Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000

REVISION NO.: 8

EXAMPLE 6-011
LINK SUNY BUFFALO SEVEN-STORY BUILDING WITH FRICTION PENDULUM ISOLATORS

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
This example is presented in Section 4, pages 43 through 59, of Scheller and
Constantinou 1999 (the SUNY Buffalo report). It is a seven-story building that
is seismically isolated using a friction pendulum isolation system. The model is
subjected to a recorded, scaled horizontal ground acceleration history from the
1940 El Centro earthquake. See the section titled Earthquake Record later in
this example for more information. The SAP2000 results for base shear versus
Level 1 displacement and isolator force-deformation are compared with
experimental results obtained using shake table tests.

The SAP2000 model is shown in the figures on pages 3 and 4 of this example.
The total building weight, including the tributary weight from beams and
columns, is estimated to be 47.5 kips. The weight of each floor is estimated to be
7.6 kips at Level 1, 6.7 kips at Levels 2 through 6 and 6.4 kips at Level 7. The
gravity load associated with the total building weight is applied at the top joint of
the friction pendulum isolator elements. The gravity loads applied are 7.92 kips
at the exterior isolators and 15.83 kips at the interior isolators.

Masses representing the weight at each floor level are concentrated throughout
the height of the structure at the beam-column joints. One-sixth of the floor mass
is lumped at the exterior joints at that level and one-third is lumped at the interior
joints. The mass is active in the Ux and Uz directions. In addition, small masses
are applied directly to the isolator elements. The isolator masses are set to
0.0002 k-sec2/in. This mass is chosen to be about two orders of magnitude
smaller than the typical joints masses. Thus it has essentially no effect on the
overall dynamics, of the structure but it does provide modes associated with the
isolators that help the convergence of the modal time history analysis.

Diaphragm constraints are assigned at each of the seven floor levels. A

diaphragm constraint is not provided at the top of the isolators.

As shown in the figure on the page 3, beams and columns are modeled as frame
elements with specified end length offsets and rigid-end factors. The rigid-end
factor is 0.45 for all beams and columns. All beams and columns have a 4.5 inch
end offset at each end, except for the Level 1 columns, which have a 4.5 inch end
offset at their lower ends (just above the isolators) and a 5.5 inch end offset at

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 1
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

there upper ends (at Level 1). The frame section properties are shown in the
figure on page 4 of this example.

The friction pendulum isolators are modeled using two-joint, zero-length, link
elements. Both linear and nonlinear properties are provided for the isolators. The
linear properties are used for the linear modal load case and the nonlinear
properties are used for the nonlinear time history load cases. See the section titled
Friction Pendulum Isolator Properties later in this example for additional
information.

The analysis results for models using friction pendulum isolators sometimes
exhibit high frequency fluctuations in the response. Typically those high
frequency fluctuations have not been observed in experimental results. This is the
case in this example. It appears that the high frequency fluctuations in the model
are a result of the instantaneous opening and closing of the vertical gap element
inherent in the friction pendulum and, to a lesser degree, a result of the
instantaneous stick/slip friction behavior in the horizontal direction.

The high frequency fluctuations can be damped out in the analysis either by
specifying appropriate damping in the time history load case or by including
vertical dampers in the model at the isolator level. Both methods are considered
in this example.

Two models are created for this example. The models are identical, except that
Model A does not have vertical dampers included at the isolator level and Model
B does have vertical isolators at the damper level. The damper element nonlinear
properties used in Model B are the same as those used in the SUNY Buffalo
report. See the section titled Vertical Damper Properties later in this example
for additional information.

