Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
EXAMPLE 6-007
LINK SUNY BUFFALO DAMPER WITH NONLINEAR 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 nonlinear 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 forcedeformation 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 Discussion of Nonlinear Damper Stiffness
Used in SUNY Buffalo Report later in this example for additional information.
This problem is solved using a nonlinear modal time history analysis and also
using a nonlinear direct integration time history analysis. See the section titled
Load Cases Used later in this example for additional information.
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 1
Software Verification
SAP2000
0
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
10 cm
8
2XST2X3
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
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 6-007 - 2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 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/mm
c = 0 N-sec/mm
Nonlinear (k is in series with c)
k = 2,000 N/mm
c = 220 N-sec/mm at Level 3
= 235 N-sec/mm at Level 2
= 300 N-sec/mm at Level 1
exp = 0.5
As described in Scheller and Constantinou 1999, the c values were determined by
test. See the following section titled Nonlinear Damper Stiffness Used in the
SUNY Buffalo Report for additional information.
NONLINEAR DAMPER STIFFNESS USED IN THE SUNY BUFFALO REPORT
The results for the SAP2000 model used in the SUNY Buffalo report (Scheller
and Constantinou 1999) significantly underestimated the interstory
displacements. We believe this significant difference occurred because the
damper modeled in the SUNY Buffalo SAP2000 model did not match that used
in the experiment. We believe that an inappropriate nonlinear stiffness, k, was
used in the SUNY Buffalo SAP model.
The SUNY Buffalo report ran the SAP2000 analysis multiple times using k
values of 100,000 N/mm and 25,000 N/mm. Those damper stiffnesses are
approximately 10 to 50 times larger than the 2,000 N/mm stiffness used in this
verification problem. This section describes why we believe that the 2,000 N/mm
stiffness is a more appropriate value.
The SUNY Buffalo report makes several references to the damper force-velocity
relationship. It indicates that the dampers were tested and found to exhibit a
behavior described by
F Cv
0.5
sign(v)
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 4
Software Verification
SAP2000
0
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
1400
Force (N)
1200
1000
800
600
k=100 N/mm
k=1000 N/mm
k=2000 N/mm
k=10000 N/mm
F=CV^0.5 (k=infinity)
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Velocity (mm/sec)
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 5
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
In the figure the F=cv0.5 line is equivalent to a k of infinity. The k=10,000 N/mm
line and the F=cv0.5 line are essentially identical. Thus for stiffnesses of 10,000
N/mm and above, the damper will be well described by F=cv0.5. The SUNY
Buffalo report SAP2000 models used k values of 100,000 N/mm and 25,000
N/mm. Thus both of those models were inconsistent with the properties of the
dampers observed in experimental testing because their force-velocity
relationship did not deviate from the F line at velocities below 15 mm/sec.
For this verification problem we have chosen a damper stiffness, k, of 2,000
N/mm. This value of k provides a force-velocity relationship that deviates from
the F=cv0.5 line at velocities below 15 mm/sec and matches the F=cv0.5 line well
at velocities above 15 mm/sec.
See the section titled Study of the Sensitivity of Results to the Damper
Stiffness later in this example for more information.
LOAD CASES USED
Three different load cases are run for this example. They are described in the
following table.
Load Case
Description
MODAL
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.
NLDHIST1
The modal time history analysis used 2.71%, 1.02% and 1.04% modal damping
for modes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. As described in Scheller and Constantinou
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 6
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
1999, those modal damping values were determined by experiment for the frame
without dampers.
0.05
Mass
Stiffness
Rayleigh
0.04
Damping Ratio
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 EQ6-007.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 6-007 - 7
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
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 case.
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 6-007 - 8
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
NLDHIST1
Experimental
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time (sec)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
NLDHIST1
Experimental
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time (sec)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
NLDHIST1
Experimental
-0.6
-0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time (sec)
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 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 two time history load cases.
Output
Parameter
Load Case
NLMHIST1
Maximum
Story Drift
NLDHIST1
NLMHIST1
Minimum
Story Drift
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
0.542
0.589
0.313
0.543
0.588
0.312
-0.610
-0.719
-0.424
-0.610
-0.719
-0.424
0.526
0.631
0.323
0.526
0.631
0.323
-0.572
-0.746
-0.488
-0.572
-0.746
-0.488
+3%
-7%
-3%
+3%
-7%
-3%
+7%
-4%
-13%
+7%
-4%
-13%
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 case. The SAP2000 story shears are normalized by
dividing them by 14,070 N.
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 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
0.3
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
0.3
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 6-007 - 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 two time history load cases.
Output
Parameter
Maximum
Normalized
Story Shear
Minimum
Normalized
Story Shear
Load Case
NLMHIST1
NLDHIST1
NLMHIST1
NLDHIST1
Story Level
SAP2000
Independent
Experimental
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
0.302
0.223
0.119
0.302
0.222
0.119
-0.364
-0.294
-0.173
-0.364
-0.294
-0.172
0.287
0.216
0.115
0.287
0.216
0.115
-0.363
-0.285
-0.177
-0.363
-0.285
-0.177
Percent
Difference
+5%
+3%
+3%
+5%
+3%
+3%
0%
+3%
-2%
0%
+3%
-3%
1,000 N/mm
2,000 N/mm
3,000 N/mm
Story Level
Maximum
Interstory
Drift
Minimum
Interstory
Drift
Maximum
Normalized
Story Shear
Minimum
Normalized
Story Shear
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
+24%
+13%
+21%
+3%
-7%
-3%
-4%
-14%
-13%
+31%
+20%
+14%
+7%
-4%
-13%
-1%
-12%
-23%
+23%
+21%
+21%
+5%
+3%
+4%
-3%
-4%
-4%
+17%
+22%
+19%
0%
+3%
-2%
-7%
-4%
-10%
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 12
Software Verification
SAP2000
0
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
The results obtained for a k value of 1000 N/mm range from +13% to +31%
different from (larger than) the experimental results. Using a k value of 1000
N/mm results in a structure that is underdamped compared to the experimental
structure.
The results obtained for a k value of 3000 N/mm range from -1% to -23%
different from (smaller than) the experimental results. Using a k value of 3000
N/mm results in a structure that is overdamped compared to the experimental
structure.
The results obtained for a k value of 2000 N/mm, which was the chosen stiffness
for this verification problem, range from -13% to +7% different from (smaller
than) the experimental results.
The figure below shows the velocity across the Level 2 damper versus time.
Similar plots are obtained for the other dampers. One reason this example is so
sensitive to the damper k value is that the velocities across the dampers are
typically in the range of +20 mm/sec to -20 mm/sec, except for a few peaks. The
k value affects the behavior of the damper at those low velocities as illustrated in
the figure and described in the section titled Nonlinear Damper Stiffness Used
in SUNY Buffalo Report earlier in this example.
60
40
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time (sec)
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 13
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME:
REVISION NO.:
SAP2000
0
EXAMPLE 6-007 - 14