You are on page 1of 17

C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .

R

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAP2000 0

EXAMPLE 6-010
LINK – SUNY BUFFALO EIGHT-STORY BUILDING WITH RUBBER ISOLATORS PROBLEM DESCRIPTION This example is presented in Section 2, pages 5 through 23, of Scheller and Constantinou 1999 (“the SUNY Buffalo report”). It is an eight-story building that is seismically isolated using rubber bearings. The model is subjected to a recorded pair of scaled horizontal ground acceleration histories from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. SAP2000 results for superstructure displacements relative to the isolation system, superstructure accelerations, and isolator forces and deformations are compared with results obtained using the computer program 3D-BASIS-ME (see Tsopelas, Constantinou and Reinhorn 1994). The SAP2000 model is shown in the figures on the following three pages. The superstructure is modeled as a stick using linear link elements. The superstructure stick connects joints 23 and 55 through 62. The floor masses are concentrated at the eccentric joints, joints 46 through 54. Diaphragm constraints are used at each floor level above the isolation system to connect the mass to the superstructure. Only the Ux, Uy and Rz degrees of freedom are active for the analysis. The superstructure is assumed to have 3% modal damping and the isolation system to have 0% modal damping. Joints 1 through 45 define the location of the 45 rubber isolators in the model. Those joints are constrained to joint 46 using a body constraint. Joints 101 to 145 are in the same location as joints 1 through 45, respectively, and are fully restrained (fixed to the ground). Zero-length link elements with rubber isolator properties connect joints 1 through 45 to joints 101 through 145. The properties for all of the link elements in the model are presented in the section titled “Link Element Properties” later in this example. The SAP2000 model used in this verification example differs from that used in the Scheller and Constantinou 1999 report as follows. First, this verification example uses a linear link element for the stick superstructure rather than the damper element used in the report. The linear link is a simpler and more appropriate element to use, but it was not available when the report was written. Second, this verification example uses the actual linear effective stiffness for the isolators, 6.55 kip/in, rather than the artificially small effective stiffness used in the report. This item is explained in more detail in the section titled “Linear Effective Stiffness of Rubber Isolator Elements” later in this example.

EXAMPLE 6-010 - 1

: SAP2000 0 GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES 4 @ 20' = 80' 41.2 . 105 Plan View at Isolator Level EXAMPLE 6-010 . 101 2 3 4 5. typical for joints 1 through 45 and 101 through 145 21 22 25. 141 42 43 44 45. 125 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 Note: Joints 1 through 46 are constrained using a body constraint 6 7 8 9 10 1. 145 36 37 38 39 40 31 32 33 34 35 26 8 @ 20' = 160' 27 8' 28 Y 46 CG 23. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO. 123 29 X 24 30 Two joints at the same location with a rubber isolator link element connecting them.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .

R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.118 13.: SAP2000 0 8' Level 8 Joints constrained as diaphragm.138 33.143 38.123 8 @ 20' = 160' Longitudinal Section Isolator Level 18.113 8.103 Z Level 1 8 @ 12' = 96' Linear link element typical at each level for the stick representing the building superstructure Level 5 EXAMPLE 6-010 . typical at levels 1 through 8 54 62 Level 7 53 61 Level 6 52 60 51 59 Level 4 50 58 Level 3 49 57 Level 2 48 56 47 55 Y 43.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .128 46 23.133 28.3 .108 3.

21. 143 41. 101 EXAMPLE 6-010 .C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C . 123 X Two joints at the same location with a rubber isolator link element connecting them. 121 5. typical for joints 1 through 45 and 101 through 145. 103 2. Uy and Rz 45. 105 3. 102 1. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO. 125 Z Y 46 23.4 . 145 43. 141 62 Linear link element typical at each level for the stick representing the building superstructure 25.: SAP2000 0 54 Active degrees of freedom are Ux.

