the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post Reply
zly123
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:01 pm

the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post by zly123 » Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:20 am

I can do gravity analysis on my model, but I get an error when doing modal analysis. What is the reason for this?
Attachments
11111jpg.jpg
11111jpg.jpg (66.34 KiB) Viewed 2265 times

kesavapraba
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:25 pm

Re: the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post by kesavapraba » Tue Mar 26, 2024 1:40 pm

Hi, You can post a minimum example model here to find the exact cause for this error. Please check your model for any unconnected nodes/elements and also Eigen analysis settings.
:: With best wishes ::
Prabakaran Kesavan

zly123
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:01 pm

Re: the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post by zly123 » Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:07 am

Thanks,it can work now.But the period is smaller than other finite element software.The first period is 0.89s and 2.1s in other software,I want to know what can I adjust could improve the natural period of the structure.

kesavapraba
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:25 pm

Re: the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post by kesavapraba » Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:51 pm

Hi, Mass and stiffness of the structure play role in its natural period. Additionally, boundary conditions (again stiffness!) can also influence the natural period. So, I would suggest you should check the correctness of these details between the two models.
:: With best wishes ::
Prabakaran Kesavan

zly123
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:01 pm

Re: the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post by zly123 » Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:12 am

kesavapraba wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:51 pm
Hi, Mass and stiffness of the structure play role in its natural period. Additionally, boundary conditions (again stiffness!) can also influence the natural period. So, I would suggest you should check the correctness of these details between the two models.
Can you tell me if it's the right thing to do?I want to use these operations to simulate a rigid floor slab.
Attachments
cbbba282c12daf5da3f26a3445853be.png
cbbba282c12daf5da3f26a3445853be.png (196.75 KiB) Viewed 2156 times
c2c623376c2606ca315c3f57faff7d0.png
c2c623376c2606ca315c3f57faff7d0.png (382.51 KiB) Viewed 2156 times

kesavapraba
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:25 pm

Re: the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post by kesavapraba » Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:07 am

Hi, You should use rigidDiaphragm instead of rigidLink beam. rigidLink creates single MP constraint between one master and one slave node, however, rigidDiaphragm creates MP constraints accounting all the nodes in the interaction, resulting in rigid plate like behaviour for the floor.
:: With best wishes ::
Prabakaran Kesavan

zly123
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:01 pm

Re: the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post by zly123 » Tue Apr 02, 2024 5:09 am

kesavapraba wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:07 am
Hi, You should use rigidDiaphragm instead of rigidLink beam. rigidLink creates single MP constraint between one master and one slave node, however, rigidDiaphragm creates MP constraints accounting all the nodes in the interaction, resulting in rigid plate like behaviour for the floor.
Do I still need to constrain the degrees of freedom of the control points?

zly123
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:01 pm

Re: the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post by zly123 » Tue Apr 02, 2024 5:35 am

kesavapraba wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:07 am
Hi, You should use rigidDiaphragm instead of rigidLink beam. rigidLink creates single MP constraint between one master and one slave node, however, rigidDiaphragm creates MP constraints accounting all the nodes in the interaction, resulting in rigid plate like behaviour for the floor.
Can you help me check this model, the first natural period I analyzed using other software was 2.07s.Thank you very much!
Attachments
build2.rar
(372.7 KiB) Downloaded 197 times

STKO Team
Posts: 3066
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:45 am

Re: the eigenvalue analysis is wrong

Post by STKO Team » Thu Apr 04, 2024 9:55 am

The boundary conditions are fine.
In your model you don't need to fix the Uz,Rx,Ry DOFs of the master-floor nodes because the already belong to other elements.

The reason for your period should be an inconsistency (with respect to the other model you are comparing to) regarding either the stiffness of the mass. Please double check both.
Start with the mass, it's easier. Look at least at the total structural mass in the modal report and see if it makes sense.

Post Reply