on the same model, we first performed a dynamic analysis
with time-history
and elements infrmFb
and analysis
has been successful ...
Then on the same model, we performed
the same analysis
using elements infrmDB
and the program gives the message "Range Check Error".
We tried to overcome the problems by following one of the above procedures, but the error always appears.
I tried to run the analysis of the eigenvalues #8203;#8203;with the same model and do not converge
Mary
Range check error
-
Stelios_Antoniou
- Posts: 89
- Joined: 17 Jul 2011, 20:08
Re: Range check error
Since the eigenvalue analysis does not convernge, it seems that the models prabably has some kind of error (otherwise it should give some eigen-solutions)
Does the model with the force-based elements converge in eigenvalue analysis?
Does the model with the force-based elements converge in eigenvalue analysis?
Re: Range check error
you .... by the eigenvalue analysis I can get the results
Mary
Mary
-
Stelios_Antoniou
- Posts: 89
- Joined: 17 Jul 2011, 20:08
Re: Range check error
It seems very strange that the same model runs fine with infrmFB and not with infrmDB. Is it exactly the same model, i.e. you simply replace the infrmFB element classes with infrmDB ones? Or have you changed other things as well?
One more thing: What are the interstorey drifts that you get? Is your structure in the inelastic range, or is it still in the elastic range?
One more thing: What are the interstorey drifts that you get? Is your structure in the inelastic range, or is it still in the elastic range?
-
seismosoft
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: 06 Jul 2007, 04:55
Re: Range check error
Dear Mary,
We have looked into your model and, as anticipated, did find some modelling inadequacies, such as:
- 'infrmDB' elements are not discretised, as suggested in the Help System and this Forum
- the walls' reinforcement distribution seems wrong, with a peculiar concentration in the middle of the section (see e.g. section 'ssetto1')
- the walls' confined edges cover the entire width of the wall (i.e. there is no wall web), which, again, does seem unusual
- structural walls are modelled by means of an equivalent beam, rather than an equivalent column, as suggested in this Forum and the literature
- the use of L-shape wall sections to model corner beams is, again, not common. You should use instead a T-section (with an "eccentricity" of zero)
Of course, despite the aforementioned modelling problems, the program should certainly not be giving 'range check errors', and we can confirm that such issue has now been corrected, for the forthcoming release.
Seismosoft Support
We have looked into your model and, as anticipated, did find some modelling inadequacies, such as:
- 'infrmDB' elements are not discretised, as suggested in the Help System and this Forum
- the walls' reinforcement distribution seems wrong, with a peculiar concentration in the middle of the section (see e.g. section 'ssetto1')
- the walls' confined edges cover the entire width of the wall (i.e. there is no wall web), which, again, does seem unusual
- structural walls are modelled by means of an equivalent beam, rather than an equivalent column, as suggested in this Forum and the literature
- the use of L-shape wall sections to model corner beams is, again, not common. You should use instead a T-section (with an "eccentricity" of zero)
Of course, despite the aforementioned modelling problems, the program should certainly not be giving 'range check errors', and we can confirm that such issue has now been corrected, for the forthcoming release.
Seismosoft Support