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

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

Stress Resultant Verification

Verifying material nonlinear frame element formulations is pretty difficult. There are only a handful of analytical solutions that do not rely on bilinear uniaxial constitutive response. You're much better off verifying geometric nonlinearity. However, an example based on a relatively straightforward biaxial stress resultant plasticity model has intrigued me over the years. The example, described … Continue reading Stress Resultant Verification

A Marathon, Not a Sprint

When tasked with developing an OpenSees model for simulating the nonlinear dynamic response of, let's say, a multi-story reinforced concrete frame, you may be tempted to go straight to force-based frame elements with fiber sections comprised of Concrete23 and Steel08 material models. This sprint to the finish line will undoubtedly lead to an analysis that … Continue reading A Marathon, Not a Sprint