Verifying Will Never Be Easy

A previous post compared the natural periods computed by OpenSees for a relatively simple one-story, one-bay, elastic frame to published ETABS results. Many easy to make modeling choices (mass distribution, rigid joint offsets, relative stiffness, etc.) led to "incorrect" periods. The "correct" modeling choices gave periods from OpenSees that were very close to ETABS--close enough … Continue reading Verifying Will Never Be Easy →

The Stiffness Matrix Isn’t Everything

After several deliveries of graduate level courses in linear and nonlinear structural analysis, I have started to think that we over-emphasize the stiffness matrix in linear structural analysis. And this emphasis can lead to conceptual difficulties in nonlinear structural analysis. The steps to a linear analysis are presented as: Form the stiffness matrix Form the … Continue reading The Stiffness Matrix Isn’t Everything →

Trying to Get a Reaction

OpenSees does not compute reactions automatically because this can be a time consuming process--OpenSees assembles reactions over all nodes in a model, not just over the nodes that are constrained. When performing response history analysis, assembling reactions is likely not something you want or need to do at every time step. You probably just want … Continue reading Trying to Get a Reaction →

Verifying Ain’t Easy

I've posted a few modeling challenges on frame analysis (strongback, Ziemian, and stability) and soil-structure interaction. However, I recently accepted a challenge from George Chamosfakidis to see if OpenSees can give the same periods and mode shapes reported in the ETABS verification example shown below. Published verification examples typically just show the "correct" result and … Continue reading Verifying Ain’t Easy →