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.
Your assumption is correct, that in the first case the columns are taking shear and bending. Consider the node on the right of the third story: it has no means of reacting the horizontal load imparted by the beam except by shear in the column. That's likely why the method of sections isn't...
Apologies for the delayed reply.
1.) "Figured as much, I should design each to handle 100% load then?"
Yes I think so, and that seems to be what others in the thread are suggesting.
2.) "How does the load path get more complicated with the gussets? I figured it was creating a smoother path for...
Just some quick thoughts:
1.) accounting for combined strength of weld and bolts is difficult- figuring how much stress goes where/strain compatibility. In the AISC 360-2015 spec, it's not allowed except in the design of shear connections on a common faying surface with strain compatibility...
Sosipater, it's working pretty well. I've just started using this setup so it's taking some time to get used to the drawing tablet, but I'm finding it faster than scanning in sketches on paper. Also being able to type notes on the side of the sketch is nice. I'm sure there's better software out...
Looks hand drawn to me, but using some digital drawing tool & software. I've been doing some similar sketching with a digital drawing tablet and Microsoft Onenote.
@rb1957 ah I see, the guess and check method. Thank you, that should have been obvious. Another option (essentially doing the same thing) is to plot the two equations over some reasonable range of R values in excel and find the intercept. Both equations will trend towards zero as R increases.
@rb1957 - I don't believe that you can find, algebraically, the radius or the angle for the chord, knowing only the arc length and the deflection or "sagitta" (depth of the chord). I could be wrong and hope I'm not missing something obvious, but I'd love to see it worked out.
@GoncaloPT ok, so using the 2500 mm with the bending deflection of 126 mm and the geometry of the chord of a circle, I get a "shortening" of 17.015 mm.
@GoncaloPT Could you please post the span dimension (length) so that we can test the geometric method that @rb1957 suggested? This could also be figured in cad. Here I've used the deflection of 126mm with an assumed span (arc length) of 1000mm arbitrarily.
