The OpenSees Community

Hi! Since the new version has been released (thanks for the 64-bit version! ), I tried testing the codes above again and the problem seems to persist. So I am bringing this topic up for the next update! Thanks for the hard work!

That's an interesting paper! I thought that rigidDiaphragm was just a compact way of using many multiple point constraints with a master node, so there wouldn't be such a difference in the way it was utilized (lagrange multipliers or penalty method) and equivalent beams that force those constraints....

Although the floor plan may be complex, it could be divided in rectangular or similar shapes, and the members could be placed in each one of them. I think it works and maybe it represents the reality better in those cases, too (for example when the floor plan of a real structure contains holes for s...

A good solution is to manually use elements in order to model the diaphragm instead of the command. If let's say you have a rectangular slab, you could use two beam elements that connect the opposite corners, that are very rigid in the axial manner and for bending perpendicular to the slab that you ...

If the section you are using is symmetrical in shape, has symmetrical materials with the same stress-strain laws in tension and compression (such as steel sections), then you can use the rigid diaphragm. In any other situation (such as reinforced concrete sections), it will produce wrong results wit...

First of all, maybe you should change the number of maximum iterations of the test command to something bigger, like 50000 (?). I have found too that at descending branches the convergence is difficult, especially if there are brittle faults in the model and the curve is almost vertical. From my exp...

Thanks for the reply! I made the model in 3d and the results seem to be in different order: EDIT: The problem seems to exist only with shear forces in Z axis, loading the beam in Y axis gives correct shear forces. wipe model basic -ndm 3 -ndf 6 # nodes set nodeTag 0; set xCoords {0.0 0.92 3.68 4.60}...

Thanks for the answer! I prefer to use the Transformation constraints though so I don't have to change and check the penalty factors and if the results are correct.

Hello! I am using localForce recorders to record element forces. However, the numbers I get aren't correct. I am giving an example, where I have divided a beam in three parts modelled with elasticBeamColumn. Its load is 11.96 per length unit, parts 1 and 3 have length 0.92 and the 2nd one 2.76. The ...

Yep, replacing the equalDOFs with very rigid materials in the ZeroLength Element fixed the problem!

Hm, maybe I haven't followed the rule for the Transformation command:
2) If multiple nodes are constrained, make sure that the retained node is not constrained in any other constraint.
I'll look into it and post again if the problem persists.

Hello! I am trying to use in series a rigidLink beam element and then an equalDOF constraint (for a zero-length element), however I have a problem. When creating the zero-length element to use after a rigidLink beam and connecting its nodes with equalDOF (all 6 DOFs) the eigenvalues are different th...

Thank you! I searched for a thread but didn't find it!
Like the person in the thread you posted I can have about 500 output files. I'll try to put more data into each file then...

Hello! Is there a maximum number of recorders an analysis can handle? I know it will somewhat hinder performance, but can it be manually increased? Thank you!

Well, if anyone has a similar problem, the above problem was solved by manually creating new nodes that are offset to the old ones according to the terms of the transformation commands and connecting the elements there. Then I used rigidLink beam elements to connect the old and new nodes. The new mo...