Both a nonlinear modal time history load case and a direct integration time
history load case are considered in this example. See the section titled Load
Cases Used later in this example for additional information.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

3 @ 4' = 12 ' Active degrees of

freedom for model are
Level 7
Ux, Uz and Ry
29 30 31 32

Ux and Uz mass equal

Level 6 to 1/6 of floor mass at
25 26 27 28 exterior joints and 1/3
of floor mass at
interior joints typical at
Level 5
Levels 1 through 7
21 22 23 24

End offsets typical for

Level 4 all frame members at
17 18 19 20 all joints.
7 @ 3' = 21'

Level 3
13 14 15 16
Floor joints are
constrained as a
Level 2
diaphragm, typical for
9 10 11 12 Levels 1 through 7

Level 1
5 6 7 8 Building weight is
7.92 k 15.83 k Z 15.83 k 7.92 k applied directly to the
Base and top of the isolators
X Isolator Level
1, 33 2, 34 3, 35 4, 36

Joint numbers, typical
Base level has two joints in the same location at the
bottom of each column. Zero length friction pendulum
elements (and in Model B also vertical damper elements)
connect joints 1 to 33, 2 to 34, 3 to 35 and 4 to 36. Joints
1, 2, 3 and 4 are connected to the bottoms of the
columns. Joints 33, 34, 35 and 36 are connected to
ground, that is, restrained.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 3
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 7

47 48 49
FSEC2

FSEC2

FSEC2

FSEC2
26 Frame element

27

28
25

number
FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 6
44 45 46
FSEC2

FSEC2

FSEC2

FSEC2
21

22

23

24
FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 5
41 42 43
FSEC2

FSEC2
FSEC2

FSEC2

Frame section name

17

18

20
19

FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 4

38 39 40
FSEC2

FSEC2
FSEC2

FSEC2

15

16
13

14

FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 3

FSEC2

FSEC2
FSEC2

FSEC2

35 36 37
10

11

12
9

FSEC2 FSEC2 FSEC2 Level 2

32 33 34
FSEC2

FSEC2

FSEC2
FSEC2

8
5

FSEC3 FSEC3 FSEC3 Level 1

29 30 31
FSEC1

FSEC1
FSEC1

FSEC1

Z
3

4
1

Base and
X Isolator Level

Section Area Moment of Inertia Shear Area

Name A (in2) I (in4) Av (in2)
FSEC1 7.46 12.18 4.375
FSEC2 3.34 5.04 1.02
FSEC3 5.58 13.58 2.608

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 4
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

LOAD CASES USED

The following two tables describe the load cases used in this example for each
model.

MODEL A

Load Case Description

RITZ Modal load case for Ritz vectors. Ninety-nine modes are
requested. The program will automatically determine that a
maximum of forty-three modes are possible and thus
reduce the number of modes to forty-three. The starting
vectors are Ux acceleration, Uz acceleration, and all link
element nonlinear degrees of freedom.

MGRAV Nonlinear modal time history load case that applies the
gravity load to the isolators using a ramp function. The
NLMHIST1A and NLMHIST2A modal time history load
cases are started from the final condition of this load case.

DGRAV Nonlinear static load case used to apply the gravity load to
the isolators. The NLDHIST1A direct integration time
history load case is started from the final condition of this
load case.

NLMHIST1A Nonlinear modal time history load case that uses the modes
in the RITZ load case and starts from the final conditions of
load case MGRAV. This case includes proportional
damping that is defined to provide damping similar to, but
not exactly the same as, the 0.59% modal damping used in
Scheller and Constantinou 1999. It is the same damping
specification as that used in load case NLDHIST1 for
Model A. See the section titled Proportional Damping for
Time Histories in Model A later in this example for more
information.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 5
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

MODEL A

Load Case Description

NLMHIST2A Nonlinear modal time history load case that uses the modes
in the RITZ load case and starts from the final conditions of
load case MGRAV. This case includes 0.59% modal
damping in all modes, except modes 40, 41, 42 and 43 (the
modes associated with the vertical excitation of the
isolators) are assigned 99.9% modal damping.

NLMHIST3A Nonlinear modal time history load case that uses the modes
in the RITZ load case and starts from the final conditions of
load case MGRAV. This case includes 0.59% modal
damping in all modes with no modal damping overwrites.

