This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Software Verification

Examples

COMPUTERS & STRUCTURES INC.

R

ETABS®

Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design

SOFTWARE VERIFICATION EXAMPLES

Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California, USA

Version 8 June 2003

Copyright

The computer program ETABS and all associated documentation are proprietary and copyrighted products. Worldwide rights of ownership rest with Computers and Structures, Inc. Unlicensed use of the program or reproduction of the documentation in any form, without prior written authorization from Computers and Structures, Inc., is explicitly prohibited. Further information and copies of this documentation may be obtained from:

Computers and Structures, Inc. 1995 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 USA

Phone: (510) 845-2177 FAX: (510) 845-4096 e-mail: info@csiberkeley.com (for general questions) e-mail: support@csiberkeley.com (for technical support questions) web: www.csiberkeley.com

IN USING THE PROGRAM. EFFORT AND EXPENSE HAVE GONE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DOCUMENTATION OF ETABS.DISCLAIMER CONSIDERABLE TIME. THE USER ACCEPTS AND UNDERSTANDS THAT NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY THE DEVELOPERS OR THE DISTRIBUTORS ON THE ACCURACY OR THE RELIABILITY OF THE PROGRAM. . HOWEVER. THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY TESTED AND USED. THE USER MUST EXPLICITLY UNDERSTAND THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE PROGRAM AND MUST INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE RESULTS.

Eigenvalue Analysis Seven-Story Plane Frame. Gravity and Lateral Loads Analysis Two-Story Three-Dimensional Frame. Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis Two-Story Three-Dimensional Unsymmetrical Building Frame. Nonlinear Time History Analysis Contents i . Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis Three-Story Three-Dimensional Braced Frame. Static Gravity Load Analysis Three-Story Plane Frame.Contents Introduction Examples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads. Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements. Code-Specific Static Lateral Load Analysis Single Story Three-Dimensional Frame. Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis Nine-Story Ten-Bay Plane Frame. Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis Three-Story Plane Frame.

Nonlinear Time History Analysis Wall Area Object Behavior. Nonlinear Time History Analysis Friction Pendulum Base-Isolated 3D Frame. Nonlinear Time History Analysis Base Isolated Two-Story 3D Frame.ETABS Verification Manual Contents 11 12 13 14 15 Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements. Static Lateral Loads Analysis ii Contents . Nonlinear Time History Analysis Pounding of Two Planar Frames.

The examples demonstrate some of the analytical capabilities of the ETABS system. For each example. such as hand calculated results. The input data file for each example is provided on the ETABS CD. Introduction 1 .Introduction This manual presents a set of simple building systems that have been analyzed using ETABS Version 8. static and dynamic analysis and linear and nonlinear options. theoretical or published results. this manual contains a short description of the problem. key results produced by ETABS are compared to independent sources. a list of significant ETABS options activated. or results obtained from other structural/finite element programs that are verified not using ETABS. and a comparison of key results with theoretical results or results from other computer programs. The examples cover each type of element. For purposes of verification.

Example 1 Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads Static Gravity Load Analysis Description This is a one-story. two-dimensional frame subjected to vertical static loading. The frame geometry and loading patterns are shown in Figure 1-1. Significant Options of ETABS Activated Two-dimensional frame analysis Vertical beam span loading No rigid joint offsets on beams and columns Column pinned end connections Description 1-1 .

Example 1 ETABS Verification Manual 50k Eq. All columns are 12"x24". the axial area and moment of inertia for each member are explicitly input. 100k Eq. and axial and shear deformations are neglected.EDB. 100k Eq. The input data file for this example is EX1. instead. 50k Case 1 Case 2 10k/ft Pinned Connection 10’ Origin Figure 1-1 Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads Computer Model The frame is a three-column line. two-bay system. This file is available to the user on the program CD. Kip-inch-second units are used. all beams are 12"x30". 100k Eq. The modulus of elasticity is 3000 ksi. Thus. rigid joint offsets on columns and beams are not modeled. Comparison of Results The theoretical results for bending moments and shear forces on beams B1 and B2 are easily obtained from tabulated values for propped cantilevers (American 1-2 Computer Model . To be able to compare ETABS results with theoretical results using prismatic members and elementary beam theory. the automatic property generation feature of ETABS is not used.

00 2.75 68.75 68.50 -4.75 68.50 -22. These values for beam B1 are compared with ETABS results in Table 1-1.ETABS Verification Manual Example 1 Institute of Steel Construction 1989).50 67.430.50 22.50 -4. Chicago.00 -31. The results are identical.50 112.050.50 -22.375.430.00 -31.50 Theoretical 0.25 68.00 -337.050.687.00 2. Table 1-1 Comparison of Results for Beam B1 Load Case I (Concentrated Load) Quantity Bending Moments Location End I ¼ Point ½ point ¾ point End J Shear Forces End I ¼ Point ½ point ¾ point End J ETABS 0.75 Theoretical 0.25 68.00 0. Reference 1-3 . Manual of Steel ConstructionAllowable Stress Design.50 67.50 3.00 -67.50 22.375.00 0.00 -67.00 1.75 68.50 112.430.25 -31.00 2.430.860.25 -31.50 Reference American Institute of Steel Construction 1989.50 3.860.00 2. Illinois.75 Load Case II (Uniformly Distributed Load) Quantity Bending Moments Location End I ¼ Point ½ point ¾ point End J Shear Forces End I ¼ Point ½ point ¾ point End J ETABS 0.00 -4.00 -337.00 1.687.00 -4.

Example 2 Three-Story Plane Frame Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis Description This is a three-story plane frame subjected to the El Centro 1940 seismic response spectra. N-S component. Significant Options of ETABS Activated Two-dimensional frame analysis Rigid joint offsets on beams and columns automatically calculated Dynamic response spectrum analysis Description 2-1 . The frame geometry is shown in Figure 2-1. 5 percent damping.

Also.Example 2 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 2-1 Three-Story Plane Frame Computer Model The frame is modeled as a two-column line. 2-2 Computer Model .4 kip-sec2/in The column is modeled to have infinite axial area. The response spectrum file is ELCN-RS1. The input data file for this example is EX2. Kip-inch-second units are used. Other parameters associated with the structure are as follows: All columns are W14X90 All beams are infinitely rigid and 24" deep Modulus of elasticity Typical story mass = 29500 ksi = 0. These files are available on the CD. single bay system. zero column shear area is input to trigger the ETABS option of neglecting shear deformations.EDB. so that axial deformation is neglected. These deformations are neglected to be consistent with the hand-calculated model with which the results are compared.