Analysis Case RITZ Description Modal analysis case for Ritz vectors. which are the modes associated with the isolation system.: SAP2000 0 ANALYSIS CASES USED Three different analysis cases are run for this example. is accounted for differently in 3D-BASIS-ME. This case includes 3% modal damping in all modes. which is specified to be 3% of critical damping. It is important to note that the 3D-BASIS-ME model uses 3% modal damping for all modes associated with the superstructure. the damping for the modal time history. Nonlinear modal time history analysis case that uses the modes in the RITZ analysis case. See the section titled “Linear Effective Stiffness of Rubber Isolator Elements” later in this example for more information. but not exactly the same as. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO. NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 Note that the inherent viscous damping in the superstructure.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C . Thus. except that modes 1. and all link element nonlinear degrees of freedom. The starting vectors are Ux acceleration. This case includes proportional damping. Ninety-nine modes are requested. which is defined to provide damping similar to. No modal damping is associated with the isolation system in 3D-BASIS-ME. Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case. The program will automatically determine that a maximum of twenty-seven modes are possible and thus reduce the number of modes to twenty-seven. slight differences in the results for each of the three time history analyses (one in 3D-BASIS-ME and two in SAP2000) are expected. They are described in the following table.5 . and the nonlinear direct integration time history in SAP2000. See the section titled “Proportional Damping for Direct Integration Time History” later in this example for more information. the nonlinear modal time history in SAP2000. are assigned 0% modal damping. EXAMPLE 6-010 . 2 and 3. Uy acceleration.

The acceleration values are provided at an equal spacing of 0. as described in the SUNY Buffalo report.345.22 to convert from g to in/sec2.10 -0.05 0.: SAP2000 0 EARTHQUAKE RECORD The following figures show the earthquake records used in this example. Inside SAP2000 each of the two components is multiplied by a factor of 2.6 .10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Time (sec) EXAMPLE 6-010 . in g. Those files have one acceleration value per line.15 Ground Acceleration for Longitudinal (Y) Direction Ground Acceleration (g) 0.15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Time (sec) 0.10 0.00 -0. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.txt and EQ6-010-long. and also by a factor of 386.10 0.05 0. respectively. The recorded north and west components are applied in the transverse and longitudinal directions of the model. They are the recorded pair of horizontal ground acceleration time histories from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake at station number 211.05 -0.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .15 Ground Acceleration for Transverse (X) Direction Ground Acceleration (g) 0.txt. The earthquake records are provided in files named EQ6-010-trans. 0.00 -0.05 -0.02 second.

Fy. Between the Isolator Level and Level 3 (Property Name LINST123) ke U2 = 3401. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO. All link elements in the model are oriented such that the positive local 1 axis is parallel to the positive global Z axis.9 k/in DJ U3 = 72 in ke R1 = 1. See the following section titled “Linear Effective Stiffness of Rubber Isolator Elements” for more information about ke.997 E+09 k-in/radian Between the Level 7 and Level 8 (Property Name LINST78) ke U2 = 1700.3 k/in DJ U3 = 72 in ke R1 = 2.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .1887 EXAMPLE 6-010 . k. and for the shear degrees of freedom.7 . a nonlinear initial stiffness. U3 and R1 degrees of freedom. a distance from the J-end to the shear spring.996 E+09 k-in/radian Between the Level 3 and Level 6 (Property Name LINST456) ke U2 = 2551. a nonlinear yield strength. Properties are specified for the U2. the positive local 2 axis is parallel to the positive global X axis and the local 3 axis is parallel to the positive global Y axis. The rubber isolator property name is BILIN and its properties are: ke = 6. ke.8 k r = 0.9 k/in DJ U2 = 72 in ke U3 = 1700. r. Properties are specified for the U2.: SAP2000 0 LINK ELEMENT PROPERTIES This section presents the properties used for all of the link elements in the model. DJ. and a post yield stiffness ratio.3 k/in DJ U2 = 72 in ke U3 = 2551.6k/in Fy = 12.998 E+09 k-in/radian The rubber isolator link elements have a linear effective stiffness. and U3 degrees of freedom and the properties are the same for the two degrees of freedom. The superstructure linear link elements have an effective stiffness.8 k/in DJ U3 = 72 in ke R1 = 3.55 k/in k = 25. ke.8 k/in DJ U2 = 72 in ke U3 = 3401.

