The OpenSees Community

Dear guidomac,
Thanks for your sharing.

Dear Vesna,
in adaptive pushover analysis,
lateral force patterns is updated in every step.
here is part of my code:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
wipe;
model Basic -ndm 3 -ndf 6;
file mkdir Data;
source unit.tcl
source grouppilesfoundationmodal.tcl

recorder Node -file Data/Disp46.out -time -node 33 -dof 1 disp;
recorder Node -file Data/RBase.out -time -node 1 -dof 1 reaction;
source gravityloads.tcl

puts "定义分析"
constraints Plain
numberer RCM
system BandGeneral
test EnergyIncr 1e-2 20 0;
algorithm Newton
analysis Static
puts "Model Built!"

#-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#first pushover step, 0.05m at node 33
pattern Plain 1 Linear {
for {set i 7} {$i<13} {incr i 1} {
load $i 2.92898E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0;
}
for {set i 13} {$i<19} {incr i 1} {
load $i 9.98072E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0;
}
for {set i 19} {$i<25} {incr i 1} {
load $i 0.000185545 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0;
}
load 25 0.000130275 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 # model侧向力模式
load 27 0.000130275 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 28 0.000130275 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 30 0.000130275 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 31 0.000130275 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 33 0.000130275 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
};
integrator DisplacementControl 33 1 0.001;
analyze 50;

#-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#second pushover step, 0.05m at node 33, with new lateral load pattern based on the updated mode shape
pattern Plain 2 Linear {

for {set i 7} {$i<13} {incr i 1} {
load $i 2.1273E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0;
}
for {set i 13} {$i<19} {incr i 1} {
load $i 6.56799E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0;
}
for {set i 19} {$i<25} {incr i 1} {
load $i 0.000116503 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0;
}
load 25 8.01919E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 27 8.01919E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 28 8.01919E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 30 8.01919E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 31 8.01919E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 33 8.01919E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
};
integrator DisplacementControl 33 1 0.001;
analyze 50;
source period2.tcl
analyze 1
exit
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
the second lateral force pattern has nothing to to with the first pattern.
two questions:
1.do you think it is necessary to delete the loadPattern1 before pattern 2 being defined?
2.if loadpattern1 are not removed, in the second pushover step，are the results of loadpattern1 and loadpattern2 linear added?
Thanks a lot!

Dear Vesna, i have the same converge problems in my model.
adding -iter option to the element didn't work.
tweaking the section worked well.
Thank you for your guidence.
Happy new year!

Dear Vesna,
Thank you for your quick reply.
I checked the multi-linear material.
It is what i wanted.
I really appreciated your help.

Dear all,
I have two qustions about the Hysteretic material,
1. Is it possible to define more than three points for this material, i.e. 5 or 6 points?
2. If the answer of question 1 is NO. I am thinking about defining more points with the Parallel material. Such as:
set matTag1 1;
set matTag2 2;
set matTag3 3;
set matTag4 4;
set matTag5 5;
set matTag10 10;
set s1p 0.474111822;
set e1p 0.040293041;
set s2p 0.746280761;
set e2p 0.080577865;
set s3p 0.991324937;
set e3p 0.120862769;
set s4p 0.211201357;
set e4p 0.161147673;
set s5p 0.30770094;
set e5p 0.201432577;
set s6p 0.042465133;
set e6p 0.241717481;
set s7p 0.062800549;
set e7p 0.282002385;
set s8p 0.013641524;
set e8p 0.322287289;
set s9p 0.022770108;
set e9p 0.362572192;
set s10p 0.000362485;
set e10p 0.604281616;
set s1n [expr -$s1p];
set e1n [expr -$e1p];
set s2n [expr -$s2p];
set e2n [expr -$e2p];
set s3n [expr -$s3p];
set e3n [expr -$e3p];
set s4n [expr -$s4p];
set e4n [expr -$e4p];
set s5n [expr -$s5p];
set e5n [expr -$e5p];
set s6n [expr -$s6p];
set e6n [expr -$e6p];
set s7n [expr -$s7p];
set e7n [expr -$e7p];
set s8n [expr -$s8p];
set e8n [expr -$e8p];
set s9n [expr -$s9p];
set e9n [expr -$e9p];
set s10n [expr -$s10p];
set e10n [expr -$e10p];
set pinchX 1;
set pinchY 1;
set damage1 0;
set damage2 0;