The modal responses for story displacements and column moments can then be combined using the complete quadratic combination procedure (Wilson. The example then reduces to a three-spring. Table 2-1 Comparison of Results for Periods and Mode Shapes Mode Period. This can be analyzed using any exact method (Paz 1985) to obtain the three natural periods and mass normalized mode shapes of the system.165 0.165 0. Mode Shape Roof Level 1 0. The results are identical.519 0.519 -1. The three theoretical natural periods and mass normalized mode shapes are compared in Table 2-1 with ETABS results.165 0.165 0.e.934 Theoretical 1.519 -1.1090 2 Level 1 Level st nd st nd st nd ETABS 1.934 -0.4414 2 Level 1 Level Roof Level 2 0. and neglecting both shear deformations and axial deformations.519 -1. the story lateral stiffness for this example can be calculated (Przemieniecki 1968).165 0. et al. The spectral accelerations can in turn be used with the mode shapes and story mass information to obtain the modal responses (Paz 1985). secs. The story displacements and column moments thus obtained are compared in Table 2-2 with ETABS results.165 0.ETABS Verification Manual Example 2 Comparison of Results Assuming the beams to be rigid and a rigid offset at the column top ends of 24 inches (i.934 The spectral accelerations at the three natural periods can then be linearly interpolated from the response spectrum used.1575 2 Level 1 Level Roof Level 3 0. three-mass system with equal stiffnesses and masses.934 -0. The results are identical.934 0. 1981).519 0. equal to the depth of the beams). Comparison of Results 2-3 .519 -1.934 0.

139 1.P. E. M. J. Przemieniecki. Wilson. Structural Dynamics. Mc-Graw-Hill. A Replacement for the SRSS Method in Seismic Analysis. Bayo 1981. Theory and Computations. Column C1. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.716 0. at Base References Paz.955 11. A.955 11.139 1. 1968.Example 2 ETABS Verification Manual Table 2-2 Comparison of Displacements and Column Moments Quantity Displacement at Roof 2 1 nd st ETABS 2. 1985. Van Nostrand Reinhold.L..730 Theoretical 2.716 0. Kiureghian and E. 2-4 References .D. Vol.730 Moment. Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis. 9.S.

Inc. Significant Options of ETABS Activated Two-dimensional frame analysis Description 3-1 .Example 3 Three-Story Plane Frame. 2000) UBC 1997 specified wind loads (International Conference of Building Officials 1997) The frame geometry is shown in Figure 3-1. Code-Specified Static Lateral Load Analysis Description This is a three-story plane frame subjected to the following three code-specified lateral load cases: UBC 1997 specified seismic loads (International Conference of Building Officials 1997) IBC 2000 specified seismic loads (International Code Council.

Example 3 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 3-1 Three-Story Plane Frame Section properties automatically recovered from AISC database Automatic generation of UBC 1997 seismic loads Automatic generation of IBC 2000 seismic loads Automatic generation of UBC 1997 wind loads Computer Model The frame is modeled as a two-column line. This file is available on the CD. single bay system. Kip-inch-second units are used.3 = 0.4 kip-sec2/in The input data file for this example is EX3. 3-2 Computer Model .EDB. Other parameters associated with the structure are as follows: All columns are W14X90 All beams are infinitely rigid and 24" deep Modulus of elasticity Poisson's ratio Typical story mass = 29500 ksi = 0.

Table 3-2 for IBC seismic loads and Table 3-3 for UBC wind loads. Ss IBC Response Accel.ETABS Verification Manual Example 3 For the UBC97 seismic load analysis. R IBC Coefficient Ct IBC Seismic Group =C =1 = 0. (Note the difference between the calculated fundamental period for this example and Example 2. S1 IBC Response Modification.5 Comparison of Results For each of the static lateral load analyses. For the seismic loads. From ETABS results. the code parameters associated with the analysis are as follows: UBC Seismic zone factor. the code parameters associated with the analysis are as follows: IBC Site Class IBC Response Accel. Z UBC Soil Profile Type UBC Importance factor.25 = 8.40 = SC = 1. Comparison of Results 3-3 . The values are identical. Cq UBC Leeward coefficient. which neglects shear and axial deformations. the story shears can be computed using the formulae given in the applicable references.4 =8 = 0. Cq = 20 ft = 100 mph =B =1 = 0.035 =I For the UBC97 wind load analysis.8 = 0.5 = 0. I UBC Windward coefficient. the fundamental period computed by ETABS can be used in the formulae.5204 second. this fundamental period is 0.) Hand-calculated story shears are compared with story shears produced by the ETABS program in Table 3-1 for UBC seismic loads.035 =B = 15 km For the IBC2000 seismic load analysis. I UBC Overstrength Factor UBC coefficient Ct UBC Seismic Source Type Distance to Source = 0. the exposure and code parameters associated with the analysis are as follows: Width of structure supported by frame UBC Basic wind speed UBC Exposure type UBC Importance factor.

49 15. Virginia. 2000. Uniform Building Code.Example 3 ETABS Verification Manual Table 3-1 Comparison of Results for Story Shears-UBC 1997 Seismic Level Roof 2 1 nd st ETABS (kips) 34.82 68.09 56. Inc. California.09 56.21 References International Code Council. Falls Church.25 38. 3-4 References .49 15.64 Theoretical (kips) 19. Whittier. International Building Code.30 9.19 Table 3-2 Comparison of Results for Story Shears-IBC 2000 Seismic Level Roof 2 1 nd st ETABS (kips) 19.38 32.21 Theoretical (kips) 3.25 38.38 32.82 68.19 Theoretical (kips) 34.30 9.64 Figure 3-3 Comparison of Results for Story Shears-UBC 1997 Wind Level Roof 2 1 nd st ETABS (kips) 3. International Conference of Building Officials 1997.

for 5 percent damping. in two orthogonal directions. four-bay. The frame geometry is shown in Figure 4-1. Three-Dimensional Frame Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis Description This is a one-story.Example 4 Single-Story. three-dimensional frame. The frame is subjected to the El Centro 1940 N-S component seismic response spectrum. Significant Options of ETABS Activated Three-dimensional frame analysis Automatic story mass calculation Dynamic response spectrum analysis Description 4-1 .

