• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
LSSBB said:
Point being?
Click to expand...

You were told this an hour or so ago on this thread.
Makes your recent question and Jay's cheer-leading look pathetic doesn't it.

It's like me asking you if buckling in ANSYS is linear or non-linear and then MM telling you to hurry up and choose one.

Another quote from your pdf that you were told a while back in this thread ..."Convergence is obtained, if the norm of the residual force and moment vector (denoted by F L2 / M L2) falls below the criterion"

What was it that you stated was the condition for obtaining convergence was earlier?? Something to do with reaching zero wasn't it?

You got the answer then too, which is very like the answer that is in your pdf.
 
gerrycan said:
Here is the drawing for 79 and 81 connections...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32621&stc=1&d=1425434039[/qimg]

You seriously think that of the two connections, 79 looks most like this.......

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32622&stc=1&d=1425434039[/qimg]

Really?
Click to expand...

Do you have a drawing of how it looked after hours of fire?
 
tsig said:
Do you have a drawing of how it looked after hours of fire?
Click to expand...

There's plenty of nice pictures of the condition these connections were supposed to be in throughout NISTs model. You could start by looking at them.
After all, we are talking about their model here.
 
gerrycan said:
You were told this an hour or so ago on this thread.
Makes your recent question and Jay's cheer-leading look pathetic doesn't it.
Click to expand...

Not in my opinion. The question was a general one about convergence. The answer you were given was a correct explanation of constitutive relationships and how they are iteratively negotiated among finite elements. It was a proper general answer.

In contrast you said the whole thing could have been replaced by a simple reference to the Newton-Raphson root-finding method. That's not true. The general answer (and any of its domain-specific implementations) requires one of several possible root-finding methods (others include arc-length algorithms). But it is not identically any of those constituent methods.

And if you knew that ANSYS implemented a Newton-Raphson method for root-finding, and if you knew what that actually meant and how that fit into the overall method, you wouldn't have had to think twice about whether the underlying problem was linear or nonlinear; iterative root-finding methods are required in nonlinear constitutive relationships only. But instead you had to refer to a paper that happens to be the first link that comes up on a relevant Google search.
 
JayUtah said:
But instead you had to refer to a paper that happens to be the first link that comes up on a relevant Google search.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the paper that was posted here.....
LSSBB said:
Here is a good breakdown of how the ANSYS FEA is worked with, and some details of how it works

http://www.ansys.com/staticassets/A...elibrary/confpaper/2004-Int-ANSYS-Conf-24.PDF
Click to expand...
Maybe LSSBB could let us know if this was indeed the first link that came up on his google search. :rolleyes:
 
gerrycan said:
You were told this an hour or so ago on this thread.
Makes your recent question and Jay's cheer-leading look pathetic doesn't it.

It's like me asking you if buckling in ANSYS is linear or non-linear and then MM telling you to hurry up and choose one.

Another quote from your pdf that you were told a while back in this thread ..."Convergence is obtained, if the norm of the residual force and moment vector (denoted by F L2 / M L2) falls below the criterion"

What was it that you stated was the condition for obtaining convergence was earlier?? Something to do with reaching zero wasn't it?

You got the answer then too, which is very like the answer that is in your pdf.
Click to expand...

What is the minimum residual? When it drops below a criterion, isn't it approaching 0?

The name of the algorithm in use is unimportant. What is, is that elements need to be added or removed occasionally for a solution to converge. The PDF I just referenced you was using ANSYS plus an energy balance criteria. The other used it iteratively to find a design solution according to other criteria. Until those criteria are achieved, their algorithms don't converge. The ANSYS algorithm can be used iteratively within other algorithms that have other criteria to achieve beside force residual, and ANSYS FEA uses force residual as it's criteria. Your load balance criteria is a subset of all possible criteria where solution convergence is sought.
 
gerrycan...first answer...linear or non-linear? BOTH...the ANSYS FEA program and handle both linear and non-linear analysis, and you can mix and match. ANSYS is great for complex structural systems in high seismic regions, where you are pushing structural materials pass their ductile limit.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
What is the minimum residual? When it drops below a criterion, isn't it approaching 0?

