[parhyang]

dear Admin,

i followng NextFEM Designer since early released, interested in OOFEM/OpenSees solver and the graphical interfaces. so my registered mail become old and invalid, i was updated email as suggested. thank you for concerning & respected user feedback, could benefit to the software itself also.

and i would like to says sorry, if my discussion contains any missplaced words/grammar cause of english is not my native languages.

best regards,

[parhyang]

yes, since new release 1.80 did not work, i always update for every new patch. in hope one of them are work properly, honestly none.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[parhyang]

hi, i’m curious. after one night updates with several gigabytes downloaded of my Windows OS. still the problems of DLL did not solved, any hints?

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[parhyang]

set to temporary results still not change the conditions, OOFEM solver stoped before load combination cases succesfully run. for an info, i’m running on Win10 64bit (v1803), thanks.

[parhyang]

hello,
try removing, cleaning any registry and reinstall did not work for me. remodeling from scratch also lead to similar problems. it seems the error message about trouble in dynamically linked to OOFEM solver were officially distributed in static executable, as another cases in OpenSees solver is work without any issues.
regards.

[parhyang]

hi,

below attached an input files, on my pc: it’s stoped and closed immediatally even the solver log messsage shown finished. thank you for looking.

best,

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[parhyang]

hello,

let i try to understand the feature above, known as physical based modeling. afaik, firstly invented by RISA then followed by many others such as ETABS, STAAD, RAM. can be benefit for designing the member (e.g steel unsupported length) and drafting (2D/3D) purpose. FE meshing and spliting based intersection are in another proccess automatically after physical objet being modeled.

[parhyang]

There’s no large discrepancy in case of out plane force (bending), except in sign conventions. OpenSees solver output graphically reported as reverse sign for moment (area force).

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[parhyang]

Now, it’s working properly for split members. Also, thanks for the hint in compatibility problems of Timoshenko beam element using OpenSees solver. Answering my previous question in strange graphical output cause of large discrepancy between these solver, default’s shear deformation activated makes OpenSees result shown smaller values.

[parhyang]

Dear,

I have been doing minor updates for these features. However, it seems these new twoWayQuadPlane does not working properly on spitted members. please refers to attachment file inputs. This problems does not happen when using old quadPlane methods.

Splitting a beam members is required in using OpenSees as as solver to get spans member outputs, or it need to be captures a second order effect.

Regards,

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[parhyang]

Great news, many thanks for appreciation to consider these features.

[parhyang]

Thank you for explained, it’s become clearly now. Investing to learn and validates for another software are not easy task and required an effort also, giving away some basic version for free or an affordable paid modules perpetually could be a best choices. These are such a giving valuable feedback to the famous opensource solver and communities itself. Wish NextFEM Designer gain popularity in the future! greetings from Indonesia (Asia)

[parhyang]

may I’m wrong, not really understand the clausal. this is applied for updates and support only.

[parhyang]

Apologize if I’m using unusual word ‘reversed’ and make misinterpreted. In load case name ‘FLR’ as shown in pictures of floor load distribution by NextFEM, shortest beam produce large peak values (30kN/m) and longest beam has low (20kN/m). This is far away from to tributary areas methods which I shown in load case ‘NU’, longest beam should be trapezoidal shapes with peak values equal to ‘q’ (20kN/m) and shortest beam should be triangular shape with the same peak values.

It may be okay if NextFEM using triangular shape for both longest and shortest beams, with some exception in properly distribution of peak values. I’m using ‘reversed’ word to notions these condition, a peak load 20kN/m and 30kN/m for longest and shortest beam need to be change by switching each other. Shortest beam should have a peak values 20kN/m and longest beam are 30kN/m.

I applied these values in load case ‘NUrev’, please refers to input files I previously attached. This switching values method between shortest and longest beam not actually best approach and correct, total reaction or loads (260kN) is higher than the panel load itself (240kN).

Based on these above conditions so a reduction is required, since load in shortest beam (20kN/m) was correct according to tributary loads then reduction is applied to longest beam (30kN/m) and founded a proper value is ~26.66kN/m. I checked again by create load case ‘NUredrev’ and after running it shown reliable results. Only bending moment has small differences (~4%), total loads and shear force are identical compared to results by tributary area load methods ‘NU’.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[parhyang]

I follow as suggested above and it’s working properly now, automatic control for these task are good ideas to avoid something missed at important procedures. I can understand how it’s hard and difficult to implementation the compatibility of both solver (OOFEM & OpenSees). Many thanks for any effort, hopes NextFEM will growing better and be the best interface to bridging the gaps for these famous advanced solver.

[Author]

Posts