'What about building 7'?

[LSSBB]

C76 - 79 girder.

Really? I was asking you in response to this:

If C79 had moved by expansion of the beam to the west of it, there would be significant connection damage along the span of that beam, in your earlier figure.

 

[gerrycan]

Really? I was asking you in response to this:

Yes, and now you know which element was being referred to, and you know what colour the dots were at both ends. What else were you asking about?

 

[LSSBB]

Yes, and now you know which element was being referred to, and you know what colour the dots were at both ends. What else were you asking about?

So were you talking about a beam, or a girder?

 

[Animal]

So were you talking about a beam, or a girder?

Apparently he doesn't know what he is talking about unless he finds it in some textbook or someone else whispers in his ear.

 

[gerrycan]

So were you talking about a beam, or a girder?

Primary beam, girder, call it what you like.

 

[pgimeno]

And here is the analysis to which your quote refers.
The ANSYS model doesn't support the above statement at all, and neither do the figures that you posted. You should by now realise that this was a "judgement" call by NIST.
Here it is at 3.5 hours - no failure in that beam. Look at it for the other times, you will not find that the beam has failed in any of the ANSYS analytics.

Where do you get the 3.5 hours from? Are you making that up? This other similar paragraph is from page 504, under a section titled "Building Response at 4.0 h".

Floors 10, 11, and 12. On Floors 10, 11, and 12 (Figure 11-32, Figure 11-33, and Figure 11-34), the girder between Columns 76 and 79 failed due to a tensile weld failure in the knife connection on the west side of Column 79. Temperatures in this region were less than 100 °C on these floors. The tensile force in the connection was due to an eastward lateral displacement of Column 79, which was primarily caused by thermal expansion of the girder between Column 76 and Column 79 at Floor 13.​

This is not a "judgement call". This is NIST reporting on the breakage of the connections at these floors that ANSYS showed, and explaining the reason.

Right up to 4 hours, when girders and beams are supposedly failing all over the place, still there is no failure in that beam. How can it therefore push the columns apart without expanding enough to damage the connections???

So yes, you're saying that NIST lied when they reported the breakage of the connections at other floors and attributed it to the expansion of the girder at floor 13. But you're also implying that somehow they didn't lie about the status of the connections of that girder. Weird, very weird.

THERE IS NO BUCKLING OR END CONNECTION IN THE BEAM.

If it buckled, it would not have been able to push the column. It didn't.

As for breakage of the connection, that was a knife connection that has no contact element, so probably the break elements only failed in tension, not in compression. Even if the bolts broke, the girder could still push on the column, held between the double angles.

As noted previously, the ANSYS analysis used a non-linear static procedure with an implicit solution algorithm that solved for equilibrium at each time step, but did not account for the dynamic effects of
falling debris from framing failures in the floor systems. Based on preliminary analyses in LS-DYNA, which included the effects of dynamics caused bydebris impact from failed floor sections and engineering judgment, the level of failures, damage, and thermal weakening in ANSYS at 4.0 h was identified as likely to result in an initiating event in an LS-DYNA analysis

Have you read the rest of that quote? Have you read the context? You really don't pay attention and just quote blindly, don't you?

The section is titled "Floor Failures Leading to an Initial Failure Event".

See that? FLOOR failures! Not connection failures.

And the quote mentions that the ANSYS analysis didn't account for falling debris of failed floors, therefore it didn't, and couldn't, show a partial collapse of the floors. The only way to account for that was by "engineering judgment" because ANSYS did not account for it.

They are not talking about a judgement call on the walk-off. They are talking about a judgement call on a cascade of failures of the floors, that left one side of the column completely unsupported horizontally for several floors.

So, you have failed this time; try again. What proof do you have that NIST didn't monitor the distance of walk-off as they said they did, and instead used their own judgement call to determine walk-off? And what proof do you have that they did the same for girder expansion between C76 and C79?

NIST got it horribly wrong.
Look at their LSDYNA modelling of the connection. It is not even the correct type of connection.

We're not discussing the global LS-DYNA collapse yet. Don't gish-gallop. Let's settle this first.

 

[LSSBB]

Primary beam, girder, call it what you like.

