Subject:
|
Re: My Pictures From Brickfest
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:21:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
908 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Rob Doucette writes:
> I'm guessing the members would delaminate (the plates capping the double
> beams would separate) especially if the loading is cyclical. I still think
> a long column will describe the behaviour more so than a truss because of
> the length.
You're comparing apples to oranges here. Within a truss, you will have
members in compression. Column analysis (i.e. Euler buckling, and the like)
can be applied to those memebers. To say that it behaves more like a slender
column than a truss doesn't jive.
To restate (and keep in mind this is from a design and analysis
perspective): the whole structure performs as a truss. Within the truss you
will have members in tension and compression.
To be even more specific, the structure only approximates a truss. Truss
theory is based on all members being connected at one frictionless point. In
reality, this is not feasible, so your connections will deal with some small
amount of bending stress (i.e. it becomes a frame instead a truss).
TJ
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Pictures From Brickfest
|
| (...) I'm guessing the members would delaminate (the plates capping the double beams would separate) especially if the loading is cyclical. I still think a long column will describe the behaviour more so than a truss because of the length. I don't (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
