Loading
/custom-emojis/emojis/contour-map.png
Templates
📚
Articles & Resources
📖
Guides & Support
🌵
CalcTree
Estados de Vigas de Concreto
Bust Common Myths About Java Programming
Loading
/custom-emojis/emojis/calculator.png
Tensile Strength and Capacity Control of the W-Shape Sections According to AISC 360-16
Loading
/custom-emojis/emojis/calculator.png
Concrete Cylinder Strength Vs Cube Strength
Loading
/custom-emojis/emojis/calculator.png
Earthquake Design Action Calculation
Sıvılaşma Verileri Tablosu
Loading
/custom-emojis/emojis/rc-beam.png
Concrete Column Designer to AS3600
EM Wave Propagation Calculator
section properties with units
Forward Kinematics of Robotic Arm with 6 Degrees of Freedom
İKSA YAPILARI PROJELENDİRME HİZMET BEDELİ (2024)
GEOTEKNİK RAPOR (EK-B) ASGARİ HİZMET BEDELİ (2024)
ZEMİN İYİLEŞTİRME/DERİN TEMEL PROJELENDİRME ASGARİ HİZMET BEDELİ (2024) (İMO)
🚀
Projectile motion
Loading
/custom-emojis/emojis/bending-moment.png
Dezi et. al (2010)
🤾
Projectile motion
OpenSeesPy vs ETABS: 2D Frame Modal Analysis Comparison's banner
/custom-emojis/emojis/building-frame.png

OpenSeesPy vs ETABS: 2D Frame Modal Analysis Comparison

At CalcTree, we're committed to bringing you state-of-the-art tools for your daily work as a structural engineer. That's why we are implementing the OpenSeesPy Python library as part of our offer.
This article aims to demonstrate how OpenSeesPy can be used within CalcTree as a substitute to popular FEM software such as ETABS.
Our example problem is a 2D frame with 3-storeys and one span. We will conduct a modal analysis to find the deformed shape and periods of the three principle modes of vibration using both OpenSeesPy and ETABS and will compare the results. See figure and toggle lists below for more details about the example problem.

Technical assumptions

List of parameters

Proposed 2D frame for modal analysis


What is modal analysis?

Input Data



h
:3.00m


L
:6.00m


m
:1,000kg


E
:20GPa


I_column
:675,000,000mm4


I_beam
:67,500,000,000mm4
👉For comparison between ETABS and OpenSeesPy, don't change the default input values above.

OpenSeesPy

The model was built by assigning mass to each storey at the two-column nodes, equivalent to half of that storey's mass. For the modal analysis, an elastic analysis with 1 DOF (x translation) was undertaken.
Can’t display the image because of an internal error. Our team is looking at the issue.

👉 See the Code source on the right-hand panel or our tutorial for more information about the OpenSeesPy model construction.


Results: Vibration Modes



T1_OpenSeesPy
:0.11s



T2_OpenSeesPy
:0.05s



T3_OpenSeesPy
:0.03s

Can’t display the image because of an internal error. Our team is looking at the issue.



ETABS

Conditions in the OpenSeesPy model were replicated in ETABS, using the default input values on this page.
ETABS model

👉 For further details about the ETABS modelling, see toggles below.

ETABS - global settings

ETABS - beam & column settings

Results: Vibration Modes



T1_ETABS
:0.109s



T2_ETABS
:0.048s



T3_ETABS
:0.033s

ETABS modal analysis


Results and Comparison

To compare the OpenSeesPy Python library with ETABS, we have looked at the results from the modal analysis (i.e. deformed shape and periods of the first three vibration modes), the modelling complexity and pricing.

Period

The period values of the first three modes of vibration from OpenSeesPy and ETABS were very closely aligned, with only minor variations noted at the third decimal place (see below). Such negligible differences are statistically insignificant and do not impact the overall interpretation of the structural behavior.
OpenSeesPy


T1_OpenSeesPy
:0.107s


T2_OpenSeesPy
:0.048s


T3_OpenSeesPy
:0.032s
ETABS


T1_ETABS
:0.109s


T2_ETABS
:0.048s


T3_ETABS
:0.033s

Modelling

  1. ETABS provides a user-friendly interface that allows a fluid definition of the model.
  2. OpenSeesPy requires a proficient knowledge of programming in Python to complete the model construction, and a third-party GUI (graphical user interface) to view results, for example CalcTree.

Pricing

  1. ETABS is paid software with different pricing options depending on the expected level of modelling required. Find more information here.
  2. OpenSeesPy is open-source, free to use for non-commercial use cases (e.g. education). Find more information on their license information here.

Summary

In conclusion, a comparison between the OpenSeesPy and ETABS modal analysis showed:
  1. Deformed shapes were visually the same and in order of magnitude
  2. The periods were almost identical; that is, the value varied slightly in the third decimal place, which is an insignificant difference.
Therefore, it is concluded that the choice between using OpenSeesPy or ETABS does not affect the fundamental understanding of the structure's dynamic response. Consequently, either tool can be used interchangeably without compromising the accuracy of the structure's behaviour under dynamic conditions.


Learn More