NLDHIST1A Nonlinear direct integration time history load case that

starts from the final conditions of load case DGRAV. This
case includes proportional damping that is defined to
provide damping similar to, but not exactly the same as, the
0.59% modal damping used in Scheller and Constantinou
1999. It is the same damping specification as that used in
load case NLMHIST1 for Model A. See the section titled
Proportional Damping for Time Histories in Model A
later in this example for more information.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 6
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

MODEL B

Load Case Description

RITZ Same as Model A.

MGRAV Same as Model A. This is a nonlinear modal time history

load case that applies the gravity load to the isolators using
a ramp function. The NLMHIST1B and NLMHIST2B
modal time history load cases are started from the final
condition of this load case.

DGRAV Same as Model A. This is a nonlinear static load case used

to apply the gravity load to the isolators. The NLDHIST1B
direct integration time history load case is started from the
final condition of this load case.

NLMHIST1B Nonlinear modal time history load case that uses the modes
in the RITZ load case and starts from the final conditions of
load case MGRAV. This case includes proportional
damping that is defined to provide damping similar to, but
not exactly the same as, the 0.59% modal damping used in
Scheller and Constantinou 1999. It is the same damping
specification as that used in load case NLDHIST1 for
Model B. See the section titled Proportional Damping for
Time Histories in Model B later in this example for more
information.

NLMHIST2B Nonlinear modal time history load case that uses the modes
in the RITZ load case and starts from the final conditions of
load case MGRAV. This case includes 0.59% modal
damping in all modes with no modal damping overwrites.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 7
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

MODEL B

Load Case Description

NLDHIST1B Nonlinear direct integration time history load case that

starts from the final conditions of load case DGRAV. This
case includes proportional damping that is defined to
provide damping similar to, but not exactly the same as, the
0.59% modal damping used in Scheller and Constantinou
1999. It is the same damping specification as that used in
load case NLMHIST1 for Model B. See the section titled
Proportional Damping for Time Histories in Model B
later in this example for more information.

In Model A the damping is set high for modes associated with the vertical
excitation of the isolators. This is not the case in Model B, which includes
vertical damper elements at the isolator level.

In the nonlinear direct integration time history load cases, a maximum substep
size of 0.0005 second is used and the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor integration factor,
alpha, is set to -1/3.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 8
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

PROPORTIONAL DAMPING FOR TIME HISTORIES IN MODEL A

In Model A the nonlinear direct integration time history load case NLDHIST1A
and the nonlinear modal time history load case NLMHIST1A use mass and
stiffness proportional damping. The proportional damping for those load cases
should approximate 0.59% modal damping for all periods, except that the higher
frequencies (lower periods) should be more highly damped. For model A the
proportional damping is 0.05

selected by setting the 0.045

Mass
Stiffness

damping at periods of 1
Rayleigh

0.04

second and 0.1 second to 0.035

0.59%. This yields a mass

Damping Ratio

0.03

proportional coefficient of 0.025

0.0674 and a stiffness 0.02

proportional coefficient of 0.015

1.707E-04. The resulting 0.01

damping is displayed in the 0.005

figure to the right. 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Period (sec)

PROPORTIONAL DAMPING FOR TIME

HISTORIES IN MODEL B
In Model B the nonlinear direct integration time history load case NLDHIST1A
and the nonlinear modal time history load case NLMHIST1A use mass and
stiffness proportional damping. The proportional damping for those load cases
should approximate 0.59% modal damping for all periods, except the higher
frequencies (lower periods) should not be more highly damped. For model B the
proportional damping is selected by setting the damping at a period of 1 second
to 0.59% and the damping 0.05

at a period of 0 second to 0.045

Mass
Stiffness
Rayleigh

0%. This yields a mass 0.04

proportional coefficient of 0.035

0.0741 and a stiffness

Damping Ratio

0.03

proportional coefficient of 0.025

0. The resulting mass 0.02

proportional damping is 0.015

displayed in the figure to 0.01

the right. 0.005

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Period (sec)

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 9
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

EARTHQUAKE RECORD
The following figure shows the earthquake record used in this example. It is the
S00E component of the 1940 El Centro earthquake record scaled up to a peak
acceleration of 0.57g. This is twice the recorded level of the earthquake. The
time scale is also compressed by a factor of two to satisfy the similitude
requirements of the experiment.