Kip-inch-second units are used. Other parameters associated with the structure are as follows: Columns on lines C1 and C2: 24" x 24" Columns on lines C3 and C4: 18" x 18" All beams infinitely rigid and 36" deep Modulus of elasticity = 3000 ksi Story weight = 150 psf The columns are modeled to neglect shear and axial deformations to be consistent with the assumptions of hand calculations with which the results are compared.Example 4 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 4-1 Single-Story Three-Dimensional Frame Computer Model The structure is modeled as a single frame with four column lines and four bays.EDB and is available on the program CD. 4-2 Computer Model . The input data file for this example is EX4.

000 1.ETABS Verification Manual Example 4 Comparison of Results The example is a three-degree-of-freedom system. Table 4-1 Comparison of Results for Periods and Mode Shapes Mode 1 Quantity Period. Mode Shape X-translation Y-translation Z-rotation 3 Period.1254 References Paz. the depth of the beams) and neglecting both shear deformations and column axial deformations. Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis.0702 0.0111 0.070 ETABS 0.000 0. From the individual column lateral stiffnesses. Comparison of Results 4-3 .6244 0.6244 0. Van Nostrand Reinhold. sec.0032 0.000 0. The results are identical. the three natural periods and mass normalized mode shapes of the system can be obtained (Paz 1985).000 0. assuming rigid beams and rigid offsets at column top ends equal to 36 inches (i.6918 0. Theory and Computations. M 1985.0111 0.1389 -1..1389 -1.6918 0.000 0. Przemieniecki.sec. Mode Shape X-translation Y-translation Z-rotation 0. These are compared in Table 4-1 with ETABS results. McGraw-Hill.e. J. sec. From the stiffness and mass matrices of the system. Mode Shape X-translation Y-translation Z-rotation 2 Period.4728 0. 1968.0000 0.000 0.0032 0. Structural Dynamics.4728 0.S. the structural stiffness matrix can be assembled (Przemieniecki 1968).000 1.1254 Theoretical 0.

Significant Options of ETABS Activated Three-dimensional structure analysis using planar frames Brace (diagonal) and column members with no bending stiffness Dynamic response spectrum analysis Description 5-1 . All members (columns and braces) carry only axial loads. The structure is subject to the El Centro 1940 N-S component seismic response spectrum in the X-direction.Example 5 Three-Story Three-Dimensional Braced Frame Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis Description This is an L-shaped building structure with four identical braced frames. The structural damping is 5 percent. The geometry of the structure and a typical frame are shown in Figure 5-1.

Three-Dimensional Braced Frame Building 5-2 Significant Options of ETABS Activated .Example 5 ETABS Verification Manual D1 D2 D3 D4 D1 D2 D3 D4 D1 D2 D3 D4 Figure 5-1 Three-Story.

E.32686 0.EDB. The agreement is excellent. A story mass of 1.47 194. Story 1 ETABS 0.ETABS Verification Manual Example 5 Computer Model The structure is modeled by appropriately placing four identical planar frames. Computer Model 5-3 . Computers and Structures. Story 1 Axial Force Brace D3. Wilson. 1981.51 120. California.242 kip-sec2/in and a mass moment of inertia of 174907. Berkeley. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29500 ksi and the typical member axial area as 6 in2.32064 279. Story 1 Axial Force Brace D1.32061 279. Elastic Analysis for Structural Engineering . Berkeley. Kip-inch-second units are used. and is available on the CD. Each frame is modeled using three column lines. Mode 2 Axial Force Column C1. A comparison of ETABS results for natural periods and key member forces for one frame with these references is given in Table 5-1.44 120.48 194.32689 0.4 kip-sec2-in are used.52 References Peterson. The input data file is EX5. F.32064 279.E.49 Wilson and Habibullah 0. and A. California. SAP90.32689 0.Example Problem Manual. Comparison of Results This example has been solved in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Peterson (1981).L. Mode 1 Period. Sample Example and Verification Manual. Table 5-1 Comparison of Results Quantity Period. EASE2. Engineering Analysis Corporation.50 120.39 194. Inc.53 Peterson 0. Habibullah 1992.

An eigenvalue analysis is made. Description 6-1 . Kip-ft-second units are used. ten-bay plane frame. as shown in Figure 6-1. Ten-Bay Plane Frame Eigenvalue Analysis Description This is a nine-story. Significant Options of ETABS Activated Two-dimensional frame analysis Eigenvalue analysis Computer Model The frame is modeled with eleven column lines and ten bays.Example 6 Nine-Story.

Ten-Bay Plane Frame A modulus of elasticity of 432000 ksf is used.Example 6 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 6-1 Nine-Story. The models of the references assign vertical and horizontal mass degrees of freedom to each joint in the structure. This file is available on the CD. A mass of 3kip-sec2/ft/ft of member length is converted to story mass using tributary lengths and used for the analysis. the ETABS model only assigns horizontal masses and additionally. Comparison of Results This example is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Bathe and Wilson (1972). 6-2 Comparison of Results . The input data filename for this example is EX6. There are two differences between the ETABS analysis and the analyses of the references.EDB. only one horizontal mass is assigned for all the joints associated with any one floor level. A typical member axial area of 3ft2 and moment of inertia of 1ft4 are used. However.

No. E.5879 Bathe and Wilson 0. Berkeley. Journal of the Eng. the comparison is excellent. SAP90.ETABS Verification Manual Example 6 The eigenvalues obtained from ETABS are compared in Table 6-1 with results from Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Bathe and Wilson (1972). and E. K. Inc.53195 16. Considering the differences in modeling enumerated herein. Wilson. December. and A. Habibullah 1992. Sample Example and Verification Manual.58964 5.58954 5.L.5878 References Bathe. Vol. Wilson 1972.58954 5. California. ASCE. Large Eigenvalue Problems in Dynamic Analysis. References 6-3 .5962 Wilson and Habibullah 0. Mech.L. Paper 9433. 98. Computers and Structures. Div.J. Proc. EM6. Table 6-1 Comparison of Results for Eigenvalues Quantity 1 2 3 ETABS 0.52695 16.52696 16.