The name of the algorithm in use is unimportant. What is, is that elements need to be added or removed occasionally for a solution to converge. The PDF I just referenced you was using ANSYS plus an energy balance criteria. The other used it iteratively to find a design solution according to other criteria. Until those criteria are achieved, their algorithms don't converge. The ANSYS algorithm can be used iteratively within other algorithms that have other criteria to achieve beside force residual, and ANSYS FEA uses force residual as it's criteria. Your load balance criteria is a subset of all possible criteria where solution convergence is sought.
Click to expand...

Could you maybe let Jay know if indeed the pdf was the first result from a google search you did?
 
MileHighMadness said:
gerrycan...first answer...linear or non-linear? BOTH...the ANSYS FEA program and handle both linear and non-linear analysis, and you can mix and match. ANSYS is great for complex structural systems in high seismic regions, where you are pushing structural materials pass their ductile limit.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct. Which is the point that I was making when Jay was urging me to quickly answer the question from his buddy, "is ansys linear or non linear"
 
JayUtah said:
I already apologized to you. How much longer are you going to beat this dead horse in order to avoid answering the remaining questions?
Click to expand...

When you attributed it to me, it was a google search and something that you tried to malign me with. When you realised that it wasn't me who posted the "google search" paper, it becomes something to be forgotten, and I am beating a dead horse for mentioning it to you once.
Pathetic.
This isn't a quiz Jay, and even if it were, you wouldn't be asking the questions, so stop trying to officiate and PLEASE stop trying to get me to answer trick questions from your buddy.
Pathetic.
 
LSSBB said:
I was searching within ANSYS papers for one that showed how the algorithm was employed iteratively.

Second result.
"ansys fea how to use iterative"
Click to expand...

You should ask ANSYS for a transcript of the lecture that i pointed you towards. It's more current, less staid and by somebody who knows ANSYS a hell of a lot better.
Maybe you could also ask ANSYS if their program is linear or non linear.
Nah, don't bother with that, they just wouldn't answer you and you would look less than bright for even trying.
 
gerrycan said:
When you...
Click to expand...

Keep flogging that horse.

This isn't a quiz Jay, and even if it were, you wouldn't be asking the questions, so stop trying to officiate and PLEASE stop trying to get me to answer trick questions from your buddy.
Pathetic.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear: you have no intention of answering the the other questions in the post? I wasn't aware that expressing my own interest in hearing your answers to someone else's questions qualified as "officiating." But by all means report my posts if you think I've broken any of the rules of fair debate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that a big part of your argument is that NIST used ANSYS wrong. Since you seem to be in a very small minority of people who think so, and since NIST's approach to using it and similar tools was the subject of a successful peer-reviewed paper in the relevant scientific journal, we do have to consider the possibility that you might be the one who doesn't understand the defensible use of those tools. Hence it seems prudent to investigate that.

You seem extremely reluctant to discuss your proficiency with the tool. I'll leave it to your best judgment as to whether that helps or hurts your argument. I found out what I wanted to know.
 
JayUtah said:
Keep flogging that horse.



So just to be clear: you have no intention of answering the the other questions in the post? I wasn't aware that expressing my own interest in hearing your answers to someone else's questions qualified as "officiating." But by all means report my posts if you think I've broken any of the rules of fair debate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that a big part of your argument is that NIST used ANSYS wrong. Since you seem to be in a very small minority of people who think so, and since NIST's approach to using it and similar tools was the subject of a successful peer-reviewed paper in the relevant scientific journal, we do have to consider the possibility that you might be the one who doesn't understand the defensible use of those tools. Hence it seems prudent to investigate that.

You seem extremely reluctant to discuss your proficiency with the tool. I'll leave it to your best judgment as to whether that helps or hurts your argument. I found out what I wanted to know.
Click to expand...
Yeah Jay. You found out that I wasn't about to answer a loaded question from your buddy about ANSYS being linear or not, and that your buddy used the first google hit he got to try and look like he had a clue.
I guess you did find out something, yes?

But let's not trifle here. Do you use the NLDIAG tool much ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom