NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS PROGRAM ERROR

[malikayan]

First of all, hello everyone. In the retrofitting project I was working on, while I was saving mass participation before, I only changed the name, although I did not make any changes in the project. Currently, the mass contribution does not save as a result of nonlinear thrust analysis, and the result does not change no matter what I do, even I tried such fantastic things that the result did not change even though the structure was in compliance with the regulations. Even the reporter who examined the file in the municipality saw that he had saved the analysis. And the time is running out, I am urgently waiting for your help for the strengthening work. I'm posting it as a link because the file size is too large. Other results are attached.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[malikayan]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

ĞAZİÇİ_KONUTLARI_AS_PROJE.ide10.html

 

[oguzcan]

Hello there; I reviewed your project. As you know, in order to use any of the "Single-Mode Repulsion Analysis" methods described in TBDY Chapter 5, the mass participation in the effective direction must be above 70%. In the normal modal analysis of your project, the mass participation for the dominant mode in the X direction was 0.67, or 67%. In this case, when nonlinear analysis and linear modal analysis results are compared, it shows compatibility. Insufficient mass participation in the dominant mode of this building has a relationship with the shape of the building and the carrier system. Unless we change these, mass participation may not change on a large scale. For example, at axes 1, 6, 11, and 16 in the X direction, the beams and columns are not formed as a horizontal load-bearing frame because the beams are externally attached to the columns. In addition, when the report is examined, brittle element problem is also seen in some beams. The mass participation values have been changed in the 10.59 version, since an adjustment was made regarding the mass participation in the other version. As seen in your project, these values have become compatible with the mass contributions used in the mode combining method. For this reason, instead of using single-modal pushover analysis, you can apply pushover analysis with the ARSA method. Best regards...

 

[malikayan]

Hi; I have reviewed your project. As you know, in order to use any of the "Single-Mode Repulsion Analysis" methods described in TBDY Chapter 5, the mass participation in the effective direction must be above 70%. In the analysis, the mass participation for the dominant mode in the X direction was 0.67, ie 67%. In this case, when the nonlinear analysis and the linear modal analysis results are compared, it shows compatibility. Insufficient mass participation in the dominant mode of this structure has a relationship with the shape of the structure and the carrier system. Unless you change them Mass participation may not change on a large scale. For example, beams and columns in the X-direction in axes 1, 6, 11 and 16 are not horizontal load-bearing frames because the beams are attached to the columns from the outside. Also, when the report is examined, some beams have a brittle element problem. make arrangements for participation Therefore, the mass participation values have been changed in version 10.59. As seen in your project, these values have become compatible with the mass contributions used in the mode combining method. For this reason, instead of using single-modal pushover analysis, you can apply pushover analysis with the ARSA method. Best regards...

Supervisor is sought in the multimodal method, but is there such a requirement in the LAND method?

 

[oguzcan]

Hello; I reviewed your project. As you know, in order to use any of the "Single-Mode Repulsion Analysis" methods described in TBDY Chapter 5, the mass participation in the effective direction must be above 70%. In the normal modal analysis of your project, the mass participation for the dominant mode in the X direction was 0.67, or 67%. In this case, when nonlinear analysis and linear modal analysis results are compared, it shows compatibility. Insufficient mass participation in the dominant mode of this building has a relationship with the shape of the building and the carrier system. Unless we change these, mass participation may not change on a large scale. For example, at axes 1, 6, 11, and 16 in the X direction, the beams and columns are not formed as a horizontal load-bearing frame because the beams are externally attached to the columns. In addition, when the report is examined, brittle element problem is also seen in some beams. The mass participation values have been changed in the 10.59 version, since an adjustment was made regarding the mass participation in the other version. As seen in your project, these values have become compatible with the mass contributions used in the mode combining method. For this reason, instead of using single-modal pushover analysis, you can apply pushover analysis with the ARSA method. Best regards...

The multimodal method requires a supervisor, but is there such a requirement in the ARSA method?

LAND is a multimodal push analysis method. Therefore, it must also be searched in the ARSA method. Best regards...

 

[malikayan]

Hi, I have reviewed your project. As you know, one of the "Single Mode Push Analysis" methods described in TBDY Chapter 5 In order to use any of them, the mass participation in the effective direction must be above 70%. In the normal modal analysis of your project, the mass participation for the dominant mode in the X direction is 0.67, or 67%. In this case, the nonlinear analysis and linear modal analysis results are compared to the compatibility. Insufficient mass contribution in the dominant mode of this building has a relationship with the shape of the building and the load-bearing system. Unless you change these, the mass participation may not change on a large scale. For example, beams and columns in the 1, 6, 11 and 16 axes in the X direction are not formed as a horizontal load-bearing frame because The beams are attached to the columns from the outside.In addition, when the report is examined, some beams have brittle element problems. The mass participation values have been changed in the 10.59 version, as a regulation has been made about the mass participation in the version 10.59. As seen in your project, these values have become compatible with the mass contributions used in the mode combining method. For this reason, instead of using single-modal pushover analysis, you can apply pushover analysis with the ARSA method. Best regards...

The multimodal method requires a supervisor, but is there such a requirement in the ARSA method?

LAND is a multimodal push analysis method. Therefore, it must also be searched in the ARSA method. Best regards...

How can I achieve 70% mass participation?