NIST North Tower ANSYS model -- floor trusses

gamolon · Jul 25, 2018

gerrycan said:
This is about what that means in terms of the ends though, and what it changes. Quoting the numbers from the sheet isn't the issue or the answer Gamolon, understanding the relevance of those numbers is and you clearly don't.

Reading comprehension gerrycan! You clearly have none. What did my quote say about those numbers? Here, I'll help you out. Again. I'll even hilite the relevant part of the quote for you.

gamolon said:
The long span truss end? We don't know as of yet. It'll be anywhere from 3'-0 1/2" to 5'-2 1/2" per the drawing below shown under "Dimension A".
View attachment 67236236

I wonder where gerrycan ran off to?

:mrgreen:

What does that tell you gerrycan? It shows that I said the truss ends would vary anywhere from 3'-0 1/2" to 5'-2 1/2" and that I clearly understood that.

Duh.

Come on now. You're not even trying. Stop playing games already. It's making you look bad.

gamolon · Jul 25, 2018

gerrycan said:
You just pointed out that they did, and the truss drawings that you have had for weeks now show that fact. You're "playing" dumb again, and i have to say, you're getting better and more convincing at it the longer this goes on.

Maybe use more of these :lamo just to emphasise how salient the technical details that you are making are.

Man your reading comprehension really stinks.

I was being sarcastic because the 1964 drawing you said they used for all the long span trusses shows what length end? Can you figure this out? Then take that number and compare it to the "dimension A" of the table being discussed.

Get back to us.

gerrycan · Jul 25, 2018

gamolon said:
Reading comprehension gerrycan! You clearly have none. What did my quote say about those numbers? Here, I'll help you out. Again. I'll even hilite the relevant part of the quote for you.

What does that tell you gerrycan? It shows that I said the truss ends would vary anywhere from 3'-0 1/2" to 5'-2 1/2" and that I clearly understood that.

Duh.

Come on now. You're not even trying. Stop playing games already. It's making you look bad.

So, given that the perimeter ends were uniform that would require the core end to vary between these 2 shapes in places, wouldn't it ?

gerrycan · Jul 25, 2018

gamolon said:
Man your reading comprehension really stinks.

I was being sarcastic because the 1964 drawing you said they used for all the long span trusses shows what length end? Can you figure this out? Then take that number and compare it to the "dimension A" of the table being discussed.

Get back to us.

I think you'll find that I came to the conclusion in this thread that the ends were mixed. And they were.
The variance of "dimension A" reflects the fact that the lower Long Spans were shorter than those that were higher (in the building). Good that we have established that now though.

gamolon · Jul 25, 2018

gerrycan said:
So, given that the perimeter ends were uniform that would require the core end to vary between these 2 shapes in places, wouldn't it ?
View attachment 67236900

We're talking long span trusses gerrycan. That's a drawing of a short span truss.

:doh

gerrycan · Jul 25, 2018

gamolon said:
We're talking long span trusses gerrycan. That's a drawing of a short span truss.

:doh

IT'S THE SAME SHEET FOR BOTH - now that is well worth a :lamo

ADD here's a long span one -

Note - you have now conceded that both types varied. Thanks for that.

gamolon · Jul 25, 2018

gerrycan said:
So, given that the perimeter ends were uniform that would require the core end to vary between these 2 shapes in places, wouldn't it ?
View attachment 67236900

Really? The sheet says C32T6! That's a short span truss! Are you saying they used that same sheet for the long span trusses?

Please say you're joking.

gerrycan · Jul 25, 2018

gamolon said:
Really? The sheet says C32T6! That's a short span truss! Are you saying they used that same sheet for the long span trusses?

Please say you're joking.

It's a GENERIC SHEET USED FOR LONG AND SHORT SPAN TRUSSES.
Good that you're now making some significant admissions here.

gamolon · Jul 25, 2018

gerrycan said:
IT'S THE SAME SHEET FOR BOTH - now that is well worth a :lamo

ADD here's a long span one -
View attachment 67236902

Note - you have now conceded that both types varied. Thanks for that.

Both types of what? Both short and long span trusses?

gerrycan · Jul 25, 2018

gamolon said:
Both types of what? Both short and long span trusses?

YES.

Same sheet for long and short span trusses. The details are written, the sheet is printed.
These are not even drawings as such - they are elements required lists. Parts lists used by Laclede that are not part of the drawing book collection. I requested them along with the books.

You're making some serious admissions here Gamolon. Specifically that the long and short span trusses BOTH varied throughout the building. Keep in mind that NIST used the same trusses and seats at every level.

gamolon · Jul 25, 2018

gerrycan said:
YES.

Excellent.

So when you started this thread, you thought the 1964 truss drawings were the only types of trusses used (per the quote and pictures below) and figured out later that there were variations.

gerrycan said:
I tihink this should clear up which type of truss was actually used in the construction at the long span ends at the core.
View attachment 67228596

The publication from 1964 corresponds with the construction footage.

Glad we cleared that up.

gerrycan · Jul 25, 2018

gamolon said:
Excellent.

So when you started this thread, you thought the 1964 truss drawings were the only types of trusses used and figured out later that there were variations.

Glad we cleared that up.

At the start of the thread I didn't know. About halfway through it struck me that they had to vary though because the core columns are centred from top to bottom of the building but decrease in size as the height increases, so necessitating the need for a variance at the core ends in both the length and therefor the angle also. Unlike you, who realised it 5 minutes ago when you had it spelt out for you that you'd admitted as much without even realising it.

gamolon · Jul 25, 2018

gerrycan said:
At the start of the thread I didn't know.

But you were so sure about things gerrycan! You posted blurry photos, videos, and drawings to prove how right you were!!! You were shown to be wrong many times over, but you still tried to hammer a square peg into a round hole. I told you from the very beginning you couldn't trust those 1964 drawings and why I asked for stamped construction drawings.

Case in point.

You wanted everyone to believe the above truss drawing was for long span trusses. You stated numerous times the 1964 were PROVEN to be correct. Show me where 1'-6 3/4" shows up in the "dimension A" table in the previous drawing.

You're done here. You've BEEN done for a long time and you finally admitted it. 116 pages of your blustering, lies, structural incompetence.

:2wave:

gerrycan · Jul 25, 2018

gamolon said:
But you were so sure about things gerrycan! You posted blurry photos, videos, and drawings to prove how right you were!!! You were shown to be wrong many times over, but you still tried to hammer a square peg into a round hole. I told you from the very beginning you couldn't trust those 1964 drawings and why I asked for stamped construction drawings.

Case in point.
View attachment 67236910

You wanted everyone to believe the above truss drawing was for long span trusses. You stated numerous times the 1964 were PROVEN to be correct. Show me where 1'-6 3/4" shows up in the "dimension A" table in the previous drawing.

You're done here. You've BEEN done for a long time and you finally admitted it. 116 pages of your blustering, lies, structural incompetence.

:2wave:

Gamolon. You just got handed 2 identically printed part lists for long and short span trusses, with the lengths in big numbers at the top, and had to be told TWICE that the sheet was generic for both spans.

You've admitted that the long and short spans both varied throughout the building (even if you don't realise that you have) and we have a booklet that is non specific to any floor, and NIST's ANSYS detail that is specific to floor 96.

I think it's pretty clear who's done here Gamelon. :lamo

ADD this is one of those many many times where Gamolon is likely to throw the toys out of the pram again and storm off, never to return. (until the next time he returns in a day or so)

"reading comprehension". Indeed.