The gravity loads and the geometry of the frame are shown in Figure 7-1.Example 7 Seven-Story Plane Frame. Gravity and Lateral Loads Analysis Description This is a seven-story plane frame. shown in Figure 7-1 Lateral loads resulting from the El Centro 1940 N-S component seismic response spectra. 5 percent damping Lateral loads resulting from the El Centro 1940 N-S component acceleration time history Description 7-1 . The frame is subjected to the following lateral loads: Static lateral loads.

Example 7 ETABS Verification Manual Vertical Loading.49 kip-sec 2/in Figure 7-1 Seven-Story Plane Frame 7-2 Description . typical for all levels Global Reference Point All columns are W14s All beams are W24s Member weights are indicated Typical story mass = 0.

The comparison of the results for all three analyses is excellent. Because the wide flange members used in the frame are older sections. Comparison of Results The example frame is analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) for gravity loads. A comparison of key ETABS results with Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and DYNAMIC/EASE2 results is presented in Tables 7-1. Time history results are obtained for the first eight seconds of the excitation. 7-3 and 7-4. which uses complete quadratic combination (CQC). Kip-inch-second units are used.EDB. their properties are not available in the AISC section property database included with the ETABS program. and the required properties therefore need to be explicitly provided in the input data. which uses square root of the sum of the squares combination (SRSS). and DYNAMIC/EASE2. Note the difference in modal combination techniques between ETABS and Wilson and Habibullah. with which the results are compared.ETABS Verification Manual Example 7 Significant Options of ETABS Activated Two-dimensional frame analysis User-specified section properties User-specified lateral loads Dynamic response spectrum analysis Dynamic time history analysis Computer Model The frame is modeled with three column lines and two bays. static lateral loads and dynamic response spectrum loads. 7-2. Significant Options of ETABS Activated 7-3 . The input history is ELCN-THU. DYNAMIC/EASE2 analyzes the example frame under static lateral loads and dynamic response spectrum and time history loads. The input data file is EX7. This is consistent with DYNAMIC/EASE2.

Example 7 ETABS Verification Manual Table 7-1 Comparison of Results for Static Lateral Loads Quantity Lateral Displacement at Roof Axial Force Column C1.16018 0.4378 261.24204 0.16018 0.68 Wilson and Habibullah 1.24204 0.27321 0.27321 0.11899 0.07951 Table 7-3 Comparison of Results for Response Spectrum Analysis Wilson and DYNAMIC/EASE2 ETABS Habibullah SRSS CQC CQC Combination Combination Quantity Combination Lateral Displacement at Roof Axial Force Column C1 at ground Moment Column C1 at ground 5.50 9916.16018 0. at ground ETABS 1.07951 Wilson and Habibullah 1.99 2324.43128 0.99 2324.11899 0.68 Table 7-2 Comparison of Results for Periods of Vibration Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ETABS 1.68 DYNAMIC/EASE2 1.12 5.4314 261.11899 0.07951 DYNAMIC/EASE2 1.52 9916.09506 0.25 7-4 Comparison of Results .4314 261.27321 0. at ground Moment Column C1.43128 0.4508 69.4508 69.09506 0.76 9868.09506 0.4508 69.11 5.43128 0.99 2324.24204 0.

49 285 263 9104 Wilson and Habibullah 5. E. Habibullah 1992. Column C1 at ground ETABS 5. and A.L. Inc.48 284 258 8740 References DYNAMIC/EASE2.ETABS Verification Manual Example 7 Table 7-4 Comparison of Results for Time History Analysis Quantity Maximum Roof Displacement Maximum Base Shear Maximum Axial Force. California. Inc. Column C1 at ground Maximum Moment. Berkeley. Berkeley. Computers and Structures. DYNAMIC/EASE2. Sample Example and Verification Manual. California. References 7-5 . Wilson. Engineering Analysis Corporation and Computers and Structures. SAP90. Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multistory Frame Structures Using.

three-dimensional building frame subjected to a response spectrum of constant amplitude.Example 8 Two-Story. The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 8-1. Three-Dimensional Frame Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis Description This is a two-story. Significant Options of ETABS Activated Three-dimensional frame analysis User-specified section properties Dynamic response spectrum analysis Description 8-1 .

Example 8

B5 B8 B3 B7 B1 B9 B2 B11 B10 B4

**ETABS Verification Manual
**

B6 B12 13'

13' C8 C9

C7

C4

C5

C6

Z

C1

25'

Y X

35' C2 35' C3 25'

GLOBAL AND FRAME REFERENCE POINT

STORY 1 CENTER OF MASS AT (38,27,13) STORY 2 CENTER OF MASS AT (38,27,26) TYPICAL STORY MASS = 6.212 kip-sec 2 /ft

Figure 8-1 Two-Story Three-Dimensional Frame

Computer Model

The three-dimensional structure is modeled as a single frame with nine column lines and twelve bays. Kip-foot-second units are used. For consistency with the models documented in other computer programs with which the ETABS results are compared (see Table 8-1), no story mass moments of inertia are assigned in the ETABS model. A response spectrum with a constant value of 0.4g is used. Other parameters associated with the structure are as follows: Columns Axial area Minor moment of inertia Major moment of inertia Modulus of elasticity 4 ft2 1.25 ft4 1.25 ft4 350000 ksf Beams 5 ft2 1.67 ft4 2.61 ft4 500000 ksf

The input data file is EX8.EDB. This file is available on the CD. 8-2 Computer Model

ETABS Verification Manual

Example 8

Comparison of Results

This example is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Peterson (1981). A comparison of the key ETABS results with Wilson and Habibullah and Peterson is shown in Table 8-1. The agreement is excellent. Table 8-1 Comparison of Results

Quantity Period, Mode 1 Period, Mode 2 Period, Mode 3 Period, Mode 4 X-Displacement nd Center of mass, 2 Story ETABS 0.22708 0.21565 0.07335 0.07201 0.0201 Reference 1 0.22706 0.21563 0.07335 0.07201 0.0201 Reference 2 0.22706 0.21563 0.07335 0.07201 0.0201

References

Peterson, F.E. 1981. EASE2, Elastic Analysis for Structural Engineering - Example Problem Manual. Engineering Analysis Corporation. Berkeley, California. Wilson, E.L. and A. Habibullah 1992. SAP90, Sample Example and Verification Manual, Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California.