The earthquake record is provided in a file named EQ6-011.txt. This file has one
acceleration value per line, in g. The acceleration values are provided at an equal
spacing of 0.01 second.

Inside SAP2000 the earthquake record is multiplied by a factor of 386.22 to

convert from g to in/sec2.

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
Ground Acceleration (g)

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 10
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

FRICTION PENDULUM ISOLATOR PROPERTIES

This section presents the properties used for the friction pendulum link elements
in the model. All link elements in the model are oriented such that the positive
local 1 axis is parallel to the positive global Z axis, the positive local 2 axis is
parallel to the positive global X axis and the positive local 3 axis is parallel to the
positive global Y axis. Different properties are specified for the interior and
exterior link elements.

The properties for the exterior friction pendulum link are:

Linear analysis properties

ke U1 = 20,000 k/in
ke U2 = 1.05 k/in
ke R3 = 10,000 k-in/radian

Nonlinear analysis properties

k U1 = 20,000 k/in
k U2 = 31.6667 k/in
Friction coefficient, slow U2 = 0.04
Friction coefficient, fast U2 = 0.06
Rate parameter U2 = 1.0897 sec/in
Radius of sliding surface U2 = 9.75 in

The properties for the interior friction pendulum link are:

Linear analysis properties

ke U1 = 20,000 k/in
ke U2 = 2.10 k/in
ke R3 = 10,000 k-in/radian

Nonlinear analysis properties

k U1 = 20,000 k/in
k U2 = 63.3333 k/in
Friction coefficient, slow U2 = 0.04
Friction coefficient, fast U2 = 0.06
Rate parameter U2 = 1.0897 sec/in
Radius of sliding surface U2 = 9.75 in

The ke U1 property of 20,000 k/in used in this example is different from that used
in the Scheller and Constantinou 1999 SAP2000 model where a value of 0.0001
k/in was used.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 11
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

VERTICAL DAMPER PROPERTIES

The damper element nonlinear properties used in Model B are the same as those
used in Scheller and Constantinou 1999. The damping coefficient, c, is selected
on the basis of providing a damping ratio of 0.10 for the total building weight of
47.5 kips and the total vertical stiffness of 80,000 kip/in (four isolators, each at
20,000 kip/in). Thus,

k kW
4c 2 m 2 m 2 km 2
m g

kW 0.10 80,000 * 47.5

c 5 kip-sec/in
2 g 2 386

The damper stiffness, k, is set to 10,000 kip/in to achieve pure damping behavior
in the damper. This means that the characteristic time of the spring-dashpot
system, given by = c / k = 5 / 10000 = 0.0005 sec, is approximately one to two
orders of magnitude smaller than the size of the load steps, which is 0.01 second
in this case. This characteristic time should give pure damping behavior.

The linear properties of the damper are set to zero so that the damper has no
effect on the modal analysis.

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

Friction pendulum link elements
Damper link elements
Zero-length, two-joint link elements
Diaphragm constraints
Frame end length offsets
Modal analysis for ritz vectors
Nonlinear modal time history analysis
Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis
Joint masses

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 12
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are experimental results from shake table testing presented in
Section 4, pages 43 through 59, of Scheller and Constantinou 1999.

The figures on page 14 of this example plot base shear versus Level 1
displacement for the four time history cases in Model A, which has no added
damper elements, and for the three time history cases in Model B, which does
have added damper elements.

