Start Over Again

This week is International Blog Delurking Week. If you read the blog but never comment, please say Hello in the Comments section below and let us know how you came across the blog. Don’t be shy. Frequent and infrequent commenters are also welcome to say Hello and give their back stories.


Now, on to important human subjects research.

I made this Twitter poll to see how people in the intersection of the Twitter and OpenSees communities would like to start off the new year.

While the question is straightforward, the options are open to interpretation:

  • loadConst – don’t give me any more sh!t to do this year
  • reset – I’d like to try that again
  • sendSelf – send me somewhere else, perhaps far away
  • wipe – I’d like to start over from square one

The poll was not designed well–sendSelf is not an actual OpenSees command, but rather, the C++ function that implements the save command for database and parallel processing. Likewise, the recvSelf function implements the restore command.

In hindsight, I should have included save and restore in the poll. The results could have been very different.

9 thoughts on “Start Over Again

  1. Hi,

    Another regular reader here 🙂 I stumbled across the blog on someone’s webpage or github page, where different links to OpenSees resources were given. I don’t remember whose page though!

    I would go for loadConst, in view of a new dynamic analysis.

    Thanks for all the good content.
    Luigi

    Liked by 1 person

  2. This brings up several issues.
    To start with, if you’re solving a dynamic problem, with explicit methods (like Newmark’s) you dispense with the global stiffness matrix altogether.
    With static problems, the global stiffness matrix is really not part of the physics of the problem but simply a way of “pointing” the problem to a solution. I think this is better understood in CFD with their Jacobian (which is really what a stiffness matrix is.) This is why with nonlinear problems there are several way of altering the stiffness matrix during the solution, including leaving it fixed (which actually works in some cases, did with my PhD dissertation.)

    Like

      1. Sorry for the delayed response. I used two methodologies for my dissertation because I was solving both a static and a dynamic problem. For the static problem, it was a Modified Newton’s method. For the dynamic problem, it was an explicit Newmark’s Method where the global stiffness matrix is not used. The whole thing is here: http://vulcanhammer.net/2017/03/21/improved-methods-for-forward-and-inverse-solution-of-the-wave-equation-for-piles/
        As far as altering the stiffness matrix, I was thinking about the methods mostly associated with Fletcher. When I took Optimization, my professor (who went back to NASA shortly after the course) went through these methods, where Fletcher’s name appeared several times. My response to this was “Fletcher sure plays both sides of the street,” a sentiment to which he agreed.
        These days you’re seeing static problems modelled as dynamic problems in slow motion with a lot of time steps to avoid the global stiffness matrix problem altogether.

        Like

Leave a Reply to Silvia mazzoni Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.