What would be the proper choice between shell and frame for modelling 1.2m x 0.6m vertical element?
What would be the proper choice between shell and frame for modelling 1.2m x 0.6m vertical element?
(OP)
What would be the proper choice between shell and frame for modelling 1.2m x 0.6m vertical element?
In a building I am studying expansion joints. All columns are 600mm dia circular. Except some vertical elements 1200x600mm.
1) The question is what system for seismic behaviour you would consider as per ASCE? shear wall or frame?
2) How would you model 1200x600 as frame or as shell?
In a building I am studying expansion joints. All columns are 600mm dia circular. Except some vertical elements 1200x600mm.
1) The question is what system for seismic behaviour you would consider as per ASCE? shear wall or frame?
2) How would you model 1200x600 as frame or as shell?






RE: What would be the proper choice between shell and frame for modelling 1.2m x 0.6m vertical element?
The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
RE: What would be the proper choice between shell and frame for modelling 1.2m x 0.6m vertical element?
For lateral modelling I think either a frame element or a shell element will give fairly similar results. I would model as a shell because that will give better slab coupling because the nodes will be at the edge of the column instead of at the centreline. May not have much impact on the results though.
RE: What would be the proper choice between shell and frame for modelling 1.2m x 0.6m vertical element?
I remember when b>4h -> consider is wall, otherwise is column.
In case of seismic -> column is better, some softwares like Sap2000 automatically reduce EJ in seismic analysis for frame.