Was it north-south girders that failed, or the east-west girder, that were connected to C79 at floor 13?

You can substitute beams for girders, if you like and that fits whatever language you are using.

 

[gerrycan]

Where do you get the 3.5 hours from?

What proof do you have that NIST didn't monitor the distance of walk-off as they said they did, and instead used their own judgement call to determine walk-off?


We're not discussing the global LS-DYNA collapse yet. Don't gish-gallop. Let's settle this first.

Show me the failure in ANSYS.
It is you who stated the wrong element and demonstrated a total misunderstanding of the ANSYS model. Now you are demonstrating that misunderstanding very clearly.
You look at the screenshot from ANSYS at 3 - 3.5 hours that I posted, and ask where I got 3.5H from?
Your "proof" that there was an element used in ANSYS to deem the girder to have failed turned out to be based on your misunderstanding of ANSYS.
How many times are you going to make a point, just to have to retract it and admit your error, before you just admit that you have no clue what you are talking about?

Show me the failure of the C76-79 girder that you and NIST say happened in the model.
THERE IS NO CONNECTION FAILURE IN ANSYS AT EITHER END OF THE C76-79 GIRDER.

 

[gerrycan]

If it buckled, it would not have been able to push the column. It didn't.

As for breakage of the connection, that was a knife connection that has no contact element, so probably the break elements only failed in tension, not in compression. Even if the bolts broke, the girder could still push on the column, held between the double angles.

How could it push the column WITHOUT breaking the bolts first?

"Beams and girders that buckled or had end connection damage are indicated with dotted lines"

Is C76-79 shown in dotted lines in the ANSYS figures?

 

[pgimeno]

It is you who stated the wrong element and demonstrated a total misunderstanding of the ANSYS model. Now you are demonstrating that misunderstanding very clearly.

What wrong element? Do you mean the picture? I didn't pay attention to anything other than the control element. That doesn't prove anything else than a lack of attention at the time of capturing the picture. I had looked at the right picture before and noticed the element modelling walk-off. I just zoomed in and missed the caption while taking the capture. No big deal.

You look at the screenshot from ANSYS at 3 - 3.5 hours that I posted, and ask where I got 3.5H from?

No, I wonder why you bring up the status at that time. At 3.5 hours the girder hadn't expanded.

How many times are you going to make a point, just to have to retract it and admit your error, before you just admit that you have no clue what you are talking about?

Less than you fail to admit your numerous mistakes. Resorting to ad-hominem again? It has failed on you in past. Why do you try again?

Show me the failure of the C76-79 girder that you and NIST say happened in the model.
THERE IS NO CONNECTION FAILURE IN ANSYS AT EITHER END OF THE C76-79 GIRDER.

False.

Yet another case of you not paying attention and leading to a misstatement based on the lack of understanding of what you read, which of course you'll fail to admit like every other.

Here's the part of the quote where NIST say the connections failed:

Floors 10, 11, and 12. On Floors 10, 11, and 12 (Figure 11-32, Figure 11-33, and Figure 11-34), the girder between Columns 76 and 79 failed due to a tensile weld failure in the knife connection on the west side of Column 79.
​

So you have to look at figures 11-32, 11-33 and 11-34, which are the ones corresponding to floors 10, 11 and 12. The connection to the girder west of C79 is indeed failed.

I'll let you look up the rest all by yourself.

 

[pgimeno]

How could it push the column WITHOUT breaking the bolts first?

"Beams and girders that buckled or had end connection damage are indicated with dotted lines"

Is C76-79 shown in dotted lines in the ANSYS figures?

You are failing to consider at least two more options:

- That the bolts resisted the pushing force. After all, the only resistance came from the column itself vertically. The horizontal elements holding it had failed.
- That the model didn't account for compressive force for breaking.

 

[LSSBB]

Show me the failure of the C76-79 girder that you and NIST say happened in the model.
THERE IS NO CONNECTION FAILURE IN ANSYS AT EITHER END OF THE C76-79 GIRDER.

Where again is the failure you say NIST is saying? What direction does C76-C79 run, East-West or North-South?

