Support _both_ widths of a Butt Joint

[DrCaFr]

χMCF version 3.1 contains the following section:

Obviously, only one of the two widths b₁ & b₂ shown in Figure 49 are supported by the format, since Table 88 contains only one parameter b "width".

Following corrections are necessary:

1. Clarify whether parameter b "width" refers to the primary or secondary side.
2. Provide both parameters, b₁ & b₂ in Table 88.

Of course, according XML example files need to be updated then, too.

[DrCaFr]

Question in this context: How to specify in xMCF, what is primary and what is secondary side.

Idea: Primary side has the bigger width, i.e. b₁ > b₂. But what if both are equal?

[economidis-nick]

Obviously, only one of the two widths b1 & b2 shown in Figure 49 are supported by the format, since Table 88 contains only one parameter b "width".

Note that the multiplicity of b ('width') in the table is also vague: The primary width should have multiplicity of 1 and not 1-2 !!! It is not clear in the table whether 'width' refers to b1 (primary side), or whether there are two 'widths'.

We could change the table to the following:

[DrCaFr]

After @economidis-nick's comment, I see similar issues with

1. the Corner Weld:
   Suggested solution:
   
   since we have each of these parameters max. once.

2. the Double Corner Weld:

and

3. the Y-Joint:

[DrCaFr]

Yet another finding: The Cruciform Joint:

[economidis-nick]

Obviously, only one of the two widths b1 & b2 shown in Figure 49 are supported by the format, since Table 88 contains only one parameter b "width".

Following corrections are necessary:

Clarify whether parameter b "width" refers to the primary or secondary side. Provide both parameters, b1 & b2 in Table 88.

@DrCaFr , I read the text again. The tables are not wrong, striclty speaking. e.g. the buttweld can have more than 1 welding position in xmcf. And each welding position expresses the (e, b, α, d, β)-values which are specified in the tables.

Perhaps they would be clearer if we mentioned that: "Butt-Joint may have up to 2 welding positions. The features of each welding position are

• b ( "width" in xmcf)
• e ( not captured in xmcf)

Therefore, I would propose that we remove the "Multiplicity" column from every table, and state (before each table) that e.g. "the cruciform joint can have 2-4 welding positions, where each position has the following attributes"

[DrCaFr]

@economidis-nick: I had completely lost sight of the structure / schema of the XML file, here. Thank you for opening my eyes to this again! So it's not an error in the specification, but merely a sensible enhancement in the wording.
I'm very relieved about that! Changed label from "Bug" to "enhancement", accordingly.

[DrCaFr]

@economidis-nick: I applied the changes with commit 030c6bd651a71b23f90cfe78220a4c97b9e80248 and would be very happy if you could validate them.
If successful, please remove the "review" label and close the issue!
Thank you very much!

[economidis-nick]

review

Inconsistency:

• On Table 93 (10.2.5.3) , reinforcement : xMCF-Key is '(not yet supported)'
• On Table 102 (10.2.7.3) , reinforcement : xMCF-Key is '-'
  I prefer the latter.

Inconsistency:

• On Table 102 (10.2.7.3) , title is 'Parameters of Edge weld for its single weld position'
• On Table 105 (10.2.8.3) , title is 'Parameters of I-Weld' (doesn't it have a single weld position?)
• On Table 125 (10.2.13.2) , title is 'Parameters of Flared Joint for its single weld position'

Inconsistent Figures in 10.2.6.3.2:

• notice the difference between Figure 58 and 59 (at the bottom weldings)...

[DrCaFr]

Thanks again, @economidis-nick! I applied your suggestions with commit e8998813bd039d5c45701f1f6ebe32858cd705ba and close the issue, now.