The plot shown at the bottom center of page 14 is for Model A, load case
NLMHIST3A. Recall that Model A does not have vertical dampers at the isolator
level and that load case NLMHIST3A has 0.59% modal damping for all modes
with no increased damping in the higher frequencies. This plot shows substantial
high frequency fluctuations in the response. Note that the other plots, all of which
have some increased damping for the higher frequencies (as modal damping,
mass and stiffness proportional damping, or added vertical damper elements),
show significantly fewer of those high frequency fluctuations. In all cases the
peak response values compare well with the experimental values. This
comparison is tabulated in the table on page 15.

The top left plot on page 14 shows the base shear versus Level 1 displacement
for load case NLMHIST1A which is a nonlinear modal time history with
proportional damping. The plot third down on the left shows the same base shear
versus Level 1 displacement plot for load case NLDHIST1A which is a nonlinear
direct integration time history with proportional damping. The proportional
damping specified for these two load cases is identical. The plot for
NLDHIST1A has much less high frequency fluctuation than that shown in the
plot for NLMHIST3A (bottom center), and more high frequency fluctuation than
that shown in the plot for NLMHIST1A (top left). The difference between the
plots for NLMHIST1A and NLDHIST1A is caused by the differences in how
proportional damping is handled in the nonlinear modal and direct integration
time history load cases.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 13
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

0.3 0.3
Model A Weight = 47.5 kips Model B Weight = 47.5 kips
Nonlinear modal time history Nonlinear modal time history
0.2 Proportional damping 0.2 Includes vertical damper elements
Base Shear / Weight

Base Shear / Weight

Analysis case NLMHIST1A Analysis case NLMHIST1B

0.1 0.1

0 0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2
Experimental Experimental
SAP2000 SAP2000
-0.3 -0.3
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Level 1 Displacement (in) Level 1 Displacement (in)

0.3 0.3
Model A Weight = 47.5 kips Model B Weight = 47.5 kips
Nonlinear modal time history Nonlinear modal time history
0.2 Modal damping w/ overwrites 0.2 Includes vertical damper elements
Base Shear / Weight

Base Shear / Weight

Analysis case NLMHIST2A Analysis case NLMHIST2B

0.1 0.1

0 0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2
Experimental Experimental
SAP2000 SAP2000
-0.3 -0.3
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Level 1 Displacement (in) Level 1 Displacement (in)

0.3 0.3
Model A Weight = 47.5 kips Model B Weight = 47.5 kips
Nonlinear direct integration time history Nonlinear direct integration time history
0.2 Proportional damping 0.2 Includes vertical damper elements
Base Shear / Weight

Base Shear / Weight

Analysis case NLDHIST1A Analysis case NLDHIST1B

0.1 0.1

0 0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2
Experimental Experimental
SAP2000 SAP2000
-0.3 -0.3
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Level 1 Displacement (in) Level 1 Displacement (in)

0.3
Model A Weight = 47.5 kips
Nonlinear modal time history
0.2 Modal damping w/o overwrites
Base Shear / Weight

Analysis case NLMHIST3A

0.1

-0.1

-0.2
Experimental
SAP2000
-0.3
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Level 1 Displacement (in)

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 14
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

Output Independent Percent

Parameter Model Load Case SAP2000 Experimental Difference
NLMHIST1A -2.02 -2%
NLMHIST2A -2.034 -1%
A
Minimum NLMHIST3A -2.145 4%
Level 1
NLDHIST1A -1.883 -2.053 -8%
Displacement
(in) NLMHIST1B -2.016 -2%
B NLMHIST2B -2.081 1%
NLDHIST1B -1.988 -3%
NLMHIST1A 1.982 -3%
NLMHIST2A 1.981 -3%
A
Maximum NLMHIST3A 2 -2%
Level 1
NLDHIST1A 1.899 2.043 -7%
Displacement
(in) NLMHIST1B 1.996 -2%
B NLMHIST2B 2.021 -1%
NLDHIST1B 1.963 -4%
NLMHIST1A -0.25 2%
NLMHIST2A -0.251 2%
A
Minimum NLMHIST3A -0.253 3%
Base NLDHIST1A -0.23 -0.245 -6%
Shear/Weight NLMHIST1B -0.26 6%
B NLMHIST2B -0.263 7%
NLDHIST1B -0.253 3%
NLMHIST1A 0.253 2%
NLMHIST2A 0.258 4%
A
Maximum NLMHIST3A 0.269 8%
Base NLDHIST1A 0.255 0.248 3%
Shear/Weight NLMHIST1B 0.237 -4%
B NLMHIST2B 0.24 -3%
NLDHIST1B 0.235 -5%

