1
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: Load factor
« on: July 13, 2021, 10:59:10 PM »
Thank you so much, I sent it to you.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: Load factor
« on: July 08, 2021, 06:32:44 PM »
yes, I have scaled the time step as well.
The event files are large in size. When If I attached them to the message, the message could not be delivered. Can I email them for you?
The event files are large in size. When If I attached them to the message, the message could not be delivered. Can I email them for you?
3
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: Load factor
« on: June 30, 2021, 09:17:08 AM »
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. I have uploaded the files to the message.
I am running these simulations for different wind speeds starting from 36mph. I am using the "existing" wind event option to be able to use different wind directions as loading scenarios. since I have 20 loading scenarios which take time to set up, I just created the loading files for 36mph and then changed the loading time step and added a load factor to scale up the forces.
The attached folder shows the simulation files for 56mph.
The "unfactoredLoad" folder contains the model with 36mph loading file which is scaled up using a scale factor of 2.4198. This doesn't give me reasonable results.
The "factoredLoad" folder contains the model with a loading file that I created for 56mph so it doesn't need to be scaled up. So I use a load factor equal to 1 for this one. This gives me reasonable results that match with pure OpenSees simulation results.
* couldn't upload the event files due to large size.
I am just don't know what I am doing wrong in using the load factor.
I am running these simulations for different wind speeds starting from 36mph. I am using the "existing" wind event option to be able to use different wind directions as loading scenarios. since I have 20 loading scenarios which take time to set up, I just created the loading files for 36mph and then changed the loading time step and added a load factor to scale up the forces.
The attached folder shows the simulation files for 56mph.
The "unfactoredLoad" folder contains the model with 36mph loading file which is scaled up using a scale factor of 2.4198. This doesn't give me reasonable results.
The "factoredLoad" folder contains the model with a loading file that I created for 56mph so it doesn't need to be scaled up. So I use a load factor equal to 1 for this one. This gives me reasonable results that match with pure OpenSees simulation results.
* couldn't upload the event files due to large size.
I am just don't know what I am doing wrong in using the load factor.
4
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Load factor
« on: June 28, 2021, 09:45:03 PM »
Hi,
When performing WE-UQ simulation of a 20-story frame with one sample and a dummy variable, I realized that the results don't match with pure OpenSees simulation results. This is because I was using a load factor to scale up the magnitude of the applied wind forces. I realized that if I specify the load factor as 1, but use a wind loading s enario that has been externally scaled before being used in WE-UQ as an input, then the results will match with OpenSees. It seems to me that the load factor input in the "existing" of the tool doesn't apply the factor properly. Is this a possibility or am I making a mistake somewhere else?
Thank you,
Azin
When performing WE-UQ simulation of a 20-story frame with one sample and a dummy variable, I realized that the results don't match with pure OpenSees simulation results. This is because I was using a load factor to scale up the magnitude of the applied wind forces. I realized that if I specify the load factor as 1, but use a wind loading s enario that has been externally scaled before being used in WE-UQ as an input, then the results will match with OpenSees. It seems to me that the load factor input in the "existing" of the tool doesn't apply the factor properly. Is this a possibility or am I making a mistake somewhere else?
Thank you,
Azin
5
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / recorder options for base shear and PID
« on: June 09, 2021, 06:40:03 PM »
Hi,
Is there a way to get the total base shear of the frame as one single EDP? I can record individual base shear values separately, but then I don't know if the maximum values happen at the same time. So I can't add them together. That is why I was wondering if there is a recorder command for frame's maximum base shear?
I can see that we can get maximum interstory drift as an EDP as well. But what is the recorder for that. Because whatever is done for PID, I might be able to use that for reactions as well.
Thank you,
Azin
Is there a way to get the total base shear of the frame as one single EDP? I can record individual base shear values separately, but then I don't know if the maximum values happen at the same time. So I can't add them together. That is why I was wondering if there is a recorder command for frame's maximum base shear?
I can see that we can get maximum interstory drift as an EDP as well. But what is the recorder for that. Because whatever is done for PID, I might be able to use that for reactions as well.
Thank you,
Azin
6
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: pset doesn't work for certain parameters
« on: June 03, 2021, 01:09:46 AM »
Great, thank you!
7
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: pset doesn't work for certain parameters
« on: June 01, 2021, 05:06:42 PM »
Thank you so much, please find attached the files.
8
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: pset doesn't work for certain parameters
« on: May 31, 2021, 05:30:16 PM »
well, I added them manually, and they are sampled properly for the simulations.
9
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / pset doesn't work for certain parameters
« on: May 31, 2021, 04:28:50 PM »
Hi,
I don't know why the pset command doesn't work for me for setting up certain parameters (My, theta_p, and theta_pc in the IMK material). They don't appear in the list of random variables in WE-UQ's user interface.
I don't know why the pset command doesn't work for me for setting up certain parameters (My, theta_p, and theta_pc in the IMK material). They don't appear in the list of random variables in WE-UQ's user interface.
10
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: failed simulations for large number of samples
« on: May 12, 2021, 11:08:18 PM »
Thank you for your response.
1) The frame remains linear elastic when subjected to the loads I'm currently using...
2) I should certainly change the recorders to a nicer looking and more compact format. How can I go from 104 to 10? I have 48 recorder files. The rest of the files in the local directories are the main .jason file and other input files.
