beam-column joint problem

[chinaliu]

when i run the tcl.script the message follows:missing operator _@_ in expression "30.045_@_.060.0/0.1" was displayed.
what relationship between it and my procedure.
who can help me!
Thanks!

this problem was solved.
thanks your attention everyone!

[chinaliu]

the second bigger problem i met. i run a planar beam-column joint analysis sucessfully in x-y coordinate system;but when i setup the same model in x-y-z coordinate system the results was about 70% reduced.

the part of the tcl script was like this :

node 1 0.0 0.0 0
node 2 0.0 $ColumnLengthClear 0
node 3 [expr -$BeamLengthOut-$BeamLengthIn-$JointWidth/2] [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] 0
#node 4 [expr -$BeamLengthIn-$JointWidth/2] [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] 0
node 5 [expr -$JointWidth/2] [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] 0
node 6 [expr $JointWidth/2] [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] 0
#node 7 [expr $BeamLengthIn+$JointWidth/2] [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] 0
node 8 [expr $BeamLengthOut+$BeamLengthIn+$JointWidth/2] [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] 0
node 9 0.0 [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight] 0
node 10 0.0 [expr 2*$ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight] 0
#node 11 0 [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] [expr -$BeamLengthOut-$BeamLengthIn-$JointDepth/2]

#node 12 0 [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] [expr -$JointDepth/2]
#node 13 0 [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] [expr $JointDepth/2]
#node 14 0 [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] [expr $BeamLengthOut+$BeamLengthIn+$JointDepth/2]
node 15 0 [expr $ColumnLengthClear+$JointHeight/2] 0

equalDOF 15 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
equalDOF 15 5 1 2 3 4 5 6
equalDOF 15 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
equalDOF 15 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 ( whether this part was the reason of reduced results)

i mean here i must use the syntax [equalDOF] coupling 6 degrees of the node(2 5 6 9),if i only couple few degrees of the node the unconvergence message may be out.
if i cancel the [equalDOF] part then the message failed in solver was out.

element beamColumnJoint 77 2 6 9 5 41 42 1 21 31 1 43 44 1 22 32 1 5
#element beamColumnJoint 88 2 12 9 13 41 42 1 21 31 1 43 44 1 22 32 1 5

# set the boundary conditions - command: fix nodeID xResrnt? yRestrnt?

fix 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
fix 10 1 0 1 0 1 0

pattern Plain 2 Linear {
load 10 0 -723600 0 0 0 0 -const
#load 7 0 -361800 0 -const
}

system ProfileSPD
constraints Plain
integrator LoadControl 0 1 0 0
test NormDispIncr 1e-8 150
algorithm Newton
numberer RCM
analysis Static
analyze 1
puts "Gravity analysis finished sucessfully"
loadConst -time 0.0
puts "Model Built"

pattern Plain 200 Linear {;
load 3 0.0 723600 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
load 8 0.0 -723600 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
#load 11 0.0 723600 0.0 0 0 0
#load 14 0.0 -723600 0.0 0 0 0
}

recorder Node -file $fName1.out -node 8 -dof 2 disp;
recorder Element -file $fName2.out -ele 6 globalForce;

set peakpts [list 0.1 10 10 30 30 45 45 60 60]
set increment 1
set nodeTag 8
set dofTag 2

procRC $increment $nodeTag $dofTag $peakpts

[fmk]

you obviously meesed up in the conversion. if you have ebam column elements check the orientation specified in the geomTransf objects.

[chinaliu]

dear sir fmk:
firstly ,thanks for your advice.

and maybe the problem is for this part of geometry transformation,but i still have few unknowns.

when i change the [$vecxzX $vecxzY $vecxzZ ] the model outlook was all the same through the [DisplayModel3D.tcl].
so i think the identification of [$vecxzX $vecxzY $vecxzZ ] is a big big question for me.
i can not understand the rule mentioned in [http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index ... sformation.]

e.g.1(this part [geom transf] is out from expample7 of opensees's]
geomTransf Linear 1 0 0 1;
geomTransf Linear 2 0 0 1;
geomTransf Linear 3 1 0 0;
element nonlinearBeamColumn 1 1 2 5 1 1
element nonlinearBeamColumn 2 9 10 5 1 1
element nonlinearBeamColumn 3 3 5 5 2 2
element nonlinearBeamColumn 6 6 8 5 2 2
element nonlinearBeamColumn 7 11 12 5 2 3
element nonlinearBeamColumn 8 13 14 5 2 3

e.g.2(this part [gemo transf] got by myself)
geomTransf Linear 1 0 0 1;
geomTransf Linear 2 0 -1 0;

element nonlinearBeamColumn 1 1 2 5 1 1
element nonlinearBeamColumn 2 9 10 5 1 1
element nonlinearBeamColumn 3 3 5 5 2 2
element nonlinearBeamColumn 6 6 8 5 2 2
element nonlinearBeamColumn 7 11 12 5 2 2
element nonlinearBeamColumn 8 13 14 5 2 2

!!question 2!!:
how can i got the accurate parameters for the pinching4 material definition.
the pinching effects did not appear during my model simulation process.(in this point how can i try the reduction parameters such as deltak deltaD and deltaF)
the relation between the pinching4 material load-deformation curve and the experimental skeleton curve is what?
does it means [crack-yeild-peak-fracture point of the experimental curve]?

in my 3D interior beam-column joint model whether it is necessary to limit the six degrees of the constrained nodes by the retained nodes?
when i used the [equaldof] the beam-column joint element acts like a rigid body which means the results was the same as those in elastic material!

why sir?


thanks!

[chinaliu]

thanks for your attention to my problems everyone!

so who can tell me how to solve this problem?

thanks for your coming help!

[chinaliu]

in my mode node 15 is the centroid point of the spatial interior beam-column joint and the node of 2 5 6 9 12 13 is the nodes which located aroud the joint .
i set up the relation as follows:

rigidLink beam 15 2
rigidLink beam 15 5
rigidLink beam 15 6
rigidLink beam 15 9
rigidLink beam 15 12
rigidLink beam 15 13

fix 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
fix 10 1 0 1 0 1 0
fix 15 1 1 1 1 1 1
fix 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
fix 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
fix 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
fix 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
fix 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
fix 13 0 0 0 0 0 0

so the pinching effect was not completely be seen in the simulation results.

so i wanna know whether the [fix 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 ] is the root of this?
what's the correct constaints of node 15? [fix ? ? ? ? ? ?]