how to get parameters of pinching4 material Perpendicular to pier or spandrel

[xgx]

Dear STKO team:
After watching the tutorial on your official website, I found that the masonry modeling in the tutorial is a two-dimensional equivalent framework modeling. So, when I want to perform three-dimensional equivalent framework modeling, how can I determine the material parameters that characterize shear behavior perpendicular to the pier or spandrel directions. I have consulted many literatures, but they only mentioned how to determine the material parameters for in-plane shear behavior. This confuses me a lot, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer my question.

[kesavapraba]

Hi. You can look at the following literature. Please let us know if you need further assistance related to STKO.
Beyer, Katrin, and Sujith Mangalathu. "Review of strength models for masonry spandrels." Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11 (2013): 521-542.

[xgx]

Hi. You can look at the following literature. Please let us know if you need further assistance related to STKO.
Beyer, Katrin, and Sujith Mangalathu. "Review of strength models for masonry spandrels." Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11 (2013): 521-542.

Dear kesavapraba, thanks for your reply. sorry, I didn't express the problem clearly. We use concrete02 or concrete06 material to describe the axial and bending the behaviors of pier and spandrel, and we use pinching4 or ModIMKPinching material to describe the shear behaviors of pier and spandrel. However, how can I determine the pinching4 material parameters along the direction 2 shown as following picture When I perform 3D equivalent framework modeling. According to the literature I have referenced, it seems that only the pinching4 material parameters describe the shear behavior in the plane can be determined.

[kesavapraba]

Hello, I presume you are attempting to represent the out-of-plane behavior by referencing direction 2 in the enclosed figure. Nevertheless, the equivalent frame model is constrained to capturing the in-plane response and does not account for the out-of-plane response. One of the foundational assumptions in equivalent frame modeling disregards out-of-plane failure (local modes), thereby restricting the model to capturing only the in-plane response. Furthermore, the wall discretization scheme allowed for in-plane behavior may not be applicable to out-of-plane behavior. Moreover, the flexural behavior would predominantly influence the out-of-plane direction (i.e., direction 2 in your figure). Consequently, I believe it is not pertinent to model the out-of-plane shear response in your equivalent frame model. Only modeling in-plane response is adequate, which is what equivalent frame modeling is meant for (though approximate). If you need more accurate modeling, you will have to go ahead with atleast plane elements of homogenized material properties. Thank you.

[xgx]

Hello, I presume you are attempting to represent the out-of-plane behavior by referencing direction 2 in the enclosed figure. Nevertheless, the equivalent frame model is constrained to capturing the in-plane response and does not account for the out-of-plane response. One of the foundational assumptions in equivalent frame modeling disregards out-of-plane failure (local modes), thereby restricting the model to capturing only the in-plane response. Furthermore, the wall discretization scheme allowed for in-plane behavior may not be applicable to out-of-plane behavior. Moreover, the flexural behavior would predominantly influence the out-of-plane direction (i.e., direction 2 in your figure). Consequently, I believe it is not pertinent to model the out-of-plane shear response in your equivalent frame model. Only modeling in-plane response is adequate, which is what equivalent frame modeling is meant for (though approximate). If you need more accurate modeling, you will have to go ahead with atleast plane elements of homogenized material properties. Thank you.

Hello, I presume you are attempting to represent the out-of-plane behavior by referencing direction 2 in the enclosed figure. Nevertheless, the equivalent frame model is constrained to capturing the in-plane response and does not account for the out-of-plane response. One of the foundational assumptions in equivalent frame modeling disregards out-of-plane failure (local modes), thereby restricting the model to capturing only the in-plane response. Furthermore, the wall discretization scheme allowed for in-plane behavior may not be applicable to out-of-plane behavior. Moreover, the flexural behavior would predominantly influence the out-of-plane direction (i.e., direction 2 in your figure). Consequently, I believe it is not pertinent to model the out-of-plane shear response in your equivalent frame model. Only modeling in-plane response is adequate, which is what equivalent frame modeling is meant for (though approximate). If you need more accurate modeling, you will have to go ahead with atleast plane elements of homogenized material properties. Thank you.

Dear kesavapraba, thanks for your reply. Your answer made me suddenly enlightened.
Best wishes to you

[kesavapraba]

You are welcome.