- I tried running a simulation with the default stick model in WE-UQ at DesignSafe, but that didn't go through either. I got the same problem as with my 2D frame model. The analysis either fails or is finished with no output. I don't know what I'm doing wrong while running at DesignSafe. I was able to run the 2D frame locally with 1000 samples. But I can't handle more samples locally.
1) The frame remains linear elastic when subjected to the loads I'm currently using...
2) I should certainly change the recorders to a nicer looking and more compact format. How can I go from 104 to 10? I have 48 recorder files. The rest of the files in the local directories are the main .jason file and other input files.
- I tried running a simulation with the default stick model in WE-UQ at DesignSafe, but that didn't go through either. I got the same problem as with my 2D frame model. The analysis either fails or is finished with no output. I don't know what I'm doing wrong while running at DesignSafe. I was able to run the 2D frame locally with 1000 samples. But I can't handle more samples locally.
11
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: failed simulations for large number of samples
« on: May 11, 2021, 05:59:20 PM »
it takes about 3 hours to run on my PC I think. It is a 20-story frame (2D) with panel zones and concentrated plasticity elements. So, lots of nodes and elements. I have modified the recorder and processor files as well. Could this be the problem? I separated the node recorders for each story. So the program should create lots of output files. I have attached my model in here.
12
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: failed simulations for large number of samples
« on: May 11, 2021, 03:04:05 AM »
Hi,
I tried a simulation with 100 samples, 100 nodes, 32 processors, and max time of 40 hours. After almost 10 hours of being in queue, the analysis has suddenly changed status to finished without giving me output. I checked the status of the analysis every now and then when it was in queue, and I didn't see any other status than queue. It was in queue all day, and then suddenly the status changed to finished.
If I use larger number of nodes or processors, or a higher max time, the analysis fails immediately. The above numbers were the highest I could choose.
I tried a simulation with 100 samples, 100 nodes, 32 processors, and max time of 40 hours. After almost 10 hours of being in queue, the analysis has suddenly changed status to finished without giving me output. I checked the status of the analysis every now and then when it was in queue, and I didn't see any other status than queue. It was in queue all day, and then suddenly the status changed to finished.
If I use larger number of nodes or processors, or a higher max time, the analysis fails immediately. The above numbers were the highest I could choose.
13
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: failed simulations for large number of samples
« on: May 10, 2021, 07:30:28 AM »
Thank you so much for your quick response. I will try a smaller sample size and higher number of nodes.
How can I know from the Dakota.out file that samples have been finished or not? I have attached the Dakota.out file for one of my simulations in here. It is written in there that each evaluation has been added to queue and then assigned to a specific peer. But no information is given about the completion of the processes. Does this mean that non of the processes have been completed?
How can I know from the Dakota.out file that samples have been finished or not? I have attached the Dakota.out file for one of my simulations in here. It is written in there that each evaluation has been added to queue and then assigned to a specific peer. But no information is given about the completion of the processes. Does this mean that non of the processes have been completed?
14
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / Re: failed simulations for large number of samples
« on: May 10, 2021, 03:15:30 AM »
I tried running the simulation on Designsafe again. This time the simulation is completed 
but does not give me any output. The individual work directories are not even generated.
I tried a second time. This time, 32 out of 1000 work directories are created, but the recorders inside them are empty. The DakotaTab file is accordingly generated without any data (it contains only headers).
I'm trying another simulation with fewer number of samples (500 samples) to see if I can get results.
Could this be an issue related to the archiving stage?
but does not give me any output. The individual work directories are not even generated. I tried a second time. This time, 32 out of 1000 work directories are created, but the recorders inside them are empty. The DakotaTab file is accordingly generated without any data (it contains only headers).
I'm trying another simulation with fewer number of samples (500 samples) to see if I can get results.
Could this be an issue related to the archiving stage?
15
Wind Engineering (WE-UQ) / failed simulations for large number of samples
« on: May 09, 2021, 05:10:31 PM »
Hi,
When I specify large number of samples in a forward propagation problem using LHS, my simulation fails. I have tried running this both on my laptop and on Designsafe:
- On the laptop, I get the error "Dakota has stopped working". If I choose the debug option, it says "an unhandled exception occurred in [11756] Dakota.exe".
- On Designsafe, the job status turn to "failed" and it says "APPS_USER_APP_FAILURE Failure indicated by Slurm status TIMEOUT with user application return code: 0:0".
* I have previously run this model for 32768 time steps with only one random variable and one sample using WE-UQ without any errors and got results comparable to deterministic OpenSees simulation results.
* I have also run the model as a test with only two time steps and 26 random variables and 30 samples successfully.
So I think the issue might not be because of the way the model and WE-UQ parameters are set up. It seems like it is due to the large number of samples. But I don't know why and how to resolve it.
Thank you,
Azin
When I specify large number of samples in a forward propagation problem using LHS, my simulation fails. I have tried running this both on my laptop and on Designsafe:
- On the laptop, I get the error "Dakota has stopped working". If I choose the debug option, it says "an unhandled exception occurred in [11756] Dakota.exe".
- On Designsafe, the job status turn to "failed" and it says "APPS_USER_APP_FAILURE Failure indicated by Slurm status TIMEOUT with user application return code: 0:0".
* I have previously run this model for 32768 time steps with only one random variable and one sample using WE-UQ without any errors and got results comparable to deterministic OpenSees simulation results.
* I have also run the model as a test with only two time steps and 26 random variables and 30 samples successfully.
So I think the issue might not be because of the way the model and WE-UQ parameters are set up. It seems like it is due to the large number of samples. But I don't know why and how to resolve it.
Thank you,
Azin