About Bond_SP01 Command

davidjingyu · Post by **davidjingyu** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:52 am

Dear Dr.silvia:

When I tried Bond_SP01 in Opensees V2.1.0, I found that this command only supports ksi and inch units, not MPa and m.

Should I have to change the units before using Bond_SP01.

Best Regards!

david

Post by **fmk** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:14 am

yes .. input parameters must be ksi and inch .. sorry about that, we encourage developers to write unitless code .. they do not always do so.

carnatin · Post by **carnatin** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:36 am

Does this means that all of the inputs must be input in psi and in ?
not only for the Bond_SP01 parameter?

silvia · Post by **silvia** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:33 am

just convert the input into psi

carnatin · Post by **carnatin** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:27 pm

thanks very much!
I still have a little confusion。only the input for the Bond-slip be in psi and inch, or all of the input(such as the input of node, the input of steel02 and concrete02. etc) should be input in psi and inch ?

silvia · Post by **silvia** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:29 pm

it's kind of crazy, i'd just convert all the input, you could use the units scripts that i have set up in the examples manual and make the basic units inches and psi....
s-

xiaoqg2003 · Post by **xiaoqg2003** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:13 am

Dear Dr.silvia,

I want to know whether the bondsp01 model can be used with ReinforcingSteel or it should be just used with steel02 which does not have yield platform.

yfeng · Post by **yfeng** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:10 am

You must use steel02 instead of ReinforcingSteel.

[quote="xiaoqg2003"]Dear Dr.silvia,

I want to know whether the bondsp01 model can be used with ReinforcingSteel or it should be just used with steel02 which does not have yield platform.[/quote]

silvia · Post by **silvia** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:08 am

steel02 is, indeed, a much better material.

xiaoqg2003 · Post by **xiaoqg2003** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:27 am

[quote="yfeng"]You must use steel02 instead of ReinforcingSteel.

[quote="xiaoqg2003"]Dear Dr.s constraints Plain,

I want to know whether the bondsp01 model can be used with ReinforcingSteel or it should be just used with steel02 which does not have yield platform.[/quote][/quote]

Dear yFang and Dr. Silvia,

Does that means we use steel02 to make the steel mode used in beamcolumn consist with the steel mode used in the end element (zerolength element) or just because steel02 is more stable? Also I feel confused that while in bondsp01, the slip is related to the yield stress of steel but not that of concrete. In the 2D or 3D model, it seems more reasonable to relate the slip to the strength of concrete.

Thanks for your helps.

silvia · Post by **silvia** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:49 am

how you use the components is up to you, your modeling choice.

yfeng · Post by **yfeng** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:00 am

First of all, I haven't used steel02 yet. But I talked to the author of Bond SP_01 face to face before that he told me if you use Bondsp01 with ReinforcingSteel material there will be a converge problem.
Secondly, probably steel02 is a better element since Silvia said so.
Thirdly, you'd better use the same steel element in the column and the end element.
Lastly, I dont understand why you related the slip of rebar with concrete stress. The modal just try to use rebar slip in adjacent member to involve the SP effect.

[quote="xiaoqg2003"][quote="yfeng"]You must use steel02 instead of ReinforcingSteel.

[quote="xiaoqg2003"]Dear Dr.s constraints Plain,

I want to know whether the bondsp01 model can be used with ReinforcingSteel or it should be just used with steel02 which does not have yield platform.[/quote][/quote]

Dear yFang and Dr. Silvia,

Does that means we use steel02 to make the steel mode used in beamcolumn consist with the steel mode used in the end element (zerolength element) or just because steel02 is more stable? Also I feel confused that while in bondsp01, the slip is related to the yield stress of steel but not that of concrete. In the 2D or 3D model, it seems more reasonable to relate the slip to the strength of concrete.

Thanks for your helps.[/quote]

xiaoqg2003 · Post by **xiaoqg2003** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:39 am

I have used ReinforcingSteel with bondsp01 and found it was very hard to converge. I thought maybe this problem due to the inconsistence between the bondsp01 and ReinforcingSteel. The latter have a yield platform while the former does not.

