Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 6-001
LINK LINEAR LINK WITH RAMP LOADING

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this example a ramp load is applied to an undamped single degree of freedom
structure. The ramp loading has a finite rise time (ramp time), tr, but remains
constant thereafter. The displacements of the structure at two selected times are
compared with hand calculated results based on theory presented in Chopra
1995. The output times used for comparison are selected such that one is less
than tr and the other is greater than tr.

The following properties are assumed for the model:

k = spring stiffness = 4 k/in

m = mass = 1 k-sec2/in

From those two properties the expected period of the structure, T, is calculated
as:

m 1
T 2 2 seconds
k 4

The analysis is performed using two different ramp loading rise times, tr, in two
different load cases. In case A, tr is equal to the period of the structure, tr = T = .
In case B, tr is equal to one-half the period of the structure, tr = T/2 = /2.

The SAP2000 model consists of a two-joint linear link element that is fixed at
one end and free at the other end. As shown in the figure on the following page,
the link is modeled in the XZ plane and is oriented such that its length (and thus
its local 1 axis) is parallel to the global Z axis. The link element length is
arbitrarily chosen as ten inches.

The only active degree of freedom in the model is Uz. Similarly, the only degree
of freedom in the linear link element with nonzero properties is the U1 (axial)
degree of freedom.

The mass, m, and the ramp loading, p(t), are applied to the joint at the free end of
the link, which is joint 2 in the figure.

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 1
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

p(t)
Mass m applied at joint 2
p(t) 2

u(t) Linear link element with

m Z stiffness, k, defined for
Y the U1 degree of freedom
k
X 1

Loading Properties
po (t / tr) , t = tr p k = 4 k / in
p(t) = p(t)
po , t = tr po m = 1 k-sec2 / in
po = 8 kips
sec , (Case A)
tr = / 2 sec , (Case B) tr t

SUMMARY OF LOAD CASES IN THIS EXAMPLE

The following table summarizes the load cases that are used in this example.

Load Case Description

Linear static load case with an 8 kip load applied in the

P
positive global Z direction at joint 2.

MODAL An eigenvector-type modal load case.

An undamped modal time history with a ramp loading rise

MHISTA
time of tr = T = seconds.

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Load Case Description

An undamped direct integration time history with a ramp

DHISTA1 loading rise time of tr = T = seconds using a 0.25 second
time step (approximately 1/10 of system natural period).

An undamped direct integration time history with a ramp

DHISTA2 loading rise time of tr = T = seconds using a 0.0025
second time step.

An undamped modal time history with a ramp loading rise

MHISTB
time of tr = T = /2 seconds.

An undamped direct integration time history with a ramp

DHISTB1 loading rise time of tr = T = /2 seconds using a 0.25 second
time step.

An undamped direct integration time history with a ramp

DHISTB2 loading rise time of tr = T = /2 seconds using a 0.0025
second time step.

A modal time history with a ramp loading rise time of

MHISTC tr = T = /2 seconds and very large damping. This load case
is described in the Discussion section of this example.

A direct integration time history with a ramp loading rise

time of tr = T = /2 seconds using a 0.25 second time step
DHISTC1
and very large damping. This load case is described in the
Discussion section of this example.

The ramp loading rise times are carefully chosen in this example for easy
comparison with normalized results presented in Figure 4.5.2 of section 4.5 on
pages 127 through 129 in Chopra 1995. As discussed in Chopra 1995, when the
ramp rise time is an even multiple of the structure period, the velocity at the end
of the ramp u (t r ) is zero and the system does not vibrate during the constant-
force phase. Conversely, if the ramp rise time is not an even multiple of the
structure period, the system does vibrate during the constant-force phase.

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 3
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Thus for load cases MHISTA, DHISTA1 and DHISTA2 the displacement after
the ramp rise time where t tr is expected to be constant. The displacement after
the ramp rise time for models MHISTB and DHISTB1 is expected to vary.
Models MHISTC and DHISTC1 are described later.

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

Linear links
Modal load case for eigenvectors
Modal time history load case
Direct integration time history load case
Ramp loading

RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated using theory presented in Section 4.5 on
pages 126 through 129 of Chopra 1995. In particular, equations 4.5.2 and 4.5.4b
are used.

Ramp rise time tr = seconds

Output Percent
Parameter Load Case SAP2000 Independent Difference

MHISTA 0.34718 0%

DHISTA1
Uz (jt. 2) in 0.34209 -1.5%
dt = 0.25 sec 0.34718
at t = 1 sec
DHISTA2
0.34718 0%
dt = 0.0025 sec

MHISTA 2.0000 0%

DHISTA1
Uz (jt. 2) in 1.9979 -0.1%
dt = 0.25 sec 2.0000
at t = 4 sec
DHISTA2
2.0000 0%
dt = 0.0025 sec

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 4
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Ramp rise time tr = /2 seconds

Output Percent
Parameter Load Case SAP2000 Independent Difference

MHISTB 0.69436 0%

DHISTB1
Uz (jt. 2) in 0.68419 -1.5%
dt = 0.25 sec 0.69436
at t = 1 sec
DHISTB2
0.69436 0%
dt = 0.0025 sec

MHISTB 0.74030 0%

DHISTB1
Uz (jt. 2) in 0.72764 -1.7%
dt = 0.25 sec 0.74031
at t = 4 sec
DHISTB2
0.74030 0%
dt = 0.0025 sec

DISCUSSION
For this single degree of freedom problem it is expected that the modal time
history results will compare exactly with the theoretical results, and that the
direct integration results converge to the theoretical results as the time step used
in the analysis is reduced.

