Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Plastic moment for composite sections with "get_mp()" function #460

Closed
1 task done
manjolosa opened this issue Sep 29, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #462
Closed
1 task done

Plastic moment for composite sections with "get_mp()" function #460

manjolosa opened this issue Sep 29, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #462
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@manjolosa
Copy link

manjolosa commented Sep 29, 2024

  • I have searched the issues
    of this repo and believe that this is not a duplicate.

Issue

Hi Robbie,

I really enjoy you sectionproperties and concreteproperties modules. Congrats on your work.

I am developing a scrip to check composite concrete and steel sections following eurocode 4. I am using book examples to verify my results and I can't match my book example plastic moments to the ones from the "get_mp()" function.

I tried calculating by hand the plastic moment for the steel-timber section example in the sectionproperties documentation. The hand calculation resulted in 441.79kNm and the sectionproperties results in the documention return "mp_xx" = 485.81kNm.

The plastic neutral axis position from my book examples allways match the sectionproperties' plastic neutral axis position, which is a good sign.

I also tried the "get_mp()" function with a simple non composite steel section and the results match perfectly.

I don't know if I am missing something or if there is a bug on the "get_mp()" function.

Thanks for the help.

Best Regards,

@manjolosa manjolosa added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Sep 29, 2024
Copy link

Thanks for opening your first issue in sectionproperties 🙌 Pull requests are always welcome 😉

@robbievanleeuwen
Copy link
Owner

Hi @manjolosa, if you post the example with working I'd be happy to have a look into it!

@manjolosa
Copy link
Author

Hi Robbie,

Thank you for the quick reply.

Taking for example the composite section in the sectionproperties documentation. I attached a calculation of the plastic moment in excel and a comparission to the result in the sectionproperties documention.

The excel calculation results in 441.79kNm and the sectionproperties results in the documention return "mp_xx" = 485.81kNm.

I don't understand why there would be a difference between the two results.

Composite_doc_example.xlsx

@robbievanleeuwen
Copy link
Owner

Thanks @manjolosa for bringing this to my attention! It looks like there may be a bug affecting the calculation of plastic properties for composite sections only, which wasn't picked up in the current testing suite. I'll work to have a fix and release in the next few days 👍

@robbievanleeuwen robbievanleeuwen added bug Something isn't working and removed documentation Improvements or additions to documentation labels Sep 30, 2024
@robbievanleeuwen robbievanleeuwen self-assigned this Sep 30, 2024
@robbievanleeuwen
Copy link
Owner

Hi @manjolosa thanks again for highlighting this. The test suite now includes this example and another couple of composite plastic section examples. Note that the example reports mp_xx = 450 kN.m, which is slightly higher than your excel calculation due to the presence of root radii. The new example in the tests removes the root radius and gets the same result as your excel spreadsheet. A new release of sectionproperties is imminent.

@manjolosa
Copy link
Author

Hi Robbie. Thanks for this. It´s a really life saver for me. You have developed a great tool for structural engineers. Looking forward for the new release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants