6 views

Uploaded by Toàn Huỳnh

Problem 6 006
fgdhfgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

- IJEEE-komkrit
- w1book
- Gudni Pall Palsson(2012) Finite Element Modelling and Updating of Medium Span Roadbridges
- Soil Structure Interaction02
- Oscillations
- Knight Ch14
- Parametros Optimos Histeresis
- vibration 2.docx
- Vibrations and Structural Dynamics
- Publish Spring Mass Damper Free Response
- Pearson Gate 2016 Set 1 Me Sp
- Wave on a String Guide
- 1-s2.0-0264682X84900108-main.pdf
- 2075 Stability Spit
- A 432732
- oscillations (1)
- systems,transients and steady state
- 4 Jang Id 44423012
- CSM_Chapters16.pdf
- Naca Tn 4304

You are on page 1of 13

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.:

120.5 cm

10 cm

10 cm

8

2XST2X3

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

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

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

Five different load cases are run for this example. They are described in the

following table.

Load Case

Description

MODAL

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

includes proportional damping.

NLDHIST1

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

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

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.

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

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)

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)

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:

REVISION NO.:

SAP2000

0

0.4

Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N

0.3

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

0.4

Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N

0.3

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

0.4

Structure Weight for Shear Normalization = 14,070 N

0.3

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

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%

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

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

- IJEEE-komkritUploaded byGoh Seng Tak
- w1bookUploaded byzuzumumba
- Gudni Pall Palsson(2012) Finite Element Modelling and Updating of Medium Span RoadbridgesUploaded byGuðni Páll Pálsson
- Soil Structure Interaction02Uploaded byAadelaadel Fd
- OscillationsUploaded byBiprodeep14
- Knight Ch14Uploaded byaaljuhani123
- Parametros Optimos HisteresisUploaded byAntonio López
- vibration 2.docxUploaded byraymark deguzman
- Vibrations and Structural DynamicsUploaded bySanket V Kalgutkar
- Publish Spring Mass Damper Free ResponseUploaded byAnjali Sharma
- Pearson Gate 2016 Set 1 Me SpUploaded bysunil481
- Wave on a String GuideUploaded byccristinaa
- 1-s2.0-0264682X84900108-main.pdfUploaded byChinmaya Ranjan Jena
- 2075 Stability SpitUploaded byranickng1
- A 432732Uploaded byAnonymous hprsT3WlP
- oscillations (1)Uploaded byaaljuhani123
- systems,transients and steady stateUploaded bySarvesh Singh
- 4 Jang Id 44423012Uploaded byVijay_Damam
- CSM_Chapters16.pdfUploaded byJuan Sebastian Trujillo
- Naca Tn 4304Uploaded byLEADA
- Week 1 Exercise Questions and Answers -Control Y3 2011-12Uploaded bymdmarufur
- Free Harmonic Oscillations Formal Report upload.docxUploaded byPassionFruitBowl
- IndexUploaded byAyush Parasar
- Answers 403Uploaded byTaiyab Ali
- ME-TEST-10Uploaded byKishorSevada
- NonlinearUploaded byprashant15
- Control Systems CSE301 Lab5Uploaded bysumairanadeem83
- Ok Takeda Page26 27 Dissertation2004 BlandonUploaded byjmiguelmena
- oscillations-iiUploaded byapi-259436196
- macar98-15Uploaded byVera Gardasevic Mitrovic

- Handbook of Structural Stability_ Ed by Column Research Comitee of JAPAN-1971Uploaded byToàn Huỳnh
- 780016pt4Uploaded byToàn Huỳnh
- Computer Analysis & Reinforced Concrete Design of BeamsUploaded byMANDARAW
- Problem 6 007Uploaded byToàn Huỳnh
- Base Plate - fixedUploaded bybhaskardharani
- Analysis of Concrete Slabs on Ground Subject to Moving and Warping LoadsUploaded byErkan Şamhal
- COLUMN EFFECTIVE LENGTH - yura1971Q2Uploaded byellisbl
- Yield Line Theory.pdfUploaded byVeeral Jain
- DA1fgdddddddgUploaded byToàn Huỳnh
- Floor TheorygfgfgfgfgUploaded byToàn Huỳnh
- Deflection of Reinforced ConcreteUploaded bycklcon
- Guerra_DesignOptUploaded bysenselessapprentice
- Gayle Proj3 Mech Props NCST FinalUploaded byToàn Huỳnh
- Vibration EnUploaded byToàn Huỳnh
- ADAPT TN290 Vibration AnalysisUploaded byRajima Dilmani
- Bolted 1Uploaded byPurna Ch
- Pinned base platesUploaded byHomero Silva
- DesignxxUploaded byScottie L
- m12l32Uploaded byvrajan1988

- Bukhovtsev Et Al Problems in Elementary PhysicsUploaded byVeronica Khan
- callen_00Uploaded byNatasha Arellano
- In a Quality Control TestUploaded byHarry Frianota ID
- CHE145.Gomez,Terrado PPTUploaded byRicky Jay
- Low Velocity Impact With NastranUploaded byD.c. Pham
- TD TutorialUploaded byloopycrow
- German Scientist Posts Complete Free Energy Documentation OnlineUploaded byInfo_scribd
- FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID MECHANICS, Cengel Cimbala Solutions Chap01.pdfUploaded byLuis Varela
- Free FallUploaded bySunday Glo M. Cabuyao
- Soil Elastic Young Modulus ValuesUploaded byusman
- In Plane Response of Wide Spaced Reinforced Masonry Shear WallsUploaded bytbrotea
- ISRM Suggested MethodsUploaded byRed Orange
- Mathcad - calculatoinsUploaded byعزيز فضل
- CFD Analysis With Fluid–Structure Interaction of Opening High-pressure Safety ValvesUploaded byPEUSABOIA
- Bernoulli's PrincipleUploaded byWaqar92
- Assignment 1Uploaded bykhatonshughni
- Spin It PaperUploaded byBaron Lopez Fernando Juan
- Application of engineering models to predict wake deflection due to a tilted wind turbineUploaded bySrinivas Guntur
- Vibration Control of Frame Structure Using Multiple Tuned Mass DampersUploaded byEldisonMalaj
- Vibration AnalysisUploaded byarhbus
- Micro MotorsUploaded byskifastskifree
- Structural Analysis ErrataUploaded by陳宣芳
- Design & Const 13 Stresses and DistortionUploaded byJeganeswaran
- Conformal Mapping and Fluid MechanicsUploaded byYuriyAK
- Tree Stress SsUploaded byShubham Bansal
- Fluid DynamicsUploaded byapi-3733275
- 26485091-PumpsUploaded byAbhijit More
- Viscoelastic Vibration Toolbox.pdfUploaded byYongliang Liu
- 4 Motion in a Plane PreviousUploaded byChandan Kumar
- Autodesk Mechanical SimulationUploaded byRogério Vilella Junqueira