You are on page 1of 13

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

EXAMPLE 6-006
LINK SUNY BUFFALO DAMPER WITH LINEAR VELOCITY EXPONENT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
This example comes from Section 5 of Scheller and Constantinou 1999 (the
SUNY Buffalo report). It is a two-dimensional, three-story moment frame with
diagonal fluid viscous dampers that have linear force versus velocity behavior.
The model is subjected to horizontal seismic excitation using a scaled version of
the S00E component of the 1940 El Centro record (see the section titled
Earthquake Record later in this example for more information). The SAP2000
results for modal periods, interstory drift and interstory force-deformation are
compared with experimental results obtained using shake table tests. The
experimental results are documented in the SUNY Buffalo report.
The SAP2000 model is shown in the figure on the following page. Masses
representing the weight at each floor level, including the tributary weight from
beams and columns, are concentrated at the beam-column joints. Those masses,
2.39 N-sec2/cm at each joint, act only in the X direction. In addition, small
masses, 0.002 N-sec2/cm, are assigned to the damper elements. The small masses
help the nonlinear time history analyses solutions converge.
Diaphragm constraints are assigned at each of the three floor levels.
Beams and columns are modeled as frame elements with specified end length
offsets and rigid-end factors. The rigid-end factor is typically 0.6 and the end
length offsets vary as shown in the figure. The frame elements connecting the
lower end of the dampers to the Level 1 and Level 2 beams are assumed to be
rigid. This is achieved in SAP2000 by giving those elements section properties
that are several orders of magnitude larger than other elements in the model. See
the section titled Frame Element Properties later in this example for additional
information.
The dampers are modeled using two-joint, damper-type link elements. Both
linear and nonlinear properties are provided for the dampers because this
example uses both linear and nonlinear analyses. See the section titled Damper
Properties and the section titled Load Cases Used later in this example for
additional information.

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 1

Software Verification
SAP2000
0

PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES


120.5 cm
10 cm

10 cm
8

2XST2X3

2.39 N-sec2/cm mass at


joints 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8
acting in X direction only

18.8
cm

8 cm
9

Level 1

100.5 cm

1STCOL

1STCOL

e
mp
a
D

15 cm

10

10 cm

2XST2X3

20 cm

Stiff

26 cm

40.25 cm
11

76.2 cm
10 cm

Level 2

76.2 cm

Da
mp
e

2XST2X3
ST2X385

12

ST2X385

Frame element end


length offsets, typical.
Rigid-end factor is 0.6

13

26 cm

ST2X385

40.25 cm

Stiff

ST2X385

e
mp
Da

10 cm

Joints constrained as
diaphragm, typical at
Levels 1, 2, and 3

Level 3

10 cm

Y
X

Base

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 2

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

FRAME ELEMENT PROPERTIES


The frame elements in the SAP2000 model have the following material
properties.
E = 21,000,000 N/cm2
= 0.3
The frame elements in the SAP2000 model have the following section properties.
1STCOL
A = 9.01 cm2
I = 14.614 cm4
Av = 4.42 cm2
ST2X385
A = 6.61 cm2
I = 5.95 cm4
Av = 2.02 cm2
2XST2X3
A = 13.22 cm2
I = 11.9 cm4
Av = 2.02 cm2
STIFF
A = 10,000 cm2
I = 100,000 cm4
Av = 0 cm2 (shear deformations not included)

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 3

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

DAMPER PROPERTIES
The damper elements in the SAP2000 model have the following properties.
Linear (k is in parallel with c)
k = 0 N/cm
c = 160 N-sec/cm
Nonlinear (k is in series with c)
k = 1,000,000 N/cm
c = 160 N-sec/cm
exp = 1
The damping coefficient used for the dampers for both the linear and nonlinear
analyses is c = 160 N-sec/cm. This value was determined using the average value
from a series of experimental tests. As described in Scheller and Constantinou
1999, the tested values of the damping coefficient ranged from 135 to 185 Nsec/cm. The average value of 160 N-sec/cm was used for all dampers in the
SAP2000 model
LINEAR AND NONLINEAR ANALYSIS USING DAMPERS
This example uses both linear and nonlinear load cases. It is important to
understand that there are differences in the damper element behavior for linear
and nonlinear analysis.
For nonlinear analysis the damper
acts as a spring in series with a
dashpot and uses the specified
nonlinear spring stiffness and
damping coefficient for the
damper. In contrast, for linear
analyses the damper element acts
as a spring in parallel with a
dashpot and uses the specified
linear spring stiffness and damping
coefficient for the damper. This is
illustrated in the figure to the right.

