I certainly understand the sentiment but I'm going to take this opportunity to push back on the designer mistrust a bit.
MPCWT = Metal Place Connected Wood Truss.
One of several positions that I've held within the MPCWT industry was working for the Wood Truss Council of America where one of my...
The bolted end plate connection will be cost effective but it's not as though there aren't other connection types that would allow you to avoided column web flexure should that become a goal.
An important consideration may be the need for column stiffeners behind the flanges of your moment...
You should be good then. The only EOR hang-up that I can envision, potentially, is concern for rotational ductility in the beam to column connection. You will often loose that when that connection is designed for axial load transfer. But, then, you often lose it regardless to some degree so...
I'm in a northern climate but, here, the deck's corrugated profile would never be exposed to the elements as you've described. Rather there would be a roof buildup that would render the roof plane a flat surface.
I've had some ideas in that regard. Simple stuff that would also be fun to study here. Like little college homework problems.
1) Ask the truss designer to print off the analog model for the trusses. As far as I know, all of the software packages have this capability. Then you can see for...
This would want to be a bolted cap plate connection around here too.
Depending on the relative depths of the two beams (do tell), the beam to beam connection might make sense as a single plate shear tab of some sort. The shear tab then pulls double, or even triple duty:
1) Beam to beam...
I don't love it. Introducing a new technology to the project for only a small number of elements usually winds up being cost prohibitive. And, because it's a moment frame, you really want that composite stiffness through the beam to column joint and not just over the height of the column. And...
I was also going to recommend castellating. It does reduce shear capacity but that's rarely what governs the design of a steel beam.
But, yeah, knowing what kind of strength is massively important here.
As an example, if your governing failure mode is lateral torsional buckling in flexure...
I don't know Euro but, rationally, I feel that it makes sense to only consider one of those point loads at a time.
I imagine that the limiting thing here is flexure in the rafter tail. And I would take the provision as attempting to provide assurance that you can support at least one point...
Doh... the moment that I've been fearing has arrived. Despite being the OP of the other thread, I was kind of hoping to skate under the radar on this as I've already 'fessed up to several marginally criminal business practices this month. Wishful thinking I suppose.
Yup, I've been ignoring...
Nope, not really. And, fundamentally, that's the problem.
This will be painfully familiar to anyone who's attempted to model and design a vary shallow truss with big chords as shown below. One will observe the following in the shallow truss:
1) Lots of shear in the chords rather than shear...
This will come down to judgment: yours. I would love to tell you that, at an [Ix_truss / Ix_chord = 4.719], now there's a problem. Unfortunately, as with most natural phenomenon, this will tend to operate on a continuum.
Nature usually favors a messy, analog dial over a binary on/off switch.
iStructE has a very good introductory series: Modules
That's probably a fair bit less mathy than you're looking for but, if you're new to the subject matter, it's a great place to start.
The reality of this stuff is that a robust conceptual design tends to matter much more than the diff eq anyhow.
Lots of good stuff out there.
NEHRP #6 is a good start and a freebie: NEHRP #6.
Tall Building Structures by Stafford and Coull is phenomenal for this and would be my book if I could only have one. It's practical relevance has dropped to near zero in the age of ETABS but, if your goal is...