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 15
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

In nonlinear modal time history load cases with proportional damping, the
proportional damping is converted to modal damping based on the initial
stiffness of the analysis. This damping does not change as the analysis proceeds.

In nonlinear direct integration time history cases with proportional damping, the
stiffness proportional component of the damping can change during the course of
the analysis as the stiffness of the structure changes. If the stiffness goes to zero
during a portion of the analysis, the associated stiffness proportional component
of the damping also goes to zero.

In this example, load case NLMHIST1A has its damping based on the initial
conditions of the analysis. For those conditions, the isolator is under axial
compression and it is not sliding. Thus, nonzero vertical and horizontal stiffness
is present at the isolators. Therefore, vertical and horizontal stiffness proportional
damping is present at the isolators throughout the entire analysis.

Load case NLDHIST1A has damping that changes as the analysis proceeds.
When the isolator is under axial compression and it is not sliding, vertical and
horizontal stiffness proportional damping is present at the isolators. When the
isolators begin to slide, the horizontal stiffness proportional damping disappears.
When the isolator uplifts (as it is sliding), both the vertical and horizontal
stiffness proportional damping at the isolators disappears.

As a consequence, over the full course of the analysis, load case NLDHIST1A is
less damped than load case NLMHIST1A. This is why more high frequency
fluctuations are evident in the plot for NLDHIST1A than that for NLMHIST1A.

The plot for NLMHIST2A shows some small high frequency fluctuations that are
not present for NLMHIST1A. Recall that NLMHIST1A uses mass and stiffness
proportional damping previously described in the section titled Proportional
Damping for Time Histories in Model A. NLMHIST2A uses constant 0.59%
modal damping, with the damping overwritten to 99.9% for the four highest
frequency modes, which all have periods of approximately 0.0004 second. The
proportional damping used in NLMHIST1A provides 0.59% damping at a period
of 0.1 second and increases to approximately 134% damping as the period is
decreased to 0.0004 second. The damping is increased over the entire range from
0.1 second to 0.0004 second rather than just at 0.0004 second as is the case in
NLMHIST2A. Thus, more high frequency damping is present in NLMHIST1A
than in NLMHIST2A. This explains why the plot for NLMHIST2A shows some
small high frequency fluctuations that are not present for NLMHIST1A. If
increased damping were provided for the modes between 0.1 second and 0.0004

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 16
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

second in NLMHIST2A, the results for NLMHIST2A would appear more similar
to those for NLMHIST1A.

The following figure compares the Level 1 displacement versus time for load
case NLMHIST1A to the experimental results. The comparison is similar for the
other load cases.

2.5
Model A
Nonlinear modal time history
2 Proportional damping
Analysis case NLMHIST1A
1.5
Level 1 Displacement (in)

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5

Experimental
-2
SAP2000

-2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (sec)

The following figures show isolator force-deformation plots for an exterior and
an interior isolator for load case NLMHIST1A. The exterior isolator is located at
joints 1 and 33. The interior isolator is located at joints 2 and 34.