cnonlinear
knonlinear
Damper Properties
for
Nonlinear Analyses

klinear

clinear

Damper Properties
for
Linear Analyses

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 4

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

In this example, for the linear analysis, the linear effective stiffness, klinear, is set
to zero so that pure damping behavior is achieved. For nonlinear analysis the
nonlinear stiffness, knonlinear, is set to an approximation of the stiffness of the
brace with the damper.
If pure damping behavior is desired from the damper element for nonlinear
analysis with dampers, as is the case in this example, the effect of the spring can
be made negligible by making its stiffness, knonlinear, sufficiently stiff. The spring
stiffness should be large enough so that the characteristic time of the springdashpot damper element, given by = c/ knonlinear, is approximately one to two
orders of magnitude smaller than the size of the load steps. Care must be taken
not to make knonlinear excessively large because numerical sensitivity may result.
For this example:

c
k nonlinear

160
0.00016 seconds
1,000,000

Thus is approximately two orders of magnitude less than the 0.01 second load
steps and the 1,000,000 N/cm seems to be a reasonable value to obtain pure
damping behavior.
Important Note: In linear modal time history analysis (and response spectrum
analysis) of systems with damper elements, only the diagonal terms of the
damping matrix are used; the off-diagonal, cross-coupling terms are ignored. All
other analyses of systems with damper elements use all terms in the damping
matrix. Thus linear modal time history analysis (and response spectrum analysis)
of systems with damper elements should be used with great care and should
typically be considered as only an approximation of the solution. In general,
nonlinear analysis should be used for final design of systems with damper
elements.

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 5

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

LOAD CASES USED


Five different load cases are run for this example. They are described in the
following table.
Load Case

Description

MODAL

Modal load case for ritz vectors. Ninety-nine modes are


requested. The program will automatically determine that a
maximum of ten modes are possible and thus reduce the
number of modes to ten. The starting vectors are Ux
acceleration and all link element nonlinear degrees of
freedom.

MHIST1

Linear modal time history load case that uses the modes in
the MODAL load case. This case includes modal damping
in modes 1, 2 and 3.

NLMHIST1

Nonlinear modal time history load case that uses the modes
in the MODAL load case. This case includes modal
damping in modes 1, 2 and 3.

DHIST1

Linear direct integration time history load case. This case


includes proportional damping.

NLDHIST1

Nonlinear direct integration time history load case. This


case includes proportional damping.

The modal time history analyses use 2.71%, 1.02% and 1.04% modal damping
for modes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. As described in Scheller and Constantinou
1999, those modal damping values were determined by experiment for the frame
without dampers.

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 6

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

0.05
Mass
Stiffness
Rayleigh

0.04

Damping Ratio

The direct integration time


histories use mass and
stiffness proportional damping
that is specified to have 2.71%
damping at a the period of the
first mode and 1.02%
damping at the period of the
second mode. The solid line in
the figure to the right shows
the proportional damping used
in this example.

SAP2000
0

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Period (sec)

EARTHQUAKE RECORD
The following figure shows the earthquake record used in this example. As
described in Scheller and Constantinou 1999, it is the S00E component of the
1940 El Centro record compressed in time by a factor of two. It is compressed to
satisfy the similitude requirements of the quarter length scale model used in the
shake table tests.

The earthquake record is provided in a file named EQ6-006.txt. This file has one
acceleration value per line, in g. The acceleration values are provided at an equal
spacing of 0.01 second.

0.2

Acceleration (cm/sec )

0.3

0.1
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Time (sec)

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 7

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED


Damper links with linear velocity exponents
Frame end length offsets
Joint mass assignments
Modal analysis for ritz vectors
Linear modal time history analysis
Nonlinear modal time history analysis
Linear direct integration time history analysis
Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis
Generalized displacements
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are experimental results from shake table testing presented in
Section 5, pages 61 through 73, of Scheller and Constantinou 1999.

The following table compares the modal periods obtained from SAP2000 and the
experimental results.

Modal Period Load Case

Mode 1 sec
Mode 2 sec
Mode 3 sec

MODAL

SAP2000

Independent
Experimental

Percent
Difference

0.438

0.439

0%

0.135

0.133

+2%

0.074

0.070

+6%

The following three figures plot the SAP2000 analysis results and the
experimental results for the story drift versus time for each of the three story
levels for the NLDHIST1 load case. Similar results are obtained for the other
time history load cases.
The story drift for Level 3 is calculated by subtracting the displacement at joint 5
from that at joint 7 and then dividing by the Level 3 story height of 76.2 cm and
multiplying by 100 to convert to percent. Similarly, the story drift for Level 2 is
calculated by subtracting the displacement at joint 3 from that at joint 5 and then
dividing by the Level 2 story height of 76.2 cm and multiplying by 100. The
story drift for Level 1 is calculated by dividing the displacement at joint 3 by the
Level 1 non-rigid story height of 81.3 cm and multiplying by 100. The interstory
displacement results are obtained using SAP2000 generalized displacements.

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 8

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

Level 3 Story Drift (%)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

NLDHIST1
Experimental

-0.8
-1
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Time (sec)

Level 2 Story Drift (%)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
NLDHIST1
Experimental

-0.8
-1
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Time (sec)

Level 1 Story Drift (%)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

NLDHIST1
Experimental

-0.8
-1
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Time (sec)

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 9

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

The following table compares the maximum and minimum values of story drift
obtained from SAP2000 and the experimental results at each story level for each
of the four time history load cases.