modes 1. Thus.55 kip/in in their SAP2000 model. Thus. 512 and 435 seconds. which are dominated by the isolation system behavior. to be equivalent to the 3D-BASIS-ME model. including modes 1. which is consistent with the 3D-BASIS-ME model. Again.0001 kip/in for the isolators. their SAP2000 results underestimated the 3D-BASIS-ME results. The SUNY Buffalo report SAP2000 model underestimated the 3D-BASIS-ME results when using a linear effective stiffness of 6. 2 and 3.0001 kip/in in their SAP2000 model to match the 3DBASIS-ME results.8 . Using 0. the SAP2000 model was not equivalent to the 3D-BASIS-ME model. The SUNY Buffalo report used an artificially small effective stiffness of 0. thus making the damping associated with them approximately 0%. of 6. 2 and 3. 2 and 3 in the SAP2000 model must be assigned 0% damping with all other modes assigned 3% damping. it is apparent that very little energy can be absorbed by modes 1. as shown in this verification example. Noting that the entire earthquake duration is approximately 44 seconds. rather than using an artificially small effective stiffness. EXAMPLE 6-010 .: SAP2000 0 LINEAR EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS OF RUBBER ISOLATOR ELEMENTS This verification example uses the calculated linear effective stiffness. The calculated isolator effective stiffness of 6.0001 kip/in effective stiffness for the isolators made the periods of the isolated modes (modes 1. When the SUNY Buffalo report SAP2000 model used a linear effective stiffness of 0. It is important to recognize that the 3D-BASIS-ME model has 3% modal damping in the superstructure and no modal damping in the isolation system. respectively. for the SAP2000 model to be essentially equivalent to the 3D-BASIS-ME model. leads to results that match the 3D-BASIS-ME results when the SAP2000 model is made essentially equivalent to the 3D-BASIS-ME model. ke. the results matched the 3D-BASIS-ME results. 2 and 3. we recommend using the actual effective stiffness and adjusting the modal damping associated with the isolated modes.55 kip/in for the isolators because the SAP2000 model had 3% damping in all modes. except for modes 1.55 kip/in for the isolators. 2 and 3) 528. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.55 kips/in is the appropriate value to use and.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C . Thus. The report further shows that when they used the actual isolator effective stiffness of 6. it must have 3% damping in all modes.

which are to have 0% damping. and the superstructure periods range from approximately 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.: SAP2000 0 Note that the preceding explanation is only relevant for the nonlinear modal time history analysis case.8 1 1. 0.15 0.45 0.4 1. It is not relevant for the nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case. The mass coefficient for the damping is set equal to zero and the stiffness coefficient is set equal to 0. PROPORTIONAL DAMPING FOR DIRECT INTEGRATION TIME HISTORY The nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case NLDHIST1 uses mass and stiffness proportional damping. The isolator modes have periods of approximately 2 seconds.06 to 0. The linear effective stiffness of the isolators is only used in linear analysis cases. the nonlinear modal time history analysis case is indirectly affected by the linear effective stiffness of the isolators.6 0.60 second. whereas the nonlinear direct integration time history analysis case is unaffected by the linear isolator properties.25 0.2 0.2 1. The dashed line shows a constant 3% damping. the nonlinear modal time history uses modes from the modal analysis case RITZ that are based on the linear effective stiffness of the isolators.0040. the proportional damping is specified as stiffness proportional damping only. except the isolator modes (modes 1.2 0. Both the nonlinear modal time history and the nonlinear direct integration time history analysis cases use the nonlinear properties of the isolator. Thus. However. RITZ.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C . not the linear properties. the only linear analysis case is the modal analysis case.35 Damping Ratio 0.6 Period (sec) EXAMPLE 6-010 .3 0. 2 and 3). For this analysis case the challenge is to designate appropriate proportional damping that approximates 3% damping in all modes.9 . The solid line in the chart to the right plots the resulting proportional damping used. For this example.4 0. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.05 0 0 0. In this verification example.

The eight figures shown on the following four pages plot results from 3DBASIS-ME and from the SAP2000 analysis case NLMHIST1 (nonlinear modal time history).C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C . the level 8 displacements and rotations relative to the isolation system are determined using generalized displacements. The generalized displacements are defined to subtract the displacement or rotation at joint 23 from that at joint 62. EXAMPLE 6-010 . The results for SAP2000 analysis case NLDHIST1 (nonlinear direct integration time history) are similar. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO. Constantinou and Reinhorn 1994).10 . two-joint link elements ¾ Diaphragm constraints ¾ Modal analysis for ritz vectors ¾ Nonlinear modal time history analysis ¾ Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis ¾ Generalized displacements RESULTS COMPARISON Independent results are obtained using the computer program 3D-BASIS-ME (see Tsopelas. The following plots are shown: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Level 8 X direction displacement relative to the isolation system Level 8 Y direction displacement relative to the isolation system Level 8 rotation about Z relative to the isolation system Base shear in the X direction Level 3 absolute acceleration in the X direction Level 3 absolute acceleration in the Y direction Link 23 force-deformation in the X direction Link 23 force-deformation in the Y direction In SAP2000.: SAP2000 0 TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED ¾ Rubber isolator links ¾ Linear links ¾ Zero-length.