A typical rule of thumb for direct integration time histories is that the time step
used should not be larger than one-tenth of the smallest structural period that is
of interest. The 0.25 second time step used in load cases DHISTA1, DHISTB1
and DHISTC1 was selected using this rule of thumb.

The following figure shows a plot of joint 2 displacement versus time for the
load cases where the ramp loading rise time, tr, is equal to the structure period, .
As expected, and as discussed in Chopra 1995, the displacement is constant when
the time exceeds tr. Load cases MHISTA and DHISTA2 show an exact
comparison with the theoretical results while load case DHISTA1 shows an
acceptable comparison with the theoretical results. Note that for DHISTA1, the
displacement when the time exceeds tr is almost, but not quite, constant.

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 5
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Decreasing the time step used in the direct integration analysis improves the
accuracy of the results as demonstrated by load case DHISTA2.

Ramp Rise Time = , Undamped

2.5

2
Joint 2 Displacement (in)

1.5

0.5
Ramp
Case MHISTA
Case DHISTA1
Case DHISTA2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ramp time = sec Time (sec)

The following figure shows a plot of joint 2 displacement versus time for the
load cases with no damping and the ramp loading rise time, tr, equal to one-half
the structure period. As expected, and as discussed in Chopra 1995, the
displacement varies when the time exceeds tr. Again load cases MHISTB and
DHISTB2 show an exact comparison with the theoretical results while load case
DHISTB1 shows an acceptable comparison with the theoretical results.

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 6
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Ramp Rise Time = /2, Undamped

3.5

2.5
Joint 2 Displacement (in)

1.5

0.5 Ramp
Case MHISTB
Case DHISTB1
Case DHISTB2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ramp time = /2 sec Time (sec)

Often times ramp loads are used in models that are subjected to time history
analysis. The ramp loads are used to apply gravity loads to the structure before
applying other time history loads, such as earthquake, wind, blast, and similar
loads. In those cases it is desirable to have the load remain constant after the
ramp loading rise time, tr, is exceeded. We recommend that this be achieved by
using high damping values, such as 99.9% of critical damping, in the portion of
the analysis where the ramp load is used to apply the gravity load. Load cases
MHISTC and DHISTC1 demonstrate this.

Load case MHISTC is identical to load case MHISTB, except that the modal
damping has been changed from 0% of critical damping to 99.9% of critical
damping. Similarly, load case DHISTC1 is identical to load case DHISTB1,
except that 99.9% of critical damping has been added.

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 7
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

The proportional damping coefficients input for the DHISTC1 load case to
simulate 99.9% of critical damping are calculated as follows. The damping is
assumed to be 0.999 for two different frequencies. Those frequencies are the
natural frequency of the single degree of freedom system, 1/, and an arbitrarily
selected frequency of 1. The mass and stiffness proportional coefficients, and
respectively, are then calculated as shown, where d1 and d2 are damping values
and f1 and f2 are frequencies:

1 1
4 2 * 1 * 0.999 12 * * 0.999
4 ( f f 2 d 2 f f d )
2 2

1 2 1 1

f1 f 2
2 2
1
12
2

3.0312 (mass proportional coefficient)

1
1 * 0.999 * 0.999
f d fd
2 2 2 1 21
( f 2 f1 ) 1
12
2

0.2412 (stiffness proportional coefficient)

The following figure shows a plot of joint 2 displacement versus time for the
load cases with 99.9% of critical damping and the ramp loading rise time, tr,
equal to one-half the structure period. The ramp loading behaves as desired in
that it remains constant once the maximum value is reached. Note that because of
the damping, the maximum value is reached at a time significantly larger than the
ramp time. Thus when using this method to apply gravity load, check that the
analysis was run for a period of time, beyond the ramp time, that is long enough
for the gravity load to have stabilized. No independent theoretical results are
provided for these load cases.

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 8
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

Ramp Rise Time = /2, 99.9 % Critical Damping

2.5

2
Joint 2 Displacement (in)

1.5

0.5
Ramp
Case MHISTC
Case DHISTC1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ramp time = /2 sec Time (sec)

COMPUTER FILE: Example 6-001

CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact comparison with the independent results for
the modal time history analyses and an acceptable comparison with the
independent results for the direct integration time history analyses. The results
for the direct integration time history analyses converge to the independent and
modal time history result as the time step used in the direct integration time
history analysis is decreased.

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 9
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 10
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 6-001 - 11