Comparison of Results

8-3

Example 9

**Two-Story, Three-Dimensional Unsymmetrical Building Frame Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis
**

Description

This is a two-story three-dimensional unsymmetrical building frame. The structure is subjected to a seismic response spectrum along two horizontal axes that are at a 30-degree angle to the building axes. The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 9-1.

**Significant Options of ETABS Activated
**

Three-dimensional frame analysis Dynamic response spectrum analysis

Description

9-1

Comparison of Results The structure is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992). The comparison is excellent.Example 9 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 9-1 Two-Story Three-Dimensional Unsymmetrical Building Frame Computer Model The three-dimensional structure is modeled as a single frame with six column lines and five bays. Typical columns are 18"x18" and beams are 12"x24". 9-2 Computer Model . Key ETABS results are compared in Table 9-1. The input data file is EX9. This file is available on the CD. Kip-foot-second units are used.EDB. The seismic excitation is identical to the one used in Wilson and Habibullah (1992). The modulus of elasticity is taken as 432000ksf.

0729 Wilson and Habibullah 0.Displacement nd Center of Mass at 2 Story for: Seismic at 30° to X Seismic at 120° to X 0.1103 0.0729 Reference Wilson.L.3753 0.1103 0. Mode 4 Period.3753 0. E. Mode 3 Period. Reference 9-3 .1062 0.1148 0.ETABS Verification Manual Example 9 Table 9-1 Comparison of Results Quantity Period. Inc. Mode 1 Period. Mode 2 Period. Berkeley.1148 0. Habibullah 1992.4146 0. California.1062 0.4146 0.2436 0. SAP90. Mode 6 X. Sample Example and Verification Manual. and A.2436 0. Computers and Structures. Mode 5 Period.0617 0.0617 ETABS 0.

Significant Options of ETABS Activated Two-dimensional frame analysis Panel zones Description 10 . The manufacturer supplied the properties of ADAS elements. The El Centro 1940 (N-S) record is used in the nonlinear time history analysis. Two models are investigated. damping is increased to 25%. In the second model. Three elements that absorb energy through hysteresis (ADAS elements as described in Scholl 1993 and Tsai. the ADAS elements are intended to produce about 5% damping in the fundamental mode.1 . 1993) are used to connect the chevron braces to the frame. as shown in Figure 10-1. et al.Example 10 Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements Nonlinear Time History Analysis Description This is a single bay three-story plane frame subjected to ground motion. In the first model.

2 Significant Options of ETABS Activated .Example 10 ETABS Verification Manual 1 2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 Figure 10-1 Planar Frame with ADAS Elements Point assignments Nonlinear time history analysis Ritz vectors 10 .

57 3. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29000 ksi. A single rigid diaphragm is allocated to each story level. Table 10-1 Results Comparison 5% Damping Level ETABS DRAIN-2DX 25% Damping ETABS DRAIN-2DX Comparison of Maximum Story Deflections 3 2 1 rd nd st 4. et al.48 1. These files are available on the CD. Kip-inch-second units are used. The agreement is good to excellent.86 Computer Model 10 .02 second.51 1.EDB (25% damping). Because of the rigid diaphragms.82 2.10 1. beam and brace section properties are user-defined.ETABS Verification Manual Example 10 Computer Model The frame is modeled as a two-column line. The ADAS elements are modeled in ETABS by assigning a panel zone with a nonlinear link property to the mid-span point object where the chevrons intersect the beams at each story. Under this arrangement.55 0.EDB (5% damping) and EX10B. and connects all three point objects (two column points and one mid-span point) at each story. In both models the value of post yield stiffness ratio is taken as 5% and the time increment for output sampling is specified as .92 1.57 3.3 . one-bay system. no axial force will occur in the beam members. The time history file is ELCN-THE. The link properties use the uniaxial hysteretic spring property (PLASTIC1) and provide beam-brace connectivity with nonlinear behavior in the U2 (shear in the 1-2 plane) direction. All members are assigned a rigid zone factor of 1.68 0. Comparison of Results Sample results are compared in Table 10-1 with results from the nonlinear analysis program DRAIN-2DX (Prakash. The input data files for this example are EX10A.82 4. 1993) for both 5% and 25% damping cases. Column.92 1. displacements are transferred between the chevrons and the frame via the link elements undergoing shear deformation.

97 17. C. and Active Control.30 25.75 36. California.10 Comparison of Maximum Brace Axial Force 3 2 1 rd nd st 5.16 9. San Francisco. Roger E.70 47. 505-528. K.20 47. Berkeley. Design of Steel Triangular Plate Energy Absorbers for Seismic-Resistant Construction.95 33. California. 2. Campbell 1993.00 17.H. Scholl. Powell.79 17. 485-495.71 5. Department of Civil Engineering. Su 1993. Earthquake Spectra. Proceedings of ATC-17-1 Seminar on Seismic Isolation.31 13. H. 10 .55 25. Vol.Example 10 Table 10-1 Results Comparison 5% Damping Level ETABS DRAIN-2DX ETABS Verification Manual 25% Damping ETABS DRAIN-2DX Comparison of Maximum Link Shear Force 3 2 1 rd nd st 7. 1993. and S. Redwood City. G.29 13. Vol.. Chen. Tsai.40 36.92 18.88 12.84 12. 9.79 12. Design Criteria for Yielding and Friction Energy Dissipaters.60 33. Hong. Applied Technology Council..28 References Prakash.W.17 9. Number 3. V. DRAIN-2DX Base Program Description and User Guide.P.4 References .70 12. and Y. University of California. Passive Energy Dissipation.98 7.F. California.A.

In the second model. Three viscous damper elements of the type described in Hanson (1993) are used to connect the chevron braces to the frame.Example 11 Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements. The ETABS viscous damper element (DAMPER) is a uniaxial damping device with a linear or nonlinear force-velocity relationship given by F = CVα. In the first model. three-story plane frame subjected to ground motion. the damper elements are intended to produce about 5% damping in the fundamental mode. Nonlinear Time History Analysis Description This is a single-bay. damping is increased to 25%. as shown in Figure 11-1. Description 11 . Two models are investigated.1 . The El Centro 1940 (N-S) record is used in the nonlinear time history analysis.