00 -1.50 0.50 -3.00 1.00 1. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.50 -2.00 2.00 -0.50 -1.00 -0.50 -2.: SAP2000 0 4.50 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3D-BASIS-ME SAP2000 NLMHIST1 Time (sec) 3.00 -1.50 2.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 -2.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .50 1.00 Level 8 Uy Displacement Relative to Isolation System (in) Level 8 Uy Displacement Relative to Isolation System 2.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3D-BASIS-ME SAP2000 NLMHIST1 Time (sec) EXAMPLE 6-010 .00 -2.00 Level 8 Ux Displacement Relative to Isolation System (in) Level 8 Ux Displacement Relative to Isolation System 3.50 2.50 -1.11 .50 3.

0000 -0.0002 0. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.0010 Level 8 Rz Rotation Relative to Isolation System (radians) Level 8 Rz Rotation Relative to Isolation System 0.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .0004 0.0004 -0.0006 0.: SAP2000 0 0.12 .0008 0.0006 3D-BASIS-ME SAP2000 NLMHIST1 -0.0002 -0.0008 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec) 2000 Base Shear Fx 1500 1000 500 Base Fx (kip) 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 3D-BASIS-ME SAP2000 NLMHIST1 -2500 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec) EXAMPLE 6-010 .

13 .C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .: SAP2000 0 80 Level 3 Ux Absolute Acceleration 60 Level 3 Ux Absolute Acceleration (in/sec ) 2 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 3D-BASIS-ME SAP2000 NLMHIST1 -80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec) 80 Level 3 Uy Absolute Acceleration 60 Level 3 Uy Absolute Acceleration (in/sec ) 2 40 20 0 -20 -40 3D-BASIS-ME SAP2000 NLMHIST1 -60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec) EXAMPLE 6-010 . R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.

C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C . R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.14 .: SAP2000 0 50 Isolator 23 Force-Deformation in the X Direction 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3D-BASIS-ME SAP2000 NLMHIST1 Isolator 23 Fx Force (kip) Isolator 23 Ux Deformation (in) 40 Isolator 23 Force-Deformation in the Y Direction 30 20 Isolator 23 Fy Force (kip) 10 0 -10 -20 -30 3D-BASIS-ME SAP2000 NLMHIST1 -40 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Isolator 23 Uy Deformation (in) EXAMPLE 6-010 .

Output Parameter Dir and Max/Min Ux Max Analysis Case NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 SAP2000 3.: SAP2000 0 The following table compares the maximum and minimum values of the output items shown in the charts on the previous four pages.911 2. Results are compared for both the modal time history analysis case.00080 0.642 2.538 -2. and the direct integration time history analysis case.15 .00076 1818 -2089 Percent Difference +1% 0% +3% +4% +4% +8% +7% +9% +7% +3% +1% 0% +2% +3% +1% 0% Level 8 displacement relative to isolation system (in) Ux Min Uy Max Uy Min Level 8 rotation relative to isolation system (rad) Rz Max Rz Min Fx Max Fx Min Base shear in the X direction (kip) EXAMPLE 6-010 .00077 -0.494 -2.729 -2.167 -2.00075 -0. NLDHIST1. NLMHIST1.521 3.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .875 -2.804 2.00077 -0.211 0.504 -2. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.00076 1854 1873 -2109 -2091 Independent 3D-BASIS-ME 3.029 0.

53 -30.55 -43.150 -4.247 6.18 -43.35 -57.78 7.68 36.: SAP2000 0 Output Parameter Dir and Max/Min Ux Max Analysis Case NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 NLMHIST1 NLDHIST1 SAP2000 65.73 -71.96 -57.38 -30. R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.36 61.65 36.66 48.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C .200 -4.916 -6.905 6.03 -72.419 -4.54 7.65 48.935 7.76 70.845 -6.17 -42.304 Percent Difference -3% +3% +2% +2% +8% -5% +1% 0% +1% 0% +2% +2% +1% 0% +1% +1% +1% 0% +3% +2% +2% +1% +3% +2% Level 3 (jt 57) absolute acceleration (in/sec2) Ux Min Uy Max Uy Min Fx Max Isolator 23 shear force (kip) Fx Min Fy Max Fy Min Ux Max Isolator 23 deformation (in) Ux Min Uy Max Uy Min EXAMPLE 6-010 .54 36.828 -6.47 64.78 48.60 -58.16 .400 Independent 3D-BASIS-ME 67.71 -72.85 70.746 6.91 -30.

R Software Verification PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.C O M P U TE R S & S TR U C TU R ES IN C . The clearest comparison of results is evident in the graphical comparisons.17 .: SAP2000 0 COMPUTER FILE: Example 6-010 CONCLUSION The SAP2000 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results considering that SAP2000 and 3D-BASIS-ME use different modeling and solution techniques for the isolated structure. EXAMPLE 6-010 .