" D and .75"D (Mk. No. 5) rod for the short end diagonal while the booklet (first picture) does not show rod for the short end diagonal.

And where is the channel and truss seat in the booklet drawing of the core truss end? Remember those?

gerrycan said:
The WTC North tower was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors. The stud and seat details for the "x01" core column vertical set are on structural drawing 6-AB8-38 below....

View attachment 67228383

The stud and seat details for the "500" core column horizontal set are on structural drawing 6-AB8-35 below

View attachment 67228384

The seat and stud detail for the horizontal "100x" row are on drawing 6-AB8-24

View attachment 67228385

The seat and stud detail for the East "x08" +(807) is on drawing 6-AB8-42

View attachment 67228386

I don't see those in the booklet drawing. I see something else represented.

gamolon · Jul 13, 2018

gamolon said:
And can you also tell me where the channel that ran along the core columns with the truss seat welded to it is in the red box on the drawing below?
View attachment 67236100

Below is the channel and seat (in the red box) the truss was connect to. I wonder why the booklet drawing shows a completely different assembly (in the red box in the drawing above)?

gamolon · Jul 13, 2018

gerrycan said:
Yes. The short span truss end diagonal slope varied.

Interesting.

Can you explain something to all of us here? How did you determined that the truss end shown in the booklet (bottom right image below) for the core end of the short span truss was in fact the truss used on the floor that NIST used to create it's model and thus got wrong because they "swapped" the long and short truss ends?

gerrycan said:
I thought that this issue deserved a thread of it's own. It looks as if NIST have applied short span cnnections to the long span floor trusses at the core column connection end.
View attachment 67228574

I feel that I must be getting something wrong here, because this would invalidate NIST's whole model if it were the case, and is not something that would get past the scrutiny of any competent investigative engineer that had access to the drawings.

Tell you what gerrycan. Please supply the construction drawing you used to show that the short span truss end in shown in the booklet was in fact used on the 96th floor as you claim. I mean, you used the booklet drawing to show that NIST used the wrong end right?

gamolon · Jul 13, 2018

gerrycan said:
Where do you think they got the info for this publication if not from the drawings ??

I don't know gerrycan. Why don't you supply the stamped drawing that matches the booklet short span truss. You had to have had that stamped drawing in front of you to match it to the booklet right?

Aristaeus · Jul 13, 2018

Jesus Christ. 110 pages of discussion of trusses. You can discuss trusses all day long, but the truthers still can't provide any evidence for motive or opportunity.

NIST North Tower ANSYS model -- floor trusses

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou