×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Insertion points on SAP2000...

Insertion points on SAP2000...

Insertion points on SAP2000...

(OP)
By default when aplying insertion points in a frame to simulate diferent positions of gravity center, there is an option "Do not transform stiffness for offsets from centroid".

I'm trying to model a post-tensioned beam connected to a concrete slab (with shell element), considering equivalent loads to pre-strenght.

If i use the default option for the insertion point, although in the extrusion view, it shows the beam-shell system as a T beam, the behaviour is exactly equal to the beam-shell system as a + (gravity center of the rectangular beam coincident with the shell gravity center).

If I don't select the default option (pretending with this a transformation of the stiffness in order to obtain a more rigid system) then I obtain strange forces diagrams (M and N).

The question is, when doing this, those forces are related to what fibre in the section?

All this started because I wanted to model the difference of stiffness without having to use RIGID frames or constraints to connect the shell and the beam, because it gaive me strange behaviours. The option is to use the rectangular beam (with a magnified factor of the I33 moment of inercia) but I'm not sure if it simulates the right behaviour.
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

RE: Insertion points on SAP2000...

You say that use of constraints gave you strange results. I haven't had that experience and we use constraints all the time. If you have a problem with strange results, you should send your model to CSI technical support. Maybe you're doing something wrong, or maybe you've stumbled across a bug. Either way, the support guys should be able to sort it out for you

It's my understanding that insertion points automatically create constraints based on which insertion point you choose (Top center, bottom right, etc, etc), so you're not avoiding the use of constraints by using insertion points.

Also, on the insertion point dialogue you can assign frame offsets from the cardinal point, typically moving both the I and J ends the same distance. If you have a nice orthogonal system, you can assign the frame offsets using Global instead of local coordinates which is sometimes easier to visualize

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close