))) https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjl8q2obod5tr ... l.spf?dl=0PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
hii good day. im currently having a project using seismostruct and i kind of new to this software. can i get your help because i can't run the analysis.it says "Unable to apply the entire permanent load. Analysis terminated" i have read some of the threads in this forum and checked it with my work.and i still can't find the mistakes i've done inside the file.please.thank you ,i have attached my file so you could probably check it out.cheers ))) https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjl8q2obod5tr ... l.spf?dl=0
))) https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjl8q2obod5tr ... l.spf?dl=0
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Dear kauleen,
Please check your elements' connectivity. For example the beams introduced in Z=4.93334m are not connected to any column element, which do not seem reasonable. I would also suggest to run an eigenvalue analysis first in order to check if all parts of the structure are correctly connected.
Please check your elements' connectivity. For example the beams introduced in Z=4.93334m are not connected to any column element, which do not seem reasonable. I would also suggest to run an eigenvalue analysis first in order to check if all parts of the structure are correctly connected.
Zoi Gronti
Seismosoft Srl.
Seismosoft Srl.
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
hi z.gronti,
thank you for your response, i appreciated it so much
i have analyzed the structure under
EigenValue Analysis
----------------------------
No. of converged EigenValues : 5
---------------------------------
Warning: Could not re-orthogonalise
all Lanczos vectors
-----------------
Total Analysis Time: 0h:0min:6sec
and this message appears. i have also connected the beams that are not attached to any column.im sorry to tell you that im just a student and i do not have yet deep understanding about the program ,but i am trying my best to research more.
Godbless
thank you for your response, i appreciated it so much
i have analyzed the structure under
EigenValue Analysis
----------------------------
No. of converged EigenValues : 5
---------------------------------
Warning: Could not re-orthogonalise
all Lanczos vectors
-----------------
Total Analysis Time: 0h:0min:6sec
and this message appears. i have also connected the beams that are not attached to any column.im sorry to tell you that im just a student and i do not have yet deep understanding about the program ,but i am trying my best to research more.
Godbless
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Dear huff
I appreciate your encouragement and motivation me
I found that i distribute the lateral load as triangle shape but its mention in paper as parabolic
Generally ,i took your advice in consideration but l have some questions
1- if i model the beam as T- section ( all beam ) there will be overlap between beams, so i assigned the middle beams as T- section and the beam in edges as Rec. Section is that modelling right?
2-if i assigned slab with beam ,should i delete the rigid diaphragm, which is represent to slab.
3-may i assigned the slab with another way , l read in manual of seismostrut, we can use infill element, but HOW?
4-the final thing is after i made the recommended modification from you ,my supervisor say to me the result it is ok but " why displacement at 283 kN (it increased to 15%) at this load
and displacement at max (increased in the second floor and coincided in the third floor),my explanation for this that i use the average values not as exact that in lab. and the failure of my model was after 250mm ,what is your opinion and if you didn't mind that link for modified modelhttps://www.dropbox.com/s/hoq47eoty3jbpvt/final ... l.spf?dl=0
Thank you again and i waiting for your answer
Saso
I appreciate your encouragement and motivation me
I found that i distribute the lateral load as triangle shape but its mention in paper as parabolic
Generally ,i took your advice in consideration but l have some questions
1- if i model the beam as T- section ( all beam ) there will be overlap between beams, so i assigned the middle beams as T- section and the beam in edges as Rec. Section is that modelling right?
2-if i assigned slab with beam ,should i delete the rigid diaphragm, which is represent to slab.
3-may i assigned the slab with another way , l read in manual of seismostrut, we can use infill element, but HOW?
4-the final thing is after i made the recommended modification from you ,my supervisor say to me the result it is ok but " why displacement at 283 kN (it increased to 15%) at this load
and displacement at max (increased in the second floor and coincided in the third floor),my explanation for this that i use the average values not as exact that in lab. and the failure of my model was after 250mm ,what is your opinion and if you didn't mind that link for modified modelhttps://www.dropbox.com/s/hoq47eoty3jbpvt/final ... l.spf?dl=0
Thank you again and i waiting for your answer
Saso
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
1. There should be no overlap between beams. You could model the edge beams with 1/2 of the slab on one side only and the interior beams with 1/2 of the slab on both sides. You will need to apply eccentricities in the section definitions appropriately, but that will be obvious as you observe the effect in the figure as you change the eccentricity. Note that codes vary on the amount of slab you can count on a part of the beam. ACI uses a max effective slab width of 1/4 of the beam span length for interior beams.