 

[gerrycan]

I guess the horizontal support of the column relied on the connections to the girders located north, south and west of C79 .......
I made a mistake and posted figure 11-14, which is not the one corresponding to the seat at column 79
They claim that the analysis showed that the girder walked off; that was necessarily detected by COMBIN37element COMBIN37 (the one highlighted in the picture) did actually not report walk-off but NIST said it did.It seems I was wrong, and COMBIN37 was only used for walk off in the axial direction, and that instead they monitored the walk off distance by some other means........
which is what made me wonder if adding the black dot in the FINAL report was a mistake

Yeah, you're doing really well here.
Do you think you have it right this time?
Or have you got the wrong connection again?
Wrong column AGAIN, maybe?
Or have you misunderstood what ANSYS elements do AGAIN?
Or maybe you are GUESSING again?
Maybe it's that pesky reports fault for getting it wrong AGAIN?

Do you think you have maybe got this all wrong AGAIN ?

 

[pgimeno]

So yes, you're resorting to ad-hominem, pointing out where I correct my mistakes and never admitting yours.

Is that all you have to shift attention from your own numerous mistakes?

To buy some time while you ask your group and come back with a response?

 

[Spanx]

So yes, you're resorting to ad-hominem, pointing out where I correct my mistakes and never admitting yours.

Is that all you have to shift attention from your own numerous mistakes?

To buy some time while you ask your group and come back with a response?

I believe this is the goal with Gerry & Co.

This could explain why the Pepper letter was so unsuccessful.

 

[Oystein]

When will your counter analysis be ready for review?

Don't move goal posts, please

 

[Oystein]

...
Show me the failure of the C76-79 girder that you and NIST say happened in the model.
THERE IS NO CONNECTION FAILURE IN ANSYS AT EITHER END OF THE C76-79 GIRDER.

Floors 10-12
Not floor 13.
That's why the floor 13 girder between c76 and c79 could push the two apart - c76 westward, c79 eastward.
Which would decrease the distance that the beams east of the c44-79 girder would have to push that girder west till it walks off.

This seems real easy to comprehend...

pgimeno, is there anywhere a number of inches by which c79 was pushed east? If not, can we estimate that from the temperature of the c76-c79 girder and its length?

 

[LSSBB]

Floors 10-12
Not floor 13.
That's why the floor 13 girder between c76 and c79 could push the two apart - c76 westward, c79 eastward.
Which would decrease the distance that the beams east of the c44-79 girder would have to push that girder west till it walks off.

This seems real easy to comprehend...

pgimeno, is there anywhere a number of inches by which c79 was pushed east? If not, can we estimate that from the temperature of the c76-c79 girder and its length?

There you go, giving answers away. No Socratic Method points for you.

 

[pgimeno]

pgimeno, is there anywhere a number of inches by which c79 was pushed east? If not, can we estimate that from the temperature of the c76-c79 girder and its length?

There's no indication in the NIST report that I know, and as for calculating it, we can just get a maximum, since both C76 and C79 were displaced in opposite directions and we don't know how the displacement was distributed between both. That maximum must have been big enough to break connections in three more floors, though.

Not that it would make a difference to this discussion. Against any technical consideration, gerrycan defaults to believing NIST lied when reporting the results of the simulation. My goal is to show other readers that there's no fatal flaw in the NIST report regarding the walk-off or the stiffener plates, against what gerrycan has been insisting. I don't aim to convince him. He's wilfully blind.

 

[Miragememories]

"So yes, you're resorting to ad-hominem, pointing out where I correct my mistakes and never admitting yours.

Is that all you have to shift attention from your own numerous mistakes?

To buy some time while you ask your group and come back with a response?

"

Your mistakes have undermined your argument.

Gerry has justifiably pointed this out.

You have failed to show where Gerry has made a mistake, or mistakes, that undermines his argument.

"My goal is to show other readers that there's no fatal flaw in the NIST report regarding the walk-off or the stiffener plates, against what gerrycan has been insisting.

I don't aim to convince him.

He's wilfully blind."

Interesting approach.

Gerry's quest is to show that serious errors in your NIST-based argument make it critically flawed, while you appear to be more interested in using the NIST's reputation as the basis for your argument that regardless of those errors, the NIST must be right.