WTC Core Details[W:183]

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

So the long span floor trusses didn't use round bar for the diagonal bracing/knuckles?

Ehhhh ?

I was pointing out that you were posting a short span core end connection detail for the floor truss instead of a long span one. They're different.

This is the short span one here. Compare it to the long span one above, and then your diagram that you added the shear stud bit to.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

Can you show the entire drawing please with the title block showing?

Ehhhh ??

That is from contemporary steel design vol 4. Not from a structural drawing. This info has been out there since the mid 60s.

ADD - If you want to have a discussion about the basics of the towers, can we start another thread for it please ?

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

Ehhhh ?

I was pointing out that you were posting a short span core end connection detail for the floor truss instead of a long span one. They're different.

This is the short span one here. Compare it to the long span one above, and then your diagram that you added the shear stud bit to.
View attachment 67228536

Your detail drawings do not show "round bar" used for the diagonal (circled in red).


This is what the round bar looks like (circled in red)


Where did you get your truss details from? Are those from WTC drawings? Which drawings?

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

The floor truss detail is from the mid 60s booklet I mentioned. I found the link for it.... Contemporary Steel Design Vol.1 No.4 - 911Encyclopedia

It's probably worth having an entirely seperate discussion on.

This is detail "x" which is the knuckle that is red on your pic. Same page as the truss detail.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

Where did you get your truss details from? Are those from WTC drawings?

Answered above. But I would be interested to know where NIST got their detail from for their WTC model.

Do you see one of the issues I am raising, illusrated in the pic below ?

Anyone?

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

This is detail "x" which is the knuckle that is red on your pic. Same page as the truss detail.

View attachment 67228543

Wrong!

What you claim as the "knuckle" of the bent round bar coming through from below is not that. That "little round circle" at the top of DETAIL "X" with the "#4 bar" callout pointing at it is the round bar running horizontally across the top of the metal decking and is shown in section. See screenshot of the truss side view below.


Below is how the #4 bar was located horizontally (red line).

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

Gamolon, it's written right there in black and white what it is. The #4 bar is centred in the 4.5/8" slab.

ADD - I should add there that I am of the opinion that the rebar would have been tied into those knuckles, and perhaps that's where the confusion is coming from. But that is only an opinion.

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

Gamolon, it's written right there in black and white what it is. The #4 bar is centred in the 4.5/8" slab.

Yes, but that is NOT what is shown to go through the angles to create the up and down , "W" shaped component/bracing. The #4 bar runs HORIZONTAL through the concrete. The "W" shaped bracing is shown to be "T" shaped.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

Yes, but that is NOT what is shown to go through the angles to create the up and down , "W" shaped component/bracing. The #4 bar runs HORIZONTAL through the concrete. The "W" shaped bracing is shown to be "T" shaped.

Do you think that the construction footage showing the type of truss connection at the core end is incorrect too?

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

Gamolon, it's written right there in black and white what it is. The #4 bar is centred in the 4.5/8" slab.

ADD - I should add there that I am of the opinion that the rebar would have been tied into those knuckles, and perhaps that's where the confusion is coming from. But that is only an opinion.

This is what we see:


Not this:

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

Do you think that the construction footage showing the type of truss connection at the core end is incorrect too?

Are you telling me that you can tell the "W" shaped bracing going between the angles from the top of the truss to the bottom of the truss is "T" shaped and not round bar? You can tell that from the video?

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

So do you now agree that the publication corresponds to what can be seen in the construction footage as far as the connection at the core goes?

Or are you still maintaining that both are incorrect ?

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

So do you now agree that the publication corresponds to what can be seen in the construction footage as far as the connection at the core goes?

Or are you still maintaining that both are incorrect ?

Answer my questions gerrycan.

Does your Detail "X", which you claimed shows the "knuckle"...


...match the knuckle seen below?

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

This is what we see:
View attachment 67228597

Not this:
View attachment 67228598

You missed this also gerrycan...