2 .Example 11 ETABS Verification Manual 1 2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 Figure 11-1 Planar Frame with Damper Elements Significant Options of ETABS Activated Two-dimensional frame analysis Use of panel zones Use of uniaxial damper elements Point assignments Nonlinear time history analysis Ritz vectors 11 .

26 1.14 1. Column.87 nd st 1 Computer Model 11 . The agreement is excellent.ETABS Verification Manual Example 11 Computer Model The frame is modeled as a two-column line.13 1. et al. The time history file is ELCN-THE. The link properties use the uniaxial damper property (DAMPER).63 4. A single rigid diaphragm is allocated to each story level and connects all three point objects (two column points and one mid-span point) at each story.63 2.89 2. All members are assigned a rigid zone factor of 1. no axial force will occur in the beam members. These files are available to the user on the CD.09 3. displacements are transferred between the chevrons and the frame via the link elements (dampers) undergoing shear deformation. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29000 ksi.3 . Comparison of Results Sample results for α = 1 are compared in Table 11-1 with results from the nonlinear analysis program DRAIN-2DX (Prakash. 1993) for both 5% and 25% damping cases. The damper elements are modeled in ETABS by assigning a panel zone with a nonlinear link property to the mid-span point object where the chevrons intersect the beams at each story. Under this arrangement.24 1. one-bay system. Kip-inch-second units are used.02 second.EDB (5% damping) and EX11B. and provide beam-brace connectivity with nonlinear behavior in the U2 (shear in the 1-2 plane) direction.71 0.EDB (25% damping). Table 11-1 Results Comparison 5% Damping Level ETABS DRAIN-2DX 25% Damping ETABS DRAIN-2DX Comparison of Maximum Story Deflections 3 2 rd 4.11 3. beam and brace section properties are user-defined. The time increment for output sampling is specified as . Because of the rigid diaphragms. The input data files for this example are EX11A.75 0.

California. R. Prakash. Base Program Description and User Guide. Department of Civil Engineering. 1993.79 15.16 10..75 32. Powell and S.4 References .75 10.75 32. Campbell.36 7.63 10.22 31. 9. G.82 44. University of California. Supplemental Damping for Improved Seismic Performance.90 14.21 31..23 7.80 nd st 1 References Hanson. Vol.15 5.D. Earthquake Spectra. Berkeley.A. Number 3.Example 11 Table 11-1 Results Comparison 5% Damping Level ETABS DRAIN-2DX ETABS Verification Manual 25% Damping ETABS DRAIN-2DX Comparison of Maximum Link Shear Force 3 2 rd 6.71 4.84 44.98 10. V.62 10.97 nd st 1 Comparison of Maximum Brace Axial Force 3 2 rd 4. DRAIN-2DX 1993.43 23. 11 .80 15.63 10. 319-334.43 23.02 14.

The El Centro 1940 (N-S) record is used in the nonlinear time history analysis.1 . Nonlinear Time History Analysis Description A two-bay seven-story plane frame is linked to a one-bay four-story plane frame using ETABS GAP elements. Significant Options of ETABS Activated Two-dimensional frame analysis Use of uniaxial gap elements Point assignments Description 12 . The structure experiences pounding because of ground motion.Example 12 Pounding of Two Planar Frames. The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 12-1.

2 Significant Options of ETABS Activated .Example 12 ETABS Verification Manual U1 Direction Figure 12-1 Planar Frame with Gap Elements 12 .

88 A typical output produced by the program is shown in Figure 12-2. A comparison of key ETABS results with SAP2000 is presented in Table 12-1. Column C1 at ground ETABS 5. Comparison of Results The example frame analyzed using ETABS is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Computers and Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified independently).89 SAP2000 5. Column lines 4 and 5 are connected to Diaphragm 2. The combined structure is modeled as a single frame with five column lines and three beam bays. or if they move towards each other out of phase. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29500 ksi. Column and beam section properties are userdefined.5521 266. The input data for this example is EX12. This arrangement physically divides the structure into two parts.3 . which are used as links spanning Column lines 3 and 4. It is clearly evident that the link force is generated whenever the two column lines move in phase and their separation is less than the specified initial opening. Both of the files are available to the user on the CD.01. Through the joint assignment option. the link forces are scaled down by a factor of 0. Column lines 1 to 3 remain connected to Diaphragm 1 by default. For display purposes.ETABS Verification Manual Nonlinear time history analysis Use of multiple diaphragms Example 12 Computer Model This example illustrates the use of gap elements to model pounding between buildings. The local axis 1 of the links is in the global X-direction. The time history file is ELCNTHU. Computer Model 12 . The interaction is provided via the gap elements.EDB. It shows the variations of the displacement of Column lines 3 and 4 and the link force at Story 4. Table 12-1 Comparison of Results for Time History Analysis Quantity Maximum Lateral Displacement at Roof Maximum Axial Force.5521 266. Kip-inch-second units are used. The agreement of the results is excellent.

Berkeley.4 References . Version 8. Inc. SAP2000. 12 . 2002. California. Computers and Structures. Inc.Example 12 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 12-2 Variations of Displacement of Column Lines 3 and 4 and Link Force at Story 4 References Computers and Structures. Analysis Reference Manual.

The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 131.Example 13 Base-Isolated Two-Story 3D Frame Nonlinear Time History Analysis Description This is a two-story three-dimensional frame with base isolation. The structure is subjected to earthquake motion in two perpendicular directions using the Loma Prieta acceleration records.1 . Significant Options of ETABS Activated Three-dimensional frame analysis Use of area (floor) objects Use of biaxial hysteretic elements Point assignments Nonlinear time history analysis using ritz vectors Description 13 .

2 Computer Model . At the sec- 13 . covering all of the specified floor bays at the base and the 1st story level.Example 13 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 13-1 Base-Isolated Three-Dimensional Frame Computer Model The structure is modeled as a single reinforced concrete frame with nine column lines and twelve bays. The floor slab is taken to be 8 inches thick.