2. I don't see why you should eliminate the rigid diaphragms because even though you have part of the slab as your beam flange, that doesn't provide the in-plane stiffness of the slab the way the diaphragm does.
3. I don't know why you would use another method than the rigid diaphragm.
4. I am afraid I do not understand your 4th point.
Best of luck SASO.
2. I don't see why you should eliminate the rigid diaphragms because even though you have part of the slab as your beam flange, that doesn't provide the in-plane stiffness of the slab the way the diaphragm does.
3. I don't know why you would use another method than the rigid diaphragm.
4. I am afraid I do not understand your 4th point.
Best of luck SASO.
Tim Huff
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
dear huff
thank you firstly
secondly i change the cover concrete and the results became better,and i modeled the interior beams as isolated T -section and took the effective slab width (b=bw*6)=600mm and for the exterior beams , i took the effective slab width (bw+span/12)=275mm, but at the corner the beams meet is that considered overlap between beams, and also the the interior beams that took the shape of (+ mark) ?.
thirdly, i modeled the self -weight of slab with two way
1- the first one with lmass element , and i calculate like that
w=0.1(slab thickness) *2.5*(1.5*1.5 bay dimension)=0.5625 ton =5.625 KN
and divided this value on g(9.81m/sec2) to get the mass and divided that value again on 4 to get portion of one point (exterior point ) .
2- the second one i took that value (5.625/4) and put as permanent node load ,is that right? . i am afraid that is wrong ,so i attached the two model to take a look on it , if you didn't mind
1-https://www.dropbox.com/s/6qhdlqv14iqva ... s.spf?dl=0
2-https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xbacrpp6zyd0 ... 6.spf?dl=0
finally , what i meant in forth point in the last post there are difference between (the result of seismostrut and experimental) in the third floor as like
to get my point more illustrative in that pic. diagram
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsmhkensoog70 ... n.png?dl=0
thank you huff and i appropriate your help
saso
thank you firstly
secondly i change the cover concrete and the results became better,and i modeled the interior beams as isolated T -section and took the effective slab width (b=bw*6)=600mm and for the exterior beams , i took the effective slab width (bw+span/12)=275mm, but at the corner the beams meet is that considered overlap between beams, and also the the interior beams that took the shape of (+ mark) ?.
thirdly, i modeled the self -weight of slab with two way
1- the first one with lmass element , and i calculate like that
w=0.1(slab thickness) *2.5*(1.5*1.5 bay dimension)=0.5625 ton =5.625 KN
and divided this value on g(9.81m/sec2) to get the mass and divided that value again on 4 to get portion of one point (exterior point ) .
2- the second one i took that value (5.625/4) and put as permanent node load ,is that right? . i am afraid that is wrong ,so i attached the two model to take a look on it , if you didn't mind
1-https://www.dropbox.com/s/6qhdlqv14iqva ... s.spf?dl=0
2-https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xbacrpp6zyd0 ... 6.spf?dl=0
finally , what i meant in forth point in the last post there are difference between (the result of seismostrut and experimental) in the third floor as like
to get my point more illustrative in that pic. diagram
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsmhkensoog70 ... n.png?dl=0
thank you huff and i appropriate your help
saso
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Hi SASO.
I don't understand what you mean by 'the beams meet'. With a bay width of 1.5 meters, the effective width values you propose do not overlap. It will be up to you as to whether or not the values need to be adjusted.
Your two models have very different natural periods. You must adjust the 'Project Settings --> 'Gravity and Mass' toggles to accurately model your system mass. Application of the slab weight and any added weights as line loads on the beams and generating masses from BOTH applied gravity loads and specified masses would seem to provide a better estimate for system strength as the slabs do load the beams. Remember, with t-sections defined, some of the slab weight is alreay included in the beam.
Your cross sections look much better.
I don't understand the plot of 'story' versus 'base shear'. Do you mean 'story' versus 'story shear'?
The questions dealing with modeling strategy and structural dynamics theory will be best answered by agreement between you and your project supervisor. Nonetheless, SASO, you have made great improvements in your model and I encourage you to keep learning and adjusting.
Best of luck.