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

You first Gamolon - You clearly stated that you were of the opinion that the 1964 publication was wrong in terms of long and short truss core ends.

You have now seen construction footage confirming that the publication was in fact correct, and are trying your damnest to avoid admitting it.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

In case sanyone is wondering - the round bar can be seen in this image. Pile of it on the left just by the strap anchore near the perimeter.

Note the knuckles on the floor pan are clear of rebar in the direction that the round bar ran when installed.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

I should clarify on the "clear of rebar" thing - there was some that kept the #4 bar at the correct height to be centred in the slab, as pointed out in the 1964 publication.

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

I should clarify on the "clear of rebar" thing - there was some that kept the #4 bar at the correct height to be centred in the slab, as pointed out in the 1964 publication.
View attachment 67228612

In your 1964 publication detail below, please tell me what type component is represented by the piece I circled in red. Is it:

1. Round bar
2. Angle ("L" shaped)
3. Tee ("T" shaped)



Your answer will tell all of us if you know what you're talking about or not. I know what it is. Do you?

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

Here, I'll help you out...

 

[camlok]

Re: WTC Core Details

In your 1964 publication detail below, please tell me what type component is represented by the piece I circled in red. Is it:

...

Yet another of the patented USGOCT conspiracy theorists' distractions/diversions. These folks like to repost all the details, pictures, drawings, etc of others posts, people who are actually making germane points, because they think it lends their empty of substance posts some ooomph.

Your answer will tell all of us if you know what you're talking about or not. I know what it is. Do you?

Rather kindergardenish of you, gamolon.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: WTC Core Details

Good to see you back Gerry. Once again, you offer too much science, too many facts, too much clear-headed analysis. Some will likely be driven to drink because of that.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

In your 1964 publication detail below, please tell me what type component is represented by the piece I circled in red. Is it:

1. Round bar
2. Angle ("L" shaped)
3. Tee ("T" shaped)

View attachment 67228827

Your answer will tell all of us if you know what you're talking about or not. I know what it is. Do you?

You don't even know what a blueprint is lad. And that is representing round bar, as has now been proven to you by me, by NIST, by Skilling and by Laclede steel.
No wonder you ran.

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

You don't even know what a blueprint is lad. And that is representing round bar, as has now been proven to you by me, by NIST, by Skilling and by Laclede steel.
No wonder you ran.

:lamo

You have No clue whatsoever. I've worked for engineering groups and in construction. I've posted what I've been involved in on a few forums. You're lack of knowledge regarding drawings and blueprints is evident. You thinking that the 1964 truss drawing shows round bar instead of an angle is laughable. You have a lot to learn.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: WTC Core Details

:lamo

You have No clue whatsoever. I've worked for engineering groups and in construction. I've posted what I've been involved in on a few forums. You're lack of knowledge regarding drawings and blueprints is evident. You thinking that the 1964 truss drawing shows round bar instead of an angle is laughable. You have a lot to learn.

State clearly what you think the material represents that you highlighted and asked me about - it is round bar. If you had worked in engineering to the extent that you claim you'd know that's what it was.
You asked what it REPRESENTED - I said round bar, you said it wasn't. You based that on the fact that it didn't look round in the figure. That is inane, and not unexpected.

Be clear. Are you supposing that the design for the open web trusses in the floor system was ever going to be manufactured from anything other than round bar ?

 

[gamolon]

Re: WTC Core Details

State clearly what you think the material represents that you highlighted and asked me about - it is round bar. If you had worked in engineering to the extent that you claim you'd know that's what it was.
You asked what it REPRESENTED - I said round bar, you said it wasn't. You based that on the fact that it didn't look round in the figure. That is inane, and not unexpected.

Be clear. Are you supposing that the design for the open web trusses in the floor system was ever going to be manufactured from anything other than round bar ?

Sorry, your drawing clearly shows an angle, not round bar. How about you get your buddy Tony in here and ask him what HE thinks the drawing shows. I bet you won't.