A comparison of key ETABS results with SAP200 is presented in Table 13-1.EDB.4736 13. Kip-inch-second units are used. The self-weight of concrete is taken as 150 pcf. Comparison of Results The example frame analyzed using ETABS is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Computer and Structure 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified independently). The agreement of the results is excellent. The input data file for this example is EX13. together with the floor slab.56 SAP2000 3. All of these files are available to the user on the CD as part of the ETABS package. to render this particular level unsymmetric. Table 13-1 Comparison of Results for Time History Analysis Quantity Maximum Uy Displacement. as depicted in Figure 13-1. Comparison of Results 13 . It shows the load-deformation relationship in the major direction for a typical isolator member. The time history files are LP-TH0 and LP-TH90. Hysteretic base isolators of the type described in Nagarajaiah et al.ETABS Verification Manual Example 13 ond story level the corner column as well as the two edge beams are eliminated.55 A typical output produced by the program is shown in Figure 13-2.3 . Column C1 at base nd ETABS Floor 3.4735 13. A modulus of elasticity of 3000 ksi is used. which show biaxial hysteretic characteristics. (1991) are modeled using the ETABS ISOLATOR1 elements. Column C9 at 2 Maximum Axial Force.

Example 13 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 13-2 Load Deformation Diagram References Computers and Structures. Technical Report NCEER-91-0005. Buffalo. Analysis Reference Manual. California. S. Reinhorn and M.4 References . Computers and Structures. 3D-Basis: Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Three-Dimensional Base Isolated Structures: Part II. Constantinou 1991. 13 . New York. Inc. 2002. Version 8. State University of New York at Buffalo. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.C. Berkeley. SAP2000..M. A. Inc. Nagarajaiah.

Example 14 Friction Pendulum Base-Isolated 3D Frame Nonlinear Time History Analysis Description This is a two-story three-dimensional frame with base isolation using friction pendulum base isolators. Significant Options of ETABS Activated Three-dimensional frame analysis Use of area (floor) objects Use of biaxial friction pendulum elements Point assignments Nonlinear time history analysis using ritz vectors Description 14 . The structure is subjected to earthquake motion in two perpendicular directions using the Loma Prieta acceleration records. The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 14-1.1 .

2 Computer Model . to render this particular level anti-symmetric. At the second story level. together with the floor slab. The floor slab is taken to be 8 inches thick. as depicted in Figure 14-1. the corner column and the two edge beams are eliminated.Example 14 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 14-1 Base-Isolated Three-Dimensional Frame Computer Model The structure is modeled as a single reinforced concrete frame with nine column lines and twelve bays. covering all of the specified floor bays at the base and the 1st story level. 14 .

Kip-inch-second units are used. This is achieved by using a factor of unity on the dead load (self weight) on the structure in the nonlinear analysis initial conditions data. All of the files are available to the user on the CD as part of the ETABS package.25 A typical output produced by the program is shown in Figure 14-2. It shows the variation of the displacement of the second story at column line 1.ETABS Verification Manual Example 14 Friction pendulum type base isolators of the type described in Zayas and Low (1990) are modeled using the ETABS ISOLATOR2 elements.EDB. Comparison of Results The example frame analyzed using ETABS is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Computers and Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified independently). It is important for these isolator elements that the axial load from other loads be modeled before starting the nonlinear analysis. The time history files are LP-TH0 and LP-TH90. The isolator properties are defined as follows: Stiffness in direction 1 Stiffness in directions 2 and 3 Coefficient of friction at fast speed Coefficient of friction at slow speed Parameter determining the variation of the coefficient of friction with velocity Radius of contact surface in directions 2 and 3 1E3 1E2 . Column C1 at base nd ETABS Floor 4.04 . A comparison of key ETABS results with SAP2000 is presented in Table 14-1. The agreement of the results is excellent.2077 38.3 .03 20 60 A modulus of elasticity of 3000 ksi is used.2069 38. Column C9 at 2 Maximum Axial Force. The self-weight of concrete is taken as 150 pcf. The input data file for this example is EX14. Table 14-1 Comparison of Result for Time History Analysis Quantity Maximum Uy Displacement. Comparison of Results 14 .25 SAP2000 4.

Computers and Structures. California. Berkeley. Earthquake Spectra.4 References . California. Version 8. Inc. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1990.Example 14 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 14-2 Variation of Displacement References Computers and Structures. 6. 2. A Simple Pendulum Technique for Achieving Seismic Isolation. 14 . No. and S. Inc. Vol. V. Oakland. 2002. Zayas. SAP2000. Analysis Reference Manual. Low.

shown in Figure 15-5 E-shaped wall section. shown in Figure 15-3 C-shaped wall section. All walls are subjected to a static lateral load applied at the top of the wall. shown in Figure 15-4 Wall with edges thickened. shown in Figure 15-2 Wall-spandrel system. The following walls are included: Planar shear wall.Example 15 Wall Area Object Behavior Static Lateral Loads Analysis Description This example analyzes a series of wall configurations to evaluate the behavior of the ETABS area object with wall section assignments. shown in Figure 15-6 Description 15 . shown in Figure 15-1 Wall supported on columns.1 .

End piers are 40" by 12" in cross section and panels are 12" thick.EDB through EX15A9.EDB. Columns are used for the first story. The following sections describe the models for the different walls. Wall Supported on Columns. 360" and 720" are analyzed. The input data for this wall is EX15B. and the top two stories have a single area object with end piers. 15 .EDB. The input data files for this wall are 15C1. Three different wall lengths of 120".2 are used for all walls. A wall thickness of 12" is used. A wall and spandrel thickness of 12" is used. Also. Two different spandrel lengths of 60" and 240" are analyzed. Kip-inch-second units are used throughout. Each wall is modeled with two area objects per story. Example 15b This wall is modeled with two column lines. The input data files for theses walls are included as files EX15A1. together with the six-story wall shown in Figure 15-1.EDB. These and the following input data files are available on the CD. one-story and three-story walls are analyzed. Example 15a This shear wall is modeled with one panel per story.2 Significant Options of ETABS Activated . Example 15c This wall is modeled with four column lines. Columns are 40" by 20" in cross section. Wall-Spandrel System.EDB through 15C4. Three-story walls are also analyzed together with the six-story wall shown in Figure 15-3.Example 15 ETABS Verification Manual Significant Options of ETABS Activated Use of area objects Two-dimensional and three-dimensional shear wall systems Static lateral loads analysis Computer Model A modulus of elasticity of 3000 ksi and a Poisson's ratio of 0. Planar Shear Wall . The spandrels are modeled as beams. as shown in Figure 15-2.