I don't understand what you mean by 'the beams meet'. With a bay width of 1.5 meters, the effective width values you propose do not overlap. It will be up to you as to whether or not the values need to be adjusted.
Your two models have very different natural periods. You must adjust the 'Project Settings --> 'Gravity and Mass' toggles to accurately model your system mass. Application of the slab weight and any added weights as line loads on the beams and generating masses from BOTH applied gravity loads and specified masses would seem to provide a better estimate for system strength as the slabs do load the beams. Remember, with t-sections defined, some of the slab weight is alreay included in the beam.
Your cross sections look much better.
I don't understand the plot of 'story' versus 'base shear'. Do you mean 'story' versus 'story shear'?
The questions dealing with modeling strategy and structural dynamics theory will be best answered by agreement between you and your project supervisor. Nonetheless, SASO, you have made great improvements in your model and I encourage you to keep learning and adjusting.
Best of luck.
Tim Huff
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
dear huff
thank you for encouragement
the attached pic ,showed what I meant for beams
https://www.dropbox.com/s/05zh96qv91jfp ... s.PNG?dl=0
i have some questions, and i hope you have leniency with my frequently asked questions
1- for performance criteria if i run my model without it , the curve that got ,can i depended on this result with experimental ? ,because in that case the failure point at (250mm) as clear in paper didn't shown
2- if i specified performance criteria with that limit ( fructure =0.06 and crushing= 0.025 and i thought this values is high ) , the shape of curve is closer with the experimental one ,and i cannot specified the yield criteria ,( that message is appeared again "unable to apply entire load "
3-Strength degradation ,on what case i choose between three option ,i didn't find answer in manual ,knowing that i chooses to keep strength and when i check the stess of concrete to one of the element i found degradation in strength.can you Illustrates that point i am really confused about that option
part1....
thank you for encouragement
the attached pic ,showed what I meant for beams
https://www.dropbox.com/s/05zh96qv91jfp ... s.PNG?dl=0
i have some questions, and i hope you have leniency with my frequently asked questions
1- for performance criteria if i run my model without it , the curve that got ,can i depended on this result with experimental ? ,because in that case the failure point at (250mm) as clear in paper didn't shown
2- if i specified performance criteria with that limit ( fructure =0.06 and crushing= 0.025 and i thought this values is high ) , the shape of curve is closer with the experimental one ,and i cannot specified the yield criteria ,( that message is appeared again "unable to apply entire load "
3-Strength degradation ,on what case i choose between three option ,i didn't find answer in manual ,knowing that i chooses to keep strength and when i check the stess of concrete to one of the element i found degradation in strength.can you Illustrates that point i am really confused about that option
part1....
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
part2......
3- the material type i used in model depend on mander et al 1988 model , so in that case it is supposed to be a residual strength, is that correct?
4-i am using infrmFBH ,as you know , the two integration section ( section a &b)that shown at stress & strain output is indication for two equal parts of element one at start and one at the end ?
5-in stress and strain output when i chosen for concrete , in the column of max stress is zero , what that mean
6- the plastic hinge is didn't specified ,unless i defined in performance criteria a yield limit for reinforcement ?
7- is there option for specifying the location of cracks on the element ?
8- if the joint of RC for column-beam designed as non-seismic according to old codes ,should i use infrm FB to define that joint with different integration sections (with no stirrups )
9- the bent bars ,are the the seismostrut modeled it ?
finally thank you , and i waiting for your response
saso
3- the material type i used in model depend on mander et al 1988 model , so in that case it is supposed to be a residual strength, is that correct?
4-i am using infrmFBH ,as you know , the two integration section ( section a &b)that shown at stress & strain output is indication for two equal parts of element one at start and one at the end ?
5-in stress and strain output when i chosen for concrete , in the column of max stress is zero , what that mean
6- the plastic hinge is didn't specified ,unless i defined in performance criteria a yield limit for reinforcement ?
7- is there option for specifying the location of cracks on the element ?
8- if the joint of RC for column-beam designed as non-seismic according to old codes ,should i use infrm FB to define that joint with different integration sections (with no stirrups )
9- the bent bars ,are the the seismostrut modeled it ?
finally thank you , and i waiting for your response
saso
Re: PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
Dear huff /seismosoft
I'm really need to answer me ,i stoped working in model and i needs answers to continue
Saso
I'm really need to answer me ,i stoped working in model and i needs answers to continue
Saso