Output
Parameter

Load Case

MHIST1

NLMHIST1
Maximum
Story Drift
DHIST1

NLDHIST1

MHIST1

NLMHIST1
Minimum
Story Drift
DHIST1

NLDHIST1

Story Level

SAP2000

Independent
Experimental

Percent
Difference

Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3

0.734
0.877
0.538
0.764
0.879
0.524
0.764
0.879
0.524
0.764
0.879
0.524
-0.589
-0.789
-0.551
-0.639
-0.807
-0.526
-0.638
-0.806
-0.526
-0.638
-0.806
-0.526

0.750
0.947
0.608
0.750
0.947
0.608
0.750
0.947
0.608
0.750
0.947
0.608
-0.615
-0.878
-0.629
-0.615
-0.878
-0.629
-0.615
-0.878
-0.629
-0.615
-0.878
-0.629

-2%
-7%
-12%
+2%
-7%
-14%
+2%
-7%
-14%
+2%
-7%
-14%
-4%
-10%
-12%
+4%
-8%
-16%
+4%
-8%
-16%
+4%
-8%
-16%

The three figures on the following page plot the SAP2000 analysis results and the
experimental results for the story drift versus normalized story shear for each of
the three story levels for the NLDHIST1 load case. Similar results are obtained
for the other time history load cases. The SAP2000 story shears are normalized
by dividing them by 14,070 N.

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 10

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:

Level 3 Story Shear / Weight

REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

0.4
Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N

0.3

Story Height for Drift = 76.2 cm

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
NLDHIST1

-0.3
-0.4
-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Level 2 Story Shear / Weight

Level 3 Story Drift (%)


0.4
Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N

0.3

Story Height for Drift = 76.2 cm

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
NLDHIST1

-0.3
-0.4
-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Level 1 Story Shear / Weight

Level 2 Story Drift (%)


0.4
Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N

0.3

Story Height for Drift = 81.3 cm

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
Experimental
NLDHIST1

-0.3
-0.4
-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Level 1 Story Drift (%)

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 11

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

The following table compares the maximum and minimum values of normalized
story shear obtained from SAP2000 and the experimental results at each story
level for each of the four time history load cases.

Output
Parameter

Load Case

MHIST1

Maximum
Normalized
Story Shear

NLMHIST1

DHIST1

NLDHIST1

MHIST1

Minimum
Normalized
Story Shear

NLMHIST1

DHIST1

NLDHIST1

Story Level

SAP2000

Independent
Experimental

Percent
Difference

Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3

0.256
0.204
0.112
0.291
0.223
0.121
0.276
0.223
0.121
0.291
0.223
0.121
-0.208
-0.190
-0.122
-0.271
-0.239
-0.144
-0.234
-0.238
-0.143
-0.271
-0.239
-0.144

0.324
0.248
0.136
0.324
0.248
0.136
0.324
0.248
0.136
0.324
0.248
0.136
-0.322
-0.280
-0.174
-0.322
-0.280
-0.174
-0.322
-0.280
-0.174
-0.322
-0.280
-0.174

-21%
-18%
-18%
-10%
-10%
-11%
-15%
-10%
-11%
-10%
-10%
-11%
-35%
-32%
-30%
-16%
-15%
-17%
-27%
-15%
-18%
-16%
-15%
-17%

The inaccuracies associated with ignoring the off-diagonal, cross-coupling terms


in the damping matrix for the linear modal time history load case MHIST1 are
more significant in the story shear results than they have been in other results
displayed in this example.

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 12

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:

SAP2000
0

The Level 1 story shear results shown for the MHIST1 load case do not include
the force in the Level 1 damper. This damper force is not reported because, for
the linear modal time history, the damping associated with the dampers is
converted to modal damping and added to any other modal damping that may be
specified. If a stiff frame element was included in the model below the Level 1
damper, similar to the stiff element at the other levels, the Level 1 story shear
could be cut through three frame elements and all of the shear would be
accounted for. However, the inaccuracies caused by ignoring the off-diagonal
terms in the damping matrix would still be present.
COMPUTER FILE: Example 6-006
CONCLUSION

The SAP2000 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent


results. The clearest comparison of results is evident in the graphical
comparisons.
The results using linear modal time history analysis (load case MHIST1) are
slightly different from the other analyses because the linear modal time history
analysis uses only the diagonal terms in the damping matrix, ignoring any offdiagonal, cross-coupling terms. The other analyses use all terms in the damping
matrix. For this example load case MHIST1 shows a good approximation of the
other solutions. The error introduced by ignoring the cross-coupling terms tends
to improve the comparison with experimental results in some items and to make
it worse in other items.
In general we recommend that linear modal time history analysis of models with
damper elements only be used for quick, preliminary checks, and that another
type of analysis be used for final analysis.

EXAMPLE 6-006 - 13