Please note that he specifically said, twice, that his "frame" is 150 lb.
I too disregard my gut weight for live self induced dynamic deflection testing.
That seems like a significant difference. Would you be able to post your calculation? One of the nice features of this method is that it can give very accurate results, as @JoshPlumSE pointed out, even when the shape function is not very exact.
The 'i' represents the vertical level, or "story". For the force at each level, use the corresponding displacement at that level. This approximation uses the Rayleigh method, which you can look into if you are trying to get a better idea of how to apply it. I hope that helps a bit
Okay, I see.
I believe that the ratio of the reinforcement amounts in each direction would result in some ideal selection of the yield line pattern, with a steeper angle than the 45 deg., as you suggest. But as the length of the diagonal line projections continues to reduce, the angle of...
I don't know what I was thinking yesterday. As others have pointed out, under just the gravity load, even with the inclined interface, the load to the purlin is only vertical - thus bending about the strong axis only.
However, under wind load, now you have bi-axial bending.
I see what you're saying, but when I read it, it sounds like they are just giving the case of the rotated purlin as one example of "many" possible cases where the member is loaded obliquely. But I'm just looking at the section you provided.
I don't think so. Considering the free body diagrams, it would be like a mass on an inclined plane. The reaction is normal to the plane of the interface, which results in loading about the strong and weak axis.
That's my take.
Just a thought, you could explore plug welding the decking from above to the HSS. If that could be made to work, the seams wouldn't have to land on the beams, as is the case for the fillet welding solution suggested by @HTURKAK above.
Regarding the "non-compressibility", my thought would be achieving the bolt tensioning values/ clamping force, while maintaining dimensions, would be complicated by including a ply with low compressive stiffness.
KootK, regarding your point 2), in many cases wouldn't the section just beyond the end of the bolt pattern would have the greatest concentration of stress (minimal spread and no longer strengthened by the connected member)? I suppose there could be cases with strange geometry that would violate...
I'd dig into some of the AISC journals. I believe Prof. Bo Dowswell at UAB has written some papers on applying the Whitmore section in different scenarios, so that might be someone to ask.
I would consider taking the width to be that of the bolt row, but that wouldn't be very economical.
Structural is a different branch of engineering. Maybe consider getting someone who knows structural design to design the structure...
have you considered seismic loads?
Could the reviewer have meant "max shear stress theory" (Tresca stress)? Tresca is always more conservative than Von Mises. Here's a rough diagram showing the different theories.