As described in Scheller and Constantinou 1999, The gravity loads on the

bearings [during the experiment] were not exactly known and they could very
well have been different than assumed in the [SAP2000] analysis. This could
contribute to the difference in the experimental and SAP2000 results for the
force-deformation response of the exterior isolator.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 17
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

2
Exterior isolator at joints 1 and 33
1

0
Isolator Shear Force (kip)

-1

-2

-3
Model A
Nonlinear modal time history
-4 Proportional damping
Analysis case NLMHIST1A
-5

-6

-7 Experimental
SAP2000
-8
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Isolator Displacement (in)

4
Interior Isolator at Joints 2 and 34

3 Model A
Nonlinear modal time history
Proportional damping
Isolator Shear Force (kip)

2 Analysis case NLMHIST1A

-1

-2

-3
Experimental
SAP2000
-4
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Isolator Displacement (in)

The following table compares the peak values of the isolator force and
deformation with the experimental values for the NLMHIST1A load case.
Similar results are obtained for other time history load cases with damping at the
high frequencies.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 18
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

Output Independent Percent

Parameter Model Load Case SAP2000 Experimental Difference
NLMHIST1A -1.799 7%
Exterior Isolator NLMHIST2A -1.814 8%
(Joints 1 and 33) A
NLMHIST3A -1.956 16%
NLDHIST1A -1.681 -1.686 0%
Minimum
NLMHIST1B -1.807 7%
Deformation
(in) B NLMHIST2B -1.855 10%
NLDHIST1B -1.772 5%
NLMHIST1A 1.961 3%
Exterior Isolator NLMHIST2A 1.976 4%
(Joints 1 and 33) A
NLMHIST3A 2.013 5%
NLDHIST1A 1.872 1.909 -2%
Maximum 1.982 4%
NLMHIST1B
Deformation
(in) B NLMHIST2B 2.003 5%
NLDHIST1B 1.947 2%
NLMHIST1A -5.672 -17%
Exterior Isolator NLMHIST2A -5.724 -17%
(Joints 1 and 33) A
NLMHIST3A -5.939 -14%
NLDHIST1A -5.238 -6.872 -24%
Minimum -5.671 -17%
NLMHIST1B
Shear Force
(kip) B NLMHIST2B -5.834 -15%
NLDHIST1B -5.535 -19%
NLMHIST1A 0.911 -23%
Exterior Isolator NLMHIST2A 0.904 -24%
(Joints 1 and 33) A
NLMHIST3A 3.29 178%
NLDHIST1A 1.046 1.183 -12%
Maximum 0.933 -21%
NLMHIST1B
Shear Force
(kip) B NLMHIST2B 0.919 -22%
NLDHIST1B 0.893 -25%

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 19
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

Output Independent Percent

Parameter Model Load Case SAP2000 Experimental Difference
NLMHIST1A -1.924 7%
Interior Isolator NLMHIST2A -1.94 8%
(Joints 2 and 34) A
NLMHIST3A -1.956 9%
NLDHIST1A -1.79 -1.796 0%
Minimum
NLMHIST1B -1.923 7%
Deformation
(in) B NLMHIST2B -1.983 10%
NLDHIST1B -1.892 5%
NLMHIST1A 1.854 4%
Interior Isolator NLMHIST2A 1.853 4%
(Joints 2 and 34) A
NLMHIST3A 1.873 5%
NLDHIST1A 1.77 1.786 -1%
Maximum 1.871 5%
NLMHIST1B
Deformation
(in) B NLMHIST2B 1.896 6%
NLDHIST1B 1.838 3%
NLMHIST1A -3.493 0%
Interior Isolator NLMHIST2A -3.564 2%
(Joints 2 and 34) A
NLMHIST3A -3.802 9%
NLDHIST1A -3.292 -3.498 -6%
Minimum -3.586 3%
NLMHIST1B
Shear Force
(kip) B NLMHIST2B -3.504 0%
NLDHIST1B -3.382 -3%
NLMHIST1A 3.909 17%
Interior Isolator NLMHIST2A 3.973 19%
(Joints 2 and 34) A
NLMHIST3A 4.411 32%
NLDHIST1A 4.033 3.346 21%
Maximum 3.841 15%
NLMHIST1B
Shear Force
(kip) B NLMHIST2B 3.802 14%
NLDHIST1B 3.745 12%

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 20
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

COMMENTS ON SUNY BUFFALO REPORT

The SUNY Buffalo report (Scheller and Constantinou 1999) indicates the use of
an extremely small value for the axial linear effective stiffness, ke U1, of the
friction pendulum isolators to achieve acceptable results. The SUNY Buffalo
report used a value of 0.0001 kip/in for ke U1. This verification example uses a
realistic value of 20,000 kip/in for ke U1 and achieves acceptable results.

