SMA REINFORCEMENT

03-Analytical/modelling capabilities
Post Reply
Chaymael
Posts: 7
Joined: 12 Mar 2022, 11:40

SMA REINFORCEMENT

Post by Chaymael »

Hello seismosoft users
I am working on the reinforcement of a six storey structure using SMA instead of steel ( shape memory alloys) in the plastic hinges of beams and columns.
but I am facing some problems:

1- when I divided beams and applied SMA in the plastic hinges and run the calculus, a message appears showing "an error in the Loading module: bmx211 is not a valid element", otherwise without subdivision it is running without any problem!!!

2-I divided columns into four elements, and I applied SMA in the two extremities of each clm, but I found that the pushover curve with SMA gives higher displacements than simple RC ones, which is not true!! where is the problem?

Do you mind if you can give me a hand, please?
Here is my email:
elmtili.h@gmail.com

I can send you seismostruct file if you want
User avatar
seismosoft
Posts: 1201
Joined: 06 Jul 2007, 04:55

Re: SMA REINFORCEMENT

Post by seismosoft »

1) The error message is self-explanatory. There is no element names bmx211. In v2022 when dividing the elements, the element loads are also updated. If you are using an older version, update it to the current one. If however you are using v2022, please check the names of the elements and the element loads.
2) Several factors can be the reason for this, e.g. material properties, discretisation of the elements etc. Start by comparing the model with the divided elements with and without SMA.

Seismosoft Support
Nisha1717
Posts: 2
Joined: 11 Nov 2022, 09:14

Re: SMA REINFORCEMENT

Post by Nisha1717 »

Respected sir;
We have provided the SMA in software.
For example,
If there is a beam of one meter in length, can I provide half length SMA and half steel to it??
User avatar
z.gronti
Posts: 824
Joined: 16 Oct 2013, 08:14

Re: SMA REINFORCEMENT

Post by z.gronti »

Dear Nisha1717,

You could subdivide the element and assign different sections (including the different materials) to them.
Zoi Gronti
Seismosoft Srl.
dsaud
Posts: 2
Joined: 19 Nov 2021, 17:48

Re: SMA REINFORCEMENT

Post by dsaud »

Hi, I am using SMA rebar in the shear wall model. As the SMA is a smooth rebar (without ribs), is the software considering it as smooth rebar during the analysis?
User avatar
z.gronti
Posts: 824
Joined: 16 Oct 2013, 08:14

Re: SMA REINFORCEMENT

Post by z.gronti »

Dear dsaud,

In order to take into account the smooth rebars in the code-based checks, you should select the corresponding check-box, i.e. "Smooth(Plain) Longitudinal Bars", available in the Advanced Member properties module in the Code-based checks tab of the Pre-Processor.
Zoi Gronti
Seismosoft Srl.
dsaud
Posts: 2
Joined: 19 Nov 2021, 17:48

Re: SMA REINFORCEMENT

Post by dsaud »

I am modelling a precast shear wall connected with SMA rebar at the wall foundation junction. I am using the infrmDB element to model the wall and SMA connection. The SMA rebar embedded in the foundation will reach about 20% wall height above the foundation level. Could you suggest a correct modelling approach for this precast wall connected with SMA rebars using infrmDP element?
User avatar
z.gronti
Posts: 824
Joined: 16 Oct 2013, 08:14

Re: SMA REINFORCEMENT

Post by z.gronti »

Dear dsaud ,

I am afraid, I am not an expert in precast members. However, as far as I understand the embedded length (20% of the wall height) is the anchorage of the connection inside the wall, thus it can be neglected in the modelling of the wall itself. Moreover, can’t you model the foundation-wall connection with a link element? Note also that infrmDB elements are appropriate only when used with short member lengths, read the manual for further guidance on this.
In any case, I think this modelling is something that you should better discuss with your supervisor.
Zoi Gronti
Seismosoft Srl.
Post Reply

Return to “03-Analytical/modelling capabilities”