Part b of this problem is awful in my opinion... particularly the way they demonstrate that the tension-in-tension glulam controls. A better way to write the problem is to ask the examinee to orient the beam in the proper position, then design it for flexure+axial load. The funny part of this problem is that the compression-in-tension will never happen in the new scenario unless there is uplift. For the uplift scenario, the examinee could assume the beam to act independently of the truss system for quick conservatism at 0.6D+W.
My question is, why do they even check for the compression zone in tension scenario. By inspection, it's easy to see it doesn't happen. A good problem for compression zone in tension on a glulam is to do a mult-span glulam where he negative moment near the support would be in tension and you would ask the examinee which way to orient the beam for economy.
I suppose I'll digress... the pressure is getting closer and closer.
BTW~ has anyone received their exam instruction letter?
My question is, why do they even check for the compression zone in tension scenario. By inspection, it's easy to see it doesn't happen. A good problem for compression zone in tension on a glulam is to do a mult-span glulam where he negative moment near the support would be in tension and you would ask the examinee which way to orient the beam for economy.
I suppose I'll digress... the pressure is getting closer and closer.
BTW~ has anyone received their exam instruction letter?