So they modelled walk off with a unidirectional element (COMBIN37).
Does that seem right to you?
(genuine question)
And btw, my question still stands. Why no accounting for this in the West expansion of the beam ?
Your move of goal posts is not accepted.
You complained that NIST did not model these beams as free to move east through the gap with the exterior columns. Please acknowlede that NIST modelled this correctly, contrary to what you have claimed several times.
Also, you have insinuated several times that NIST modelled the exterior as fixed, pinned. This was FALSE. Are you with me that NIST did in fact model model all the connections in the exterior walls, and allowed them to respond laterally to stresses induced by expanding or sagging beams?
Hulsey for unexplained reasons stressed that NIST did not model connection failures outside a defined area in the ANSYS model - as if this were wrong. But it would only be wrong if he can show that connections within the exterior moment frame or outside the defined area DID occur. If, in his model, no connections failed outside the defined area, then NIST's choice not to model connection failures is thus VALIDATED by Hulsey. Do you agree?
Hulsey, in Slide 24 claims "Connections were not modeled;outside selected blue space", and he shows images from both Chapter 11 and Chapter 12, as if the claim applied to both the 16-story ANSYS model and the 47 LS-DYNA model.
I need for you to acknowledge explicitly, and without further evasions and goalpost moves, the following:
A) The claim is WRONG for both models - NIST did model connections in both, just not the failure modes in ANSYS
B) He invalidly extends the claim to the LS-DYNA model - but the "blue area" on the left has nothing at all to do with the LS-DYNA model on the right.
I have addressed your silly and evasive question earlier. Not going to waste time on it until you ackowledge and address all of the above.
Remember: This thread is about Hulsey's studey and all the errors of fact and logic he crammed into it. You can try to derail to endless details of the NIST report, but that is transparent evasion. Stop it.