Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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,
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.
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).
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.
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,
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)
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’.
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.
Updating to above versions are working now for OpenSees, however the results are too far. OOFEM solver has shown a consistent and correct answer, not in case using OpenSees solver. Try to understand the problem, I re-create the model then replicates, add loads manually and running. It shown my second duplicated models with manually define load combination are correct, not in case defining these combination trough menus.
Attached a simple example I questioning, running these problem using built-in OOFEM solver working fine. However, it’s not works for OpenSees as solver when I switch in option menus.
Many thanks, finally it’s working. Trying to understand by exporting to tcl files it shown has element hingespr, how do I found a commands requested and citing the references document?
# spring 5 element hingespr 9 5 6 1 8 1000 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 \ 100 # spring 6 element hingespr 10 7 5 1 8 1000 6 4 0 -1 0 0 0 1 \ 10000Trying to provide requested file and directory, still I got error messages. It seems about version conflict also, where I can get ActiveTcl for version 8.6.10? only version 8.6.9 available there.
I follow as suggested, still it’s not working and sending some message:
application-specific initialization failed: Can't find a usable init.tcl in the following directories: {C:/Program Files/NextFEM/lib/tcl8.6} {C:/Program Files/NextFEM/lib/tcl8.6} {C:/Program Files/lib/tcl8.6} {C:/Program Files/NextFEM/library} {C:/Program Files/library} {C:/Program Files/tcl8.6.10/library} C:/tcl8.6.10/library This probably means that Tcl wasn't installed properly. invalid command name "model" while executing "model BasicBuilder -ndm 3 -ndf 6" (file "C:\Users\user\AppData\Local\Temp\colsprg1-Q.tcl" line 2)
