Seismosoft | Earthquake Engineering Solutions

I believe the reply from Seismosoft Support is helpful to solve your problem. To further clarify this and other issues related to the use of the new SSI macro-elements, a set of example problems is under preparation and will be posted as sample models with these link elements.

<t>Dear colleague,<br/> <br/> From your question I gather that you are trying to use lumped parameter models (LPMs) to account for the frequency-dependence of foundation impedances in the linear elastic range. Unfortunately, the lumped elements in SeismoStruct (link, mass and dashpot elements) have ...

Dear lacampos3,

The mass per length for that element, which represents a slab "slice" with 0.9m width and 0.1m height, was computed by multiplying the RC mass density of 2.55ton/m3 by the dimensions of the slab "slice".

Best regards,
Antonio

<t>Dear asivals,<br/> <br/> I am the author of the conference paper you mentioned and I was the one who implemented such geometrically nonlinear formulation in SeismoStruct.<br/> <br/> I have some difficulty in understanding what you mean by "cheat", since the authors have absolutely no participatio...

<t>Dear Bassking,<br/> <br/> By your description, something strange is happening indeed. If the same stiffness and different damping was being assumed in both cases, there should also be a phase difference between them... Unfortunately, I would need more information on your models in order to give y...

<t>Dear Bassking,<br/> <br/> There are two options for modelling a parallel spring+dashpot:<br/> <br/> 1. The one provided by huffte in the previous reply:<br/> - a common moving node for both the link and dashpot elements;<br/> - a fixed node for the other extremity of the link (the dashpot element...