uniaxialMaterial Hysteretic $matTag1 $s1p $e1p $s2p $e2p $s3p $e3p $s1n $e1n $s2n $e2n $s3n $e3n $pinchX $pinchY $damage1 $damage2;
uniaxialMaterial Hysteretic $matTag2 0 $e3p $s4p $e4p $s5p $e5p 0 $e3n $s4n $e4n $s5n $e5n $pinchX $pinchY $damage1 $damage2;
uniaxialMaterial Hysteretic $matTag3 0 $e5p $s6p $e6p $s7p $e7p 0 $e5n $s6n $e6n $s7n $e7n $pinchX $pinchY $damage1 $damage2;
uniaxialMaterial Hysteretic $matTag4 0 $e7p $s8p $e8p $s9p $e9p 0 $e7n $s8n $e8n $s9n $e9n $pinchX $pinchY $damage1 $damage2;
uniaxialMaterial Hysteretic $matTag5 0 $e9p $s10p $e10p 0 $e9n $s10n $e10n $pinchX $pinchY $damage1 $damage2;
uniaxialMaterial Parallel $matTag10 $matTag1 $matTag2 $matTag3 $matTag4 $matTag5
Will it work?
Thanks.

Thank you, Vesna.
I am very clear now.

Dear Vesna,
Thank you very much. You are very warmhearted.
The phenomenon i am saying is:
The periods that calculated after gravity load is longer than the periods that calculated before gravity load.
I think after the gravityloads are counted,
the structure should be stiffer.
consequently,
the period should be shorter, not longer.
I think you already explained the problem.
The reason is"some of materials need some load to correctly configure the stiffness".
Thank you again.

Dear all,
i find a strange phenomenon.
for the eigen analysis,
the period is smaller when the eigen analysis of a structure is conducted with gravityloads,
compared with the period when the eigen analysis of a structure is conducted without gravityloads.
the "Ex3.Canti2D.build.InelasticFiberSection" is adopted.
i think when the gravityloads are included,
the structure should be stiffer.
consequently,
the period should be smaller, not bigger.
can anyone explain this problem?
Thanks.

Dear Vesna,
Thank you for replying me so quickly.
I revised the commander as:
"set tag [recorder Node -file Data/Eigenvector$i.out -nodeRange 1 46 -dof 1 "eigen 1"]
remove recorder $tag"
It works.
I appreciated your help.
Best wishes!

Dear all,
In the order of "remove recorder $tag ",
how the tag of recorder is defined?
ie. recorder Node -file Data/Eigenvector$i.out -nodeRange 1 46 -dof 1 "eigen 1"
how can i define the tag of the recorder?
Thanks.

Dear Vesna,
i am confused about your comments on recorder of plastic rotation of BWH element.
in the two post of "I cant record rotation and stiffness for beamwithhinges"(2006) and
"beamwithhinges element recorder"(2010), you said:
"beamWithHinges element does not have recorder for plastic deformation. You will have to use curvature for this."
and "You can record force at the section but plastic rotation is not related to section but to plastic hinge region so
you can not record it at the sectional level." respctively.
here is my question:
Given that element 1 is BWH element,
what does the recorder"recorder Element -xml Data/Element1.out -time -ele 1 plasticRotation" give?
plastic rotation of hinges or plastic curvature of hinges?
Thank you in advance.

paperairplane wrote:
> Dear caosasa ,i still cannot understand why the ratation of node 2 are
> different?
will you give me your email please,
i will send you a PDF about it.

Dear Vesna and other users,
if i want to compute the plastic rotation of nonlinearbeamcolumn element,
how can i caputure it with the sectiondeformations?
for an nonlinearbeamcolumn element with 5 Nps,
do i have to output all the sectiondeformations first, then split the recorder
files to compute the rotation?
or can i compute the rotation first with some orders, then output the rotation
directly?

Dear silva,
i see lots of users want the order to caputur plastic rotations for the 3 beamcolumn elements,
would you please consider about provide recorders or examples on this.
Thanks a lot.

Thank you Vesna.
I see.