about verification reports examples (RC joint)

[speedy]

Dear seismosoft,
I would like to use your verification report model (Chapter 4- ch4-joint 02), but there were some problem with your model. I use the version 2016 (latest release). May I have your help? Please explain the following questions:

1- In section tab, for example for COLUMN-B, please check your reinforcing. In the reference, there were 8 Fi 13, but in your example, the longitudinal reinforcing were used in ''Edit reinforcement pattern" and also '' Additional reinforcing bars'' both ! In each pattern, all of these 8 bars was defined. Could you please explain for it? I do not the reason and it is important for me to have an interview for its reason:

https://ibb.co/mnpSSF
https://ibb.co/maPGMa

2- You use Fy=405 KN and K=4800 KN/mm for Takeda curve (shear spring) in link elements (shear slip=405/4800=0.08). When I use the exact method which was used in the verification reports and its reference, these values were not correct. My graph which was calculated based on the references presented as follows. It seems that the shear slip (which was used to calculate K was not true. Also, Fy was not 405:

https://ibb.co/k2qO1a

3- In the next post...

[speedy]

3- When I want to determine the other Takeda curve parameters, the the yielding and ultimate strength were correct (also in the references), but, the stiffness (yield and ultimate) which were determine based on slip values in the references, were not true. I see the reference, but these values were not true in the reference too. For example, for beam A, My=78.72, Mu=91.57, slip(yield)=0.177, slip(ultimate)=0.01, Teta(yield)= 0.00067, Teta(ultimate)=0.01, Ky=133650, Ku=1365.42. The values indicated that My, Mu and ultimate rotation(beta ultimate) were obtained similar to the reference, but the stiffness were not true in the reference and also in your verify report example.

Please let me to know that why there are these different? I hope the reply for my post will be soon, because there are several post in the seismostruct forum which were not have any response.

[z.gronti]

Dear speedy,

The assigned reinforcement in the Column B is correct. As you may see in your own screenshot there are only 8 reinforcing bars in the section's graphical view. Also in the Sections module you may see that there is no reinforcement assigned in the "Reinforcement Patterns" field. If you select the "Edit Renforcement Pattern" button the default reinforcement pattern is loaded, you should select Cancel nad no reinforcement will be added. You probably select the "OK" button and you add more reinforcing bars.

For the rest questions, please read the reference "Yu W. [2006] “Inelastic modeling of reinforcing bars and blind analysis of the benchmark tests on beam-column joints under cyclic loading”, MSc Dissertation, ROSE School, Pavia, Italy.".

[speedy]

Thank you for your response.
I use the example of the verification report (Ch.4-Joint.03) and create a new model based on this example. I change the link parameters based on my calculation in both (the reference example and also my model). All of parameters and the modeling properties are the same in both model. But, the output results in the global response parameters for hysteresis curves, the hysteresis for the relative displacement (top point-base point) and total base shear, was different! I check all of the parameters and the properties, but, all were the same. Could you please check and say that what is the problem? what is the reason that these two similar models have different results?
I send this two model to the info@seismosoft.com and z.gronti@seismosoft.com.
I have another question. I want to delete the default reinforcement and only use additional reinforcement, but, the default values bars (I use zero number) are still appear in my section properties. Is this create a problem in my analysis? You can see this in my model which was sent to the sesimosoft email and z.gronti@seismosoft.com.

[speedy]

I found the reason. It solved.
Thanks.

[z.gronti]

Dear speedy,

Thank you for informing us that you found a solution.
Could you please explain what do you mean by "I want to delete the default reinforcement and only use additional reinforcement, but, the default values bars (I use zero number) are still appear in my section properties."? If you have not assigned any reinforcing bar through the Reinforcement patterns , i.e. assign zero values in the Reinforcement Pattern module, then the only reinforcing bars that appear in the section's properties are those assigned in the Additional Reinforcing Bars module.

[1MS18CSE25]

"Yu W. [2006] “Inelastic modeling of reinforcing bars and blind analysis of the benchmark tests on beam-column joints under cyclic loading”, MSc Dissertation, ROSE School, Pavia, Italy.". I am this for reference which is mentioned in SeismoStruct verification report i unable to find it can You please provide a link to download it.

[Ralazem]

Hello Speedy,

Can you share with me the how you managed to calculate the takeda curve parameters from the reference ? (Yu,2006)

I am trying to follow the mentioned equations but i am having some issues.

[z.gronti]

Dear 1MS18CSE25,

I just sent you an email with the requested document

[rbsce.ph]

Hello,

We tried modelling Ch4 ch4-joint1 without the springs for beam and column. We only modeled the spring at the center (Joint_B_Center), however the analysis did not run. Is it possible to model only this joint spring alone using other techniques?

Thank you and your comments are highly appreciated.