Dr. Troglodyte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dr. Troglodyte Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> >
>
>
> [Image Restored]
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Jon Ellison; regarding the above image
> > you
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > ”Not really as it isn't an arch.
> > > It's a triangulated, opposed truss.
> > > It functions dynamically in exactly the same
> > way
> > > as the trusses' in the other
> pyramids...”
> > >
> > > These comments are incorrect.
> > >
> > > The roof structure for this space is an
> > > arch. It is composed of segments of
> > opposing
> > > voussoirs. It is not a
> > > “triangulated, opposed truss”; in that it
> > does
> > > satisfy the formulaic requirements for a
> truss:
> > > m = 2n – 3,
>
> > > where m is
> the
> > > total number of members and
> > > n is the
> total
> > > number of nodes. It does not function
> > > “dynamically” as a truss, for the same
> > > reason.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. Troglodyte
> >
>
> > How exactly does a Voussoir function as an
> active
> > component within a true arch????
> > How does a true arch function as opposed to a
> > gabled arch???
> > Are they the same?
> > Are they different??
>
>
> The ‘voussoir’ is a wedge shaped
> element utilized in load [force/thrust]
> transference. In the image below, lines of
> “thrust” are dashed:
>
>
>
> [url=http://www.bristol.ac.uk/civilengineering/bri
> dges/Pages/HowtoreadabridgeArches.html]Source[/url
> ]
>
>
> > What is the difference between a True Arch and
> a
> > False Arch??
>
>
> The [i]‘voussoired’[/i] arch is a form of
> “true” arch; the ‘corbeled’ arch is
> [url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fa
> lse%20arch]defined[/url] as a “false” arch.
>
>
> > What would happen if we were to remove the
> lower
> > cross member from a triangulated truss??
> > If the lower cross member of a truss were
> removed
> > could it be compensated for in any other way
> > therefore mathematically maintaining the
> > structural integrity of the truss??
> >
>
>
> You would no longer have a [i]”truss”[/i].
> Compensation of the horizontal chord member of a
> truss, that does not act in tension, negates its
> designation as a [i]”truss”[/i].
>
>
> > I look forward to your answers.
> >
> > I have corrected and completed your drawing.
> >
> > [img]https://i.imgur.com/dhR5pAz.jpg[/img]
>
>
>
> You have “corrected” nothing. You have
> illustrated the compression of the diagonal
> members and the tension of the horizontal chord
> member. You have incorrectly illustrated the
> “reaction” force from the bearing nodes, as
> indicated in this modern wood truss image:

Yes I have corrected your incorrect drawing..
What exactly is your "reaction force" reacting to???

Are you misreading your drawing??

Or is it a drawing of a closed roof truss as opposed to what were talking about, which is an 'open truss' of the opposing variety? Sometimes referred to on here as "gables, rafters or chevrons".



>
>
> [center][img]http://www.rltruss.com/images/loads.j
> pg[/img][/center]
> [url=http://www.rltruss.com/trusseducation.html]So
> urce[/url]
>
>
>
> Dr. Troglodyte



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28-Oct-17 08:09 by Jon Ellison.