Is the same value of 0.7 also suitable for analyzing a shear wall made with ECC (Engineered Cement Composite) concrete?
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Forum updated
We have recently updated our forums system, and we have cleared all spam topics and users. In case we accidentally deleted your account, please register again. If you miss a topic you have posted before, please let us know.
Post new reply
Cervenka Consulting Forums → ATENA → Choice of Crack Model for Shear Wall Analysis under Cyclic Loadind → Post new reply
Compose and post your new reply
All fields with bold label must be completed before the form is submitted.
Topic review (newest first)
Hello Amirhossein,
We generally do not recommend using the fully rotated crack model (i.e., "Fixed crack" parameter set to 0.0) as it is not really realistic. In reality, once the crack localises, its direction stays more or less the same.
On the other hand, during the crack propagation/growth, its direction can change a bit as the direction of principal stress changes. This is the case especially when larger finite elements are used in the model. So, when using this reasoning, it can make sense to set the "Fixed crack" parameter to, for instance, 0.7, meaning that the crack can rotate until the tensile softening reaches 0.7 of the initial tensile strength. After that, the crack direction is fixed.
Does this make sense to you?
Hello,
For analyzing a shear wall under cyclic loading in ATENA V5, in your opinion, is it better to use the **Fixed crack model** or the **Rotated crack model**? Could you also explain the reasoning behind each model and the conditions in which each is most appropriate?
Thank you.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.