3 .ETABS Verification Manual Example 15 Figure 15-1 Planar Shear Wall. Example 15a Computer Model 15 .

Example 15b 15 .Example 15 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 15-2 Wall Supported on Columns.4 Computer Model .

5 .ETABS Verification Manual Example 15 Figure 15-3 Wall-Spandrel System. Example 15c Computer Model 15 .

15 . A three-story wall was also analyzed together with the six-story wall. with end piers. A wall thickness of 6" is used.EDB and EX15E2. The input data files for these walls are included as files EX15D1. Example 15e This wall is modeled with two column lines and one area object.EDB. E-Shaped Wall Section.Example 15 ETABS Verification Manual C-Shaped Wall Section. to model the shape of the wall. A wall thickness of 6" is used. The input data for these walls are included as files EX15E1. A three-story wall was also analyzed together with the six-story wall shown in Figure 15-5. The input data for these walls are included as files EX15F1. as shown in Figure 15-6. A three-story wall was also analyzed together with the six-story wall. Example 15f This wall is modeled with six column lines and five area objects per story to model the shape of the wall.EDB and EX15D2. Wall with Edges Thickened.EDB.EDB and EX15F2.EDB. Example 15d This wall is modeled with six column lines and five area objects per story. per story as shown in Figure 15-5.6 Computer Model . as shown in Figure 15-4.

7 .ETABS Verification Manual POINT OF LOAD APPLICATION Example 15 TH TH TH RD ND ST ELEVATION GLOBAL REFERENCE POINT Y 100k X C4 C6 100k C5 80” 40” C2 C1 80” C3 120” PLAN 80” Figure 15-4 C-Shaped Wall Section. Example 15d Computer Model 15 .

8 Computer Model . Example 15e 15 .Example 15 ETABS Verification Manual TH TH TH RD ND ST 30” 30” C1 210” C2 Y 8” 18” X Global Reference Point Figure 15-5 Wall with Thickened Edges.

Example 15f Computer Model 15 .9 .ETABS Verification Manual POINT OF LOAD APPLICATION 6TH 120” Example 15 5 TH 120” 4 TH 120” 3 RD 120” 2 ND 120” 1 120” ST BASELINE ELEVATION GLOBAL REFERENCE POINT Y 100k 100k C3 C2 C1 X 120” C4 120” C5 120” PLAN C6 Figure 15-6 E-Shaped Wall Section.

15-10.10 Comparison of Results . 15-9. The SAP2000 meshes used are shown in Figures 15-7. 15-8. For the SAP2000 analysis. using refined meshes of the membrane/shell element of that program. 15-11 and 15-12.Example 15 ETABS Verification Manual Comparison of Results All walls analyzed in this example using ETABS were also analyzed using the general structural analysis program SAP2000 (Computers and Structure 2002). the rigid diaphragms at the floor levels were modeled by constraining all wall nodes at the floor to have the same lateral displacement for planar walls. or by adding rigid members in the plane of the floor for three-dimensional walls. Figure 15-7 SAP2000 Mesh. Example 15a 15 .

ETABS Verification Manual Example 15 Figure 15-8 SAP2000 Mesh. Example 15b Figure 15-9 SAP2000 Mesh.11 . Example 15c Comparison of Results 15 .

Example 15 ETABS Verification Manual Figure 15-10 SAP2000 Mesh. Example 15e 15 . Example 15d Figure 15-11 SAP2000 Mesh.12 Comparison of Results .

In general. 15-3. Comparison of Results 15 . The agreement is good.13 . 15-4. 15-2. Example 15f The lateral displacements from the ETABS and SAP2000 analyses are compared in Tables 15-1. the comparisons become better as the number of stories is increased.ETABS Verification Manual Example 15 Figure 15-12 SAP2000 Mesh. 15-5 and 15-6 for the various walls.

0869 0.14 Comparison of Results .0311 SAP2000 0.1031 0.3926 0.3068 0.0186 0.Example 15 ETABS Verification Manual Table 15-1 Results Comparison for Top Displacements (Inches).0024 0.1443 0.0029 0.0332 15 .4287 0.0390 SAP2000 0.0530 0.0200 0.0013 Table 15-2 Results Comparison for Displacements (Inches).3205 0.0524 0.0690 0. Example 15a Number of Stories 6 Wall Height (inches) 720 Wall Length (inches) 120 360 720 3 360 120 360 720 1 120 120 360 720 ETABS 2.0185 0.1505 0.0144 0.0169 0.0046 0. Example 15b Location Story 3 Story 2 Story 1 ETABS 0.0172 0.0985 0.0412 Table 15-3 Results Comparison for Top Displacements (inches) Example 15c (1-4) Number of Stories 6 Beam Length (inches) 60 240 3 60 240 ETABS 0.0187 0.0671 0.0052 0.0841 0.0011 SAP2000 2.0186 0.

0480 Number of Stories 6 3 Table 15-6 Number of Stories Results Comparison for Displacements at Load Application.1242 0.1058 6 X Y X 3 X Y Comparison of Results 15 . Example 15e(1-2) ETABS 0.0005 0.0191 1.1882 0.0024 0.1733 6 X Y X 3 X Y Table 15-5 Results Comparison for Top Displacements (Inches).2798 0.0025 0.0628 0.1614 SAP2000 0.8936 0.1337 0.0042 0.7490 0.0451 SAP2000 0.0039 0.8621 0.3695 0.1427 0.2899 0.7286 0. Example 15f (1-2) Load Direction X Displacement Direction X Z-Rotation Y X Z-Rotation Y ETABS 0.0596 0.0989 SAP2000 0.3655 0.0185 1.ETABS Verification Manual Example 15 Table 15-4 Number of Stories Results Comparison for Top Displacements (Inches) at Load Application Point. Example 15d (1-2) Load Direction X Displacement Direction X Z-Rotation Y X Z-Rotation Y ETABS 0.0005 0.15 .

Inc. Version 8. Analysis Reference Manual. SAP2000. California. 2002.16 References . Computers and Structures. Berkeley. 15 .Example 15 ETABS Verification Manual References Computers and Structures. Inc.