The comparisons of SAP2000 isolation system displacement with experimental

results appear better in this verification example than they do in the SUNY
Buffalo report. In Section 4-4 on page 50 of that report, the isolation system
displacement is defined as the displacement of the first floor with respect to the
ground; that is, the isolator displacement plus the displacement in the first level
column. This displacement is called the Level 1 Displacement in the plots shown
in this verification example.

When the SAP2000 isolator displacement is plotted versus the base shear, the
resulting plot is very similar to that shown in the SUNY Buffalo report. Thus, it
appears that the report may in some instances be making comparisons where the
experimental displacement is for Level 1 and the SAP2000 displacement is for
the Isolator Level. This would explain why the comparisons appear better in this
verification example.

SOLUTION PARAMETERS FOR DIRECT INTEGRATION TIME HISTORY

The nonlinear direct integration time histories in this example were run using a
maximum substep size of 0.0005 second. A larger maximum substep size of
0.005 second was tried and found to yield larger displacements than the 0.0005
second step size. A smaller maximum substep size of 0.00005 second was tried
and found to yield the same solution as the 0.0005 second step size. Thus, it was
concluded that a 0.0005 second maximum step size was appropriate for this
example.

Similarly, the nonlinear direct integration time histories in this example were run
using a relative iteration convergence tolerance of 1E-4. A smaller relative
iteration convergence tolerance was tried and found to yield the same results.
Thus the 1E-4 tolerance was deemed to be sufficient.

In general, parameter studies, such as described herein, should be performed for

nonlinear analyses. This helps to build confidence that appropriate results have
been obtained.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 21
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 8

COMPUTER FILES: Example 6-011a, Example 6-011b

CONCLUSION
In general, the SAP2000 results show an acceptable comparison with the
independent results. For load case NLMHIST3A, which has no damper elements
and no additional damping at the higher frequencies, the comparison of peak
values for the isolator force-deformation curves is poor. Additional damping
associated with the high frequencies improves the comparison.

For nonlinear modal time history load cases, modal damping, proportional
damping and added dampers can all be used to significantly reduce the high
frequency fluctuations that can occur in the models with friction pendulum
isolators.

For nonlinear direct-integration time history load cases, proportional damping or

added dampers can both be used to significantly reduce the high frequency
fluctuations that can occur in the models with friction pendulum isolators.
However, it is important to realize that proportional damping will not completely
eliminate the fluctuations because the stiffness proportional component of the
damping will be zero when the isolators are uplifted, and it is the stiffness
proportional component of the damping that is effective in damping out the high
frequency behavior. Thus, if nonlinear direct integration time histories are used,
added damper elements may be a better alternative than proportional damping in
the load case to reduce the high frequency fluctuations in the results.

Note that this particular problem is very numerically sensitive to the order of
operations, which may differ for different computers and/or different operating
environments on the same computer. The SAP2000 analysis engine is separately
optimized for different processors which could lead to a different order of
operations for different computers. Furthermore, the multithreaded algorithms
and vectorized operations may be performed in a different order on the same
computer based on the memory alignment which can change each time the
analysis is performed. Due to the nature of the nonlinear modal and direct-
integration history analyses, a small difference in an earlier time step can
accumulate, leading to slightly different results each time the model is analyzed.
For these reasons, deviations from the published results are to be expected and do
not indicate a problem with the software.

EXAMPLE 6-011 - 22