About the local bond-slip model, it is more common to relate the slip to concrete strength not to the stell strength, for example CEB-FIP Model Code. That is because the slip of a bar is mainly due to the crack of the concrete.

thanks

CEB-FIP. Model Code 1990 for Concrete Structures. CEB Bulletin d’Information No. 213/214. Lausanne: Comitè Euro International du Bèton; 1993. p. 460.

[quote="yfeng"]First of all, I haven't used steel02 yet. But I talked to the author of Bond SP_01 face to face before that he told me if you use Bondsp01 with ReinforcingSteel material there will be a converge problem.
Secondly, probably steel02 is a better element since Silvia said so.
Thirdly, you'd better use the same steel element in the column and the end element.
Lastly, I dont understand why you related the slip of rebar with concrete stress. The modal just try to use rebar slip in adjacent member to involve the SP effect.

[quote="xiaoqg2003"][quote="yfeng"]You must use steel02 instead of ReinforcingSteel.

[quote="xiaoqg2003"]Dear Dr.s constraints Plain,

I want to know whether the bondsp01 model can be used with ReinforcingSteel or it should be just used with steel02 which does not have yield platform.[/quote][/quote]

Dear yFang and Dr. Silvia,

Does that means we use steel02 to make the steel mode used in beamcolumn consist with the steel mode used in the end element (zerolength element) or just because steel02 is more stable? Also I feel confused that while in bondsp01, the slip is related to the yield stress of steel but not that of concrete. In the 2D or 3D model, it seems more reasonable to relate the slip to the strength of concrete.

Thanks for your helps.[/quote][/quote]

yfeng · Post by **yfeng** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:53 am

I see your point. Yes, bondsp01 related the slip to both the steel stress and concrete strength of the footing or adjacent member.

[quote="xiaoqg2003"]I have used ReinforcingSteel with bondsp01 and found it was very hard to converge. I thought maybe this problem due to the inconsistence between the bondsp01 and ReinforcingSteel. The latter have a yield platform while the former does not.

About the local bond-slip model, it is more common to relate the slip to concrete strength not to the stell strength, for example CEB-FIP Model Code. That is because the slip of a bar is mainly due to the crack of the concrete.

thanks

CEB-FIP. Model Code 1990 for Concrete Structures. CEB Bulletin d’Information No. 213/214. Lausanne: Comitè Euro International du Bèton; 1993. p. 460.

[quote="yfeng"]First of all, I haven't used steel02 yet. But I talked to the author of Bond SP_01 face to face before that he told me if you use Bondsp01 with ReinforcingSteel material there will be a converge problem.
Secondly, probably steel02 is a better element since Silvia said so.
Thirdly, you'd better use the same steel element in the column and the end element.
Lastly, I dont understand why you related the slip of rebar with concrete stress. The modal just try to use rebar slip in adjacent member to involve the SP effect.

[quote="xiaoqg2003"][quote="yfeng"]You must use steel02 instead of ReinforcingSteel.

[quote="xiaoqg2003"]Dear Dr.s constraints Plain,

I want to know whether the bondsp01 model can be used with ReinforcingSteel or it should be just used with steel02 which does not have yield platform.[/quote][/quote]

Dear yFang and Dr. Silvia,

Does that means we use steel02 to make the steel mode used in beamcolumn consist with the steel mode used in the end element (zerolength element) or just because steel02 is more stable? Also I feel confused that while in bondsp01, the slip is related to the yield stress of steel but not that of concrete. In the 2D or 3D model, it seems more reasonable to relate the slip to the strength of concrete.

Thanks for your helps.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

xiaoqg2003 · Post by **xiaoqg2003** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:09 am

Dear yFang and Dr. Silvia,

If I just want to do a pushover analysis, does that means bondsp01 model is not so different from a common material (e.g. steel02) .

For example, if I set the paprameter values of steel02 and bondsp01 to let them have almost the same enveop and use them in zerolength element in the pushover ananlysis of a single column, will they give similar results?

What i want to say is as follows
Although we said we use bondsp01 to consider the strain penentration, the real influence of strain penetration is reflected by the zerolength element. It provide extra axial displacement and rotation. The bondsp01 mode is just used to fit the value of this extra dispacement and rotation.

Is that ringt?